How do we know that the Church has infallible authority?

[JohnnyReb]

Can you show me anywhere in scripture where it says that mere men cannot read and interpret for themselves?

Show us where it says they can. Its far easier than proving a negative. We could all use the sola scriptura approach to arrive at a concensus, because that is exactly what has happened since the reformation.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

kaycee: if you had lived in AD35 would you confess your sins to the disciples?

Would you respect that Christ given authority?

Could they forgive and retain any of your sins?

Why would you believe as authoratative anything they had to say since it wasn’t in scripture at that time?

 

[Sams_Son]

Having a list of Bishops of Rome does not show universal authority.

It may not, but what it does show is that the earliest Cristians accepted that authority.

 

[Sams_Son]

Can you show me anywhere in scripture where it says that mere men cannot read and interpret for themselves?

Not being a Bible expert I can’t, but I can tell you what has happened since men decided that they did not need a Magisteriam to interpret Scripture. Prior to Luther there was one Church professing true Christianity, that is that there is one God with three persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy spirit; that He was born of a virgin and that there is no salvation except through Him and His church. Luther rejected the Church and declared that he was the principal authority and had no need for the pope to tell him what he could or could not believe. Because of his rejection of the Church he had to invent doctrines to suit his needs…Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone) and Sola Fide Faith alone); doctrines which did not exist prior to Luther, and certainly were not taught or handed to us by the apostles. It wasn’t ;long before his congregation disagreed with him and broke off into another church calling themselves Christians. 500 years later we have somewhere in the neighborhood of 40,000 to 60,000 Christian sects all claiming to have the truth. Each of these Church’s interprets scripture for themselves and logic will tell you that this doesn’t work. Someone has to be right.

Instead of asking us to show you anywhere in scripture where it says that mere men cannot read and interpret for themselves, ask which one of these church’s is the keeper of the truth in its entirety. I won’t answer that question for you you need to, but only through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

Ah, so the church died for our salvation and through its blood we are healed.

No, not physically anyway.

But when Christ died, the Church was born. The blood and water that founded The Church was spilled from His side, like the way Eve was born from the ribs of Adam.

… There is only one church, it is His Body…

I agree; But I would like to add a little more…

The Church is referred to as the Bride of Christ. And like in a normal marriage, the two become one.

So, I guess, The Church is Christ and Christ is The Church. :twocents:

 

[Spirithound]

Can you show me anywhere in scripture where it says that mere men cannot read and interpret for themselves?

Acts 8:31

 

[mikezieg8]

Hi,
Well if the Bible did not exist at the time of Christ and many decades after that how were the earliest Christians saved?
Abraham was saved in Gen.15:6 He believed in the LORD and it was counted **to him ** for Righteousness. Romans4:3What sayeth the scripture(Old Testament) Abraham Believed GOD and it was counted unto Him as righteousness ( Galatians3:6)Even as Abraham believed God(who?) God! and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Romans10:11 For the **Scripture sayeth(Old ****Testament) **or this scripture written by Paul? 2Peter3:15,16 as our beloved brother hath writtenv16 in his epistles. All scripture was completed at the end of Revelation I believe. We have our 27 Canonical Books of New Testament. I have been reading the Catechism and listening to Catholic Apologists . Seems they are starting to read God’s Word for themselves now. A good book to read is “A Letter Between a Catholic and an Evangelical” I really marked up this book. You get both sides and you have to decide. They both are not in agreement of Scripture alone or the Traditions Oral and written,Councils,Popes,catechisms,church fathers,dogmas,gift of infallability ,Bishops schoos of C120Cardinals alone. Whew!!! I hear Catholics say even a child can understand scripture and it is so clear. Checkout debate between Tim Staples and Steve Gregg at www.thenarrowpath.com I believe >mp3 downloads for June 18th-22nd. .

My Mom said she was not allowed to read the Bible by her Catholic church. Only the Priest could read it and understand it. I shared what Peter said Acts4:12,3:19,2:38 to my Mom. She could not open her Bible and look at it. The Priest has to read it for her. .

My Mom died Saturday. I now have to travel from Oregon to MN to her Catholic Church. People will pay to have a Mass or Masses said for her,$450 for the Mass Tuesday at the funeral…All 5 of us kids went to the Parochial School thru 8th grade. We read our Catechisms but never the Bible. Why not? Now we have all left the Catholic Church and have read what the Bible says. Oh, my Dad even started to read the Bible before he died. He read what Peter said in Acts. I don’t think My Mom ever read the Bible in her 84 years. She was the sweetest person I ever knew. I believe she is with the Lord whom she confessed as Lord and Savior and received forgiveness of all her sins. God is so merciful…

We are children of God(by Faith in Christ Jesus)Galatians3;26 Read Romans 8. If we are saved(belong to Christ) then we have the spirit of Christ in us. We are adopted. We are more than Conquerers. Would a Father kick his Son out because of sin or would he discipline him who he loves. What kind of Father God would our God be? Jesus intercedes for us and if we sin we can confess that sin and be cleansed from all unrighteousness1JN18-10 The Lord knoweth them that are His Titus 2:14 Jesus Christ who gave Himself for usthat He might Redeem us from All Iniquity and Purify unto Himself a peculiar people, Zealous for good works

St Augustine wrote a quote of his own "Thou hast made our hearts for Thee oh God and they are restless until they rest in Thee:

Sincerely,

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Anyone guilty of the sin of apostasy and remaining in that apostasy until death and dying in a state of mortal sin will reap Hell.

Now leaving the Catholic faith is not apostasy–it may only be heresy.

Jesus said anyone who will not listen to the church should be treated like a publican or a sinner.

Those that die in that condition if they are indeed treated like publicans and sinners may very well have to endure Hell.

I wouldn’t bet my soul on whether that would be true or not.

And I would listen to what the Catholic Church that wrote the Bible and to whom Jesus gave the authority to intepret the Bible had to say about it before i trusted my own opinion or the opinions of people who had absolutely zero authority!

Th Hly Spirit led the disciples into all truth. Jesus never said the Holy Spirit would lead all believers into all truth!

 

[mrteachersir]

Thats because the arguments are not very convincing and history does not bear testimony to the papacy until well after Constantine. That is exactly why cardinal Newman proposed the development theory. He admitted that history did not support the claims of the papacy.

I probably skipped over a reply to this, but oh well.

This statement is not entirely accurate. In about 80AD, Clement, then Bishop of Rome wrote to the Church in Corinth. In his epistle, he stated 1) that the Corinthian Church had requested his (name removed by moderator)ut (not their own bishop’s authority, and we know from Paul’s epistles to Timothy and Ignatius of Antioch’s seven epistles that Asia Minor and Macedonia had Bishops of their own nor to the Apostle John, who apparently was still living and in Ephesus at the time), 2) that God was speaking through him, and 3) that his words were binding on the subject. If this does not show papal superiority, I don’t know what does.

“Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved; and especially that abominable and unholy sedition, alien and foreign to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-willed persons have inflamed to such madness that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be loved by all men, has been greatly defamed. . . . Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him [God] through us *, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger. . . . You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy” (Letter to the Corinthians 1, 58–59, 63 [A.D. 80]). *

The Corinthians held Clement’s responce in such high esteem that Eusebius says that seventy years after he wrote it, they still read it every Sunday, just as they read the Apostle Paul’s epistles to them!

Similarly, Ignatius of Antioch, on his way to his martyrdonm in Rome in about 110AD wrote (to the Church in Rome):

“Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father” (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).

“You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force” (ibid., 3:1).

Cyprian of Carthage says, between 251 AD and 253 AD:

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]). … On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was *, but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?”

“Cyprian to Antonian, his brother. Greeting … You wrote … that I should forward a copy of the same letter to our colleague [Pope] Cornelius, so that, laying aside all anxiety, he might at once know that you held communion with him, that is, with the Catholic Church”*

All of these show the Primacy of Rome, well before Constantine was even born.

 

[mikezieg8]

Hi,

“Hoc quia de Scripturis non habent auctoritatem, eadem facilitate contemnitur, qua probatur”

“That which does not have authority from the Scriptures, we can as easily despise condemn), or approve.” (Jerome, Commentariorum in Evangelium Matthaei [MPL 26:180]).

Mike

 

[Sams_Son]

My brothers and sisters in Christ, both Catholic and Protestant.

We are called to be one. One body in Christ. Whether you like it or not Christ established a Church on earth and that Church has His authority. You can accept it or reject it. If you reject it then your salvation is at risk. Even if you have participated in an altar call. You reject His Church…you reject Him…you reject His mother…you reject Him…500 years of protest doesn’t erase the truth. Your love for Jesus is because of the Catholic Church a fact which is undeniable. Do your research and pray with an open heart. The Holy Spirit will guide you to the truth. There are not 60,000 truths. There is only one truth. God bless you.

 

[byrdele]

This is a question I am beginning to ask. Although I do believe that we are the true Church, so do the Coptic Christians. The difference between them and us (other than doctrinal) is that they have been a persecuted church for about 1600 years and so have not had a “chance” to persecute others.

Was a papal bull given to instigate the inquistion? How’s about the Crusades? Jews, Muslims and Orthodox Christians still have hard feelings about these things. If a bull was given in either or both cases, how then can we say that they were wrong? I realise that we are dealing with different people in a different time, when the answer to poor doctrine and heresy seemed to all religions to be death of the perpertrator and in a hideous way (burning at the stake) so as to deter others. It was meant, in a way, as a way of keeping many thousands of souls in the Church. But still, how is that during the Crusades, we slaughtered not only Muslims but also Orthodox Christians and Jews? The historian Beloc, who writes about the First Crusade, considers that the ONLY crusade and all the others to be exercises in debauchery and cruelty. Yet this was sanctioned.

Please can someone explain to me that if a papal bull is given and the consequences are horrible, what does this say about papal infalibility (when issuing a bull)? The popes who stood by the inquisition - one was so hated that the people if Italy rejoiced in the streets when he died and threw his body into the Tiber because the Inquisition had just been so horrible.

Please, someone with a knowledge of the history of the Church, history in general, knowledge about whether papal bulls were given in these cases explain this to me? I am in a bit of a faith crisis, and when I write the apologists, I never seem to get an answer. I realise they are overworked and undermanned, so there is no grudge here, but I would really like an informed answer if you please. thank you.

byrdele

 

[CenTexAggie]

Please can someone explain to me that if a papal bull is given and the consequences are horrible, what does this say about papal infalibility (when issuing a bull)?

byrdele

Hi Byrdele,

I’ll try to give a response based upon my understanding of the points you raise in your posting. Of course, this is a diffcult medium to adequately address them completely. Dave Armstrong’s website gives a more complete discussion of them with, typically, many references for further investigation.

Papal infallibility is often confused with Papal impeccability. Impeccability is freedom from sin, which is not the case with the Pope. It was the habit of JP II to go to weekly confession (as is the habit of Benedict XVI) - presumably because like all of us they are in need of this sacrament. Papal infallibility refers only to when the Pope teaches, explicitly as the leader of the Church in union with his brother Bishops, on a question of Faith or Morals. I am recalling this definition of Papal infallibility from memory so it is likely there is a more technical and precise definition in, for example, the CCC.

So the correctness (or otherwise) of a Papal action (or inaction) on an issue other than one of Faith or Morals does not bear on Papal infallibility. With this in mind the issuing of Papal Bull’s (or “charters”) for Crusades (which I believe was true for at least the early ones) doesn’t involve Papal infallibility.

As for the Crusades themselves, I would suggest that we consider them in some historical context. Recall that Islam was being vigorously spread by the sword during this time: Muslim armies conqured Spain (from North Africa) in the early 700’s and crossed the Pyrenee’s in to France before being defeated and finally pushed out of Spain in the 1400’s. As late as 1683 Muslim armies attacked Vienna. And this is to say nothing of the complete Muslim conquest of and often forceable conversion of the existing Christian population to Islam in all the lands of the former eastern part of the Roman empire and beyond. So from this viewpoint, military expeditions to reclaim Christianity’s Holiest sites from their relatively recent military conquest by Muslim’s has some logic. The later Crusades were not as nearly true to their intended purpose as the earlier ones, some of which were out right disasters resulting in just grievances from the Orthodox. But just like the Pope is not impeccable, he is not omniscent - so ascribing the sins of Crusaders to the Pope for his lack of all-knowing foresight at the very least does not involve Papal infallibility.

The history of the Inquisition is another subject on which I’d very much like to comment but doing so I think will take this post too far off-topic. Suffice it to say that the history of the Inquisition, like the Crusades, has been distorted in the popular imagination.

As for the Pope supposedly thrown in to the Tiber because he was so hated I have not heard of this before so please provide a reference. In any case, as can be hopefully seen by now, whatever any given Pope may (or may not) have done while in office, when discussing Papal infallibility the only question is “Did he teach, in union with his brother Bishops as the head of the RC, on a question of Faith and Morals ?”. My reading on this subject indicates to me that even the “worst” Popes can not be shown to have taught falsely on a question of Faith and Morals.

 

[byrdele]

Dear CenTexAggie,

Thanks for your answer. I did know the difference between papal impeccibility and infallibility, but you still answered a lot of what upset me.

I cannot give you a reference on the pope’s corpse being thrown into the Tiber because I caught the tail end of a documentary. So really, I don’t know if it is true and should not have mentioned it. I do know that papal bulls were issued for both the Crusades and the Inquisition because I have looked it up in Wikipedia, which is reliable and quotes sources and says outright when a source is needed to back up what is written.

I have ordered a book on both and it should answer many questions. I have been communicating with people on a Coptic website. Yes, they are still agrieved over past actions of the Church, but have respected my participation of “neither to convert nor be converted but just enlightened” wholeheartedly and with much Christian charity.

I have a sister who does not believe in papal infalibility ex cathedra but still loves and believes in the Catholic Church. I know that the Church is right because after 20 years of wandering in the once-saved always-saved desert, I came back to the Church and am seeing God change me by the moment to make me more conformed to His will. I don’t want to start choosing what I’m going to believe and what I’m not because that gets into cafeteria Catholicism (or Christianity) imo. I do basically believe in ex cathedra infalibility. I also believe in basic obedience to the Pope, unless he is outside of Scripture and God’s will. Pope B is bringing back the Tridentine Mass a la carte, no bishop need give permission, which the bishops in the UK are “resisting”. Even though he did not issue a papal bull, I still believe that since there is nothing wrong with the rite, that so many people are hungry for it and he knows that and that the people who want the Novos Ordo will always have it, that they have no right to “resist” - he is their bishop.

Thanks again. Sometimes I ask these “in dire need” questions and receive no answers, but you’ve answered and given me references as well. God bless you.

byrdele

 

[princeoflight]

For anyone to believe that the church is infallible is to deny the teachings of Christ. It is no different than accepting a cult organization.

Papal infallibility is as famous as it is ridiculous. It is important to make the distinction between being guided by God and being infallible because of his guidance. The point is that no leadership of any true religion is able properly to follow God’s guidance. Therefore any one of their understandings or courses of action may in fact be wrong or sinful notwithstanding God’s efforts to guide them through scriptures. Not because of inappropriate or negligent guidance, but because of the freedom to sin that God gives us all. Even Jesus could not guarantee that he would follow God’s guidance perfectly:

And a certain ruler questioned him, saying: Good Teacher, by doing what shall I inherit everlasting life?
Jesus said to him: Why do you call me good? Nobody is good, except one, God (Luke 18:18,19).

Jesus was good enough to obey the law of Moses throughout his ministry, and to give his life as a sacrifice for us. But he did not regard himself as ‘good’ period. So he knew he was capable of slipping up. In fact had he not retained this capability to fail, his whole test (in ransoming Adam) would have been a charade. Since he was not good period, then he was not infallible, and therefore neither is any leader of any Christian religion. Look for example at King David. A man described as having a heart which was complete towards God:

And it came about in the time of Solomon’s growing old that his wives themselves had inclined his heart to follow other gods; and his heart did not prove to be complete with Jehovah his God like the heart of David his father (1 Kings 11:4).

But David committed adultery with Bath-sheba, and he effectively murdered her husband Uriah!

And the high places he did not remove. Nevertheless, Asa’s heart itself proved to be complete with Jehovah all his days (1 Kings 15:14).

King Asa, had a complete heart, but he did not follow God’s guidance fully, he left the high places, where idolatry occurred. So even the leaders of true religions with complete hearts will for a fact slip up. So they have no infallibility of any sort. And the number of them that claim they do is the number of them that are liars. The Jehovah’s witnesses leadership claim that they will never as a group go wrong. But just in making this claim, as a group, they have gone wrong. Remember Peter’s words:
Then he said to him: Lord, I am ready to go with you both into prison and into death.

But he said: I tell you, Peter, A cock will not crow today until you have three times denied knowing me (Luke 22:33,34).

From this it is plainly obvious that no man is infallible. In fact all fall short of the glory of god and all of us are sinners. It is declared by Paul:

Rom 3:10
As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

So for anyone to believe that a church or human leader of a church is infallible is actually shameful behavior. It is up to each and every one of us by the sweat of our own face to seek God and to reprove those who teach anything contrary to scriptures even if that someone is you church leader or governing body. And believe me there is much being taught that is contrary to scripture…consider the Sabbath for one.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[richwmiller]

Can you show me anywhere in scripture where it says that mere men cannot read and interpret for themselves?

Yes, Remember Phillip and the eunuch on the road. The eunuch was reading Isaiah and Phillip asked if he understood it. The eunuch responded How can I since I have no one to explain it. And so Phillip taught him.

 

[richwmiller]

My Mom said she was not allowed to read the Bible by her Catholic church. Only the Priest could read it and understand it. I shared what Peter said to my Mom. She could not open her Bible and look at it. The Priest has to read it for her.

Sorry but your mom was misinformed. Unfortunately there are many Catholics who don’t know what the church teaches.

Catholics have never been forbidden to read the bible. Bad translations have been forbidden.

I am 60 years old and when I was young, I sat with my mother and we read a Catholic Bible (Douay Rheims in those days) together.
One of my sisters still has that bible. There is an introduction with an encyclical “Divino afflante spiritu” about reading the bible. We were encouraged to read the bible.

 

[epostle]

This business about Catholics being forbidden to read the Bible is totally untrue.
1 John 1:9
He who says he is in the light and hates his brother is in the darkness still.
10 He who loves his brother abides in the light, and in it there is no cause for stumbling.
11 But he who hates his brother is in the darkness and walks in the darkness, and does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded his eyes.

Did the Catholic Church Prohibit Bible Reading?

BIBLE READING PROHIBITED ?

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH: ON READING THE BIBLE

 

[CenTexAggie]

Even Jesus could not guarantee that he would follow God’s guidance perfectly:

And a certain ruler questioned him, saying: Good Teacher, by doing what shall I inherit everlasting life?
Jesus said to him: Why do you call me good? Nobody is good, except one, God (Luke 18:18,19).

Jesus was good enough to obey the law of Moses throughout his ministry, and to give his life as a sacrifice for us. But he did not regard himself as ‘good’ period. So he knew he was capable of slipping up. In fact had he not retained this capability to fail, his whole test (in ransoming Adam) would have been a charade. Since he was not good period, then he was not infallible, and therefore neither is any leader of any Christian religion.

Blessings,
Bill

Hi Bill -

There are several points in this post. The key one from my reading seems to be the assertion that since not even Jesus was infallable then no human could be either. I think it’s key to discuss this point before the others. Let me know if this is a misunderstanding.

Assuming it is not, I’m not convinced Luke 18:18,19 can only mean what is claimed in your post. I think it’s possible for example that Jesus was creating an opportunity for a profession of faith from his speaker, similar to Mt 16:13-20 and others. Perhaps he was saying something like “So, you call me good, and we only know God is good, so are you acknowledging me as God Incarnate ?”.

The Bible does show us Jesus being tempted, but it also shows us Him resisting successfully (the 40 days in the desert at the beginning of his ministry). To have any attachment or inclination to actually sin would be completely at odds with his divine nature. The Bible does, though, say that Jesus did not sin - 1 Jn 3:5 as well as other places.

Of course, if Jesus was a fallible sinner then I have to ask on what basis to do we believe anything ascribed to Him ? I certainly don’t see how the New Testament can then any longer be considered Scripture if this is the case. So this is a very serious question of authority if I understand your post properly.

God Bless,
CenTexAggie

 

[Grace_Seeker]

It’s not circular reasoning.

These are the steps that could be followed:

1. Accept that the Gospels were written by men who were witnesses to the life of a very Charismatic Person. They tried to record the events of their time accurately.
2. Among the things they witnessed was the commissioning of the 12 and the headship given to Peter. Along with a promise of infallibility when binding and loosing things on earth.
3. Among the things they witnessed was the resurrection, ascension, and pentecost.
4. This authority was passed from apostle to bishops and Peter to the popes.
5. This authority, in a couple councils of bishops, and with the approval of some popes identified the Bible as inerrant and inspired by God.
6. The commissioning is recorded in the Bible but is not from the Bible but from the mouth of the Son of God. The Bible does not contradict what God has done.

The problem with point #2 is that this very understanding of Peter’s “headship” is a Catholic idea read into the scriptures. I see Peter’s role and especially the idea of it being passed along a line of “Peters”, completely different than the one you have presented here.