I just cannot get over this one issue...and it's keeping me from being Catholic

[Christine85]

The Catholic Church has more than one source of Revelation. Scripture, Tradition and the Authority of the Magisterium. They have authority through Tradition because we are able to trace back the Catholic Church’s origins to Jesus Christ.

 

[Safia]

I agree and have seen that prediction, but those things are a result of non-married couples having sex, especially younger people in poverty, not married couples.

Um, no . . . Sorry. This includes married couples, too.

1. General lowering of moral standards
2. A rise in infidelity, and illegitimacy
3. The reduction of women to objects used to satisfy men.
4. Government coercion in reproductive matters.

This applies to every woman and every man, whether married or not. Infidelity only occurs within marriage, after all. It’s why divorce rates are at 50%+.

 

[Safia]

This makes me think . . . Monsignor Reilly, who works out of the Diocese of Brooklyn, told me about a study during his pro-life training a few months back. Couples – both Catholic and non-Catholic – were tested. In one group, both Catholics and non-Catholics used contraception for a period of four years. In the other group, both Catholics and non-Catholics used NFP as a means of birth control for a period of four years. After those four years, the divorce rate was something like 45% in the first group, less than 4% in the second group; general “satisfaction” with the marriage was something like 18% in the first group, 92% in the second group. I can try to find a citation, but just FYI.

 

[hockeyfan]

IConfession is one as well. Nowhere in the New Testament does Jesus suggest the Church’s role is to engage in these activities. I know confessional powers was given directly to the apostles AFTER the resurrection, but it doesn’t say priests 2,000 years later should have the same power. The Catholic Church has addressed these issues and insists many of them are inferred from the actions of Jesus, but I have trouble buying that argument.

I believe Jesus established the Catholic Church, but with what mission? To create new doctrine as well as defend and develop original New Testament teachings? I am not so sure. I don’t know that Jesus ever intended for his Church to truly be making decisions only God could make. This is at the heart of my problem.

There are a lot of good answers on this thread. I suspect that you are mailny looking for Biblical explanations for your questions. JRKH has a good one covering confession.

I am going to adress the issue of confession a little more. On top of Matthew 18:15-18 where the Church is given the power to bind and loose with confession, there are a few more readings.

Matthew 16:17-19

Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church,* and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.* Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

That is another example of the binding and loosing power.

Then there is John 20:21-23

[Jesus] said to them again,l “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them,m “Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.”

In context, Jesus was talking to the Apostles. In this reading, Jesus again gives the Apostles the authority to hear confessions.

Now I will move to James 5:13-18

Is anyone among you suffering? He should pray. Is anyone in good spirits? He should sing praise. Is anyone among you sick?* He should summon the presbyters of the church, and they should pray over him and anoint [him] with oil in the name of the Lord, and the prayer of faith will save the sick person, and the Lord will raise him up. If he has committed any sins, he will be forgiven.

Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The fervent prayer of a righteous person is very powerful. Elijah was a human being like us; yet he prayed earnestly that it might not rain, and for three years and six months it did not rain upon the land. Then he prayed again, and the sky gave rain and the earth produced its fruit.

Here you see a reading where James tells people who may not always have a Apostle handy to go to confession, and then backs it up with an example. Note, he did not say that you could do it personally, or that you could do it with any other parich member. He pointed directly to a presbyter.

The one other issue I have to touch is where you asked about Apostolic Sucession. I apoligize if I am wrong, but you said you see how Jesus gave the Apostles the power to forgive but you wondered how priests 2,000 years later still recieve that authority.

Acts 1:15-25

During those days Peter stood up in the midst of the brothers (there was a group of about one hundred and twenty persons in the one place). He said, “My brothers, the scripture had to be fulfilled which the holy Spirit spoke beforehand through the mouth of David, concerning Judas, who was the guide for those who arrested Jesus. He was numbered among us and was allotted a share in this ministry. He bought a parcel of land with the wages of his iniquity, and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle, and all his insides spilled out. This became known to everyone who lived in Jerusalem, so that the parcel of land was called in their language ‘Akeldama,’ that is, Field of Blood. For it is written in the Book of Psalms:

‘Let his encampment become desolate,

and may no one dwell in it.’

And:

‘May another take his office.

Therefore, it is necessary that one of the men who accompanied us the whole time the Lord Jesus came and went among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day on which he was taken up from us, become with us a witness to his resurrection.” So they proposed two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also known as Justus, and Matthias. Then they prayed, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen to take the place in this apostolic ministry from which Judas turned away to go to his own place.” Then they gave lots to them, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was counted with the eleven apostles.

Seeing as how in both Matthew 16 and Matthew 18, Peter and the Church are given the power to bind and loose, and in John 20 they are given the authority to do confession, the modern Church gets it’s power here. Peter names Matthias as an Apostle and he was counted among their numbers. Thus, sucession started and continued after the death of the original 12 Apostles. This is where the biblical prescedent on how such powers have remained in the church started.

I hope this helps some of your issues.

 

[Newsy]

I thought there was just 1 issue keeping you from becoming Catholic. You have addressed several. Try using the search feature to see threads addressing some of these issues. This thread will become hard to follow with all these different areas of contention.

Saying a prayer for you

 

[jinc1019]

This makes me think . . . Monsignor Reilly, who works out of the Diocese of Brooklyn, told me about a study during his pro-life training a few months back. Couples – both Catholic and non-Catholic – were tested. In one group, both Catholics and non-Catholics used contraception for a period of four years. In the other group, both Catholics and non-Catholics used NFP as a means of birth control for a period of four years. After those four years, the divorce rate was something like 45% in the first group, less than 4% in the second group; general “satisfaction” with the marriage was something like 18% in the first group, 92% in the second group. I can try to find a citation, but just FYI.

Lots of good points in all of your posts, but the foundation of your argument cannot be statistics, because even if the statistics did not support your argument, you would still make it because this is about what God wants, not what WE think is the best outcome, right? So if that’s true, your argument comes down to the idea that the Chuch cannot err on faith and values because Jesus told the apostles they would be guided by the Holy Spirit in all they do and therefore uphold the truth. But the Church made MANY immoral decisions on a whole host of things that were similar to their position on contraception, such as letting rich people buy their way into heaven. Don’t indulgences count as “faith and morals”? And yet they made this mistake, which God clearly would not have wanted.

Simply saying the Church is never wrong is NOT true because the Church has been wrong on many things, including the thing cited above. Saying the Church is never wrong on central Church doctrine is fine because that comes directly from Jesus.

 

[Safia]

But the Church made MANY immoral decisions on a whole host of things that were similar to their position on contraception, such as letting rich people buy their way into heaven. Don’t indulgences count as “faith and morals”? And yet they made this mistake, which God clearly would not have wanted.

Are you sure you know what you’re talking about when it comes to indulgences?

Simply saying the Church is never wrong is NOT true because the Church has been wrong on many things, including the thing cited above. Saying the Church is never wrong on central Church doctrine is fine because that comes directly from Jesus.

I never said that the Church is never wrong. I said that the Church is never wrong in terms of doctrine.

 

[adrift]

If the basis of some of these decisions are not found in the books people wrote down after Jesus died, quoting what he said…and the religion is supposed to be based on Him (hence the title: Christianity!)…and the group of people in charge of the church after he dies is made up of men and women who are flawed and make mistakes…how do we know that these flawed humans who are interpreting what Jesus is saying–or not saying at all–are correct?

Because Jesus said He would protect His Church.

Giving a very light sketch of the priesthood.

The Old Testament is a prefigurement of the New.
The priesthood did not begin in the New Testament.
It began with God making Aaron a priest. The religions that surrounded them had priestesses so it would not have seemed strange to these people to have had priestesses. There was a good canidate in Marion, Aaron’s sister yet God made it a male only priesthood.

The New Testament is fulfillment of the Old and that means the fullness of the priesthood came about through Jesus’ death and resurrection. Jesus fufilled all. To blame the culture is to forget that God chose the culture into which His son was born. God does all things by desgin including the fact that the Apostles chosen by Christ were only men.

 

[Abu]

jinc1019 #33
The real issue is that the Church has to make specific stances on issues that are not directly addressed by Jesus or the Bible. Contraception is one of those issues. I cannot simply accept the Church’s position on issues not addressed by Jesus unless I can accept the Church’s authority as decision-maker in this capacity. At the heart of my problem is the authority of the Church to be Christ on earth, and many of you have helped with your guidance on this issue.
if a man and a woman are married, why shouldn’t they be allowed to have sex while using contraception?
shouldn’t they differentiate between the Church doctrine that is absolute, such as teaching that Jesus is God and teachings like no one should use contraception?
#34: Is there any Biblical reason to believe the Church is ALWAYS right about these issues that are not directly on point in the Bible?
#35: Can they never be wrong on contraception or female priests or anything else?
#36: Does that mean the Church can never change its mind on a issue? Of course It can.
#46: But the Church made MANY immoral decisions… such as letting rich people buy their way into heaven. Don’t indulgences count as “faith and morals”? And yet they made this mistake, which God clearly would not have wanted.

If you believe that Jesus Christ is God the Son, and you seem to so do, then you should believe the eyewitness accounts of His Life and Teaching by His Apostles.

This is the core of the authority given by God the Son:
Christ who wrote nothing and used quotes from the OT, as He established His Church and explicitly made four promises to Peter alone:
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.” ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19)

Sole authority:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

“And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.’ (Jn 21:25).

Already, Peter had exercised his supreme authority in the upper room before Pentecost to have Judas’ place filled. At the first Apostolic Council of Jerusalem Peter settled the heated discussion over circumcising the gentiles and “the whole assembly fell silent” (Acts 15:7-12). Paul made sure that his ministry to the gentiles was recognised by, Peter (Gal 1:I8).

The third successor of St Peter, Clement, wrote to the Catholics of Corinth in A.D. 95: “If any man should be disobedient unto the words spoken by God through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger… Render obedience to the things written by us through the Holy Spirit.” (I Clem. ad Cor. 59,1). This Is The Faith, Francis J Ripley, Fowler Wright Books, 1971, p 151; 139-141].

About Pope Victor I’s declaration by edict, about the year 200, that any local Church that failed to conform with Rome was excluded from the union with the one Church by heresy, none other than the radical protestant Adolph von Harnack admitted that Victor I was “recognised, in his capacity of bishop of Rome, as the special guardian of the ‘common unity’… " (See And On This Rock, p 118, 1987, Trinity Communications, Fr Stanley L Jaki).

Harnack asked: “How would Victor have ventured on such an edict – though indeed he had not the power of enforcing it in every case – unless the special prerogative of Rome to determine the conditions of the ‘common unity’ in the vital questions of faith had been an acknowledged and well-established fact?”

Precisely.

Christ solemnly promised “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations….teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you even to the end of the age.” (Mt 28:18-20)
How could these commands be fulfilled if Peter or his successors could TEACH error? Do you think that the Christ lied? It was Jesus, God the Son, who said to His disciples “he that hears you hears Me” (Lk 10:16) even before the foundation of His Church – how much more infallibility can you have?

BTW the Church never approved of “buying into heaven” but there have been many members and clergy who have been unfaithful, starting with St Peter denying Christ.
Having laid the foundation, I’ll be happy to show that Christ’s Church can never be wrong in teaching faith or morals such as on male-only priests, and against contraception.

 

[sixofseven]

The Church is the new Kingdom on Earth - in Revelation we see the death of the old (Israel) and the presentation of the new bride of Christ (the Church).

When Jesus talked about the Kingdom of Heaven there’s a parable about the mustard seed. The Kingdom of God, he said, is like a mustard seed. A man (Jesus) plants the seed in the earth (the Church on Earth).

So bear in mind, that in Jesus’ time, the Church was just a seed - it is a growing, living organism that takes times to bear into the earth with it’s roots, grow branches, blossom, produce fruit etc etc.

I simply mean to point out that as others have said, you can’t simply confine what the Church should be or teach to the books in the Bible.

The Church will always grow, deepening in understanding and teaching to her followers.

Also note that Jesus gave authority to Peter to be the Shepherd of his flock. “Feed my sheep” he said. We, the flock, need to trust in Jesus’ word that we will be fed by the seat of Peter. Yes, women and men all of us are sinners, but again it comes down to trust. We need to trust Jesus’ words that the gates of hell will never prevail against the Church that he built - this is his promise! Others have mentioned it already but this inability to teach in error is only when it comes to matters of faith and morals. A Pope’s personal opinion would not be considered to be without error, but his proclamation speaking as the Pope in union with the Bishops and under guidance of the Holy Spirit…that cannot be in error, Jesus simply wouldn’t allow it.

Again the bible says that it doesn’t contain all that Jesus did and taught so don’t confine him to a book!

 

[JRKH]

James, I wanted to direct you directly because your post was spot on and an excellent help. I really do appreciate the time you took to present your case and the passages you selected from the Bible, especially the ones about taking your issues to the Church, was very helpful.

Again though, is Jesus saying here that the Church will always have the right solution or just that they are the most trustworthy guide or maybe He is saying the Church is just more likely to be right…Is there any Biblical reason to believe the Church is ALWAYS right about these issues that are not directly on point in the Bible?

I’m glad that you found my post to be helpful. I feel a bit of kinship because I went through this myself.
As an aid to your concerns about the Church being made up of fallible people and always having the right solution etc…I will add just one more Bible passage (well maybe two)…
The first is Mt 23:1-3. In this passage, Jesus is addressing his disciples on the authority of the Jewish leadership and he says:
Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.
The Scribes and Pharisees sat on the seat of Moses. The Holy Father, and the Bishops in communion with him sit on the chair (cathedra) of Peter, who received authority to bind and loose. Jesus founded his Church upon fallible humans but promised the guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit.
Elsewhere, in Scripture, we have St Paul telling Timothy in 1 Tim 3:15:
if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.
As we begin to tie all of these things together, a picture emerges of great authority AND great responsibility.
The Church is the Pillar and the Bulwark…
It has authority to bind and loose…
It has Christ’s protection and the protection of the Holy Spirit - even if individuals sin…

To address the matter of sinful humans a bit…
“Church” comes from the Greek, ekklesia which is defined in Strongs as:
a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly
an assembly of the people convened at the public place of the council for the purpose of deliberating
So what do we gather from this? That, even though we might look to the Pope in a singular authoritative manner, the Pope never really stands alone in matters of teaching. Other bishops, writers, theologians, teachers, historians, etc…ALL contribute prayerfully and in community to the decisions of what is “bound” or “loosed”.
Certainly the biases (either honest or self-serving) of individuals will influence their particular position, but in bringing together many different viewpoints and sorting through them prayerfully, the Holy Father, along with the whole magisterium can - and does - come up with the best of all possible teachings.
Sometimes we have a hard time understanding the teaching do to the many complexities, but if we truly seek understanding, it can come.

So - In Summary,
Jesus chose 12 imperfect humans and gave them authority. They in turn and using the granted authority, passed their authority on to others and so down through the centuries till today.

oh - yea - one more thing…If you would like to see the whole “Binding and loosing” thing in action in Scripture, read Acts Chapter 15. In this you will find the Church, acting in council, to make a decision for the entirety of the Church on a matter that obviously had not been clearly spelled out by Jesus.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Excellent point about the Church…I agree this is the role of the Church, BUT does that automatically mean the Church is always right about these issues? Can they never be wrong on contraception or female priests or anything else?

If we take the comparison of the Church teaching and our civil government and the law consider this…

In Law, the government or the courts can change certain laws and even reinterpret laws, BUT that fact does not mean that the law currently in effect is any less binding on the citizens.
If the government changes a law, does that mean it was “wrong” in the past? Perhaps, but then again, perhaps not. There can be many reasons for redefining a law in a given area.

That said, there are certain “Laws” that cannot be changed…at least no easily…and those are the amendments to the constitution. In particular the Bill of Rights can be seen as “Dogmatic” statements of our nation and as such cannot be “wrong” or changed…Developed, yes, discarded - no…

Similarly the Church can develop doctrine but it cannot discard it.
Of course there are some things that CAN be changed, mostly in the area of discipline - like priestly celibacy, days of fasting, holy days, things of that nature.
But these things do not constitute - it was wrong then and right now - but rather a development, or maybe a reinterpretation, of the basic and underlying Truth.

Hope that helps.

Peace
James

 

[johnbres2]

Many great answers here, but the key in your studies is to have faith and trust that the teaching of the Catholic Church IS correct. None of the Church’s dogma has emerged from a vaccum–it has been brought forth from the Holy Spirit acting on the successors to the Apostles. You can have complete faith that the doctrine She teaches is the Truth. Still study, for sure, but KNOW that you can have faith in the certitude of Jesus’ Church.

 

[Phyllo]

This argument always baffles me.
Why would one situation mean the other?
If Jesus wanted priests or popes named, say, Irving…he would have had some apostles named Irving.
Women back then could not move around as easily as they can today–either they were pregnant, or they were bleeding once a month for a week and they did not have as efficient ways to deal with that as we do today, so it might have been technically difficult for them, at that time, in that area, to move around as much.
Perhaps they were not standing in front of Jesus the day he looked out and picked apostles.
Couldn’t there be dozens of reasons?
Mary M followed Jesus around, was present at his death, and was the first to see him “risen”. I read in so many places that in early Christian writings, she was called “the apostle of the apostles” and that it is tradition that she continued preaching throughout Italy with the other disciples after they all left Jerusalem.
She sure sounds like an apostle! And a great one, at that.
Perhaps she is an apostle without the official title, as is often the way with most women who work hard and get no recognition.

I don’t see how this one bit of info supports the women-can’t-be-priests argument. I know there are other bits from the bible people quote to support this doctrine/dogma–which I cannot recall at the moment–but I have never felt this one, for example, makes sense at all

But…I say all the above as one example of your basic question, OP…and I totally understand what you are saying and why you feel the math is flawed.

If the basis of some of these decisions are not found in the books people wrote down after Jesus died, quoting what he said…and the religion is supposed to be based on Him (hence the title: Christianity!)…and the group of people in charge of the church after he dies is made up of men and women who are flawed and make mistakes…how do we know that these flawed humans who are interpreting what Jesus is saying–or not saying at all–are correct?

This from the Catholic.Com

catholic.com/quickquestions/why-cant-women-be-ordained-priests-within-the-catholic-church

 

[donsnow]

Good evening, jinc1019,

Most of the other posts have covered most of your issues quite well, I think. I’m writing to add to what one poster said about Confession, or, the Sacrament of Reconciliation. I think it’s in the Book of James where that brother tells the faithful, “Confess your sins one unto the other.”

And, rather to stand up before the people at Mass and confess our sins, the grace of God has already empowered the priest through the Bishops who are the spiritual descesndents of the Apostles, that’s why we’re an Apostolic Church, by that grace, we can go into the confessional and in privacy obey that scripture to “Confess our sins to another” the priest being that other.

Confession is a Sacrament and Sacraments are given by God. Try not to worry about it.

God loves you,
Don

 

[Newsy]

James, I wanted to direct you directly because your post was spot on and an excellent help. I really do appreciate the time you took to present your case and the passages you selected from the Bible, especially the ones about taking your issues to the Church, was very helpful.

Again though, is Jesus saying here that the Church will always have the right solution or just that they are the most trustworthy guide or maybe He is saying the Church is just more likely to be right…Is there any Biblical reason to believe the Church is ALWAYS right about these issues that are not directly on point in the Bible?

I would add that Peter’s vision, in the Book of Acts, when Christ tells him to “eat” the “unclean” animals, might fall into this catagory. You see, Peter proclaimed something that undid thousands of years of Jewish Teaching. By proclaiming all animals clean, this was the Church making a decision that contradicts traditional teaching. This is an example of a decision that was made outside of Scripture and Tradition, but we all believe that the Church made the right decision. The Church doesn’t need to have explicit instructions, just the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

As has been mentioned before, there are many things that the Bible doesn’t address, that does not mean that the Church shouldn’t address them. Take cloning for example, the Bible is completely silent on the matter. That does not mean that there isn’t a moral right or wrong, the Church has made its stance on the matter.

 

[jinc1019]

This argument always baffles me.
Why would one situation mean the other?
If Jesus wanted priests or popes named, say, Irving…he would have had some apostles named Irving.
Women back then could not move around as easily as they can today–either they were pregnant, or they were bleeding once a month for a week and they did not have as efficient ways to deal with that as we do today, so it might have been technically difficult for them, at that time, in that area, to move around as much.
Perhaps they were not standing in front of Jesus the day he looked out and picked apostles.
Couldn’t there be dozens of reasons?
Mary M followed Jesus around, was present at his death, and was the first to see him “risen”. I read in so many places that in early Christian writings, she was called “the apostle of the apostles” and that it is tradition that she continued preaching throughout Italy with the other disciples after they all left Jerusalem.
She sure sounds like an apostle! And a great one, at that.
Perhaps she is an apostle without the official title, as is often the way with most women who work hard and get no recognition.

I don’t see how this one bit of info supports the women-can’t-be-priests argument. I know there are other bits from the bible people quote to support this doctrine/dogma–which I cannot recall at the moment–but I have never felt this one, for example, makes sense at all

But…I say all the above as one example of your basic question, OP…and I totally understand what you are saying and why you feel the math is flawed.

If the basis of some of these decisions are not found in the books people wrote down after Jesus died, quoting what he said…and the religion is supposed to be based on Him (hence the title: Christianity!)…and the group of people in charge of the church after he dies is made up of men and women who are flawed and make mistakes…how do we know that these flawed humans who are interpreting what Jesus is saying–or not saying at all–are correct?

On this same note, I would like to point out that Jesus did not select any apostles who were African, or non-Jewish, or from a country outside of Judea, yet the Church allows priests from all nations and of all ages…even though Jesus NEVER selected an elderly apostle or an Asian apostle. This argument just does not hold up.

 

[Safia]

It might help you to pose this question in the Apologetics forum.

Cheers.

 

[jinc1019]

If you believe that Jesus Christ is God the Son, and you seem to so do, then you should believe the eyewitness accounts of His Life and Teaching by His Apostles.

This is the core of the authority given by God the Son:
Christ who wrote nothing and used quotes from the OT, as He established His Church and explicitly made four promises to Peter alone:
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.” ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19)

Sole authority:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

“And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.’ (Jn 21:25).

Already, Peter had exercised his supreme authority in the upper room before Pentecost to have Judas’ place filled. At the first Apostolic Council of Jerusalem Peter settled the heated discussion over circumcising the gentiles and “the whole assembly fell silent” (Acts 15:7-12). Paul made sure that his ministry to the gentiles was recognised by, Peter (Gal 1:I8).

The third successor of St Peter, Clement, wrote to the Catholics of Corinth in A.D. 95: “If any man should be disobedient unto the words spoken by God through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger… Render obedience to the things written by us through the Holy Spirit.” (I Clem. ad Cor. 59,1). This Is The Faith, Francis J Ripley, Fowler Wright Books, 1971, p 151; 139-141].

About Pope Victor I’s declaration by edict, about the year 200, that any local Church that failed to conform with Rome was excluded from the union with the one Church by heresy, none other than the radical protestant Adolph von Harnack admitted that Victor I was “recognised, in his capacity of bishop of Rome, as the special guardian of the ‘common unity’… " (See And On This Rock, p 118, 1987, Trinity Communications, Fr Stanley L Jaki).

Harnack asked: “How would Victor have ventured on such an edict – though indeed he had not the power of enforcing it in every case – unless the special prerogative of Rome to determine the conditions of the ‘common unity’ in the vital questions of faith had been an acknowledged and well-established fact?”

Precisely.

Christ solemnly promised “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations….teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you even to the end of the age.” (Mt 28:18-20)
How could these commands be fulfilled if Peter or his successors could TEACH error? Do you think that the Christ lied? It was Jesus, God the Son, who said to His disciples “he that hears you hears Me” (Lk 10:16) even before the foundation of His Church – how much more infallibility can you have?

BTW the Church never approved of “buying into heaven” but there have been many members and clergy who have been unfaithful, starting with St Peter denying Christ.
Having laid the foundation, I’ll be happy to show that Christ’s Church can never be wrong in teaching faith or morals such as on male-only priests, and against contraception.

I really appreciate the quotes from the Scriptures, I think they do lay a good foundation for your argument. But even using the quotes you selected, it is not clear that the Church is always right, only that it would be watched over and protected. But God promised to watch over Israel and Israel broke God’s law all the time. And just because the central themes of the Church are true does not automatically mean all stances are. Reading the quotes you cited from the Scriptures, it is NOT clear Jesus meant the Church would NEVER be wrong or NEVER do the wrong things or even possibly make incorrect stances. The Church can be infallible on central teachings because they come directly from Christ but what about the issues not directly addressed by Christ? I think the passages you cite are being applied rather liberally. I mean saying the gates of hell will never prevail against the Church does not necessarily mean the Church will always have the right stance on every issue…Maybe it only means that the central teachings will never be wrong or that the Church will never dcay so badly that hell will prevail.

Additionally, just because the Holy Spirit guides the Church does not mean the Church is listening to the Holy Spirit or understanding It properly. To say this is untrue is to say that the Holy Spirit just disappeared and wasn’t present when the Church chose to make really bad decisions that were clearly immoral. Isn’t the immorality in certain eras of the Church proof that the Holy Spirit is not ALWAYS being listened to?

 

[jinc1019]

The Church is the new Kingdom on Earth - in Revelation we see the death of the old (Israel) and the presentation of the new bride of Christ (the Church).

When Jesus talked about the Kingdom of Heaven there’s a parable about the mustard seed. The Kingdom of God, he said, is like a mustard seed. A man (Jesus) plants the seed in the earth (the Church on Earth).

So bear in mind, that in Jesus’ time, the Church was just a seed - it is a growing, living organism that takes times to bear into the earth with it’s roots, grow branches, blossom, produce fruit etc etc.

I simply mean to point out that as others have said, you can’t simply confine what the Church should be or teach to the books in the Bible.

The Church will always grow, deepening in understanding and teaching to her followers.

Also note that Jesus gave authority to Peter to be the Shepherd of his flock. “Feed my sheep” he said. We, the flock, need to trust in Jesus’ word that we will be fed by the seat of Peter. Yes, women and men all of us are sinners, but again it comes down to trust. We need to trust Jesus’ words that the gates of hell will never prevail against the Church that he built - this is his promise! Others have mentioned it already but this inability to teach in error is only when it comes to matters of faith and morals. A Pope’s personal opinion would not be considered to be without error, but his proclamation speaking as the Pope in union with the Bishops and under guidance of the Holy Spirit…that cannot be in error, Jesus simply wouldn’t allow it.

Again the bible says that it doesn’t contain all that Jesus did and taught so don’t confine him to a book!

I agree with everything you said EXCEPT that the Church can never err when the Pope speaks for the seat of Peter. Why? Because the Church has made immoral proclamations as a matter of Church policy that extended WELL BEYOND simple opinon and individual moral indiscretion. The Church sold indulgences as a matter of policy, the Church sanctioned the burning of witches in Spain and in other countries…there is no denying the Church made immoral decisions as a matter of Church policy and that cannot be considered just the personal opinion of the Pope, it was the approved policy of the Church. Why is it that the Church can be fallible on issues not central to Church teachings? It doesn’t diminish the Church to accept that the Pope is a human and, like all humans, capable of making mistakes and doing immoral things. And numerous members of the Church, bishops, cardinals, etc. have done the same thing and used their position in the Church to make Church policy that was immoral. There is no denying that and that does NOT interfere with the central Church teachings or make the Church wrong about the most important parts of the Christian faith.