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

  • Thread starter Thread starter joe370
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
drbo.org/chapter/47018.htm

Which of the following apply only to the diciples and which apply to the rest of the Church?

Matt 18

[1] At that hour the disciples came to Jesus, saying: Who thinkest thou is the greater in the kingdom of heaven? [2] And Jesus calling unto him a little child, set him in the midst of them, [3] And said: Amen I say to you, unless you be converted, and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. [4] Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, he is the greater in the kingdom of heaven. [5] And he that shall receive one such little child in my name, receiveth me.

[6] But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea. [7] Woe to the world because of scandals. For it must needs be that scandals come: but nevertheless woe to that man by whom the scandal cometh. [8] And if thy hand, or thy foot scandalize thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee. It is better for thee to go into life maimed or lame, than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into everlasting fire. [9] And if thy eye scandalize thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee. It is better for thee having one eye to enter into life, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire. [10] See that you despise not one of these little ones: for I say to you, that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father who is in heaven.

[11] For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost. [12] What think you? If a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them should go astray: doth he not leave the ninety-nine in the mountains, and go to seek that which is gone astray? [13] And if it so be that he find it: Amen I say to you, he rejoiceth more for that, than for the ninety-nine that went not astray. [14] Even so it is not the will of your Father, who is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish. [15] But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother.

[16] And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. [17] And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican. [18] Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven. [19] Again I say to you, that if two of you shall consent upon earth, concerning any thing whatsoever they shall ask, it shall be done to them by my Father who is in heaven. [20] For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

[20] “There am I in the midst of them”… This is understood of such assemblies only as are gathered in the name and authority of Christ; and in unity of the church of Christ. St. Cyprian, De Unitate Ecclesiae.

[21] Then came Peter unto him and said: Lord, how often shall my brother offend against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? [22] Jesus saith to him: I say not to thee, till seven times; but till seventy times seven times. [23] Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened to a king, who would take an account of his servants. [24] And when he had begun to take the account, one was brought to him, that owed him ten thousand talents. [25] And as he had not wherewith to pay it, his lord commanded that he should be sold, and his wife and children and all that he had, and payment to be made.

[26] But that servant falling down, besought him, saying: Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all. [27] And the lord of that servant being moved with pity, let him go and forgave him the debt. [28] But when that servant was gone out, he found one of his fellow servants that owed him an hundred pence: and laying hold of him, throttled him, saying: Pay what thou owest. [29] And his fellow servant falling down, besought him, saying: Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all. [30] And he would not: but went and cast him into prison, till he paid the debt.

[28] “Pence”… The Roman penny was the eighth part of an ounce, that is, about sevenpence half-penny English.

[31] Now his fellow servants seeing what was done, were very much grieved, and they came and told their lord all that was done. [32] Then his lord called him; and said to him: Thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all the debt, because thou besoughtest me: [33] Shouldst not thou then have had compassion also on thy fellow servant, even as I had compassion on thee? [34] And his lord being angry, delivered him to the torturers until he paid all the debt. [35] So also shall my heavenly Father do to you, if you forgive not every one his brother from your hearts.
The disciples, chosen and appointed by Christ, were the authoritative men of the Church. When He spoke to them, He spoke to the Church. He chose and appointed/ordained them. Show me an instance in scriptures where anyone assumed an office in the Church without being chosen and appointed by Christ, or the men He placed in authority over His Church?
 
To avoid the appearance of ‘cherry picking’, let’s view what several early Church fathers said…

**
Irenaeus**

Clement of Alexandria

Tertullian

Letter of Clement to James

Cyprian

Cyril of Jerusalem

Optatus
Just wondering, in your opinion were these men “infallible?
 
… The disciples are referenced in the text as the ones he is addressing …
drbo.org/chapter/47018.htm

… You have pointed out the importance of context. In Matt chap 18 Jesus gives a series of instructions … am I to assume that all of those instructions apply exclusively to those he was addressing… or only the instructions about binding and loosing?
Since you have difficulties understanding, here’s a key to assist. The 12 Apostles are disciples. They are special disciples and so we (Catholics) specifically refer to them appropriately when discussing, so we don’t distort God’s word so those with a propensity to embellish and distort can have a chance of understanding. The disciples He is giving authority to are His 12 appointed Apostles and no one else. The authority Jesus gave applies ONLY to those He gave it to, those He was addressing which are the 12 Apostles. These were Bishops in His Church. The lay disciple never received this authority. Hope you can learn to understand appropriately, if that is indeed your goal, as you haven’t shown that kind of leaning yet. 🤷

As far as your assumptions, I predict you’ll keep on doing whatever you want, regardless of what God has established, so far that’s your trend. 😦
 
Just wondering, in your opinion were these men “infallible?
LOL! … St Peter wasnt infallible.

I dont doubt that there are a large number of Catholics that believe that the interpretation of Matthew 16:18 is cut in stone…😉

My point is that the distinction between Petros and Petra was … and is … no small throw away point, as you indicated above. It was clearly understood to be very important … and a Church Father no less than St Augustine spoke about it to the Communicants on multiple occasions. … and left it to them to decide on the issue for themselves.
Id like to see what would happen if a Priest or Bishop let people decide for themselves on an issue like that today.
 
The disciples He is giving authority to are His 12 appointed Apostles and no one else. The authority Jesus gave applies ONLY to those He gave it to, those He was addressing which are the 12 Apostles.
Where does it say that in reference to Matt Ch 18
 
The disciples, chosen and appointed by Christ, were the authoritative men of the Church. When He spoke to them, He spoke to the Church. He chose and appointed/ordained them. Show me an instance in scriptures where anyone assumed an office in the Church without being chosen and appointed by Christ, or the men He placed in authority over His Church?
So, you think it would be correct to assume that Matt Ch 18. applied only to the Apostles?
 
Please learn to quote properly, as you included your responses inside what appears as a “quote” mine.
Good point … that it in no way negates the fact that no Aramaic original is available today.
We have to ask if you understand the relevance or lack thereof of your statement? Do you realize that having the original Aramaic of Matthew is completely unnecessary in determining the meaning Jesus had for Peter as Rock of the Church? 100% of the evidence is consistent with Peter being Rock of the Church (and, no, your distortions are not “evidence”). BTW, I don’t think we have the “original” Greek either. We have copies of copies.

Did you miss the point about the Greek shows Peter is Rock of the Church?

Did you also miss the point that the person (St. Jerome) who did have the original Aramaic testified that Peter is the Rock of the Church?

Did you also miss the point that the Greek we do have does not contain the word “lithos” as used for Rock (Peter) of the Church?

Did you also miss the fact that Jesus spoke to His Apostles in Aramaic, not Greek? Do you not understand that Jesus used the word Kepha to refer to Peter, the same word in Aramaic that means large rock, as in Rock of the Church?

We have the testimony of St Jerome who lived in the 4th century and told us the original Matthew was not in Greek when he translated the entire 73 book Bible into Latin. This person who read the Aramaic testifies also that Peter is the Rock of the Church. The Greek is in lock step with the Catholic teaching and doctrine of the Papacy.

So, we have everything we need to show the truth of Peter as Rock of the Church. But, these truths only matter to those who love and seek Christ. I have no idea why you reject the truth. That’s your business.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_Primacy

… It is also argued by some scholars that the author made copies of this vital document in multiple languages including Greek.
There are lots of unfounded and untrue “arguments” out there. You’ve made quite a few, and it’s clear that the truth is inconsequential in your mindset.

Additionally, did you miss that I said qualified scholars, or do you ignore that truth as well? The Wikipedia article is pretty poor reference, lacking rigor and any notion of being a qualified scholar.
According to the Greek Lexicon, petros is “a rock or a stone”, whereas petra is “a rock, cliff or ledge.” Jesus illustrates the meaning of petra as a massive foundational rock:
“Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock” (petra) (Matthew 7:27).
Yes, we’ve seen that you pick and choose things that don’t match the time frame of the Greek used. Your scenario has Jesus being uncharitable, which is opposed to His nature, and therefore impossible. Let’s use the truthful context, where the the Scriptures were written/translated using first century Koine Greek. In the first century Koine Greek, Petros and petra meant EXACTLY the same thing. Petra is the large rock, and the author/translator could not use petra (feminine) for a masculine person, could he? Please consider going with the truth for a nice change of pace.
… You are using the exact same logic to support your position that you rejected when I used it above.😉
I don’t know what to say, except your “logic” is very poor. I rejected your false statement, and accepted the true statement… it’s what I do. As I’ve shown several times, Petros and petra meant exactly the same thing in first century Koine Greek, just one is masucline form of the other which is feminine. It’s the first time in history that a man is named “Rock”. I hope you’ll join me in the truth for a nice change for yourself.
… We dont have Jesus’ original words in Aramaic, we do have the inspired words of the Holy Scriptures, and in Matthew 16:18, the Holy Spirit employed two different words to distinguish between ‘Peter’ and ‘the rock’. That is what we can say with certainty.
Then, you are certainly wrong, again. What we have is the Holy Spirit showed that Peter is the Rock of the Church. Your logic says something like Robert and Roberta mean something more different than masculine and feminine of the same name. The Holy Spirit inspired text shows the masculine and feminine of the same word, Rock.

Why would Jesus change Simon;s name to Rock? Why did God change anyone’s name? We know that God only changed someone’s name when He was giving them a mission. You say that mission is that Jesus changed Simon’s name to Rock, only to tell him in front of the other Apostles that he is insignificant, which is belittling and uncharitable… something God never does. We say that God changed Simon’s name to Rock for his new role as Rock of the Church, as shown with the keys of authority given to him as the Chief Steward in the house of David. Only one of these makes sense, and it’s obvious which one is consistent with God’s will, that Peter is Rock of the Church.
I agree. Context is very important…
“Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock” (petra) (Matthew 7:27).
Since in the first century Koine Greek, Petros and petra are the same, then Matt 7:27 shows that Jesus is the wise man who built His house (the Church, as the rebuilt Davidic Kingdom) on the Rock of the man He renamed into Rock.

So, if context is really important to you, then why don’t you seek to use proper context? We have to conclude context is not a priority for you, as you distort God’s word for your own convenience.
 
I know. That is exactly the point.
In chapter 18 Jesus gave a series of instructions. Jesus was speaking to the disciples … He said things that apply to all of us. He simply and clearly said … Do these things … act in this way … use these tools… expect this result. Jesus didnt single out anyone … he spoke to them all.
Wrong, again. Where Jesus gives authority, He is speaking only to a special group of disciples, His 12 Apostles. These Bishops of His Church are the only ones given the subordinate disciplinary authority described in Matt Ch 18.

Looking forward to you getting it corrected in your mind. 🙂
 
LOL! … St Peter wasnt infallible.

I dont doubt that there are a large number of Catholics that believe that the interpretation of Matthew 16:18 is cut in stone…😉

My point is that the distinction between Petros and Petra was … and is … no small throw away point, as you indicated above. It was clearly understood to be very important … and a Church Father no less than St Augustine spoke about it to the Communicants on multiple occasions. … and left it to them to decide on the issue for themselves.
Id like to see what would happen if a Priest or Bishop let people decide for themselves on an issue like that today.
Do you find it disturbing that you interpret a difference between Petros and petra, but the Holy Spirit inspired Catholic New Testament author wrote them as the same? People who love and respect the Holy Spirit do find your opposition to the Holy Spirit troubling.

St. Rock was infallible in matters of faith and morals binding on all the faithful, as all subsequent popes have been, and all in the future will be… because of God’s promise. We trust God and His promise.
 
Where does it say that in reference to Matt Ch 18
“The disciples” refers to a select group of disciples, not all disciples. He was speaking to a very select group, teaching them about certain behaviors and Matthew 18:18 is clearly giving authority only to those Jesus designated as Bishops in His Church.

In Matt 18, Jesus teaches humility, avoidance of scandal, and to flee from even occasions of sin, denouncing incorrigible sinners, and to look upon such as refuse to hear the church as heathens (possibly excommunicating). He promises to his Apostles the power of binding and loosing: and that he will be in the midst of their assemblies. There is no forgiveness for those who will not forgive.

We have to ask where it says otherwise? It does not. You were never given the authority to bind and loose by Christ. I know you guys like these power trips to believe you have this authority, but you don’t. You never did. You will only have it if you become a Bishop in God’s Church. As a start, you have to at least respect God’s Church.
 
Augustine gave honor to St Peter … as should we all… and here is additional clarification in Augustines own words as to what he meant when he said that Peter represented the whole Church:

"And this Church, symbolized in its generality, was personified in the Apostle Peter, on account of the primacy of his apostleship. For, as regards his proper personality, he was by nature one man, by grace one Christian, by still more abounding grace one, and yet also, the first apostle; but when it was said to him, ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven,’ he represented the universal Church, which in this world is shaken by divers temptations, that come upon it like torrents of rain, floods and tempests, and falleth not, because it is founded upon a rock (petra), from which Peter received his name. For petra (rock) is not derived from Peter, but Peter from petra; just as Christ is not called so from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. For on this very account the Lord said, ‘On this rock will I build my Church,’ because Peter had said, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ On this rock, therefore, He said, which thou hast confessed, I will build my Church. For the Rock (Petra) was Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself built. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Christ Jesus. The Church, therefore, which is founded in Christ received from Him the keys of the kingdom of heaven in the person of Peter, that is to say, the power of binding and loosing sins. For what the Church is essentially in Christ, such representatively is Peter in the rock (petra); and in this representation Christ is to be understood as the Rock, Peter as the Church (Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume VII, St. Augustin, On the Gospel of John, Tractate 124.5).
Do you even realize that St Augustine expressed the Catholic position… i.e. the truth. Let us assist you to understand… Jesus is the ultimate Rock and Peter is only able to be Rock of the Church deriving from Christ’s Rockness as Christ has established this relationship.

What Augustine says is that Peter is not Rock of the Church because Peter is independent of God, but Peter is Rock of the Church deriving his office from Jesus’ Rockness.
 
Wrong, again. Where Jesus gives authority, He is speaking only to a special group of disciples, His 12 Apostles.
Luke 10

1 After this the Lord appointed seventy-two others and sent them two by two ahead of him to every town and place where he was about to go.

17 The seventy-two returned with joy and said, “Lord, even the demons submit to us in your name.” 18 He replied, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven. 19 I have given you authority …
 
Do you even realize that St Augustine expressed the Catholic position… i.e. the truth. Let us assist you to understand… Jesus is the ultimate Rock and Peter is only able to be Rock of the Church deriving from Christ’s Rockness as Christ has established this relationship.

What Augustine says is that Peter is not Rock of the Church because Peter is independent of God, but Peter is Rock of the Church deriving his office from Jesus’ Rockness.
the Lord said, ‘On this rock will I build my Church,

’ because Peter had said, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’

On this rock,( which is Gods revelation that Jesus is the Christ ) therefore, He said, which thou hast confessed,

I will build my Church. For the Rock (Petra) was Christ;

and on this foundation was Peter himself built.
 
“The disciples” refers to a select group of disciples, not all disciples. He was speaking to a very select group, teaching them about certain behaviors and Matthew 18:18 is clearly giving authority only to those Jesus designated as Bishops in His Church.

In Matt 18, Jesus teaches humility, avoidance of scandal, and to flee from even occasions of sin, denouncing incorrigible sinners, and to look upon such as refuse to hear the church as heathens (possibly excommunicating). He promises to his Apostles the power of binding and loosing: and that he will be in the midst of their assemblies. There is no forgiveness for those who will not forgive.

We have to ask where it says otherwise? It does not. You were never given the authority to bind and loose by Christ. I know you guys like these power trips to believe you have this authority, but you don’t. You never did. You will only have it if you become a Bishop in God’s Church. As a start, you have to at least respect God’s Church.
If it is so clearly applying only to bishops of the church, wy do two doctors of the church, one east and on west say otherwise?
But “if he will not hear thee,” that is, if he will defend his sin as if it were a just action, “take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established; and if he will not hear them, refer it to the Church; but if he will not hear the Church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. Reckon him no more amongst the number of thy brethren. But yet neither is his salvation on that account to be neglected. For the very heathen, that is, the Gentiles and Pagans, we do not reckon among the number of brethren; but yet are we ever seeking their salvation. This then have we heard the Lord so advising, and with such great carefulness enjoining, that He even added this immediately, “Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven.” Thou hast begun to hold thy brother for a publican; “thou bindest him on earth;” but see that thou bind him justly. For unjust bonds justice doth burst asunder. But when thou hast corrected, and been “reconciled to thy brother,” thou hast “loosed him on earth.” And when “thou shalt have loosed him on earth, he shall be loosed in heaven also.” Thus thou doest a great thing, not for thyself, but for him; for a great injury had he done, not to thee, but to himself.
Augustine (Homilies on the Gospels, Homily 32, Paragraph 7)
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf106.vii.xxxiv.html
But why did He set him with these? To soothe the person wronged, and to alarm him. Is this only then the punishment? Nay, but hear also what follows. “Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven.”And He did not say to the ruler of the church, “Bind such a man,” but, “If thou bind,” committing the whole matter to the person himself, who is aggrieved, and the bonds abide indissoluble. Therefore he will suffer the utmost ills; but not he who hath brought him to account is to blame, but he who hath not been willing to be persuaded.
John Chrysostom (Homilies on Matthew, Homily 60)
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf110.iii.LVII.html
 
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).
Well, I certainly agree that no one is infallible. 👍 So, do non-Catholic ministers claim to teach erroneously or inaccurately when spreading the good news to their flock?
 
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
In your opinion do non-Catholic ministers claim to teach erroneously or inaccurately when teaching and spreading the good news to their flock?
 
Luke 10

1 After this the Lord appointed seventy-two others and sent them two by two ahead of him to every town and place where he was about to go.

17 The seventy-two returned with joy and said, “Lord, even the demons submit to us in your name.” 18 He replied, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven. 19 I have given you authority …
We wonder if you’re all but completely oblivious to the meanings in Scriptures, or just generally confused by your false assumptions leading to your personal eisegesis.

Did you happen to notice that Luke 10 is describing a different scenario than Matthew 18, or does that escape you too?

Did you notice that there was a specific number mentioned… 72?

Which follows… did you notice that Luke 10 did NOT say “all disciples”?

Did you notice that in Luke 10, Jesus is NOT giving them Church authority?

Did you even happen to notice that Matthew 18 does NOT say “all disciples”?

Did you notice that in Matthew 18, Jesus is giving the very select group of disciples (NOT all disciples) Church authority?

Any of that even entering your mind? The wise person seeking God notices these things. Why do they seem to completely escape you,or be ignored by you?
 
In your opinion do non-Catholic ministers claim to teach erroneously or inaccurately when teaching and spreading the good news to their flock?
When I go to a Catholic Church, is the priest I hear teaching infallibly?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top