Do non-Catholic church pastors claim to teach infallibly or fallibly?

[joe370]

I am told that the Catholic Church cannot teach infallibly, via the guidance of the Holy spirit. When non-Catholic church Pastors and Ministers preach and teach from the pulpit are they fallibly preaching and teaching regarding the infallible word of God?

 

[diorthosis]

I am told that the Catholic Church cannot teach infallibly, via the guidance of the Holy spirit. When non-Catholic church Pastors and Ministers preach and teach from the pulpit are they fallibly preaching and teaching regarding the infallible word of God?

Well, I certainly can’t speak for all Pastors and Ministers, but personally, I’ve never met anyone who is not fallible. I think the goal is to try to exegete the Scriptures. I don’t think infallibility is in view, but accuracy in interpretation. In other words, allowing Scripture to speak for itself - since it’s God’s Word. It’s God who is infallible, not men. All men will be held accountable on how they handled God’s Word, especially those who teach it (James 3:1).

 

[MartinJordan]

My thoughts are that the CC while accepting James’ writing, made sure that we are able to read it. Wasn’t it Luther who wanted to jettison the Epistle of James?

MJ

 

[cooterhein]

Please note that the words “fallible” and “infallible” can each mean two different things depending on the context. For example, if you’re answering a question like “Did the Holy Spirit inspire these words and protect them from error?”, the answer could be “yes” in the sense that the Holy Spirit did protect someone from error. Or the answer could be “no” in the sense that the Holy Spirit did not protect someone from error.

The other sense in which these words are used is in response to a question like “Is this thing certainly right/true?” Again, the answer could be “yes, it’s infallible” in the sense that it’s certainly true or it could be “no, it’s fallible” in the sense that it’s not certainly true.

There’s certainly some overlap between these two usages (and I am certain of this even though God didn’t tell me that…see how this works?), but most of the time there’s not. Most things (even most things within a religious context) are fallible in the first sort of context, and that’s just a given. From this group, though, a good number of them are infallible in the sense that we have certitude as to their accuracy and truth while others do not.

If you must insist on conflating the different ways in which the word is used…well, just don’t. I know you’re smarter than that.

 

[Kelly1601]

I am told that the Catholic Church cannot teach infallibly, via the guidance of the Holy spirit.

I’m going to assume that you meant that you were told that the Catholic Church can teach infallibliy. (Cf CCC ## 889, 890, 891, 2051, 2035) and Lumen Gentium paragraph 25)

In regards to your question,

When non-Catholic church Pastors and Ministers preach and teach from the pulpit are they fallibly preaching and teaching regarding the infallible word of God?

diorthosis’ answer goes some of the way to answering it.

Well, I certainly can’t speak for all Pastors and Ministers, but personally, I’ve never met anyone who is not fallible. … ]
I don’t think infallibility is in view, but accuracy in interpretation. …] It’s God who is infallible, not men.

However, that alone wouldn’t stop them teaching infallibly. Our Bishops (including the Holy Father) are all fallible people. Their (Catholic Bishops’) teaching is only infallible when it conforms to the norms laid out above. ‘When non-Catholic church Pastors and Ministers preach and teach from the pulpit’ or any other place, they are not infallible, nor is that they preach or teach unless, by the grace of God, they are preaching or teaching what has been dogmatically defined by the Catholic Church.
Even in that case, what they are saying is only infallible by virtue of being what the Catholic Church has dogmatically taught and through the Grace of God, not for any other reason.

It’s God who is infallible, not men.

Also, what cooterhein said.

 

[Kelly1601]

My thoughts are that the CC while accepting James’ writing, made sure that we are able to read it. Wasn’t it Luther who wanted to jettison the Epistle of James?

MJ

I’m not sure what this has to do with the original post (possibly becuase I’m not great at following conversations.) Will you please help me to see the connection?

 

[diorthosis]

Even in that case, what they are saying is only infallible by virtue of being what the Catholic Church has dogmatically taught and through the Grace of God, not for any other reason.

“Infallible” means incapable of error, inerrable. So infallibility must refer to a person, not a person’s teaching. One’s teaching may be 100 percent accurate to, say, the Scriptures or the accepted dogmas of the Catholic church. But that doesn’t make the person himself infallible. Based on the criterion, what men teach is either accurate or inaccurate, but no man is infallible, except the Son of Man, Jesus Christ, who is Himself, in His very Person, “the Truth” (John 14:6)

 

[jlmagee]

Non-Catholic pastors are not monolithic, therefore, there is not a simple answer.

In the past, I have questioned pastors statements in sermons and have gotten various responses. Some will get very defensive, claim Holy Spirit guidance with much prayer about the sermon including the application, and then say to "touch not God’s anointed. Red Flag!!!

Even in congregational type of governed churches, such as Assembly of God or most Baptist organizations, there is a statement of beliefs and practices which the pastors adhere to to be ordained. Agreeing that these are not as complex as the Catholic Catechism, they do create a paradigm that sermons will fall within a framework.

Does this guarantee infallibility? No. Does it aid in adherency to faith and practice? Yes.

Most pastors will expect that their congregations will be as noble as the Bereans (Acts 17:11) and are very diligent in their preparation.

 

[MDK]

Well, I certainly can’t speak for all Pastors and Ministers, but personally, I’ve never met anyone who is not fallible. I think the goal is to try to exegete the Scriptures. I don’t think infallibility is in view, but accuracy in interpretation. In other words, allowing Scripture to speak for itself - since it’s God’s Word. It’s God who is infallible, not men. All men will be held accountable on how they handled God’s Word, especially those who teach it (James 3:1).

Just one of the problems with your scenario is that Scriptures don’t actually speak for themselves. Scriptures require a teacher, they require proper interpretation. Jesus showed this while on earth. He taught people how to interpret, and corrected their misinterpretations, showing that an infallible teacher of Scriptures is required.

Naturally, God has already provided for that before He ascended to Heaven… and no, the New Testament didn’t drop down as He was ascending. God established one His Church for the purpose of teaching His truth (note that Jesus used the singular “Church”, not “churches”. His one Church was established as the pillar and foundation of the truth (1 Tim 3:15). Just like Jesus did while on earth, His Church is the infallible interpreter of Scriptures, and teacher of God’s truth. As wonderful as they are, the Scriptures are not found anywhere to be considered pillar and foundation of the truth by God. The Scriptures are simply and wonderfully a document of the Church, and have never made full sense to anyone when taken outside the context of a Church document. God’s one Church authored the New Testament, but writing down some of the Oral Tradition (but not all). So, God’s Church came first, and the Scriptures were made from God’s Church (anyone saying their “church” is based on the Bible is not discussing God’s one Church, but man’s). Also, anyone who thinks the infinite God’s word can be completely contained in 73 books is irrational. All protestant ecclesial communities have their teachings at least part (and many have much) of their teachings by eisegesis instead of exegesis. If it were truly exgesis, then there would be no Protestantism. If there were no form of Protestantism would be a very good thing. There was none for the first 1500 years of Christianity, so it’s not needed.

 

[MDK]

Well, I certainly can’t speak for all Pastors and Ministers, but personally, I’ve never met anyone who is not fallible. I think the goal is to try to exegete the Scriptures. I don’t think infallibility is in view, but accuracy in interpretation. In other words, allowing Scripture to speak for itself - since it’s God’s Word. It’s God who is infallible, not men. All men will be held accountable on how they handled God’s Word, especially those who teach it (James 3:1).

With God’s assistance, man is infallible as well. Otherwise, the Scriptures could have never been written in the first place, right? They’re free from error and were written by men inspired by the Holy Spirit.

With the same Holy Spirit, man can be an infallible teacher. Infallible doesn’t mean perfect. It means free from error. God has established this charism of infallibility in His one Catholic Church, with the office of Peter, and the Magisterium. This charism of infallibility was never promised outside of God’s Catholic Church.

In fact, this teaching Church came before the New Testament was written. It came to be called Catholic. This infallible teaching Church wrote the New Testament. This infallible teaching Church assembled the canon of Scriptures in 382 into the full 73 book Bible. This infallible teaching Church established by Jesus is the pillar and foundation of the truth. How can you be the pillar and foundation of the truth unless you’re infallible? Something to think about, and I hope you do.

 

[MDK]

Well, I certainly can’t speak for all Pastors and Ministers, but personally, I’ve never met anyone who is not fallible. I think the goal is to try to exegete the Scriptures. I don’t think infallibility is in view, but accuracy in interpretation. In other words, allowing Scripture to speak for itself - since it’s God’s Word. It’s God who is infallible, not men. All men will be held accountable on how they handled God’s Word, especially those who teach it (James 3:1).

When we’re talking about God’s word, we must have it infallibly, else it’s not really God’s word in our hearts and minds, is it? God provided so we could have it infallibly. The means He established is the pillar and foundation of the truth, His one, holy Catholic Church.

 

[1voice]

I am told that the Catholic Church cannot teach infallibly, via the guidance of the Holy spirit.

If it wasnt do-able … why would Jesus say … “Be perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect”.

 

[Bbigam]

I was Protestant until 2009. I never heard a Protestant minister claim to speak infallibly - any minister I knew would certainly admit to being fallible including in the pulpit.
However-
Many Protestants don’t claim to be infallible, but instead say things along the lines of,
‘The Bible says, “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.” That means that works are worthless and meaningless, just have faith, believe, and you will go to Heaven.’
They don’t understand that this is their own interpretation of the text and instead mistake their own interpretation for the clear teaching of Scripture. It’s sort of an assumed infallibility.
This isn’t by any means all Protestants, but it’s common.

 

[Kelly1601]

“Infallible” means incapable of error, inerrable. So infallibility must refer to a person, not a person’s teaching. One’s teaching may be 100 percent accurate to, say, the Scriptures or the accepted dogmas of the Catholic church. But that doesn’t make the person himself infallible. Based on the criterion, what men teach is either accurate or inaccurate, but no man is infallible, except the Son of Man, Jesus Christ, who is Himself, in His very Person, “the Truth” (John 14:6)

‘Infallible’ can also mean in capable of being in error, being inerrant (as Scripture is).
As such, ‘infallibility’ can refer to either some person, some group of people, or to a teaching or set of teachings.

I refer you to MDK:

With God’s assistance, man is infallible as well. Otherwise, the Scriptures could have never been written in the first place, right? They’re free from error and were written by men inspired by the Holy Spirit.

With the same Holy Spirit, man can be an infallible teacher. Infallible doesn’t mean perfect. It means free from error. God has established this charism of infallibility in His one Catholic Church, with the office of Peter, and the Magisterium. This charism of infallibility was never promised outside of God’s Catholic Church.

In fact, this teaching Church came before the New Testament was written. It came to be called Catholic. This infallible teaching Church wrote the New Testament. This infallible teaching Church assembled the canon of Scriptures in 382 into the full 73 book Bible. This infallible teaching Church established by Jesus is the pillar and foundation of the truth. How can you be the pillar and foundation of the truth unless you’re infallible? Something to think about, and I hope you do.

 

[MDK]

“Infallible” means incapable of error, inerrable. So infallibility must refer to a person, not a person’s teaching. One’s teaching may be 100 percent accurate to, say, the Scriptures or the accepted dogmas of the Catholic church. But that doesn’t make the person himself infallible. Based on the criterion, what men teach is either accurate or inaccurate, but no man is infallible, except the Son of Man, Jesus Christ, who is Himself, in His very Person, “the Truth” (John 14:6)

Some confuse infallibility as it applies to God’s Church with personal impeccability.

Infallibility in God’s Church is a charism of teaching, not behaving. Infallibility applies to incapability of error when defining doctrines on faith and morals. The person who is infallible in defining these doctrines nevertheless is not said to be necessarily impeccable (incapable of sinning, flawless, or free from and personal blame) in his behaviors. In fact, confession is normally needed by everyone in God’s Catholic Church, including the Pope for his own thoughts and behaviors falling short of perfection. Perhaps that’s why Jesus instituted confession, from His mercy knowing that we all would need it.

Something to ponder, and I hope you do.

 

[zz912]

In other words, allowing Scripture to speak for itself - since it’s God’s Word.

I have yet to go to a denomination that has their pastor stand up, read from the Bible, and then sit down. Every one of them gives a sermon on the Bible passages. Scripture needs an interpreter. No denomination lets Scripture speak for itself.

 

[Tomster]

I am told that the Catholic Church cannot teach infallibly, via the guidance of the Holy spirit. When non-Catholic church Pastors and Ministers preach and teach from the pulpit are they fallibly preaching and teaching regarding the infallible word of God?

The short answer: Yes, thay are fallibly preaching and teaching regarding the infallible Word of God.

The Catholic teaching which would truly safeguard reveled truth, an infallible teaching authority, is rejected by Protestantism, but common sense dictates its necessity.

Any supernatural religion that renounces its claim to infallibility, it is clear, can profess to be a semi-revelation only. It is a hybrid thing, partly natural and partly supernatural, and it thus practically has the qualities of a religion that is wholly natural. Insofar as it professes to be to be revealed, it of course professes to be infallible; but if the revealed part be in the first place hard to distinguish, and in the second place hard to understand; if it may mean many things, and many of these things contradictory, it might as well never have been made at all. To make it in any sense an infallible revelation, or in other words a revelation at all to “us”, we need a power to interpret the testament that will have equal authority with the testament itself.

 

[1voice]

The short answer: Yes, thay are fallibly preaching and teaching regarding the infallible Word of God.

The Catholic teaching which would truly safeguard reveled truth, an infallible teaching authority, is rejected by Protestantism, but common sense dictates its necessity.

Any supernatural religion that renounces its claim to infallibility, it is clear, can profess to be a semi-revelation only. It is a hybrid thing, partly natural and partly supernatural, and it thus practically has the qualities of a religion that is wholly natural. Insofar as it professes to be to be revealed, it of course professes to be infallible; but if the revealed part be in the first place hard to distinguish, and in the second place hard to understand; if it may mean many things, and many of these things contradictory, it might as well never have been made at all. To make it in any sense an infallible revelation, or in other words a revelation at all to “us”, we need a power to interpret the testament that will have equal authority with the testament itself.

… In other words … “they are fallibly preaching and teaching regarding the infallible Word of God”.

 

[Tomster]

I have yet to go to a denomination that has their pastor stand up, read from the Bible, and then sit down. Every one of them gives a sermon on the Bible passages. Scripture needs an interpreter. No denomination lets Scripture speak for itself.

How true! And the sermon they give on the passages they have just read are their own form of fallible oral traditon even though they will never admit it as such.

 

[Tomster]

I have yet to go to a denomination that has their pastor stand up, read from the Bible, and then sit down. Every one of them gives a sermon on the Bible passages. Scripture needs an interpreter. No denomination lets Scripture speak for itself.

It is ironic, though, that I have heard many televangelists, and many on these message boards, claim the Bible can interpet itself.