Infallibility of Church?

[mcq72]

Just curious what happens when the individual disagrees with the ecclesial level?

I think you know what happens.

After self examination and prayer hopefully, and still at odds, they depart and perhaps go to a Catholic congregation, or and Orthodox congregation, or a baptist , Lutheran, etc…“birds of a feather flock together” and " be a banana and stick to the bunch" are the two pulls we have to contend with.

 

[MT1926]

After self examination and prayer hopefully, and still at odds, they depart and perhaps go to a Catholic congregation, or and Orthodox congregation, or a baptist , Lutheran, etc…“birds of a feather flock together” and " be a banana and stick to the bunch" are the two pulls we have to contend with.

Sounds like relativism?

 

[Glenn]

A lot of this debate seems to revolve around who has the right to interpret Scripture. Do all believers comprise a “holy priesthood” as Protestants say, or is the authority the Catholic Church?

First, I think we must understand that both Catholics and Protestants agree that there is a “mystical” union of all believers. We are brothers and sisters in one body of Christ. Christ’s body is not divided. As the apostle Paul said, “Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?” (1 Corinthians 1:13).

Secondly, Protestants do not believe, as some have implied, that the Church is invisible. They understand that there is a visible manifestation of the Church on this earth. But they do not believe that the Bible must be submitted to the Church’s interpretation, to any man-made institution. Rather, they see it as the other way around. It is the Church that must submit to the Bible, to the inspired Word of God.

What Protestants say is that Scripture interprets itself. They believe in the essential “perspicuity” of Scripture, the fact that God’s self-revelation is clear and unambiguous on matters of faith and practice. For example, in Romans 1, Paul speaks first to the natural state of sinful men: "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

So God’s revelation is clear even to the unbeliever, who by nature suppresses what he knows to be true. But Paul goes on to say, “For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.”

Now to the Protestant, the Scripture’s condemnation of homosexuality clear and unambiguous. Only one who does not have the Spirit of God would try to explain this away. The Spirit that indwells the true believer conforms itself to the message delivered by the same Spirit that inspired the Holy Scripture, that is, to the objective standard. True believers in both the Catholic Church and Protestant churches agree that homosexuality if sinful, because it is taught clearly in Holy Scripture.

But someone will say, “Then why is there so much division among Protestant?” Who then can say which perspective is right. But as I have said before, the doctrinal heresies within the confines of the Catholic Church are as prevalent and of the same nature as those that affect Protestant churches. There are Catholics who are pro-abortion, who do not believe in the infallibility of Scripture, who advocate gay and lesbian lifestyles, etc. So visible, organizational unity does not end the division.

 

[MichaelP3]

But that’s the real question isn’t it? I call it the default answer as that is what I always see when this circle of Catholic thinking goes on and on. That is the best you have in breaking this circle. I get that. But as I stated the Orthodox do not see it the same way. Actually no other “Apostolic Church” sees it the same way. And then obviously those 'Heretics" during the Reformation didn’t see it the same way. So yes. I still say it is the " default answer" and I utterly reject the notion that it was agreed upon since ever.

Regards

 

[MichaelP3]

. They understand that there is a visible manifestation of the Church on this earth. But they do not believe that the Bible must be submitted to the Church’s interpretation, to any man-made institution. Rather, they see it as the other way around. It is the Church that must submit to the Bible, to the inspired Word of God.

PERFECTLY said!

 

[MichaelP3]

. But they do not believe that the Bible must be submitted to the Church’s interpretation, to any man-made institution.

And here I cry very loud “contraception or no meat on some days (although fish is meat if you know biology). From the extreme to not that extreme. Crying 'man made” would require a PhD “attempt” from the Catholic side. Really? Man made is the entirety of the Argument!

 

[Gorgias]

But as I stated the Orthodox do not see it the same way. Actually no other “Apostolic Church” sees it the same way.

The Orthodox used to see it that way… until they decided they wanted to split from it. (What other ‘Apostolic Church’ are you thinking of?)

And then obviously those 'Heretics" during the Reformation didn’t see it the same way.

Well… strictly speaking, those who leave aren’t ‘heretics’, per se…

But, how do we describe a situation in which a part of a group decides to leave and assert autonomy and authority for itself?

I still say it is the " default answer" and I utterly reject the notion that it was agreed upon since ever.

Just to make sure I understand your stance. Are you saying that it "hasn’t been agreed upon since "? Or are you saying that “it was never agreed upon”?

 

[MT1926]

Secondly, Protestants do not believe, as some have implied, that the Church is invisible.

I just want to point out that some do. Not all but some.

Rather, they see it as the other way around. It is the Church that must submit to the Bible, to the inspired Word of God.

The only thing I would ask you to consider on this point is which came first? The Church or the Bible? If you say Bible I would love to see the evidence of this. If you say Church I would ask how the early Church Submitted to something that was yet to be written?

They believe in the essential “perspicuity” of Scripture, the fact that God’s self-revelation is clear and unambiguous on matters of faith and practice

Sure this is easy to say about something that is clear, but what about that which is unclear? Baptism, Eucharist, atonement, OSAS, when someone actually becomes a Christian, etc…

There are Catholics who are pro-abortion, who do not believe in the infallibility of Scripture, who advocate gay and lesbian lifestyles, etc.

I would argue that this is an unfair comparison. You are comparing Catholics, who go against a Catholic teaching, within the Church to actual Denominations who advocate the gay lesbian lifestyle. Just because someone, whether Catholic or Protestant, goes against the teaching of their Church is not a reflection That that Church’s organizational unity doesn’t work.

I know it can get pretty spirited in here sometimes but you gotta give us Catholics a little wiggle room. I mean it’s not like CAF gives us a program that lists the varying statistics of what every non-Catholic on here believes. Sometimes we think we remember someone’s belief from another thread but end up thinking of someone else.

God Bless

 

[mcq72]

Sounds like relativism?

No , the exact opposite. If Christians didn’t think that truth matters, that something is either right or wrong, we wouldn’t all, including Catholics, be hopping around now would we.

Or is it only relativism when people leave other churches, even leave the CC, but not when people leave other churches to become Catholic?

Yet, this moving around is due to many things, and there may be few who do think one is as good as another.

 

[mcq72]

The only thing I would ask you to consider on this point is which came first? The Church or the Bible? If you say Bible I would love to see the evidence of this. If you say Church I would ask how the early Church Submitted to something that was yet to be written?

Well, two things. The first church was Jewish, and certainly what we now call OT scriptures were used heavily to declare their fulfillment in Christ and the gospel. Quite authoritative and for ears to hear.

Secondly, everyone says the message was laid by the apostles, orally and thru scripture, old and new. Everyone says the successors could lay down nothing new, but must protect what is apostolic. New Scripture was God breathed to that end. All else (supposed tradition) is heresay, how be it by holy men, but not God breathed. So much so that to curb the possible abuse of Paul’s use of the word tradition, which was used before the completion of much new Scripture, that his companion Barnabus, who lived much longer, had to write this:

“To those knowledgeable of the Lord’s precepts, keep them, as many as are written.”

 

[MT1926]

No , the exact opposite. If Christians didn’t think that truth matters, that something is either right or wrong, we wouldn’t all, including Catholics, be hopping around now would we.

Sorry I must have misunderstood. I have such a hard time with your little phrases that come with no explaination. When you said birds of a feather flock together it came across like you were saying as long as they were with a group of like minded individuals that’s what’s best.

Personally, for me anyway I can’t really see why someone would be hoping around from Church to church looking for truth? Church is supposed to be about worshipping God. It’s about what we give to God not what we get from whatever the homilies have to say. I know that is important to many but if I’m going to Church I’m there to worship God. When I want to learn more about God’s truth I’ll take a Bible Study or read the Church Fathers or listen to a talk.

Just my thoughts anyway. I’ve always learned better-on my own than in a “class type” setting.

God Bless

 

[MT1926]

Well, two things. The first church was Jewish, and certainly what we now call OT scriptures were used heavily to declare their fulfillment in Christ and the gospel. Quite authoritative and for ears to hear.

We are talking about The Christian Church here NT not old.

I’m ignoring the rest of your post because it doesn’t address or answer the question.

If you would like to answer the question honestly we can continue but I’m not going off on these tangents with you so you can avoid the basic question.

Which came first the NT or the Church. Did the early Church baptize new Christians the first 40 years or did they wait for a John to write chapter 3? Did the Church celebrate the Eucharist or did they wait for the gospels to be written or Paul to write so they could submit to the writings before they celebrated the Eucharist.

As for your everyone statements, if I were to say everyone believed in and celebrated the real presence for years before the gospels were written or everyone, including the reformers believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary would you take my word without evidence?

I think when you say everyone what you mean is ever nonCatholic for the past 500 years.

God Bless

 

[Glenn]

Secondly, Protestants do not believe, as some have implied, that the Church is invisible.

I just want to point out that some do. Not all but some.

I’m not aware of any traditional Protestant denomination that would deny that Church is the visible body Christ here in the world. But they would also say that we are all together part of his mystical body.

The only thing I would ask you to consider on this point is which came first? The Church or the Bible? If you say Bible I would love to see the evidence of this. If you say Church I would ask how the early Church Submitted to something that was yet to be written?

The early Church had the Old Testament, and it also had the Apostles. When Jesus was tempted by the Devil in the wilderness, he responded by quoting Scripture. He did not respond by saying, “according to the traditions of the Fathers,” or “according to Holy Mother Church.” He said, “It is written…” The church is built upon the “prophets and the apostles, with Christ Jesus as the cornerstone” (Ephesians 2:20).

I think we could ask similar question of the Catholic Church. “Which came first–the Pope or Scripture?” (Remember that all the books of the New Testament were completed and in circulation among the churches by the end of the first century.) Moreover, we may ask the question: “What is the basis of the Pope’s authority?” Is it Christ’s statement recorded in the Scripture passage, “You are Peter, and upon this rock, I will build my Church” (Matthew 16:18)? If the Pope’s authority is derived from Scripture, and the authoritative interpretation of Scripture is derived directly or indirectly from the Pope, then you have a circular chain of authority.

For the Protestants, the chain of authority is like this: Christ → Apostles → Scripture → Church.

 

[Glenn]

What Protestants say is that Scripture interprets itself. They believe in the essential “perspicuity” of Scripture, the fact that God’s self-revelation is clear and unambiguous on matters of faith and practice.

Sure this is easy to say about something that is clear, but what about that which is unclear? Baptism, Eucharist, atonement, OSAS, when someone actually becomes a Christian, etc…

The Scripture is sufficient, without any other authority, to show man the way to God, to salvation through his Son Jesus, and to heaven. It does not tell us everything, but it tells us everything we need to know to find eternal life, the doctrines necessary for our “faith and practice.” Christ has gifted different members of his body with different gifts, each of which complements the others, so that together we are whole body of Christ, and he is “all in all.”

You are comparing Catholics, who go against a Catholic teaching, within the Church to actual Denominations who advocate the gay lesbian lifestyle.

It depends upon your understanding of Truth. Truth is not simply something that can be reduced to a doctrinal statement. Pilate asked Jesus the question, “What is truth?” Yet the Truth was standing right before him. Jesus said, “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand” (John 10:27-28). What matters is whether you hear and follow the Truth. According to Scripture, homosexuals “will not inherit the kingdom of God.” It does not matter whether they are in or not in the Catholic church.

 

[mcq72]

Sorry I must have misunderstood. I have such a hard time with your little phrases that come with no explaination. When you said birds of a feather flock together it came across like you were saying as long as they were with a group of like minded individuals that’s what’s best.

Ok, thank you, good of you to say that.I actually had to do a quick Google to make it sure it fit before I posted, and if I recall you had it right that like minded folk draw together by nature apart from what is best, though it may or may not be.

The “be a banana and stick to the bunch” was always used by one of my math teachers, on students who were falling behind on the material. I kind of made it fit to mean stick it out wherever you are, be good where you are at, keep up with your brethren.

Personally, for me anyway I can’t really see why someone would be hoping around from Church to church looking for truth

Not sure that is exactly what I was addressing, though it can be a reason for hopping around. I really meant those folks that do feel they have the truth, or have come to find it on some matter of importance, that then becomes at odds with their current church, or may be their church changes its stand on a matter of importance.

Church is supposed to be about worshipping God. It’s about what we give to God not what we get from whatever the homilies have to say. I know that is important to many but if I’m going to Church I’m there to worship God. When I want to learn more about God’s truth I’ll take a Bible Study or read the Church Fathers or listen to a talk.

Thank for sharing, but can you see how some might say that is relativistic, that you can do that in many different churches. I am not saying it is relativistic. Some of it is a universal desire and need and obligation/ privilege, to worship.

I have always liked the saying that church is where you should not only be served, but where your gifts should be nurtured to serve others. Too many judge a congregation by what they can get out of it, forgetting the wise old maxim, that it is better to give than receive.

I also believe one should go where they perceive or discern the Spirit’s anointing on the service, both in the praise and the message. Some teachers, some congregations, are just more graced, more gifted to that end.

 

[mcq72]

If you would like to answer the question honestly we can continue but I’m not going off on these tangents with you so you can avoid the basic question.

Well, I was as honest as I could be in answering the basic question, and then some. Lol, I now you didnt like the tangents, some which really just follows the answer quite naturally. But here it is again:

“Secondly, everyone says the message was laid by the apostles, orally and thru scripture”

Yes I could be more precise. The apostles first taught orally what the Lord taught them, which included expounding on OT scripture. They then secondly, or thereafter, taught thru new God breathed writings.

So yes the Lord first taught the apostles and multitudes, then the apostles continued at Pentecost, orally, for several decades before God put it in writing.

Nothing new here, I mean God was in the covenant business way before He put His word in writing in the OT also.That did not prevent the Scriptures not to become the authoritative norm.

Hopefully your basic question was answered.

I think when you say everyone what you mean is ever nonCatholic for the past 500 years

No by everyone I meant most churches especially the CC. Perhaps i worded it wrong but the deposit of faith or something like that, was laid by apostles, or the time of revelation was apostolic times. Like no new doctrines except those laid during apostolic times. Everything else is developmental.I thought this aligns with C teaching.

My point was that if there is no new revelation, then the last revelation we had was the book of Revelation, and why woul we need an authority equal to scripture if there is not going to be any new revelation?

 

[MT1926]

I’m not aware of any traditional Protestant denomination that would deny that Church is the visible body Christ here in the world. But they would also say that we are all together part of his mystical body.

You didn’t say “traditional” the first time. I highly doubt anyone would believe a traditional Protestant believed that. I agree none of the mainline traditional groups believe that, it’s some of their off shoots that do. There was a thread on one of these groups last week.

When Jesus was tempted by the Devil in the wilderness, he responded by quoting Scripture. He did not respond by saying, “according to the traditions of the Fathers,” or “according to Holy Mother Church.”

I’ve heard this before and it doesn’t make sense, maybe you could explain further because by this analogy it seems that you are also saying that Jesus teaching is subject to the OT?

I think we could ask similar question of the Catholic Church. “Which came first–the Pope or Scripture?”

The Pope. Jesus made Peter the head of the Church decades before a word was written? Not sure what your point about the end of the first century is?

What is the basis of the Pope’s authority?

Jesus.

Is it Christ’s statement recorded in the Scripture passage, “You are Peter, and upon this rock, I will build my Church” (Matthew 16:18)?

No it isn’t a proof text. Peter is The first Pope because Christ handed him the authority. We know this from sacred tradition. We can see evidence of this tradition in some text of scripture such as this but his authority does come from the text.

If the Pope’s authority is derived from Scripture, and the authoritative interpretation of Scripture is derived directly or indirectly from the Pope, then you have a circular chain of authority.

You are correct, that’s why it is a good thing that isn’t where it comes from. The same statement is true of the Bible. If the Bible is authoritative because the Bible says so then, without an authoritative Church, it too becomes a circular argument.

For the Protestants, the chain of authority is like this: Christ → Apostles → Scripture → Church.

Same for Catholics except it goes Jesus on top with Apostolic Tradition, Scripture and Church magestirium being equal, we call it the 3 legged stool.

God Bless

 

[MT1926]

The Scripture is sufficient, without any other authority, to show man the way to God, to salvation through his Son Jesus, and to heaven.

You missed my point. Jesus said unless one is born of water and spirit he can not enter the Kingdom of God. Is this sufficient enough to tell us if we need Baptized or not? Some say yes some say no? Jesus says unless here, which is it? I’ve heard yes and no?

It depends upon your understanding of Truth… What matters is whether you hear and follow the Truth. According to Scripture, homosexuals “will not inherit the kingdom of God.” It does not matter whether they are in or not in the Catholic church.

I’m not following you here? Yes this is a true statement, but I don’t see how someone going against truth proves no need for organized unity? Or that this shows the comparison you made works?

God Bless

 

[MT1926]

The “be a banana and stick to the bunch” was always used by one of my math teachers,

I’ve never heard that one before so I skipped it. Although I do like bananas. The wife just made me a batch of banana bread, yummy

Thank for sharing, but can you see how some might say that is relativistic, that you can do that in many different churches.

I guess it would come down to how one defines what worship is. If one were to believe all Churches worship is the same, which I don’t, then yeah it would be relativistic.

I have always liked the saying that church is where you should not only be served, but where your gifts should be nurtured to serve others.

Never heard that one before. I’m not real good at being served, by others, so never really went to Church with that frame of mind. I was always more in agreement with this…

it is better to give than receive.

God Bless

 

[mcq72]

I’ve heard this before and it doesn’t make sense, maybe you could explain further because by this analogy it seems that you are also saying that Jesus teaching is subject to the OT?

If I may interject, Jesus is subject to the OT.

Jesus is subject to His own words, His own promises, His own prophecies. Jesus is the Word, Jesus is Jehovah incarnate, the I am, that rock int the wilderness, yes, of the OT.

They are all one, in that regard they are “subject” to one another, for lack of a better word.

God does not promise one thing but give another thing. He is who He says (Word) He is and does what He says (Word) He will. Word can be oral and written.