Infallibility of Church?

[mcq72]

I can not come to grips with the scriptural interpretations used for CC teaching even more practices, of purgatory and indulgences.

Sometimes knowing a truth backwards and forwards intimately, just obfuscates something contrary, as it should be.

Kind of like how they train FBI agents on the counterfeit squad. They hand them real money and they study it for weeks. So much so that if you stick a counterfeit bill in a stack or real McCoys, it sticks out like a sore thumb.

The same thing that reveals our sin nature to our core and its deserved wages also points to the supreme propitiating sacrifice bringing new life, evey jot and tittle paid for.

 

[MT1926]

Kind of like how they train FBI agents on the counterfeit squad. They hand them real money and they study it for weeks. So much so that if you stick a counterfeit bill in a stack or real McCoys, it sticks out like a sore thumb.

Not trying to be unkind, but I just wanted to point out, and I’m sure you would agree, that the exact opposite can be true as well. If the counterfeit squad was trained using counterfeit bills, even if someone where to hand them a stack of “real McCoys”, they would not be able to “come to grips”, that what they are being handed truly is the “real McCoy”.

Not saying I am right and you are wrong, all I am pointing to is, in my opinion, before anyone can definitively state…

Sometimes knowing a truth backwards and forwards intimately, just obfuscates something contrary, as it should be.

They have to first be honest with themselves and “come to grips” with whether or not the person, who trained them to be an agent of the “counterfeit squad”, had the authority to proclaim what is the correct scriptural interpretation and what is contrary.

For me it all comes down to authority, the buck (yes pun intended ) has to stop somewhere. If the agent that trained you to recognize the counterfeit bill wasn’t an official decorated agent of the US Bureau of Engraving and Printing then you would have no way of knowing if he handed you the official “real McCoy” to study with or if he handed you a stack of bills that looked like the real thing but had a few differences here and there.

The world only works because of a chain of authority, without that chain anyone can claim what is real and what is counterfeit. Why should we believe Jesus set it up any different?

God Bless

 

[Gorgias]

nothing has really changed, except some doctrines

That’s a pretty big ‘except’, don’t you think?

So truth lies where it lies, irrespective of proper names.

Agreed. So, it would seem that we’re in one of two situations: either Jesus never promised that the Holy Spirit would protect the Church from all error, or groups that split away (either East from West (and subsequently Protestant West from Catholic West), or West from East) left the umbrella of protection. Otherwise, how can we explain ‘doctrinal differences’?

So if Baptists and Coptics and Old Catholics say Jesus is the Son of God incarnate etc, there lies primacy of truth universally. Etc.,
etc…

Sure, but you’re only picking things that aren’t disputed. Get a bit deeper, into areas of dispute… and then, doesn’t your framework in this post actually start to break down?

Apostolic is as apostolic does.

Agreed. And Catholics would point to Apostolic succession as their claim to legitimacy. Protestants would point to Apostolic… what? A unilateral claim that they’ve returned to the spirit of Apostolic doctrine? Hmm… How would one substantiate that claim (other than, again, unilaterally asserting it)?

It is what you believe and do that counts.

Fair enough. Yet, if everyone believes that what they believe and what they do is authentic Christianity (and what everyone else believes and does isn’t), then all we’ve accomplished is to descent into relativism…!

 

[goout]

"The Church is very clear here. There is no salvation apart from a salvific union with the Catholic Church. "

This is correct. And the Catholic Church is something. It’s not an idea, it exists as Christ’s Body in a real way. Instituted. Corporate.

"This is not unlike the situation that existed prior to the establishment of the Catholic Church. Even before it was fully revealed that he was the Messiah, Jesus himself taught that “salvation is from the Jews” (Jn 4:22). He pointed the woman of Samaria to the body of believers existing at that time, through which salvation would be offered to all mankind: the Jews.

In a similar fashion, now that the Messiah has established his Church, Jesus might say, “salvation is from the Catholics”!"

Excerpts above from Tim Staples Catholic.com and Jim Blackburn Catholic Answers

Again, we can not gloss over these sectarian decrees. All agree that salvation is thru the Christian church now, but we do not agree that it is exclusively or proprietary “Catholic”

Correct we do not all agree. This should indicate to you that a true end point can be found. If no true end point can be found, then why do 30,000 denominations think they know the way? The search and the claims themselves point to Catholicism. Don’t fall trap to relativism, which asserts that we are all just searching for nothing.

That would be tantamount to Christ not proclaiming “Salvation is of the Jews”, but instead proclaiming one sect over the other , and saying “Salvation is of the Pharisees ( or Essenes etc)”.

Doesn’t follow.
Christ only has one body. And Christ is not the author of division.

1. The Church really exists, it is instituted.
2. It is one, not 30,000.
   The question is, where do you find it fully? Claiming it is some sort of nebulous spiritual union of those who “sort of belong” runs afoul of the Incarnation. If God does not intend for a real corporate Church instituted with real leaders, then he would have left us with the Old Testament.

Jesus is Jewish and not Catholic.

Jesus is Jesus. He is Incarnate as a Jew. We are all part of this tree. The Catholic Church is the body of believers united fully to Christ. The Jews are our ancestors in the faith.

He is the head of His body. The rest of the body is not proprietary to Roman Catholicism today but to catholicism, universalism yes as always.

Again, that’s vague Christian spiritualism, which is not supportable by any tradition or the scriptures. As you said, Jesus was born a Jew. Jesus objectively is someone real.
If I had to pick the glaring error in all of this it is gnosticism which runs afoul of the Incarnation and relegates Christianity to vague and disparate spiritual sentiments.
Gnosticism also allows one to reject some of the uncomfortable human elements of Church, like the charism of human authority, and obedience which is due to God in the context of his Church.
Those are very unpopular disciplines, especially in modern western culture that exalts individualism and self sufficiency.

 

[mcq72]

Don’t fall trap to relativism, which asserts that we are all just searching for nothing.

Totally strawman. That truth lies where it lies is not relativism. That truth is not a respector of persons even churches is not relativism. In fact sectarianism is founded on the idea of their being absolute truths. Jesus said salvation is of the Jews ( not any sect except as truth lay in them). His statement was absolute and was not relativistic.

 

[JackMcCoy]

It is tough to believe in the infallibility of the Church. I believe that the Church is infallible, but I also believe that the people who run the Church are human beings and that human beings are incapable of being totally infallible. God is good. His Church is good. His people are a works in progress, as am I.

 

[goout]

goout:

Don’t fall trap to relativism, which asserts that we are all just searching for nothing.

Totally strawman. That truth lies where it lies is not relativism. That truth is not a respector of persons even churches is not relativism. In fact sectarianism is founded on the idea of their being absolute truths. Jesus said salvation is of the Jews ( not any sect except as truth lay in them). His statement was absolute and was not relativistic.

I have no idea what you are trying to say.
But the gist of it is relativistic. You say:

That truth lies where it lies is not relativism. That truth is not a respector of persons even churches is not relativism.

“The truth lies where it lies”? Like a dead fish that flops onto your boat by accident? “meh whatever”.
This denies that truth can be objectively found in one Christ, in one Body that he formed. That this body is real, that it is intentional, and is instituted and coporeal. And that you have a duty to search for it, and admit it can be found.

Do you believe that Christ is real? Think about the implications, and give Christ more than a spiritual high five. Give Christ credit for founding something real that affects the lives of real people in real ways.

 

[steve-b]

Where’s the hang up?

Glenn:

I still have difficulty with the whole idea of indulgences.

I guess it is the whole idea of the Church dispensing merits. But I think I understand the point of the article. Is it correct to say that an indulgence does not have to do with one’s salvation,

correct

Glenn:

but only with temporal benefits?

and Avoiding or lessening temporal punishments here or in purgatory

Glenn:

I see the point about God lessening the punishment of Solomon, based upon the righteousness of his father David. And Scripture often shows God looking back to the faithfulness of Abraham and the patriarchs in his own continued faithfulness to their descendants. So it does make sense. And we also see where Paul speaks of his filling up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ on behalf of the Church.

So there is definite logic and scriptural support for the idea of indulgences. And I think if not handled mechanically, but with a deep yearning of one’s heart for the welfare of another, then it seems like it could be a good thing. It seems like indulgences are in one sense like offering up our own pain and suffering, like Jesus, like the apostle Paul, on behalf of a loved one.

yes

Glenn:

But can’t we also pour out our heart directly to God on behalf of our friends and neighbors and relatives?

It’s not either/or, It’s both.

Glenn:

Indulgences are just something that I’m not used to, and since I was taught that all merit belongs to Christ, it is difficult for me to think about myself or someone else, other than Christ, possessing sufficient any merit that would deserve heaven. But again, indulgences appear to be not for that purpose, but simply for temporal benefits.

AND

as the article I linked to said

"From the beginning the Church recognized the validity of praying for the dead so that their transition into heaven (via purgatory) might be swift and smooth. This meant praying for the lessening or removal of temporal penalties holding them back from the full glory of heaven. "

And as you recognized, it is our prayer, our suffering etc applied to lessen temporal punishment for sin

Glenn:

Am I getting a good sense of what indulgences are for?

I think so

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Does that sound like
A minor sin or a mortal sin, to deliberately miss Mass on Sunday.
A suggestion or an obligation to attend Sunday Mass

Yes, to simply “blow off” Mass would be a serious sin. What would be considered legitimate reasons for missing Mass?

Examples:

Illness, as in flu, etc
Having to take care of sick child
Can’t get a ride to mass

etc

 

[mcq72]

Not trying to be unkind, but I just wanted to point out, and I’m sure you would agree, that the exact opposite can be true as well. If the counterfeit squad was trained using counterfeit bills, even if someone where to hand them a stack of “real McCoys”, they would not be able to “come to grips”, that what they are being handed truly is the “real McCoy”.

Not unkind and thank you for your thoughtful response.

Of course one has to start out with Real McCoy ( who happened to be an African American train “engineer” who developed an automatic oiling system for locomotives, instead of getting the oiling can out out every so many miles … lot of copy cats came to be used but none as good as the “real McCoy”).

So there is absolutely a real mccoy in many things. There is a real definition of church, real McCoy Jesus Christ, a real McCoy canon of sacred scriptures etc.

We be discussing “church here” and actually indulgences and infallibility, and we have to have a basis of agreement somewhere. I mean how is one man to say anything authoritatively to another ? One can say well scripture says so and another can say it says not, or the Holy Spirit or Jesus told me so, or my parents or my tradition or magisterium, or divine revelation and back and forth we go. Each can claim even God Himself. But it can go even further. Then a Muslim can come and say the same things, or a Hindu
On and on it goes, since the fall, and until He returns. So who has experienced the real McCoy, the Incarnate Christ properly, in truth and in spirit?

 

[MT1926]

Of course one has to start out with Real McCoy

In your opinion, how does one know if they are being taught to look at the real McCoy or taught using a slightly altered counterfeit?

So there is absolutely a real mccoy in many things. There is a real definition of church, real McCoy Jesus Christ, a real McCoy canon of sacred scriptures etc.

OK, I’ll bit. How does one know they are using the “real” definition of Church? How does one know they are believing all that Jesus commanded of us? and How does one know that their interpretations of scripture is the real McCoy?

On and on it goes, since the fall, and until He returns. So who has experienced the real McCoy, the Incarnate Christ properly, in truth and in spirit?

Well I can honestly say that I haven’t experienced the real McCoy, in the flesh. However, we do believe that the Apostles did experience the “real McCoy”.

So I guess the real question is, when Jesus told them He would be with them until the end of the age, do we believe that Jesus intended for them to hand on what that experience (truth and spirit) truly looked liked? or do we believe Jesus never intended for us to know, with 100% certainty, what the wishes (truth and spirit) or the real McCoy looks like, leaving us with no way of knowing if we are being taught to look at the real McCoy or the counterfeit bill?

God Bless

 

[mcq72]

Well I can honestly say that I haven’t experienced the real McCoy, in the flesh. However, we do believe that the Apostles did experience the “real McCoy”.

Don’t say that, that you haven’t experienced the real McCoy in the flesh, unless you really, really have not.

A teacher at church was teaching a class on Christian family living, and one evening he started out by asking if anyone ever had anyone actually die for them. Believe it or not less than half the class raised their hands, even though all were born again Christian. Of course all of us first thought of situations with people we know or have known. We were all slow to acknowledge the truer reality, the everlasting reality, that our ever alive Savior died for us. We were slow to acknowledge that context.

The fact is that every Catholic who has eucharisted, had holy communion, should say they have met the real McCoy in the flesh. Just as anyone who has been saved, born of God in the spirit, has met Jesus Christ in the Spirit, for God is Spirit. His Spirit in us bears witness to our regenerated spirit, that we are His child, that He abides in us and we in Him.
So we know His voice. We cannot always tell if others proclaiming the same thing have the real mccoy, but there can be signs, even fruits, but even that is not fool proof, but for sure we need fellowship and it is a work of the Spirit to bind saints together, to give discernment of a genuine brother.

So it is not a game breaker from the problem we have been talking about. But, all churches teach of a new life in Christ, and Christ in us, as we are baptized into His body. We all are to have that beginning point, the real McCoy in us. We have quite an authoritative teacher in us who can discern all spiritual (name removed by moderator)ut He allows, even ordained, to come our way.

 

[MT1926]

Don’t say that, that you haven’t experienced the real McCoy in the flesh, unless you really, really have not.

Sorry maybe I wasn’t clear enough, I meant in the way the Apostles experienced Jesus. You know how it says Jesus explained all these things to them in private.

The fact is that every Catholic who has eucharisted, had holy communion, should say they have met the real McCoy in the flesh.

I don’t necessarily agree with this. A Catholic can take Jesus at His words when He says “This is my body” and yet not fully understand it. They can have faith in Jesus that when He says the words He meant what He said and He said what He meant. Yet there human failings get in the way and they don’t get that inner feeling that others do. I think your statements come across a bit judgmental and you are trying to hold individual Catholics, as well as individual Christians, to a very high standard that I don’t believe exists the moment one is born again. The scriptures describe our faith as a journey one can still be a Christian yet not experienced that level of spirituality yet. They can be like Peter when he says…“Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.”

Basically Peter is telling Jesus I have no clue what you are talking about, I can’t see it but I have Faith in You an believe whatever you tell me.

Just because someone is having difficulties seeing Jesus flesh in the Eucharist or seeing Jesus in the “born again” spirit isn’t evidence that they aren’t Christian. Jesus himself says that these Christians who are having troubles seeing Him yet still believe are blessed (John 20:29)

I don’t really have a response for the rest of your post. You didn’t really answer my question.

To be quite honest you seem to like to point to certain issues when you believe Catholics are preaching contrary to Scripture (the real McCoy). But every time I ask you how we can know we have the real McCoy you skirt the issue. You say…

We cannot always tell if others proclaiming the same thing have the real mccoy

It seems to me that you mean unless you are talking with a Catholic, then you can know for certain that they aren’t proclaiming the real McCoy.

If you aren’t willing to show that you aren’t teaching from “counterfeit interpretations” then I see no reason why you would bring up this objection in the first place.

God Bless

 

[mcq72]

Just because someone is having difficulties seeing Jesus flesh in the Eucharist or seeing Jesus in the “born again” spirit isn’t evidence that they aren’t Christian.

Kind of disagree here on the latter part. To me you aren’t a Christian if you have not spiritually met, seen Jesus. He is the gate, He is the way, truth and the life. How can we otherwise confess Him to be our Savior, if we have not heard His voice, if we have not “supped” with Him, or even met Him at Calvary. This is more than mental or emotional assent. Why else would we have a spirit, if not a regenerated spirit, but to experience a spiritual God. This is a fundamental beginning.

 

[MT1926]

Kind of disagree here on the latter part. To me you aren’t a Christian if you have not spiritually met, seen Jesus.

And I disagree with you thinking you have the authority to proclaim who is and isn’t a Christian. Where do we get a definitive teaching that you have to spiritually meet and see Jesus to become a Christian? Where does it give us the “real McCoy” picture of what you think this meeting looks like?

He is the gate, He is the way, truth and the life. How can we otherwise confess Him to be our Savior, if we have not heard His voice, if we have not “supped” with Him, or even met Him at Calvary.

No offense but these words aren’t really a defense to your above claim. Because everything you say here still comes down to interpretation. Unless you can give a definitive/authoritative definition of what it means to “spiritually” meet and see Jesus then you leave it up to whatever a person says it is.

Sure you can say…

This is more than mental or emotional assent.

But without that authoritative definition in the end all it really is is emotional assent, no matter how many times you tell yourself it isn’t.

You are free to ignore basic common sense all you want but in the end, unless you can admit that there has to be an authoritative explanation to see the “real McCoy” that we are to follow, you are just giving your fallible opinion.

God Bless

 

[mcq72]

And I disagree with you thinking you have the authority to proclaim who is and isn’t a Christian

That is not a Catholic teaching ? Authority is one thing but do I have the right teaching? I thought it quite Catholic, even universal. And if not specifically Catholic, not sure where it contradicts any declared Catholic dogma. Again, that a Christian is one who has a spiritual connection to Jesus Christ, beyond a mental and emotional assent. I mean would not a Catholic priest admonish a disciple of Christ to talk to Jesus, more than a prayer out of need, but just “talk” , as if you knew Him, as friend ever closer than a brother ? Wouldn’t this be fundamental to any baptized and confirmed?

But you want authority. Reminds me of the blind man who was healed by Christ, and testified so to God’s magisterium of the time (Sanhedrin), giving him a hard time also.

So scriptures are not enough, nor testimony from other saints, even ancient ones. If I have been too definitive can you show me where the CC declares i be definitively wrong ?

 

[MT1926]

You are totally missing the point I am getting at or intentionally skirting the issue.

Again, that a Christian is one who has a spiritual connection to Jesus Christ, beyond a mental and emotional assent.

Like I said earlier you can repeat this statement as many times as you wish but you haven’t given any definitive way of someone showing that they have gone beyond a mental and emotional assent. Are you saying it is not possible for someone to claim they have a personal relationship with Jesus and that proclamation might be nothing more than an emotional feeling?

I mean would not a Catholic priest admonish a disciple of Christ to talk to Jesus, more than a prayer out of need, but just “talk” , as if you knew Him, as friend ever closer than a brother ?

And how does the fact that a person is capable and comfortable having a conversation with Jesus is evidence that a person is a Christian, but a person who is not capable of feeling worthy enough to have the conversation is not a Christian.

This makes me think of Jesus’ parable…

Luke 18:9 He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous and despised others: 10 “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, ‘God, I thank thee that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week, I give tithes of all that I get.’ 13 But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me a sinner!’ 14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for every one who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

Are you going to proclaim the tax collector couldn’t be a Christian because he is not able to look Jesus in the face when he prays and just talk to him as a friend?

So scriptures are not enough, nor testimony from other saints, even ancient ones. If I have been too definitive can you show me where the CC declares i be definitively wrong ?

Why do I need to prove you wrong you are the one who is claiming you can know who is and isn’t a Christian, based on them proclaiming that they have spiritually met/seen Jesus. Oh yeah and that they have done so on more than a mental or emotional level.

God Bless

 

[mcq72]

Yet there human failings get in the way and they don’t get that inner feeling that others do.

yes, but not a matter of feelings. These feelings are from what truth (substance) has been apprehended by faith truth is more than a feeling. Christ being present in the Eucharist is a fact, a truth, or it is not. Of course it is to be apprehended by grace, by gifting, and at different levels, but not below “factual”.

I think your statements come across a bit judgmental

I think more hopeful.

to a very high standard that I don’t believe exists the moment one is born again.

yes , a high standard, but it is met by grace and gifting.

Not sure I said at exact moment of rebirth, but it may be so. At any rate then when , day 2 , day 7 or 50 , when ? I do not think new birth is like original birth , where we are oblivious to the newness of life. Of course one must mature, just like one must mature in a marriage. But for sure you know your wife from day one.

The scriptures describe our faith as a journey one can still be a Christian yet not experienced that level of spirituality yet.

agree we grow, but that level is at the beginning, just like marriage and the wedding day.

They can be like Peter when he says…“Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.”

Basically Peter is telling Jesus I have no clue what you are talking about, I can’t see it but I have Faith in You an believe whatever you tell me.

Yes but that was before Pentecost, before God indwelled us as he now does.

Just because someone is having difficulties seeing Jesus flesh in the Eucharist or seeing Jesus in the “born again” spirit isn’t evidence that they aren’t Christian. Jesus himself says that these Christians who are having troubles seeing Him yet still believe are blessed (John 20:29)

well one might have difficulty describing the reality at first, but the reality of “seeing” Jesus must still be there.

I think the verse has context that faith apprehends , blessed is he who sees by faith , and not by sight.

It seems to me that you mean unless you are talking with a Catholic, then you can know for certain that they aren’t proclaiming the real McCoy.

No, I simply was trying to connect with Catholics on something that may illustrate the point more (meeting Christ literally in the Eucharist).

 

[mcq72]

No offense but these words aren’t really a defense to your above claim. Because everything you say here still comes down to interpretation

of course it is an interpretation. The CC church has not interpreted too many scriptures definitively, so again, not sure "my " interpretation of these verses are contrary to any CC definitive teaching on said verses.

But without that authoritative definition in the end all it really is is emotional assent, no matter how many times you tell yourself it isn’t.

Again, you have not shown me any “authoritative definition” that I run contrary to.

You are free to ignore basic common sense all you want but in the end, unless you can admit that there has to be an authoritative explanation to see the “real McCoy” that we are to follow, you are just giving your fallible opinion.

Well, the “common sense” part sounds so "Sanhedrin like (before the healed man we spoke of…it was totally against their senses), but you are welcome otherwise to call it anything else , even a fallible opinion. Again, any one can say that about anything (fallible opinion), the C to an O, or to P, or even a Mormon , or a Hindu or Muslim to any of us, etc., etc…

I only add one more verse and its fallible interpretation. That indeed I am one with a witness, that I take to you. I can find several others like me to also testify to you. We can also find a church, even churches, to testify to you. All three levels of authority that Christ says we have at our disposal. Of course, you also can have the same fallible interpretation or variation thereof, even one that says it is infallible…and in the end , opinion, of one , or two or many, even a church.

 

[mcq72]

Are you saying it is not possible for someone to claim they have a personal relationship with Jesus and that proclamation might be nothing more than an emotional feeling?

I have already addressed this , post 252 I believe:

“one cannot always tell if others proclaiming the same thing have the real mccoy, but there can be signs, even fruits, but even that is not fool proof,”

but a person who is not capable of feeling worthy enough to have the conversation (with Jesus) is not a Christian.

Again, if you have met Christ, He lifts you up, the humble He will exalt will He not ? So for sure at some point during conversion process one rightly sees ones depravity but there is good news isn’t there? It is that despite our lowliness He stooped even lower and took on our sins at the cross, so that as He was lifted up in resurrection we too also are lifted up in new life , whereby we cry Abba Father.

Indeed blessed are the poor in spirit. We are blessed because we can speak to Him, not because how we feel about ourselves, but How He feels about us (the good news), even crying and dying for us. Once we are delivered , born again, in that conversion process we boldly go into the holy of holies…just my experience and opinion…again probably not contrary to CC teaching.

Good point on parable, but the tax collector certainly considered himself a child of God, and talked to God. The new dynamic is that that Jesus did tell the disciples, “I now call you friends.”

Jesus went even further , and supped with a famous tax collector…I would say forever more that collector certainly looked at Jesus in a whole new light.

Why do I need to prove you wrong you are the one who is claiming you can know who is and isn’t a Christian, based on them proclaiming that they have spiritually met/seen Jesus. Oh yeah and that they have done so on more than a mental or emotional level

Well please don’t prove me wrong, and maybe you are saying I am not wrong.