Infallibility of Church?

[Gorgias]

Glenn:

So there is this idea of a minimum belief in certain essentials.

This is known as The Creed.

Actually, what’s usually asserted is “in essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.”

Usually, this is attributed to Augustine (in order to give it the patina of authority, I’m guessing). But… he never said or wrote that. Rather, it was asserted by a 17th-century Lutheran theologian. So, it was the advice of someone who had already broken from the Church and disagreed with her teachings.

On the contrary, the Church has never taught “here are some things you must believe, and here are some other things that you can pick and choose.” In fact, what the Church has taught is what St Paul wrote: “I urge you … that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same purpose” (1 Cor 1:10), “be imitators of me [and] … my ways in Christ, just as I teach them everywhere in every church” (1 Cor 4:16, 17), “I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you” (1 Cor 11:1). That is, St Paul taught that there is a body of teaching of the Church (i.e., “the traditions”), and the expectation is that there should be one set of teaching and Christians should adhere to it.

All the doctrines must be accepted.

Right. And, if one is having a hard time with it, then we’d say that he should pray and attempt to gain understanding of a teaching in the future, and not close himself off to the teaching but remain open to trying to understand it.

 

[Glenn]

What do you believe Ignatius believed the visible signs of “spiritual unity” would look like?

Jesus said "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another” (John 13:34-35).

Do you not believe that the scriptures can show us who is and isn’t a member of the Body of Christ?

Jesus said, “You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorn bushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will recognize them by their fruits” (Matthew 7:16-20).

In the parable Jesus points out that the servants (us) were able to tell the difference between the weeds and the wheat.

Although Jesus said we will recognize them by their fruits, the parable also states, “So the servants said to him, ‘Then do you want us to go and gather them?’ But he said, ‘No, lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them’” So Jesus was cautioning us to be careful in how we judge, because only God sees the heart.

 

[adf417]

So I guess being “open to the truth” must not be “calling into doubt”, which is forbidden.

Correct, especially if you add the word “willfully”.

Peace!!!

 

[Glenn]

Did Jesus intend one truth and if so how did He intend for us to know this one truth?

By the Holy Spirit… Jesus said, “When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come” (John 16:13). The Holy Spirit is given to every believer. The Apostle Paul said to the believers at Rome, “You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him” (Romans 8:9). To the Corinthians, he said, “For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ” (1 Corinthians 2:16). So from these Scriptures, and others, it appears that we are led by Christ, by his indwelling presence, his very mind, in the person of the Holy Spirit, “into all the truth.”

So what is that truth? I don’t think it can be every doctrinal statement of a Church. It is Christ himself, the one who said, " “I am the way, and the TRUTH, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him” (John 14: 6). Moreover, he said, “And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of TRUTH, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you” (John 14: 16).

So it is not the Church who leads un into truth. It is Christ himself. But if this is correct, then why is there so much division and confusion – not only among Protestants, but also among Catholics? The only answer I have is that we are still in a battle with sin, the flesh, and the devil. None of us has arrived, but we cling to Christ and to his promises. When Jesus asked the twelve, “Do you want to go away as well,” Peter replied, "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” (John 6:68-69). This, in my understanding, is the one essential, the TRUTH: Christ is our life. Christ above me, Christ below me, Christ around me. Paul said, “For me to live is Christ, and to die is gain” (Philippians 1:21).

 

[mcq72]

Yes, the Spirit will lead us into all truth, but does this mean that we, or any human organization, has yet to fully realize that promise. I have difficulty believing that even the Catholic Church has it all right

John says we know all things by unction from the Holy Ghost, but Paul says we see thru a glass darkly now, as compared to future face to face with our Creator.

As to CC, it does not say she has it all right , but rather that she has the fullness of truth, or proprietary of it, and is infallible on what she does teach on faith and morals. Any truth and grace held by Orthodox and Protestants is from and due to CC.

 

[MT1926]

Thanks for the response Glenn. I think I’m going to back down because I was just trying to help you ask yourself some questions to get you to dig a little deeper. However, it seems that what I said has come across as being argumentative. I am happy to back down because I’m sure we can agree that we don’t interpret the verses you present to have the same meaning. I don’t think having a back and forth debate on how the verses you present are interpreted will be conducive to your personal faith journey.

You seem like a nice an honest guy (looking for truth) but you also seem to be deeply rooted in your faith traditions (as we all are).

My only recommendation to you would be to go back and try to honestly answer some of the questions above with YOUR OWN thoughts and understanding and not by picking a Bible verse, that you yourself stated

“who can rightly interpret these writings?”

If you honestly believe this statement then you must also believe this statement applies to your Baptist interpretations and not just the Catholic interpretations.

I’m sure you would agree, just presenting Bible verses, with no personal insight, just shows that the replies you gave mean something different to anyone who reads them. Which logically tells us that no one definitive answer (truth) was given.

Good luck on your journey. Keep digging and never stop asking questions, that is the only way you will ever find the truth.

God Bless

 

[Glenn]

Thanks for the response Glenn. I think I’m going to back down because I was just trying to help you ask yourself some questions to get you to dig a little deeper. However, it seems that what I said has come across as being argumentative. I am happy to back down because I’m sure we can agree that we don’t interpret the verses you present to have the same meaning. I don’t think having a back and forth debate on how the verses you present are interpreted will be conducive to your personal faith journey.

Actually, I did not think you were being argumentative. Your questions were reasonable. So I attempted to give answers from my perspective – and like you, not to be argumentative. Seriously, I have a lot of questions, and I don’t know who actually holds the correction position on some issues – the Protestant or the Catholic. I have wrestled with these questions now for years. One of my challenges, which I mentioned above, is that I cannot receive the Eucharist in a Catholic church because I am not in full agreement with every doctrine of the Church. This is not an issue, however, in Protestant churches. I can attend a Baptist or Methodist or Presbyterian or Lutheran church, and I am welcome to receive the sacrament as long as I have accepted Christ as savior and lord of my life. Protestants see the Scripture as infallible, but not their particular church, and hence, “in essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.”

I would, as I also mentioned previously, like to attend Catholic Mass, but I am excluded from the Eucharist. I believe I have spiritual brothers and sisters in all Christian communions, and I hope that one day the Catholic church might accept my presence at the table based upon my profession of faith in the historic creeds upon which all the communions agree (the Apostles and Nicene creeds). For that to happen, I would assume that the Catholic church would have to believe that Protestant communions are valid in their own right, and not simply by their relationship to the one and only true Christian church.

If you honestly believe this statement then you must also believe this statement applies to your Baptist interpretations and not just the Catholic interpretations.

I’m sure you would agree, just presenting Bible verses, with no personal insight, just shows that the replies you gave mean something different to anyone who reads them. Which logically tells us that no one definitive answer (truth) was given.

Yes, I believe that most Protestants would say that even though Scripture is infallible, our doctrinal “interpretations” are subject to error, because we are all fallen and sinful creatures. We have the right to disagree over some of the finer points. As mentioned above, there are some essentials – the two creeds that I mentioned – but there are other matters – like baptismal mode, the manner of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, Marian devotion, etc. – which may separate us organizationally, but should not lessen our love for one another as Christian brothers and sisters.

 

[steve-b]

Some of the issues that my wife and/or I have difficulty with are as follows:

• My wife has difficulty with the idea of confessing her sins to a priest. She does confess her sins–directly and sincerely to Christ.

Yet

If that was the be all to end all, Jesus never would have instituted the sacrament of reconciliation.

ALSO

to your wife’s finer point, John teaches one can pray for the forgiveness of non mortal sin and all is forgiven.

However,

he also says, that is Not so for mortal sin

That’s why Jesus established the sacrament of reconcilliation.

Glenn:

• I believe that I am joined to Christ SPIRITUALLY through the Eucharist, but don’t understand why I must consider it to be the PHYSICAL blood and body of Christ in order for that union to be effective.

Re: you point

No Protestant organization regardless of name, has a valid priesthood because they have no valid ordinations. So you are correct in what you receive in the Protestant setting. It’s just a symbol. Bread is bread and wine is wine. No more.

Not so in the Catholic Church. With a validly ordained priest those elements sacramentally change into the real body and blood of Jesus. If one receives unworthily then one eats and drinks condemnation upon themselves . Only way that can happen is if it is real.

Glenn:

• I am afraid of betraying Christ if I credit any of my own good works as contributing toward my justification. I want all the glory to be his. I do believe that faith without works is a dead faith, but I see the works as the necessary FRUIT of my justification, not the CAUSE of my justification. I believe I have been sealed by the Holy Spirit, and that he gives me the power to live unto God and to grow in sanctifying grace.

These are a few of my doctrinal beliefs that I don’t believe in good conscience before God that I can lay aside.

Re: salvation & good works

one has to ask

What would happen to the one who didn’t do what God created them to do AND then didn’t do the good works that God prepared in advance for them to do?

 

[Glenn]

John teaches one can pray for the forgiveness of non mortal sin and all is forgiven. However, he also says, that is Not so for mortal sin.

I believe that “mortal” sin in this passage refers to an obstinate refusal to repent. When a human will has been firmly and persistently set in opposition to the Divine will, our intercession will be of no avail. The apostle in this passage is referring to our own petitions for those who have sinned, not the petitions of a priest, who also has no power to forgive the unrepentant.

The book of Hebrews refers to Christ as our “High Priest.” Can we deny Christ what we relegate to our priest? Jesus has the power to forgive all sin. In one sense, every sin is mortal, since Scripture says, “And whosoever shall keep the whole law, but offend in one point, is become guilty of all” (James 2:10).

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

John teaches one can pray for the forgiveness of non mortal sin and all is forgiven. However, he also says, that is Not so for mortal sin.

I believe that “mortal” sin in this passage refers to an obstinate refusal to repent. When a human will has been firmly and persistently set in opposition to the Divine will, our intercession will be of no avail. The apostle in this passage is referring to our own petitions for those who have sinned, not the petitions of a priest, who also has no power to forgive the unrepentant.

The book of Hebrews refers to Christ as our “High Priest.” Can we deny Christ what we relegate to our priest? Jesus has the power to forgive all sin. In one sense, every sin is mortal, since Scripture says, “And whosoever shall keep the whole law, but offend in one point, is become guilty of all” (James 2:10).

You’re free to exercise your belief. That doesn’t mean it is true. Not every sin is mortal. There is a difference between mortal and non mortal sin. As in venial vs mortal.

Any sin that sends one to hell if they die in it, is mortal sin

Example:

Galatians 5: 19 - 21
Romans 16:17…
Colossians 3: 5-6

As John says, (scripture already provided) just praying for mortal sin is no guarantee it is forgiven.

 

[Gorgias]

By the Holy Spirit… Jesus said, “When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come” (John 16:13). The Holy Spirit is given to every believer.

So then, when the Holy Spirit is given to Catholic believers, and they believe in a process of justification/sanctification/salvation…

…and when the Holy Spirit is given to Calvinist believers, and they believe that the saved are eternally saved and the damned are eternally condemned…

…and when the Holy Spirit is given to Evangelical believers, and they believe in the “sinner’s prayer” and OSAS…

… well, then we have three truths that are mutually exclusive, ostensibly given by the same one Holy Spirit. How can that be the case?

So it is not the Church who leads un into truth. It is Christ himself.

Yes… it’s Christ who gave us the Church, in order that it might lead us to salvation, teaching what He taught and doing what He instructed us to do.

For that to happen, I would assume that the Catholic church would have to believe that Protestant communions are valid in their own right, and not simply by their relationship to the one and only true Christian church.

It’s not “relationship to the Church”, strictly speaking, that prevents intercommunion. It’s belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Regarding those who do not believe in the Real Presence, we recall the words of St Paul, that those who eat and drink without discerning the body are eating and drinking judgment upon themselves. We aren’t wishing that on you. Nor do we want to encourage you to lie – when we distribute the Eucharist, we say “The Body of Christ”, to which the response is “Amen” – that is, the response is an affirmation that it really is the body and blood of Christ. If you said that, you would be lying, right? We don’t want to lead you into that sin, either.

So, it’s not a judgment of you, but rather, a recognition that what you believe about the Eucharist is fundamentally different than what we believe about the Eucharist.

You mention that you can “receive the sacrament” in Baptist or Methodist or Presbyterian or Lutheran churches. Do they see the Eucharist as a sacrament? I want to say ‘no’ – perhaps you can help me out on that one…

there are other matters … which may separate us organizationally, but should not lessen our love for one another as Christian brothers and sisters.

 

[MT1926]

Your questions were reasonable.

Thank you I appreciate that. I apologize for jumping to this conclusion.

Seriously, I have a lot of questions

Questions are good. Jesus calls us as sheep but I don’t believe He intended for us to blindly follow our leaders. Just a thought. I often find that people get hung up on the tough stuff without ever asking questions on the basics. For instance I see people unable to wrap their head around having an infallible authority and this has them rejecting that Jesus left us visible authoritative Church without ever questioning whether or not Jesus left us a Church. If we can see the need for a visible authority it’s pretty easy to see that if that authority is to speak for Jesus (he who hears you hears me) then Jesus would not let them teach in error.

Protestants see the Scripture as infallible, but not their particular church, and hence, “in essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.”

Have you ever asked any questions on this statement and gotten a response?
When I read this I ask…
How can the Scriptures be infallible?
What good is a book that cannot err if the people teaching from it can make all kind of mistakes?
If my church can err how do I know their claims of essentials and non-essentials are true?

One of my challenges, which I mentioned above…

Just curious is this really your challenge? or are you wanting to receive without becoming a Catholic? I ask because you say your hope is the Catholic Church will accept you based on your professions and not Hers. In essence the Catholic Church sees the Eucharist as Communion (meaning I proclaim with my action of receiving that I am a part of this community) which is an essential to the Faith and it seems you see it as a non-essential.

should not lessen our love for one another

I just wanted to say that not allowing someone to receive communion in no way should be seen as an act of rejection. If anything, if we look at the basics in Catholic teaching, then it should be seen as an act of love. The Catholic Church takes St. Paul words in 1 Corinthians 11 seriously when he speaks of taking communion in an unworthy manner. St. Paul also tells us in 1 Corinthians 5 that we judge the worthiness of those inside the Church and not outside. If you are not inside the Church, going to confession, She has no way of judging your worthiness of receiving.

Keep asking questions. For me it was easy, once I came to the understanding that Jesus wouldn’t leave us here without a visible shepherd, everything else just started making logical sense.

God Bless

 

[Paytheon]

Jesus says to the thief on the cross: Luke 23:42 “And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.”

There was no Catholic church then. You do not need to be “Catholic” to receive salvation. That’s simply fact!

 

[HOMM]

all doctrine is part of divine revelation.

I get the point, but I’m not so sure this is accurate…this was a big discussion during my university studies on Theology of the Church.

Ex-cathedra statements setting doctrine are not always a product of divine revelation, but instead are simply the product of the Papal authority.

 

[mcq72]

So then, when the Holy Spirit is given to Catholic believers, and they believe in a process of justification/sanctification/salvation…

…and when the Holy Spirit is given to Calvinist believers, and they believe that the saved are eternally saved and the damned are eternally condemned…

…and when the Holy Spirit is given to Evangelical believers, and they believe in the “sinner’s prayer” and OSAS…

… well, then we have three truths that are mutually exclusive, ostensibly given by the same one Holy Spirit. How can that be the case?

So when you get to the Pearly Gates the sign outside says, “Enter in, for I have chosen you”.

After entering in, there is a sign on the inside that says, “Well done for having chosen to serve the Lord”

Both Holy Ghost inspired “signs”.

Only a fool would argue one sign over the other?

 

[Gorgias]

Both Holy Ghost inspired “signs”.

Only a fool would argue one sign over the other?

Erm… I’m not buying it. It’s a nice thought, but… “Jesus chose me” and “I chose the Lord” aren’t mutually exclusive. On the other hand, “Once saved always saved” and “eternally saved or condemned” and “justification → sanctification → salvation” are, in fact, mutually exclusive. Not to mention the tons of conflicting doctrines that the past 500 years of denominational (and now, non-denominational!) Christianity in the West have brought us!

 

[mcq72]

There was no Catholic church then. You do not need to be “Catholic” to receive salvation. That’s simply fact!

Now here is the theological rebuttal that has been crafted carefully for you, that if the thief had the chance, had he been freed, he would have done all the righteous things that saves us, he would have become a Catholic thru baptism. ( baptism of desire).

 

[mcq72]

Jesus chose me” and “I chose the Lord” aren’t mutually exclusive…not buying it

I rest my case

 

[Gorgias]

I rest my case

Your case, it seems, is “here’s an example which doesn’t fit the situation”…?

 

[mcq72]

On the other hand, “Once saved always saved” and “eternally saved or condemned” and “justification -> sanctification -> salvation” are , in fact, mutually exclusive.

Yes, I would agree…men have made them that. They all intersect really, but men ,wanting set themselves right over others, have snipped those lines. Your solution falls in that vein, defining things so that indeed others are wrong. And they may be partially, but they are also partially right. Hey if my scenario of the two signs are not exclusive ,maybe your three scenarios aren’t really either.