I tried asking this in another thread but it was somewhat off-topic and I didn’t even get a response.
One scripture and one thought repeatedly come to mind when I consider the idea of an infallible earthly authority (aside from the Bible):
The Scripture is this: But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
Paul’s statement here definately seems to dispel the idea that he is or is part of an infallible magisterium. If even Paul is capable of preaching “another gospel” in stands to reason that a lineage within a church organization is not a guantee of infallibililty.
Actually, this is a confirmation of infallibility. Jesus promised He would protect the gospel, and it is protected in unity with the Church (Magesterium).
It is not the “lineage within a church organiziation” tht is a guarantee, but the HS. It is the Divine element of the Church, the HS, who is the soul of the Church, that prevents error. To the extent that those within the lineage are united with that Spirit, they can be covered by the promise of infallibility, but when they depart from it, the protection no longer applies.
And my thought is this: When Jesus was amongst us there was no one between He and common man - no one to help explain things. And at times people did misunderstand Him. Many times people simply walked away because His were “hard sayings”. Considering this, I tend to believe that the discontinuity within Christendom arises from our inability or unwillingness to believe and/or obey what is contained within Scripture.
You are making a logic shift that does not apply here. First, you admit that it is the teaching of Jesus that is the basis for Christianity, and that, when people depart from it, they separate themselves from him. This has happened before, during, and after the writing of scripture.
I agree, though, that many of the divisions in Christendom spring from people trying to base their faith on scripture, instead of the person of Jesus. Everyone perceives through filters, and that is why there are so many different understandings of what scripture means.
Man sees what he wants to see and hears what he wants to here. “He who has ears to hear let him hear…” Of course these thoughts can equally apply to the Catholic Church in her claims. Perhaps those from the outside are the ones not “seeing”.
Yes, you confirm my point above about private interpretation. This is why Jesus appointed an authority to be the final arbitor.
But Paul did not consider it impossible for him to preach another gospel. People failed to understand or obey God even when He walked this earth. The fact that the gospels were written at all indicates some concern that the truth might be lost had they not written them ****
Yes, you make a good point too against OSAS with this observation. Paul did admit that he could be accursed.
WatchfulPilgrim;4586125:
3It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
4That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.
Scripture also says error and deception will arise from within and there will be (or would be) a great falling away.
Well, no, error also comes from without. However, note that Luke give him the written form because he has first “been instructed”. This is how the Apostolic Faith has always been passed, thorugh personal instruction, one person to other persons. Jesus never intended for people to sit and read the bible alone, and “figure it out”. He taught His Apostles everything, then authorized them to teach.
It does not say when this will or did happen. So although it seems good and necessary for there to be an infallible, earthly interpreter/authority, I also see the distinct possibility that God intended for Scripture to be that “certainy of those things” which, if looked at in humility and honesty can be believed, understood and obeyed sufficiently for our salvation.
Indeed. This is why Catholics consider them to be equal strands in the one Divine Deposit of faith. The Scripture was never intended to be separated from the authority of the church that produced, protected, promulgated and plethorated it.
Does this make sense? If not, what am I missing?
I think you have made some excellent points here, formerly Joy.
) Maybe it’d be considered a tradition but, headcovering is based on Paul’s teaching about headship. God the Father is the head of Jesus, Jesus is the head of man, and man is the head of woman. For 2000 years the church practiced headcovering according to Paul’s discourse on headship but today, when it is most misunderstood and unappreciated, it is no longer mandatory or encouraged. Maybe not done away with in an official sense, but in practice it is - no doubt b/c the church has not touched the subject since its silence at VII when the practice was most unpopular (also a time when “womens lib” and “pro-choice” were very popular).
