How do we know that the Church has infallible authority?

[Teflon93]

Parse the words however you please. These threats (don’t like that word either?) that I’ve heard all my life about how I’m going to burn in hell are just coming up empty these days. I’m numb to it at this point. It puzzles me how people worship a God that treats people that way. My heart tells me people who believe that were just scared into believing it.

Numbness is typically a danger sign. If your conscience has gone numb, you’re in grave danger.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Numbness is typically a danger sign. If your conscience has gone numb, you’re in grave danger.

Not a comment on the rest of the thread, but just interesting that someone named “Teflon” (presumably because things don’t stick) would make a such a comment about another who says they aren’t bothered by others words about them.

A tad ironic, don’t you think?

 

[Teflon93]

Not a comment on the rest of the thread, but just interesting that someone named “Teflon” (presumably because things don’t stick) would make a such a comment about another who says they aren’t bothered by others words about them.

A tad ironic, don’t you think?

Ironic in the Alanis Morissette sense or ironic in the classical sense?

My point, sincerely made, is simply that we must be careful to rely on a numbed conscience. I have been there myself; I’m sure others have. I made decisions then which I regret now, thanks to an awakened conscience, one which I must hone each day.

My nom-de-board is an artifact of those conscience-numbed days.

 

[Michael_Francis]

This thread has been pruned and several posts have been edited to attempt to return it to topic and to eliminate uncharitable postings (and reactions to them).

Please remain on your topic and maintain the highest level of Christian Charity in your discussion or this thread will be closed and there may be other consequences for individual members.

Thank you for your co-operation.
MF

 

[Good_Fella]

The circular reasoning comes in at the first step. How can we accept the Gospels without the authority of the Church? But if the authority of the Church must be established before the Bible can be accepted, you cannot use the Bible to confirm the authority of the Church. If you accept the Gospels as the first step, why not the whole Bible? Then the whole argument that the Church is needed to estblish the Bible falls apart.
The question asked is how the authority of the Church can be established, except on its own say so, so that we then can have a Bible to refer to?

How can we reject the apocryphal works (i.e. The Protogospel of James, the Gospel of Mary Magdalen, the Gospel of Judas) without the infallible authority of the Church?

The infallible authority of the Church was established before the New Testament was written and compiled. The Bible was written in such a way as to confirm the infallible teaching authority of the Church, in reflection of what the Church had already understood about herself. :yup:

Observe Matthew 13, 52: And he replied, “Then every scribe who has been instructed in the kingdom of heaven is like the head of a household who brings from his storeroom both the old and the new.” Since Matthew tends to identify the disciples with the Twelve (Cf. Mt 10,1), this saying about the Christian scribe cannot be taken as applicable to all of Jesus’ followers. Matthew distinguishes the Twelve from the general community of believers in certain respects. The church of Matthew has leaders among whom are a group designated as “scribes” (Mt 23,34). Like the scribes of Israel they are teachers. This group is the Twelve, and these teachers their counterparts to whom this verse applies. The scribe who is instructed in the kingdom of heaven knows both the teaching of Jesus (the new) and the law and the prophets (the old) and provides in his own teaching both the old and the new as interpreted and fulfilled in the new. These words of Jesus are recorded in light of the development of the experience of the Christian community in Matthew’s church. The written word is presented as a reflection of what the Church inerrantly understood about herself according to Tradition.

We cannot accept the Scriptures as the first step, for it’s a historical fact that the Church existed for about a century before the New Testament was written. The Old Testament was the only written word in the Church while the New Testament was being written during this period. The Church infallibly reinterpreted the Old Testament texts against Judaic tradition in light of Christ. Read the discourses (‘kerygma’) of Peter and Paul in Acts. The New Testament is essentially a transformation of the Old achieved by the infallible teaching authority of the Church which is guided by the Holy Spirit since Pentecost, at which time Peter (our first Pope) gave his first discourse.

The authority of the Apostolic Catholic Church is established in Sacred Tradition from which Sacred Scripture emerged. Scripture is infallible because Tradition is infallible. Scripture is Tradition expressed in written form. And so the deposit of faith consists of the mutually inclusive written and oral word. The written Constitution of the United States of America likewise is an expression that reflects what the founding fathers believed in and upheld politically and socially. There are numerous passages in the Gospels that confirm Catholic belief in the primacy of Peter and the charism of infallibilty bestowed on the apostles in connection with Peter’s primacy. These passages reflect what the Church had already believed in apostolic time in the church in Palestine. There is no circular reasoning at all. Belief in papal infallibilty did not arise after the New Testament was written. :nope: Meanwhile, the scriptures confirm the belief shared by future generations of believers in the Church.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[guanophore]

(Edited)
As I read Tomster, whether he meant to say it or not, his worldview becomes quite apparent: Salvation is found in no other place than the Catholic Church. I.E. Salvation is not found in the person and work of Christ. Though I don’t think that this is what the Catholic church teaches, that is the essence of what he said above. (Edited)

Catholics say this because we find no distinction between them. Jesus is wholly identified with His Church. He is the Head of the Body, and there is only One Body, One Church. It is His Person and Work that Gives birth to the Church, and His Spirit which animates her. She is His Bride, and they are “one”.

 

[guanophore]

Then tell me how I should approach trusting the church. It’s an organization of mortal men with tremendous power over people. Even a slight understanding of history and politics will make you realize how easily organizations like that become corrupt.

This is true, but this particular orginization of “mortal men” was established by Jesus, and He promised to remain with them "until the end’ and that “the gates of hell shall not prevail”, and he left His spirit, by whom He promised to “lead you into all truth”. There are no human organizations that have such resources or promises! We can rely on the Church because the Soul of the Church is the HS, and it is founded upon Christ. He is her Head. How can there be any error in Christ?

The church was created by and is controlled by men.

This is an erroneous statement. The Church was created by Christ, who, though a mortal man, is also God. It has a divine source, having been born out of the side of Christ when he was pierced, water and blood flowing out.

I for one cannot submit blindly to other mortal men. It’s simply not a wise decision. My father’s generation was all about submitting to a big corporation that took care of you all your life with promises of pensions for an easy retirement. Clearly that didn’t work out. China and Russia want you to submit to government as they too have the answer on how to live. Government will take care of you they say. Clearly that hasn’t worked too well either.

It is difficult for those who have been wounded by such events to trust. This is a fact of human psychology. However, betrayal can be healed by God. The authority that Jesus appointed can be trusted because of Him. Those who submit to it, through faith in Him, will always triumph. Even if they are hurt, or led atray, He will preserve, protect, heal and deliver them because they trust in Him.

Ohhhhhh, but these men of the church are different you say?

They just may be different. They may be inspired by God as they say they are. So far I don’t have much evidence of that. And Christians are taught from birth that a request for evidence means you are weak. Weak in your faith. Baaaaaad to be weak in faith. Don’t ask such questions.

I’m not buying the whole argument that I am somehow weak and by submitting all reason and thinking to church leaders I become strong. (Edited)

No, I do not think the men are any different. we can easily see from the struggles of Peter in Scripture that he is not personally infallible or inerrant. Jesus even said to him “get thee behind me, Satan”!! I don’t agree that asking for evidence means you are weak. In fact, in the last 9 months I have been a member of CAF, my faith has grown by leaps and bounds by asking questions.