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

[MDK]

…

No wonder you no longer consider yourself a real Catholic. Anyone as confused as you about God’s word needs to find their way, and sooner the better. I pray that you do find God’s way, and let it be superior to your own prideful misinterpretations of His word.

 

[MDK]

Quote:
Originally Posted by MDK
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 …**

---

casting out demons, healing people … is not Church authority?

That’s also a bit unjust to quote me out of context as you have. The authority in context of what I was saying is clearly Church authority for Bishops, not authority over demons. But, since you distort God’s word, why would I expect you to respect my words either.

 

[SyCarl]

SyCarl,

I can’t find the Augustine quote. Could you copy and paste the specific pericope from that site?

Regarding Chrysostom:

First he says, “But if he shall neglect to hear them also, tell it to the church,” that is,** to the rulers of it; **“but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be to thee as an heathen man and a publican.” For after this such a one is incurably diseased…

Then he goes on to say, 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, (or wronged) - and the bonds abide indissoluble.

Who is doing the binding here?**

Here is the quote from Augustine.

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.

 

[PJM]

Originally Posted by joe370 
So Jesus said the following to all of His brothers, sisters and mothers who do the will of God:

"I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

**Matt. 18: 15-22 **“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” Then Peter came up and said to him, “Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? As many as seven times?” Jesus said to him, "I do not say to you seven times, but seventy times seven. “

Dear friend in Christ;

I fear you may not have a complete understanding of the verse you quoted? While Christ is speaking to a crowd; that group includes the Apostles; and the authorization of Binding and Loosing is directed precisely towards then alone… It is extending the same powers ranted to Peter [The Rock] in Matt. 16: 17-20 “And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! the sir name of Peter] For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.** And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” **Then he strictly charged the **disciples [Apostles] **to tell no one that he was the Christ.

This verified by Haydock’s Catholic Commentary:
**“Ver. 18. **Whatsoever you shall bind, &c. The power of binding and loosing, which in a more eminent manner was promised to St. Peter, is here promised to the other apostles and their successors, bishops and priests. The power of binding and loosing, conferred on St. Peter, excelled that granted to the other apostles, inasmuch as to St. Peter, who was head and pastor of the whole Church, was granted jurisdiction over the other apostles, while these received no power over each other, much less over St. Peter”

Matt. Henry Commentary: [NON-Catholic] “In particular, to those requests that are put up to God about binding and loosing; to which this promise seems more especially to refer. Observe, First, That the power of church discipline is not here lodged in the hand of a single person, but two, at least, are supposed to be concerned in it. When the incestuous Corinthian was to be cast out, the church was gathered together (1 Cor. v. 4), and it was a punishment inflicted of many, 2 Cor. ii. 6. In an affair of such importance, two are better than one, and in the multitude of counsellors there is safety. Secondly, It is good to see those who have the management of church discipline,” [Which choses to ignore mt. 16:19 PJM]

God Bless,
Pat**

 

[SyCarl]

Sorry, I gave you too much credit for having sufficient background and being willing to look deeper to figure something out, seeking to actually discern what someone wrote. You need the background to be able to understand what great Catholic minds like Augustine and Crysostom are talking about. When I read City of God, for instance, I had and have to think about what he’s saying, as it’s first from a different time with a different style and many insights are offered.

So, what is “clear” to you has been eisegetically obtained by you through lack of proper (Catholic) background coupled influence by your errant presuppositions, and not exegetically derived from the author’s intent. If you did things exegetically, you would be Catholic.

Now to the answer… First, the “ruler of the Church” Crysostom is referring to is the Pope.

Secondly, he’s saying that the Pope is not to bind the man (as in an act of excommunication) as something the Pope is actually introducing to the man, rather the excommunication is only decreed because the man has already excommunicated himself and the formal binding decree of excommunication (decreed by the Pope) is a formal recognition of what this man has done to himself.

Think about it for a while… perhaps a long time is needed because this truth is a new concept for you.

I see that you apparently are unable to provide quotes from these two men contrary to what I quoted. I know what you think they said. Basically you are saying that they were both Catholic and couldn’t mean something non-Catholic. That is eisegis, trying to force these statements to support a Catholic position that they do not support.

There are other church fathers who do support the Catholic position which can be seen just by looking at Aquinas’ Catena but these two fathers do not, at least in the quotes I gave and you have not given me anything from them showing they do.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

This thread is suppose to be about the claim to infallibility. So what’s your point?

Again, writings are either accurate or inaccurate, true or false, etc. Preachers and teachers may preach or teach accurately or inaccurately, but the word “infallible” pertains to the person (preacher or teacher) himself. The Scriptures are inerrant because the One who inspired them is Himself infallible. This cannot be said of any man, although your Magisterium (teaching authority) has asserted it.

I was responding to points raised, now I’m called back to the topic of the thread? Ok, through Christ’s promises the authoritative men He chose and appointed, and those that they chose and appointed with the authority bestowed upon them, can speak infallibly.

These words were spoken to His Apostles:

**Mat 10:19 But when they shall deliver you up, take no thought how or what to speak: for it shall be given you in that hour what to speak:
Mat 10:20 For it is not you that speak, but the spirit of your Father that speaketh in you. **

 

[PJM]

=SyCarl;7745865]I see that you apparently are unable to provide quotes from these two men contrary to what I quoted. I know what you think they said. Basically you are saying that they were both Catholic and couldn’t mean something non-Catholic. That is eisegis, trying to force these statements to support a Catholic position that they do not support.

There are other church fathers who do support the Catholic position which can be seen just by looking at Aquinas’ Catena but these two fathers do not, at least in the quotes I gave and you have not given me anything from them showing they do.

NOT to rain on your parade: BUT Church Fathers [excluding Popes] can be in error if they do not speak in-line with the Pope and the Magisterium. It is ONLY the Church and Magisterium who can teach of Faith or on Morals WITHOUT EVEN A POSSIBILITY OF ERROR. [Jn.14:16-17 and Jn.17:15-19 supporting Matt. 16:19].

I’ve already done my homework and have neither the time nor inclination to reread the works of these GREAT Saints… But thanks anyway.

God’s continued Blessings,
Pat

 

[GaryTaylor]

This topic comes now and again. I believe its important to first understand how the Catholic understanding is taught before we can clearly understand this area.

newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

God Bless, Gary

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

There are other church fathers who do support the Catholic position which can be seen just by looking at Aquinas’ Catena but these two fathers do not, at least in the quotes I gave and you have not given me anything from them showing they do.

Are you recommending one search all the writings and ‘cherry pick’ that which appears to support their own view? Shouldn’t we be stacking all the writings up together to see what are the most predominantly believed ‘truths’ practiced by historic Christians and search for consistency?

 

[SyCarl]

Are you recommending one search all the writings and ‘cherry pick’ that which appears to support their own view? Shouldn’t we be stacking all the writings up together to see what are the most predominantly believed ‘truths’ practiced by historic Christians and search for consistency?

I think that what the early fathers show is a much wider view of what was considered orthodox than is the case in the Catholic Church today.

For example, on purgatory Augustine could indicate that it was something that could be believed in or not.

And it is not impossible that something of the same kind may take place even after this life. It is a matter that may be inquired into, and either ascertained or left doubtful, whether some believers shall pass through a kind of purgatorial fire, and in proportion as they have loved with more or less devotion the goods that perish, be less or more quickly delivered from it.

(The Enchiridion Chapter 69)
newadvent.org/fathers/1302.htm

He could also say:

And if any comparisons shall have been made for thee, if thou hast found them in the Scriptures, believe: if thou shalt not have found them spoken of except by report, do not very much believe them. The thing itself perchance is so, perchance is not so. Do thou profit by it, let that comparison avail for thy salvation.

(Exposition on the Book of Psalms, Psalm LXVII)
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf108.ii.LXVII.html

I refer to the church fathers not to show the Catholic Church is wrong but to show that many Protestant positions are not as novel as the Catholic Church has claimed. The fathers referred to the rule of faith which was basically the Apostles’ Creed. Most Protestants have no problems with the contents of that creed, Even most of those who don’t accept creeds because they feel they are man made would agree with its individual points.

Again I think that individual fathers are not necessarily consistent in what they wrote. Their view of the bishop of Rome could be coloured by whether he happened to agree with them on a certain point or not. For example Cyprian can be seen referring to what may look like a primacy of Rome until you look at what he says about Pope Stephen with respect to baptism by heretics.

It is unfortunate that later in church history, the wide envelope Christianity of the early church disappeared as men began to insist that it was important to believe exactly what they believed and to exclude those who didn’t.

 

[PJM]

=SyCarl;7746190]**I think that what the early fathers show is a much wider view of what was considered orthodox than is the case in the Catholic Church today. **For example, on purgatory Augustine could indicate that it was something that could be believed in or not.

(The Enchiridion Chapter 69)
newadvent.org/fathers/1302.htm

He could also say:

(Exposition on the Book of Psalms, Psalm LXVII)
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf108.ii.LXVII.html

I refer to the church fathers not to show the Catholic Church is wrong but to show that many Protestant positions are not as novel as the Catholic Church has claimed. The fathers referred to the rule of faith which was basically the Apostles’ Creed. Most Protestants have no problems with the contents of that creed, Even most of those who don’t accept creeds because they feel they are man made would agree with its individual points.

Again I think that individual fathers are not necessarily consistent in what they wrote. Their view of the bishop of Rome could be coloured by whether he happened to agree with them on a certain point or not. For example Cyprian can be seen referring to what may look like a primacy of Rome until you look at what he says about Pope Stephen with respect to baptism by heretics.

It is unfortunate that later in church history, the wide envelope Christianity of the early church disappeared as men began to insist that it was important to believe exactly what they believed and to exclude those who didn’t.

And why dear friend is that?

IMO it is because Faith is a “Living and therefore growing” thing. Doctrine and Dogma are evolutionary beliefs that have gained a fuller and better understanding. Once defined they can no-longer be REDEFINED; by a fuller understanding can be had without changing the defined component. Salvation through the CC comes to mind.

Again the Fathers do not speak for the POPE; and only in communion with the Pope and Magisterium are there views of required acceptance.

God Bless,
Pat

 

[SyCarl]

And why dear friend is that?

IMO it is because Faith is a “Living and therefore growing” thing. Doctrine and Dogma are evolutionary beliefs that have gained a fuller and better understanding. Once defined they can no-longer be REDEFINED; by a fuller understanding can be had without changing the defined component. Salvation through the CC comes to mind.

God Bless,
Pat

Well I will disagree on this point. To me the pride of men lead to an insistence that their particular view had to be right and that everybody should accept it. Little consideration is given to those who thought differently prior to a definition. Do they retroactively become heretics and, if not, why was it necessary to define something that had not been necessary before.

How do you think Pope Leo X would have reacted if Cyprian had acted with him as he did with Pope Stephen? Would he have been excommunicated too like Luther was? After all, he went to the point of calling councils to dispute with the Pope. That is part of the difference in attitude I see.

 

[fhansen]

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 problem in any case is that, unless the truths of the faith can be infallibly known, then the bible or any other source of knowledge for Gods’ will are rendered empty and meaningless for us.

 

[PJM]

=SyCarl;7746325]Well I will disagree on this point. To me the pride of men lead to an insistence that their particular view had to be right and that everybody should accept it. Little consideration is given to those who thought differently prior to a definition. Do they retroactively become heretics and, if not, why was it necessary to define something that had not been necessary before.

How do you think Pope Leo X would have reacted if Cyprian had acted with him as he did with Pope Stephen? Would he have been excommunicated too like Luther was? After all, he went to the point of calling councils to dispute with the Pope. That is part of the difference in attitude I see.

Perhaps? But two wrongs never make one right! RIGHT? The question of heresy is interestering… The current code of Canon Law defines a heritic as: Can. 751 **Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith;[this means DEFINED] ** apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him…

If as is implied these issues were still in the debating and understanding stage; not OFFICALY defined; it would seem that a hersey was not possible. The issue would have had to be recogonized as a hersey and treated as such. Keep in mind the Doctrine of “infallibility” has not existed for the 2,000 years of the Church as a DEFINED DOGMA. Certainly is was a common understanding lacking the enforcement of LAW…

Law like Faith, and it’s understanding of each is a process not understood to have Divine intervention UNTIL and UNLESS officially defined. [Jn.14:16-17; Jn.17:15-19].

God Bless,

Pat

 

[diorthosis]

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…

Writings aren’t infallible. They’re either errant or inerrant. Scripture, which includes the Psalms of David, is inerrant because the One who inspired (breathed) it through men is Himself infallible.

There’s no such thing as partial or sporadic infallibility. One is either infallible or one is not.

 

[diorthosis]

I was responding to points raised, now I’m called back to the topic of the thread? Ok, through Christ’s promises the authoritative men He chose and appointed, and those that they chose and appointed with the authority bestowed upon them, can speak infallibly.

These words were spoken to His Apostles:

Quote:
Mat 10:19 But when they shall deliver you up, take no thought how or what to speak: for it shall be given you in that hour what to speak:
Mat 10:20 For it is not you that speak, but the spirit of your Father that speaketh in you.

Infallibility refers to the person, not the words. That the Spirit would give them words to speak before their accusers did not make those men infallible. They would certainly speak accurately concerning the truth about Christ and salvation, but they themselves were not infallible.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Writings aren’t infallible. They’re either errant or inerrant. Scripture, which includes the Psalms of David, is inerrant because the One who inspired (breathed) it through men is Himself infallible.

There’s no such thing as partial or sporadic infallibility. One is either infallible or one is not.

When God speaks through the authoritative offices He set in His Church, it is always infallible statements.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Infallibility refers to the person, not the words. That the Spirit would give them words to speak before their accusers did not make those men infallible. They would certainly speak accurately concerning the truth about Christ and salvation, but they themselves were not infallible.

Haven’t you ever heard a Catholic say, ‘not everything a Pope says is infallible?’ Christ is the head of His Church and when the Father speaks through one of the authoritative offices, He set, it’s infallible truth. His Church stands accused everyday, since the beginning.

Mat 10:20 For it is not you that speak, but the spirit of your Father that speaketh in you.

The truth about Christ and salvation is referred to as faith and morals in the Catholic Church.

 

[diorthosis]

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.**

Such a thing is now impossible since Western Catholicism’s Magisterium (teaching authority) is considered (accepted) infallible, therefore it’s interpretation of Matt. 16:18 cannot be questioned.

I don’t know of any Protestant congregations that claim or assign infallibility for or to their Pastors or teachers. I don’t know of any Pastors or teachers that claim it of themselves. One need not be infallible to present an accurate interpretation of Scripture. One must, however, be regenerated by the Holy Spirit in order to even begin to understand them accurately. Even Augustine changed his mind concerning the Matt. 16:18 passage, seeing Peter’s confession (not Peter himself) as the “rock” on which Christ would build His church. His change of mind proves fallibility on his part and yet a personal quest to attain accuracy regarding the interpretation of Scripture.

 

[diorthosis]

Haven’t you ever heard a Catholic say, ‘not everything a Pope says is infallible?’

Infallibility refers to the person, not what the person says. What a man says (even your Pope) MAY be accurate, but because he is not infallible, not everything he says is accurate.

The Scriptures are inerrant because of the infallibility of the One who “breathed” them. There is no such thing as an infallible interpreter of Scripture when referring to men, since no man is infallible. And much of Scripture is best understood without “interpreting” it, but rather simply believing it.