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

[joe370]

I didn’t ask for a exposition on the various ways the word infallible or fallible can be used. We all know how it is being used. In your opinion, do non-Catholic ministers claim to teach erroneously or inaccurately when spreading the good news to their flock?

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.

 

[MDK]

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.

Sorry, but your interpretation is a logical fallacy.

“On this Rock”, refers to the most recent noun being Peter himself.

Peter’s confession of faith is evidence that the Father has chosen Peter to be the leader, and is working with Peter to reveal the truth of God, the clear voice amidst uncertainty… i.e. the Papacy.

The ultimate Rock is indeed Christ. If Christ were not the ultimate Rock, then Christ could not have made Peter Rock of the Church. It’s because of Christ’s Rockness that the Papacy is solid Rock of Jesus’ Church. Christ is the constant throughout time, as individual Popes come and go, all getting the charism of their office as Rock of the Church from the ultimate Rock Christ.

Like was said earlier, 100% of the evidence shows Christ established Peter (as a dynastic office) as Rock of His Church. Christ’s faithful know His Catholic Church is indeed His Church. He has the right to assign a chief steward as He sees fit, to guard the pearl of great price while King Jesus is away in Heaven… just like others in the Davidic line of Kings.

Looking forward to your respecting what Christ has done, instead of rejecting what Christ has done.

 

[joe370]

No one is infallible, except me. LOL… David was a murder, adulteress and big time sinner and yet he gave us infallible writings. God has nothing but fallible sinners to work with…

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

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.

Also, what cooterhein said.

 

[MDK]

When I go to a Catholic Church, is the priest I hear teaching infallibly?

The Catholic Priest does not enjoy the charism of infallibility. He can err in teaching faith and morals, ONLY if he does not follow what the Catholic Church has set forth as binding on all the faithful.

I hope you realize the dangers of Presbyterianism, which is not God’s Church, but man’s ecclesial community… even if these men may have good intentions. Presbyterianism enjoys no authentic holy orders from the Apostles.

 

[joe370]

So the answer is: they claim to teach fallibly according to the statement of beliefs and practices which the pastors adhere to - to be ordained?

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]

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?

Augustine (Homilies on the Gospels, Homily 32, Paragraph 7)
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf106.vii.xxxiv.html

John Chrysostom (Homilies on Matthew, Homily 60)
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf110.iii.LVII.html

I recommend that you study a little harder, and really be open to the truth. Neither of these men differ with the Catholic teaching. You cherry pick sentences and twist them into what you want, due to your own preconceived set of false assumptions… it’s called eisegesis and it’s what all Protestants do.

 

[joe370]

I agree. When a non-Catholic Minister of a church interprets scripture, he or she either believes his interpretation is erroneous or accurate. So far, I am being told that ministers believe that they teach fallibly or inaccurately.

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.

 

[MDK]

When I go to a Catholic Church, is the priest I hear teaching infallibly?

To follow, non-Catholic preachers (none of whom are a minister of God’s Church) teach correctly ONLY when following Catholic doctrine. This is because Catholic doctrine is God’s doctrine taught infallibly in His one Church that He built with the Pope as visible head.

 

[joe370]

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.

Like, for example, God, forever guiding His church into all truth until the end of time, so every generation can have access to “all truth?”

 

[joe370]

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

So it’s your belief, I think, that all churches regardless of denomination, are fallibly preaching and teaching regarding the infallible Word of God, giving way to fallible interpretations and teachings?

If that is the case then do you still believe that the bible is an infalliblly self-interpreted collection of books?

 

[SyCarl]

I recommend that you study a little harder, and really be open to the truth. Neither of these men differ with the Catholic teaching. You cherry pick sentences and twist them into what you want, due to your own preconceived set of false assumptions… it’s called eisegesis and it’s what all Protestants do.

I think I will prefer what their words say to what you tell me. It is rather disingenuous to baldly assert that these doctors do not mean what they say about Matthew 18:18 applying to all without citing references for the claim. Perhaps you need to study a little harder rather than spout unsupported opinion as fact. I am not engaging in eiesegis by quoting what two doctors of the church have said about the passage in question. I have given no interpretation of my own but merely give what these two men said.

 

[SyCarl]

To follow, non-Catholic preachers (none of whom are a minister of God’s Church) teach correctly ONLY when following Catholic doctrine. This is because Catholic doctrine is God’s doctrine taught infallibly in His one Church that He built with the Pope as visible head.

The question was whether the priest I hear is teaching infallibly or not. Can you answer this without being insultingly condescending or not?

 

[SyCarl]

To answer the original post, none of the ministers I have heard of the arrogance to claim to be infallible. The minister at our church starts each sermon with a prayer. Father, may Your word come to these people through me or, if need be, in spite of me.

 

[MDK]

The question was whether the priest I hear is teaching infallibly or not. Can you answer this without being insultingly condescending or not?

I answered your question in another post, did I not?

The answer I provided that you object to was not insulting or condescending. Perhaps you feel that way on your own because you’re on the wrong side of the truth here. I told you the truth to round out the picture, and let you know the dangers of Protestantism, which misleads those who otherwise seek to know God. If you truly seek to know God, then my warning should be a welcome sign of friendship in Christ. If you do not seek God, then you’ll simply default to being offended. It’s your choice, because what I wrote is true.

 

[MDK]

To answer the original post, none of the ministers I have heard of the arrogance to claim to be infallible. The minister at our church starts each sermon with a prayer. Father, may Your word come to these people through me or, if need be, in spite of me.

He sounds like a humble man, which is good. Problem is that your preacher is not a minister in God’s Church. He has NO holy orders from God. Like I said earlier, the ONLY way he preaches the word of God is to be in sync with Catholic doctrine. Which begs the question, why not go to God’s Catholic Church instead of this man made ecclesial community that God didn’t build.

 

[MDK]

I think I will prefer what their words say to what you tell me. It is rather disingenuous to baldly assert that these doctors do not mean what they say about Matthew 18:18 applying to all without citing references for the claim. Perhaps you need to study a little harder rather than spout unsupported opinion as fact. I am not engaging in eiesegis by quoting what two doctors of the church have said about the passage in question. I have given no interpretation of my own but merely give what these two men said.

Don’t you think it’s at least a little ironic that you bring in your unfounded opinion about what two men say, and then call my observation “baldly asserted” and “unsupported opinion”? The psychological term for that is projection.

Next, you absolutely did provide an interpretation of your own, asserting that one of these men opposed the Catholic position. In truth, Augustine does not for instance support the idea that all disciples of Christ were given Church disciplinary authority.

Here’s some additional assistance on what I wrote to you. I never said your eisegesis was “quoting what two doctors of the Church have said”, did I? It’s apparent that your eisegesis is in your interpretation of what they said to support your preconceived notions, instead of really trying to understand the truth of the issue.

 

[joe370]

I think I will prefer what their words say to what you tell me. It is rather disingenuous to baldly assert that these doctors do not mean what they say about Matthew 18:18 applying to all without citing references for the claim. Perhaps you need to study a little harder rather than spout unsupported opinion as fact. I am not engaging in eiesegis by quoting what two doctors of the church have said about the passage in question. I have given no interpretation of my own but merely give what these two men said.

Could you copy and paste those quotes of both doctors claiming that Matthew 18:18 applies to all Christians? I have quotes of both these men claiming just the opposite.

 

[SyCarl]

I answered your question in another post, did I not?

The answer I provided that you object to was not insulting or condescending. Perhaps you feel that way on your own because you’re on the wrong side of the truth here. I told you the truth to round out the picture, and let you know the dangers of Protestantism, which misleads those who otherwise seek to know God. If you truly seek to know God, then my warning should be a welcome sign of friendship in Christ. If you do not seek God, then you’ll simply default to being offended. It’s your choice, because what I wrote is true.

I do not see any reply to my question. To answer it then myself, no I would not hear infallible teaching. Even if Catholic claims were true the claimed chrism only applies to the magisterium as whole or to the Pope in certain circumstances. Neither of these is readily questionable to determine the truth.

The Catholic Church does not teach infallibly or else it would not change its teachings. And to answer the obvious reply that the church does not change its teachings, it is a change to declare something a dogma that must be believed that did not previously have to be believed. An example is the Immaculate Conception. Did God change what had to be believed when Pius XII proclaimed the dogma? I think not as God does not change. Then either the Church has erred in saying it is a required belief or it failed those like Thomas Aquinas and Bernard of Clairveux who did not believe exactly the way Pius defined that it must be believed by waiting 1900 years to proclaim something so essential.

 

[SyCarl]

Could you copy and paste those quotes of both doctors claiming that Matthew 18:18 applies to all Christians? I have quotes of both these men claiming just the opposite.

I did. See post 96.

 

[joe370]

You are right. Saint Augustine and Saint Chrysostom were both Catholic leaders in total agreement. Neither opposed the Catholic position. Neither support the idea that all disciples of Christ were given Church disciplinary authority.

Don’t you think it’s at least a little ironic that you bring in your unfounded opinion about what two men say, and then call my observation “baldly asserted” and “unsupported opinion”? The psychological term for that is projection.

Next, you absolutely did provide an interpretation of your own, asserting that one of these men opposed the Catholic position. In truth, Augustine does not for instance support the idea that all disciples of Christ were given Church disciplinary authority.

Here’s some additional assistance on what I wrote to you. I never said your eisegesis was “quoting what two doctors of the Church have said”, did I? It’s apparent that your eisegesis is in your interpretation of what they said to support your preconceived notions, instead of really trying to understand the truth of the issue.