Infallability

  • Thread starter Thread starter Marc_Anthony
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Marc_Anthony

Guest
So I’ve done a lot of thinking…perhaps too much as it has led me to question the Catholic Church.

But not in a negative way. I have faith in the Church, that she has a response to my questions and issues; I just don’t know what it is.

My problem is infallablity. My issue is that I don’t see where in Acts of the Apostles we see anybody speak of infallability. So how do we know that the Church was always understood to have it?

Now, don’t get me wrong. Nowhere in Acts is infallability contradicted. Theoretically it is a possibility, since nobdy erred on what the CC has defined as an infallible statement. But doesn’t it strike ou as…IDK…careless, perhaps, not to simply tell us that the Church had infallible authority? I mean, clearly the whole Church didn’t know that it was infallible, since a lot of Bishops (the direct successors of the Apostles) disagree with this and now belong to the Orthodox Church.

It’s hard to vocalize my thoughts here…actually come to think of it, I happen to agree kind of with JonNC, sort of.

No, JonNC is not responsible for me questioning the Church, so don’t hurt him 😉 . I’m just saying that when I see his views on matters regarding the early Church they sort of look like how I view the early Church-that councils were normally called to settle disputes and that nobody ever really claimed to be infallible and when disputes arose, a Council was called to resolve it, with Peter heading the council.

IDK. I sound very…Orthodox, don’t I?

I’m interested to see what both Catholics and non-Catholics have to say on the issue.
 
Why look at ACTS to verify what JESUS said very clearly in Matthew 16. Man does not have the authority to “edit” GOD’s words. HE said it “…and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom and whatsoever you bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever you lose on earth will be losed in heaven…” paraphrase. The earth-heaven binding with the authority of the “keys”. HE meant it, it is done.
If you look in all the Gospels where a list of the Apostles are provided, “Peter” always is listed first - not by accident, but by the authority he carries as given by CHRIST - this acknowledges that Peter is first among the Apostles.

In the Orthodox Churches, “if” they do not acknowledge the Pope, then they are outside the Catholic Church. Most do recognize the authority of the Pope as the Vicar of CHRIST and HIS authority, but a few do not, as they have chosen to “edit” HIS words.
 
Julian-Huh? I recognize the Pope as the head of the Apostles and Vicar of Christ, but that doesn’t necessarily mean infallible.

I’m not Orthodox even if I sound like one, and even a good amount of Orthodox will admit that the Successor of Peter has a position of at least symbolic primacy.

JM3-Give me a moment, I need to look it up.
 
Hey Marc…One thing is for certain: no one, (including the apostles) - is infallible or impeccable - agreed? In other words, no man can be infallible because “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” Being a sinner, which indeed the Pope is (he goes to confession just like the rest of us) - has absolutely nothing to do with the biblical doctrine of infallibility.

Biblical basis for the doctrine of infallibility: Jesus Christ, who founded the Catholic Church in Matthew 16:18, also promised the gift of the Holy Spirit to guide His church into all truth, forever. It is important to mention first, that Jesus is speaking to the Apostles collectively in the following passages; the Holy Spirit as the spirit of truth, is not speaking on an individual basis, to all believers, as an infallible guide, but He is speaking exclusively to the Apostles.

Regarding the following passages, protestant apologists will point to these passages to attempt to show that each believer has the Holy Spirit, and therefore the Bible and the Holy Spirit are the only binding infallible guides necessary to understand biblical truth. It is no doubt true that the Holy Spirit will guide each believer in finding truth through Scripture, as long as said truths align with the truths of the church founded by Jesus; nevertheless, we must remember that this specific promise is directed to the Apostles collectively, corporately. This Holy Spirit will not leave us desolate (v. 18). The promise has immediate repercussions for the preservation of truth forever within the context of the Church and its leadership. The implication is, as the Holy Spirit is promised forever (v. 16), he is the Spirit of Truth (v. 17), who Jesus later promises will guide into all truth (16:13). We see implications of Church infallibility, similar to other promises made by Jesus (Matt. 16:18, 28:20), but the following is quite clear:
  • John 14: 16-17, 26: “I will ask the Father and he will give you another Paraclete—to be with you forever; the Spirit of truth,* whom the world cannot accept, since it neither sees him nor recognizes him because he remains with you and will be within you . . . . the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send will remind you of all that I have told you”
“I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth."

Then there was the Council of Jerusalem, in Acts 15. This Church council was held to determine whether or not Gentiles had to first be circumcised before becoming Christians. In Peter’s closing he says the following, from Acts 15:28:
Code: 
"For it has seemed good **to the Holy Spirit** and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things".
The Holy Spirit was invoked, so therefore, it must be an infallible decision. The CC founded by Jesus, (comprised of all fallible leaders) - has the protection of the Infallible Holy Spirit, promised by Jesus Christ Himself to protect His Church from moral error - agreed? To ignore these scripture verses is to ignore one of the central tenets of the Bible. Even Protestants believe in the infallibility of scripture, because it’s inspired by the Holy Spirit. This is no different. The only other option is: the holy spirit stopped protecting the CC from within and without, and stopped guiding her into all truth, once the CC codified the infallible bible in 393 AD, leaving us with no sure way to know, with certainty, the truth regarding certain teachings. Doesn’t seem too plausible does it???
Marc_Anthony said:
So I’ve done a lot of thinking…perhaps too much as it has led me to question the Catholic Church.

But not in a negative way. I have faith in the Church, that she has a response to my questions and issues; I just don’t know what it is.

My problem is infallablity. My issue is that I don’t see where in Acts of the Apostles we see anybody speak of infallability. So how do we know that the Church was always understood to have it?

Now, don’t get me wrong. Nowhere in Acts is infallability contradicted. Theoretically it is a possibility, since nobdy erred on what the CC has defined as an infallible statement. But doesn’t it strike ou as…IDK…careless, perhaps, not to simply tell us that the Church had infallible authority? I mean, clearly the whole Church didn’t know that it was infallible, since a lot of Bishops (the direct successors of the Apostles) disagree with this and now belong to the Orthodox Church.

It’s hard to vocalize my thoughts here…actually come to think of it, I happen to agree kind of with JonNC, sort of.

No, JonNC is not responsible for me questioning the Church, so don’t hurt him 😉 . I’m just saying that when I see his views on matters regarding the early Church they sort of look like how I view the early Church-that councils were normally called to settle disputes and that nobody ever really claimed to be infallible and when disputes arose, a Council was called to resolve it, with Peter heading the council.

IDK. I sound very…Orthodox, don’t I?

I’m interested to see what both Catholics and non-Catholics have to say on the issue.
Click to expand...
 
What Orthodox faiths are you speaking of exactly? As far as I am aware of the Great Schism stemmed from their unwillingness to submit to the divine authority of the Pope, not so much the Infallibility of our Church.
Subsequently, all doctrinal disagreements (or misunderstandings) such as the Filioque, Purgatory, Immaculate Conception, etc., stem from that very first sin of pride.
 
Irish_Polock said:
What Orthodox faiths are you speaking of exactly? As far as I am aware of the Great Schism stemmed from their unwillingness to submit to the divine authority of the Pope, not so much the Infallibility of our Church.
Subsequently, all doctrinal disagreements (or misunderstandings) such as the Filioque, Purgatory, Immaculate Conception, etc., stem from that very first sin of pride.
Click to expand...
First, a couple quick things:
  1. I want you all to know I appreciate all responses. Just because I’m not responding to them right now doesn’t mean I never will.
  2. Consequently, I’ve gotta go (sorry) so this is my last post for the time being, but stay tuned.
Now, on to the comment:

Hmm, perhaps I’m being more Protestant than Orthodox?

Anyway, as far as I know the Orthodox Church does not claim to be infallible…does it?

If it does then I suppose my Orthodox analogy is wrong.

My apologies to all Orthodox in advance just in case I misrepresented their faith. 😊
 
Marc_Anthony said:
First, a couple quick things:
  1. I want you all to know I appreciate all responses. Just because I’m not responding to them right now doesn’t mean I never will.
  2. Consequently, I’ve gotta go (sorry) so this is my last post for the time being, but stay tuned.
Now, on to the comment:

Hmm, perhaps I’m being more Protestant than Orthodox?

Anyway, as far as I know the Orthodox Church does not claim to be infallible…does it?

If it does then I suppose my Orthodox analogy is wrong.

My apologies to all Orthodox in advance just in case I misrepresented their faith. 😊
Click to expand...
All forms of Orthodoxy have the belief that the Church is infallible in the dogmatic truths that it proclaims… to a degree.
Heck, even the Anglican Church has this same belief.
 
Irish_Polock said:
What Orthodox faiths are you speaking of exactly? As far as I am aware of the Great Schism stemmed from their unwillingness to submit to the divine authority of the Pope, not so much the Infallibility of our Church.
Subsequently, all doctrinal disagreements (or misunderstandings) such as the Filioque, Purgatory, Immaculate Conception, etc., stem from that very first sin of pride.
Click to expand...
I often wonder if I’m the only one who sees the irony in posts like this? 🤷
 
Stop wondering, joe, because I’m with you! The idea that the papal legates marching into Hagia Sophia right during a beautiful, solemn Mass and slamming down excommunication papers at the foot of the altar was somehow the Orthodox pridefully “leaving” the Church is a humorous touch of irony and really bad history! :confused::eek: It’s like the wife who files for divorce remembering the split as the husband being the one who filed.:confused:
josephdaniel29 said:
I often wonder if I’m the only one who sees the irony in posts like this? 🤷
Click to expand...
 
This is priceless: heck, even the Anglicans! 😛
Irish_Polock said:
All forms of Orthodoxy have the belief that the Church is infallible in the dogmatic truths that it proclaims… to a degree.
Heck, even the Anglican Church has this same belief.
Click to expand...
 
Enlighten me, por favor. I looked it up and it’s here in front of me in my Bible. I don’t see a statement of infallibility here. Representatives are being sent to the Church at Antioch. Paul and Barnabas are going along with the representatives chosen by the apostolic group. The Holy Spirit, we are told, does not want to overburden the men and gives them a few guidelines for abstaining, etc. Infallibility is nowhere invoked, implied, and there’s nothing Petrine about the passage? :confused:
JM3 said:
Acts 15:28 looks like a statement of infallibility to me.
Click to expand...
 
gurneyhalleck1
Click to expand...
;7235053]Enlighten me, por favor. I looked it up and it’s here in front of me in my Bible. I don’t see a statement of infallibility here. Representatives are being sent to the Church at Antioch. Paul and Barnabas are going along with the representatives chosen by the apostolic group. The Holy Spirit, we are told, does not want to overburden the men and gives them a few guidelines for abstaining, etc. Infallibility is nowhere invoked, implied, and there’s nothing Petrine about the passage? :confused:

Gurney, you believe that the bible is the infallible word of God, just as I do; where in the bible does the bible infallibly claim that the bible is the infallible word of God? I cannot find a statement of infallibility in the bible that claims that the bible is the infallible word of God.

If that is true, and it is, then why do you believe, as I do, that the bible is the infallible word of God???
 
“All scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.” 2 Timothy 3:16

Very simple answer, joe. If all Scripture is breathed by God, it must be infallible. Right?:):)🙂

Nuff said IMO.
joe370 said:
Gurney, you believe that the bible is the infallible word of God, just as I do; where in the bible does the bible infallibly claim that the bible is the infallible word of God? I cannot find a statement of infallibility in the bible that claims that the bible is the infallible word of God.

If that is true, and it is, then why do you believe, as I do, that the bible is the infallible word of God???
Click to expand...
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
“All scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.” 2 Timothy 3:16

Very simple answer, joe. If all Scripture is breathed by God, it must be infallible. Right?:):)🙂

Nuff said IMO.

I agree with you 100%. Where did the table of contents come from? Scripture does not define the canon of scripture.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top