For Catholics: How do you know that the

  • Thread starter Thread starter Stingray
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Stingray:
teachings of the Catholic Church are infallible?
Click to expand...

  1. *]I believe in God.
    *]I believe in Jesus Christ.
    *]I believe that Jesus Christ designed his ministry to be perpetual, and safeguarded it from heresy by assigning the Holy Spirit as its guardian.
    *]I believe that Jesus Christ established the Church as His visible presence on Earth.
    *]To say the Church is fallible is to say that Jesus Christ is fallible. (If the reject you they reject me, if they reject me, they reject the one who sent me.)
 
Christ instructed the Church to preach everything he taught (Matt. 28:19–20) and promised the protection of the Holy Spirit to “guide you into all the truth” (John 16:13). That mandate and that promise guarantee the Church will never fall away from his teachings (Matt. 16:18, 1 Tim. 3:15), even if individual Catholics might.

(plagiarized from this website :whistle: )
 
As the others have said, Christ promised the Holy Spirit to “protect” his Church. (Not to mention that He said that the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church). Trusting in our Lord’s word and reading what the early Church stated, makes me believe that the Catholic Church is the original Church and therefore is protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching false beliefs. (and it’s interesting to note that any false belief that has been introduced has been discarded/demolished)

So, is the Catholic Church infallable? yep! (Note, I’m not saying anything about it’s members, ect as that’s a whole other thread)
 
40.png
Scott_Lafrance:

  1. *]I believe in God.
    *]I believe in Jesus Christ.
    *]I believe that Jesus Christ designed his ministry to be perpetual, and safeguarded it from heresy by assigning the Holy Spirit as its guardian.
    *]I believe that Jesus Christ established the Church as His visible presence on Earth.
    *]To say the Church is fallible is to say that Jesus Christ is fallible. (If the reject you they reject me, if they reject me, they reject the one who sent me.)
Click to expand...

  1. #3 What is your basis for believing this?
    #4 Same thing
    #5 Same thing

    God bless,
    Stingray 🙂
 
40.png
Genesis315:
Christ instructed the Church to preach everything he taught (Matt. 28:19–20) and promised the protection of the Holy Spirit to “guide you into all the truth” (John 16:13). That mandate and that promise guarantee the Church will never fall away from his teachings (Matt. 16:18, 1 Tim. 3:15), even if individual Catholics might.

(plagiarized from this website :whistle: )
Click to expand...
Okay, from where did you derive the correct understanding of these scriptures?

God bless,
Stingray 🙂
 
Often Catholics hear the objection that infallibility won’t fly because the average lay person must be infallible to determine that the Church is infallible. I’ve heard this called the “infallibility regress” argument. It is not much of an objection because you run into the exact same problem when you ask how one infallibly knows that, in the Protestant case for instance Sola Scriptura is infallible. Or the skeptic/rationalist case, how does he infallibly know that the universe was, is and always will be only matter?

Cardinal Newman addressed this in his Grammer of Assent where he makes a distinction between infalibility and certitude.

Dave Armstrong also did a dialogue on this very subject: Protestant-Catholic Dialogue: Preliminary Issues Concerning Authority & Epistemological “Certainty” (The “Infallibility Regress”)

Scott
 
40.png
Cairisti:
As the others have said, Christ promised the Holy Spirit to “protect” his Church. (Not to mention that He said that the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church). Trusting in our Lord’s word and reading what the early Church stated, makes me believe that the Catholic Church is the original Church and therefore is protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching false beliefs. (and it’s interesting to note that any false belief that has been introduced has been discarded/demolished)

So, is the Catholic Church infallable? yep! (Note, I’m not saying anything about it’s members, ect as that’s a whole other thread)
Click to expand...
Okay, how did you come to “properly” understand the scriptures and the ECFs? Is this something you did on your own?

God bless,
Stingray 🙂
 
40.png
Stingray:
Okay, how did you come to “properly” understand the scriptures and the ECFs? Is this something you did on your own?

God bless,
Stingray 🙂
Click to expand...
Yes, this is something I did on my own. (Was born and raised baptist, not to mention took religion class at Baylor (required). I also read other sources, but came to the understanding on my own (with a lot of help, I believe from the HS). A lightbulb almost literally lit up in my brain.
 
Scott Waddell:
Often Catholics hear the objection that infallibility won’t fly because the average lay person must be infallible to determine that the Church is infallible. I’ve heard this called the “infallibility regress” argument. It is not much of an objection because you run into the exact same problem when you ask how one infallibly knows that, in the Protestant case for instance Sola Scriptura is infallible. Or the skeptic/rationalist case, how does he infallibly know that the universe was, is and always will be only matter?

Cardinal Newman addressed this in his Grammer of Assent where he makes a distinction between infalibility and certitude.

Dave Armstrong also did a dialogue on this very subject: Protestant-Catholic Dialogue: Preliminary Issues Concerning Authority & Epistemological “Certainty” (The “Infallibility Regress”)

Scott
Click to expand...
Thanks for the links. I’ll check them out when I get a chance. I see a similar line of questioning posed to protestants by Catholics, as you pointed out, so I thought it only fitting to give Catholics a chance to answer this kind of question. I find the answers interesting. It seems as if there is a double standard.

God bless,
Stingray 🙂
 
As a matter of fact, the catholic answers site featured an article on this very topic: Stop It! Apologetic Bad Habits and Their Remedies

Pertinent quote:
The Break in the Infallible Chain Is There for Both Sides
Click to expand...
Now, some will complain that I’ve missed the point of the question. The Catholic doesn’t mean to disparage the usefulness of the Bible, but the usefulness of the Bible as the sole guide for the Church. I’ll get to that, but I felt it necessary to point out the horrible blunder that is made when you make a point by criticizing the Bible.
Click to expand...
The Catholic apologist looks around at the mess in the Protestant world and wonders why Baptists interpret the Bible one way while Presbyterians, Lutherans, Methodists, and the Assembly of God all interpret it differently. He concludes, correctly, that the Bible alone is not a sufficient guide to regulate faith and life.
Click to expand...
It is clear that something else is necessary, and that “something else” is an authoritative Church.
Click to expand...
But the Catholic apologist often makes two errors while developing this argument. The first is to imply that authority requires infallibility—which is clearly not true, since parents and governments have authority but are not infallible. The second error is to claim that it does no good to have infallible Scripture unless there is an infallible interpreter:
Click to expand...
The obvious reply to the question “What good is an infallible Bible without an infallible Church?” is “What good is an infallible Church without an infallible Church interpreter?”
Click to expand...
Just as the Catholic criticizes the variety of opinion among those who confess the authority of an infallible Bible, so the Protestant can criticize the variety of opinion among those who confess the authority of an infallible Church. “Radical Traditionalists” come to mind. This isn’t to say there aren’t plausible rejoinders (i.e., the Church can issue corrections when someone misunderstands its teachings; the Bible cannot).
Click to expand...
The problem is that there has to be a break in the chain somewhere. God is infallible; we are not. If we diagram the progression from God’s infallible self-revelation to our fallible perception of that revelation—for simplicity’s sake let’s just say the steps are A then B then C then D—the “infallible” part has to get lost somewhere. It starts off infallible in God’s mind and ends up a muddled mess in mine. It really doesn’t matter where you put the transition; the logical problem is the same. We can ask, “What good is an infallible A without an infallible B” just as well as we can ask, “What good is an infallible C without an infallible D?” It’s simply the wrong question.
Click to expand...
The Protestant confesses that Scripture is infallible but that the Church that tells us which books belong in Scripture is not. The Catholic confesses that the Magisterium is infallible, but the ministers who teach us what the Magisterium says are not. Both have to move from an infallible something to a fallible something, so the Catholic apologist has to guard against unleashing an attack dog that bites his own leg.
Click to expand...
Bad habit: Tossing around infallibility as if it solves everything.
Remedy: Focus on the need for an authoritative Church. Once that is established, then work on infallibility.
Click to expand...
 
40.png
Stingray:
Okay, from where did you derive the correct understanding of these scriptures?

God bless,
Stingray 🙂
Click to expand...
The teachings of Christ were passed to the apostles. Obviously, the apostles understood what Christ taught. They then passed this same knowledge and teaching to their successors and so forth until this day. This has never changed.

That’s the way it’s always been interpreted because that’s what the teaching was before the New Testament was written. The New Testament was written to support this teaching, not the other way around. That’s why this interpretation is correct. The interpretation came before the verses.

Show me evidence that the earliest Christians did not believe these things. Also show me why your interpretation is better than the interpretation which has been handed down by the Church for 2000 years.

The burden of proof is on you to prove this interpretation is wrong.
 
40.png
Genesis315:
The teachings of Christ were passed to the apostles. Obviously, the apostles understood what Christ taught. They then passed this same knowledge and teaching to their successors and so forth until this day. This has never changed.

That’s the way it’s always been interpreted because that’s what the teaching was before the New Testament was written. The New Testament was written to support this teaching, not the other way around. That’s why this interpretation is correct. The interpretation came before the verses.

Show me evidence that the earliest Christians did not believe these things. Also show me why your interpretation is better than the interpretation which has been handed down by the Church for 2000 years.

The burden of proof is on you to prove this interpretation is wrong.
Click to expand...
I’m not asking you to prove anything. I’m simply asking how you know what it is you know. Catholics pose similar questions to non-Catholics all the time. Am I not allowed to ask such a question, but yet it’s okay for it to be asked of me? You say the teachings of Christ were passed to the apostles and so on and so forth. How do you know this? How do you know who is and is not a successor to the apostles? Which teaching do you have in mind that you say the NT was written to support? Whatever it is, how do you know the NT supports it? You say the interpretation came before something was there to interpret? How exactly does that work? How can something that is non-existent be interpreted? I think you’re trying to say the teachings found in the NT existed prior to their being written down. I don’t have any problem with that. Yet, one would expect whatever that teaching is claimed to be that ended up in scripture to in fact be there, wouldn’t one? Is it really fair to hold others to one standard while holding yourself to another? Catholics say they know the CC is infallible because this scripture says this or that ECF says that, but if a protestant says they know something because this scripture says this or that ECF said that…well…they are just going by their own interpretation and look what a mess that has caused, insert guesstimated number of denominations here, and how do they know the bible is inspired, since they have no authority to tell them so, and how can they know which books make up the bible since they have no authority to tell them, and how can they know their interpretation is correct without an infallible interpreter to tell them…ect, ect, ect… Yet, a Catholic can do all of these things to arrive at the conclusion the CC teachings are infallible. I’m not trying to be rude, this is honestly something I don’t understand and I would like answered if anyone would be so kind to answer it. I would greatly appreciate it.

God bless,
Stingray 🙂
 
## I’m extremely glad to see this mentioned:

**Bad habit: Trying to magnify the Church and Catholic doctrine by disparaging the Bible. **

Remedy: Always speak of the Bible reverently. Read Psalms 19 and 119, and learn to regard the Bible the way King David did. Never even consider saying, “What good is the Bible . . . ?” You’d be better off to cut out your tongue and chop off your fingers.

emphasis in original]
**Dissing the Bible is a horrid thing - it’s a superb way to convince Protestants that the worst they have heard of the Church is true. ****It’s so completely unnecessary - and completely untraditional. **
**Dissing the Bible is best left to the devil, along with accusing of Christians by each other, and much else. **
##
 
40.png
Stingray:
I’m not asking you to prove anything. I’m simply asking how you know what it is you know. Catholics pose similar questions to non-Catholics all the time. Am I not allowed to ask such a question, but yet it’s okay for it to be asked of me? You say the teachings of Christ were passed to the apostles and so on and so forth. How do you know this? How do you know who is and is not a successor to the apostles? Which teaching do you have in mind that you say the NT was written to support? Whatever it is, how do you know the NT supports it? You say the interpretation came before something was there to interpret? How exactly does that work? How can something that is non-existent be interpreted? I think you’re trying to say the teachings found in the NT existed prior to their being written down. I don’t have any problem with that. Yet, one would expect whatever that teaching is claimed to be that ended up in scripture to in fact be there, wouldn’t one? Is it really fair to hold others to one standard while holding yourself to another? Catholics say they know the CC is infallible because this scripture says this or that ECF says that, but if a protestant says they know something because this scripture says this or that ECF said that…well…they are just going by their own interpretation and look what a mess that has caused, insert guesstimated number of denominations here, and how do they know the bible is inspired, since they have no authority to tell them so, and how can they know which books make up the bible since they have no authority to tell them, and how can they know their interpretation is correct without an infallible interpreter to tell them…ect, ect, ect… Yet, a Catholic can do all of these things to arrive at the conclusion the CC teachings are infallible. I’m not trying to be rude, this is honestly something I don’t understand and I would like answered if anyone would be so kind to answer it. I would greatly appreciate it.

God bless,
Stingray 🙂
Click to expand...
No, you are definitely right for asking some questions. Sorry as I came across as harsh, but we are trying to show whose interpretation is correct. The “teaching” I meant was the interpretation of the verses you inquired about. (the Church was protected from error by the Holy Spirit). I think we can both agree that Christ’s teachings (whatever they might be) existed before the NT was written. The books of the NT are based on those teachings. So the correct interpretation (whether yours or the Church’s) came before the verse was written. In other words, Scripture was not written to be interpreted, it was written with a specific interpretation in mind. Unfortunately there are no Christian writings before the NT because those writings were into made the NT.

Like we said earlier, there is ONE true interpretation. Since yours is the newer one, you have the burden of proof. I think we can both agree that the early Christians did not immediately go into error after the death of the apostles and remain in error until the 1500s. Maybe you know of some, but I have never been shown evidence of a Protestant doctrine, like sola scriptura for example, from the early Church. On the other hand, there is a lot of evidence of the Real Presence, a Catholic doctrine.

(this site is really good for this stuff actually)
catholic.com/library/Real_Presence.asp

As early as 110 AD there is evidence of belief in the Real Presence. To think that the early bishops, successors to the apostles, would not have guarded the Truth as strictly as possible is unreasonable.

I mean, how do we know of this succession? No one else claims to be a successor to the apostles, yet people professing Catholic beliefs do claim this.

catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Succession.asp

Against Sola Fide and once saves always saved:
(and for final perseverance and mortal sin)
catholic.com/library/Mortal_Sin.asp

Like I said, CA is great for this. Check out their Fathers know best section:

catholic.com/library/fathers_know_best.asp

Maybe this doesn’t prove anything, but I have yet to see a Protestant equivalent with any evidence of Protestant theology.
 
All Christians on this thread,I apologise for hijacking.Please pray and email and whatever else you can think of.Terri Schiavos stay has been denied:crying: At1:00 tomorrow they will stop the feeding tube anstarve her to death.There is a thread in the news about it.Lets be about Gods business and help the one whom the courts declare worthless.PRAY
 
Also, think of it this way. Do you think Jesus planned to leave us to our own devices to interpret Scripture? It’s nice to think that the Holy Spirit is guiding us all to the right interpretation, but the simple fact that everyone has a different interpretation is proof this is not happening. The Holy Spirit would not let us all believe there are different ways to salvation (these are big differences) or that sins don’t matter (like some groups think). It makes sense that Jesus would establish a mechanism to preserve against this. The only mechanism I can think of that would fit this description is the Church. The simple fact that it has been around for 2000 years and has been filled with sinners (including a couple wicked popes), but the deposit of faith has not been changed over that time is a testament to the Holy Spirit’s protection.

Look at other denominations, their teachings chang like the wind. Contraception was immoral for all Christians until the 1930s. Now it is not. Homosexuality is becoming accepted in many denominations.Other groups’ teachings are new (like once saved always saved). Think about it. Would the Holy Spirit have let us go 1500 years or more in darkness? What was the point? I mean, I’m biased of course, but it just seems like common sense that of all the denominations, the odds are that the Catholic Church is in the right. I mean, can you see why I would think that?
 
Stingray,

Sorry if this is a little off topic, but here goes anyway.

I’d like to show you why I think you are missing out on full communion with Jesus:

First off, we are human beings. Human beings are body and spirit, inseparable. Just a spirit is not fully human just as just a body is not fully human (this is why we believe in the resurrection of the body). Protestants, I feel see the human being as a soul in a machine so to speak. I know a presbyterian friend of mine liked the phrase “I am not of this world” meaning it was the spiritual side of the human being that was important. I say, however, the body is as important. God became flesh for a reason. He physically suffered and He physically died and he was physically resurrected. In all his omnipotence God could have just forgiven sins by his Divine Will, but he didn’t. When a Protestant accepts Jesus, he simply makes a profession of Faith, and in essence unites his spirit to the spirit of Christ. As Catholics, however, we accept the whole being of Christ–Body, Blood, and Divinity–into our* whole being*, body and spirit. Our whole being is united with Him. I feel Protestants cannot even comprehend how sublime this is. If they could, they would not be able to stay away from the Church. They would not think a prayer to Mary came even close to this. They would not say we didn’t focus enough on Jesus. We are closer to Him than Protestants will ever know. I just wish I was gifted enough to show them what they are missing.

Sorry for the rant, but it is just something that gets me excited. I’m sure you had a powerful experience when you were saved, but I just cannot imagine anything as powerful as Jesus nourishing my entire being with Himself.

Keep up the good posts!:blessyou:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top