Infallibility? Paul didn't think so

[guanophore]

well, my non-Catholic p.o.v. would tell you that the gates of hell not prevailing against the church doesn’t necessarily mean one church establishment (visible) is infallible, but rather, that, as long as there are faithful Christians (believing and living in truth) that the church is not prevailed against.

Yes, but how are those “faithful Christians” are to know that truth? Would you not agree that teaching error results in passing through the gates of hell? How was the Church saved from all the scourages of the early hereseis such as the circumcision party, Gnosticism, Pelagianism,Arianism, etc? Many of those who fell into heresy, just as today, were faithful and devout persons seeking the truth.

 I was just thinking about all the ways in which I have considered the Bible to be trustworthy and realized that those reasons alone used to be enough for me to accept the Bible as divine, but it still necessitates an earthly, infallible authority b/c, for instance, how do we not know that this is only a small portion of inspired works?

Indeed, this is most likely the case.

 What if there are others that are equally convincing to me?  Who is to say they aren't inspired as well?

This is a good question, and I commend you for asking it. Certainly God’s ability to inspire is not limited to the canon of scripture.

There really doesn't seem to be anyway around it.  I can't believe I just noticed that I kept working off of the assumption that the books were inspired.  I really have no way of knowing they are unless I will believe that Christ's church had divine guidance in deciding it.

You have been willing to do something that most Sola Scripturists are not, and should be commended for your willingness.

 I still can't believe it.  It's so very obvious to me now.

And I’m not going to argue that the church at that time was not Catholic. It clearly was. I’ve read the ECF and it takes a lot of mental gymnastics to deny that the church these men were a part of is not the same CC we have today.

Most people, with less intellectual honesty than you have, will just refuse to read them, thereby removing this difficulty.

Looks like I can go to Mass tomorrow with a little less reluctance

Merry Christmas everyone!

Merry Christmas Watchful, and may God continue to richly bless your journey.

 

[guanophore]

GImme that old time religion, it’s good enough for me

I think the church would have avoided many ills today if it had not decided to do away with some of Paul’s teachings. I really appreciate the Mennonites for their diligent obedience to Scripture.

I admire the Mennonites too, but honestly, Watchful, the Church never “did away with some of Paul’s teachings”. Such a statement is nonsense. I will grant you that some persons lost sight of some of the church’s teachings, and some perverted them, and some were disobedient to them. But to lay such a charge against Christ is not appropriate.

Some of those traditions may not necessarily affect our salvation, but they certainly were and are affective. Headcovering for instance. It is a symbol of acceptance of God’s divinely ordained headship. Never has there been a time when headcovering is most significant as these times are - when the family is deteriorating b/c of our lack of appreciation for God’s order.

Yes, this is a very pious practice, and it is a sad fact that our culture has lost a great deal of piety, as well as the need for being under headship.

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

Yes, but how are those “faithful Christians” are to know that truth?

That is kind of like asking how the first disciples of Christ knew they were following truth. Unless you are referring to those following a canon not divinely determined. They would have to presume they were following truth. Actually, in either case it is a matter of faith, isn’t it? Certainly, Christ’s disciples had to exercise faith to follow Christ. Of course, that faith was not blind. If I were witness to His miracles etc. I would probably be convinced (I’d like to think I would at least). And I suppose that after Christ’s ascension I would look to the Apostles for guidance and then their followers, etc…

Would you not agree that teaching error results in passing through the gates of hell?

Sure - of those who teach error anyway. But if there are some, even if only a few, who are following truth… But I do see what you mean. How would they or anyone observing them know they were following truth.

Merry Christmas Watchful, and may God continue to richly bless your journey.

Thank you and Merry Christmas to you also.

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

OK. New question:

What is the difference between the early church circulating inspired and uninspired writings (before the canon was determined) and the present situation of 30+thousand different churches with varying bible interpretations? If the fact that there are 30+thousand different interpretations means that individual interpretation is faulty and the fullness of truth is lost b/c of the lack of unity, then wasn’t the early church also lacking? How could one say that the gates of hell had not prevailed (if that is your interpretation of the gates of hell prevailing) against the early church at those times prior to the declaration of the canon??? I mean, there was a lack of unity as to which writings were inspired. There was a lack of unity as to which writings were being taught from! How do you recognize the pre-canon church as being the One True Church with the Fullness Of Truth?

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

The pre-canon “church” would have been in complete disarray. One could have likened it to the non-Catholic situation we have presently.

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

The pre-canon “church” would have been in complete disarray. One could have likened it to the non-Catholic situation we have presently.

Nevermind. I just figured that one out as well.

The difference is that at least in the pre-canon church there was an authority (regardless of the fact that it hadn’t exercised authority in this matter yet) whereas there is no earthly, extra-biblical authority in the present non-Catholic situation.

It is kind of like looking at two houses full of children. In both houses the children are unruly. We find in one house that there are no parents at home. We find in the other house that the parents are home, but they either haven’t discovered yet that the children are out-of-sorts, or they just haven’t reprimanded them yet for whatever reason (maybe they are trying to figure out how to handle them )

Hmm?

 

[guanophore]

That is kind of like asking how the first disciples of Christ knew they were following truth.   They would have to presume they were following truth.  Actually, in either case it is a matter of faith, isn't it?  Certainly, Christ's disciples had to exercise faith to follow Christ.  Of course, that faith was not blind.  If I were witness to His miracles etc. I would probably be convinced (I'd like to think I would at least).  And I suppose that after Christ's ascension I would look to the Apostles for guidance and then their followers, etc..

Yes, I agree. It is a matter of Divine Revelation received by faith. But, as Christ said that the Church would be as a city set upon a hill, Light on a lampstand, He wanted the Church to be visible, to be able to be found. I agree that we would need to look to the Apostles, and their followers. If, at some point, some break has occurred since the Apostles, it would seem imperative to know where and when this happened, especially since the Church claims it did not happen.

OK. New question:

What is the difference between the early church circulating inspired and uninspired writings (before the canon was determined) and the present situation of 30+thousand different churches with varying bible interpretations?

I would say the major difference is that in those days, the Apostolic Church was authoritative, and orthodox faith was determined by what the Church believed and practiced. Some of the writings that did not make the canon are excellent spiritual works,and do not contradict the faith. Protestants now do not agree on any one extra-biblical authority(except Sola Scriptura). There are some creeds, some of which have a great overlap with Catholic Teaching, but nothing that is universal.

If the fact that there are 30+thousand different interpretations means that individual interpretation is faulty and the fullness of truth is lost b/c of the lack of unity, then wasn’t the early church also lacking?

Not in this respect, since they did not suffer from Sola Scriptura or private interpretation. They all received the teaching of the church, which was the same everywhere.

How could one say that the gates of hell had not prevailed (if that is your interpretation of the gates of hell prevailing) against the early church at those times prior to the declaration of the canon???

This is another element of faith. I mean, I can’t “prove” this, I believe it because I choose to do so. But, if there were no authoritative and infallible Church, then how could we get a NT canon?

I mean, there was a lack of unity as to which writings were inspired. There was a lack of unity as to which writings were being taught from! How do you recognize the pre-canon church as being the One True Church with the Fullness Of Truth?

That is easy. The Teaching was not based on the Scriptures, but on the Teachings of Jesus. The Church was able to determine which writings belonged because they were consistent with the Divine Deposit of Faith given to the Church.

 

[guanophore]

Nevermind. I just figured that one out as well.

The difference is that at least in the pre-canon church there was an authority (regardless of the fact that it hadn’t exercised authority in this matter yet) whereas there is no earthly, extra-biblical authority in the present non-Catholic situation.

It is kind of like looking at two houses full of children. In both houses the children are unruly. We find in one house that there are no parents at home. We find in the other house that the parents are home, but they either haven’t discovered yet that the children are out-of-sorts, or they just haven’t reprimanded them yet for whatever reason (maybe they are trying to figure out how to handle them )

Hmm?

Sorry, I should have read the remainder of your posts before I posted. I think it becomes clear, when reading the writings of the early fathers, that this “trying to figure out how” is there. They were struggling to bring the teachings of Jesus to the problems that arose as the church grew. We see a glimpse of this in the council of Jerusalem in Acts. This pattern has been followed ever since.

 

[JRKH]

WatchfulPilgram,
I would like to say that I have never seen such a wonderfully forthright thread on this forum before. I thank you for your ability to carry us along on your journey here. Most of us, I dare say, would be too embarrased to post as you have. We all have that tendancy to declare and defend a position regardless of other arguments etc.
I applaud you for sharing so frankly and openly.

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

That is easy. The Teaching was not based on the Scriptures, but on the Teachings of Jesus. The Church was able to determine which writings belonged because they were consistent with the Divine Deposit of Faith given to the Church.

See how I keep dragging sola scriptura into my thinking?

Ok, so the early Christians relied heavily upon Tradition (which, in fact, Scripture is anyway) and so the f.o.t. was preserved orally.

Golly I think I’ve got it.

I think I pretty much had it in my head that God used man (the Apostles) to preserve the faith until Scripture was written. I can’t believe how much that doesn’t make sense to me now whereas it made complete sense to me then. We can see in Scripture that it was God’s will to use man to preserve the truth. We do not see anywhere that their writings would be the sole authority. We do see the laying on of hands and the passing on of authority. We see man shepherding the church all throughout.

I guess I based my assuption that authority stopped being passed on through succession and ended with Scripture based on the assumption that Scripture contradicts Catholic teaching. It was the only conclusion I could draw. But it really doesn’t make sense and is actually unbiblical.

wowee…

Y’know, never grow tired of saying the same things over and over to non-Catholics. Sometime you just have to give the truth a chance to soak in. But ultimately, “getting it” is a matter of good soil, which you, the Catholic apologist, don’t really have any control over. It’s really important to pray that the person you are “apologizing” has good soil (an open heart). I was just so angry when I started to see what I considered inconsistencies between Scripture and Catholic teaching that I totally hardened my heart and wouldn’t accept the arguments. Even though I couldn’t give good arguments to support my own ideas I would accept them anyway or accept no clear explanation at all over accepting something Catholic. Never realized I should reject the Bible as well if I was going to do that.

 

[JRKH]

WP,
I was thinking this morning about your posts relating to certain practices of the Church, dress and deportment as well as how we arrived at the canon of the Bible.
It came to me in terms of a conversation between Christ and (any non-catholic)

Christ: Why do you deny the Authority I placed in My Church?

NC: Because they have taught things not found in Scripture!

Christ: But did I not tell the Jews and My own Disciples at the time to obey the Pharasees because they sit upon the seat of Moses? (Matthew 23:2-3)

NC: Yes Lord you did but…

Christ: Well did I tell the Jews to obey the Pharasees only if they agreed with their interpretation of Scripture?

NC: Well No…

Christ: Then how can you say that you should obey only the Bible?

NC: Because the Bible is Your Word. It is The Word of God.

Christ: I see - Well just how do you know that?

NC: Well uummm - Paul says that all Scripture is God breathed.

Christ: Yes but when Paul wrote that there was no established NT was there?

NC: No my Lord

Christ: So how do you know which NT writings are inspired?

Christ: Of course the answer is this my child. When I walked among you I saw the need for a teaching authority in my kingdom, just as my father saw the need for the teaching authority in the OT times.
Therefore I established, not a new set of scriptures, but a Church unified under the teaching authority of My Apostles, whom I gave full authority to Bind and Loose. These Disciples and their heirs (Bishops) taught and wrote for nearly 400 years before the canon of the Bible was established as such.

NC: But Lord, What shall we do when we read the Bible and see things differently than the Church is teaching or acting? Look at the Priest Scandal, Look at the way people dress at Church, Look at the Marion Doctrines. How can I reconcile these with what I see in Scripture?

Christ: Did I not consort with publicans and tax collectors? Did I not call the Pharasees to account for their sinful lives?
Yet I also warned the faithful to obey the rightful authority placed over them. If you wish to resolve the dilemma of the Church and the Scripture, you may look to Scripture itself. Did I declare that “upon this book I will build this Church”? Did Paul declare Scripture to be the bulwark and foundation of Truth? Did I tell the Bretheren to take disputes to the Bible?
No - In each case I told them to follow the Church. The Authoritative Church. The Church with the Keys to the Kingdom. The Church with the power to bind and loose.
If those in the Church make errors in interpretation or in practices, they will be called to account just as the Pharasees were called to account. However, those who obey the teachings of the Church, even though they do not fully understand or agree, will be dealt with mercifully for their obedience to Me Through My Church.

---

I know the above is something of a strawman discussion since I made it all up this morning, but it is based on much I’ve seen in these forums.
Anyway feel free to tear into it any way you see fit.

Peace
James

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

WatchfulPilgram,
I would like to say that I have never seen such a wonderfully forthright thread on this forum before. I thank you for your ability to carry us along on your journey here. Most of us, I dare say, would be too embarrased to post as you have. We all have that tendancy to declare and defend a position regardless of other arguments etc.
I applaud you for sharing so frankly and openly.

Well, considering the amount of unreasonable & unortodoxed assumptions I’ve contributed to the board over the years I think it is only fitting that I try to explain the though process that leads me to conclude I was wrong. I’m merely trying to patch up my mistakes for the sake of those observing, and solidifying my own understanding in the process.

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

WP,
I was thinking this morning about your posts relating to certain practices of the Church, dress and deportment as well as how we arrived at the canon of the Bible.
It came to me in terms of a conversation between Christ and (any non-catholic)

**Christ

I know the above is something of a strawman discussion since I made it all up this morning, but it is based on much I’ve seen in these forums.
Anyway feel free to tear into it any way you see fit.

Peace
James**

I was thinking along these lines this morning when I wrote this to myself:

Why would anyone use successorship as a means of finding God’s church? I mean, ultimately, what do people look for to determine the divine nature of something? Let’s back up and ask ourselves why people believed in Jesus. Was it b/c He came from the line of David? Or was it His teachings and miracles. What if Jesus performed no miracles at all and just preached. Would He still have the same following? What if He was only a good preacher but His moral life was questionable (which it was questioned by some of the Jews, actually, calling Him a drunkard etc.). Aren’t people drawn to those who are victorious over sin? Who show sacrificial and unconditional love? Isn’t that the evidence of God’s church? Isn’t the fruit how we may recognize the tree? When I see, for instance the Mennonite church living more triumphant lives over sin and living more vituously than any Catholic parish I’ve encountered, I have to wonder what good the Sacramental system of the CC is. Is it producing better results?

Maybe it isn’t (although I suspect it is when I consider the lives of Catholic saints). For the same reason that “bible-Christians” (sola scripturists) as a whole do not bear more fruit than Catholics do. For instance, the Mennonites I have grown to admire so much are doing the same things that other “bible-Christians” are doing yet they seem to be bearing more fruit than most other “bible-only” churches. Likewise, there are good fruit-bearing Catholics drawing life-giving water from the Sacraments. The problem is in the individual for sure.

So, does it really matter if we go to the Sacraments then? If we can bear fruit by being Catholic OR by relying solely on Scripture, then what makes being Catholic better?

Well, first of all, it is apparently just how God intended it to be, so it is better b/c it is obedient. And perhaps there is greater opportunity for spiritual growth through the Sacraments. Either way, the problem of fruit-bearing lies in each of us. The Sacraments will have no more affect on hard-hearted or proud Catholics than the Bible will have on hard-hearted or proud non-Catholics. We must have the proper dispositions of humility and repentance and a real desire to know, love and serve God if we will bear fruit. And with that should be a desire to do so to the fullest extent, which surely cannot be acquired outside of God’s will. So although good fruit can be grown from either method (through Sacraments or through Scripture alone), no greater fruit can be grown than the one grown from abandonment to God’s will, which, in this case, mean submission to His Church.

Bless You~

 

[jlhargus]

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./QUOTE]

JL: [2THE2:14 Whereunto he called you by OUR GOSPEL, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the TRADITIONS, which ye have been TAUGHT, WHETHER BY WORD, OR OUR EPISTLE.]

If Paul could preach another gospel, he certainly could have also written another gospel. 2Thes tells us, OUR GOSPEL, TRADITIONS TAUGHT WHETHER BY WORD OR OUR EPISTLE. Our gospel would be traditions taught=preached by word or epistle. The only way we know with assurance what the gospel, WORD OR ESISTLE, really is would be through the infallible teaching authority SENT by Christ. Mt28:19 GO ye therefore and TEACH ALL NATIONS baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost 20 Teaching them TO OBSERVE ALL things whatsoever I have COMMANDED YOU and lo I AM WITH YOU ALWAYS even UNTO THE END OF THE WORLD Amen

Gal2:1 Then fourteen years after I WENT UP AGAIN TO JERUSALEM with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. 2 And I went up BY REVELATION, and COMMUNICATED UNTO THEM that GOSPEL which I PREACH among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, LEST BY ANY MEANS I SHOULD run, or HAD RUN, IN VAIN.

[Paul was inspiried by revelation to check his teaching with that infallible teaching fellowship, just to make sure he was not teaching another gospel.] What did people do the first time the gospel was preached by Peter?

ACTS 2:41 Then THEY THAT gladly RECEIVED HIS WORD were BAPTIZED: and the same day there were ADDED UNTO THEM about three thousand souls. 42 And they CONTINUED stedfastly IN the APOSTLES’ DOCTRINE and FELLOWSHIP, and in BREAKING OF BREAD, and in PRAYERS.

1THES2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, WHEN YE RECEIVED the WORD OF GOD which ye HEARD OF US, ye received it not as the word of men, but as IT IS IN TRUTH, the WORD OF GOD, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

2TIM 2:1 Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. 2 And THE THINGS that thou hast HEARD OF ME among MANY WITNESSES, the same COMMIT thou TO FAITHFUL MEN, who shall be ABLE TO TEACH OTHERS also.

2TIM1:13 HOLD FAST the form of SOUND WORDS, which thou hast HEARD OF ME, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. 14: THAT GOOD THING which was COMMITTED UNTO THEE KEEP BY THE HOLY GHOST dwelleth IN US.

1COR4:16 Wherefore I beseech you, BE ye FOLLOWERS OF ME 17: FOR THIS cause have I SENT unto you TIMOTHEUS, WHO is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who SHALL BRING YOU INTO REMEMBRANCE of my ways which be IN CHRIST, as I TEACH every where IN EVERY CHURCH. [KJV used, capital words added or emphases]

 

[JRKH]

I was thinking along these lines this morning when I wrote this to myself:

Why would anyone use successorship as a means of finding God’s church? I mean, ultimately, what do people look for to determine the divine nature of something? Let’s back up and ask ourselves why people believed in Jesus. Was it b/c He came from the line of David? Or was it His teachings and miracles. What if Jesus performed no miracles at all and just preached. Would He still have the same following? What if He was only a good preacher but His moral life was questionable (which it was questioned by some of the Jews, actually, calling Him a drunkard etc.). Aren’t people drawn to those who are victorious over sin? Who show sacrificial and unconditional love? Isn’t that the evidence of God’s church? Isn’t the fruit how we may recognize the tree? When I see, for instance the Mennonite church living more triumphant lives over sin and living more vituously than any Catholic parish I’ve encountered, I have to wonder what good the Sacramental system of the CC is. Is it producing better results?

Maybe it isn’t (although I suspect it is when I consider the lives of Catholic saints). For the same reason that “bible-Christians” (sola scripturists) as a whole do not bear more fruit than Catholics do. For instance, the Mennonites I have grown to admire so much are doing the same things that other “bible-Christians” are doing yet they seem to be bearing more fruit than most other “bible-only” churches. Likewise, there are good fruit-bearing Catholics drawing life-giving water from the Sacraments. The problem is in the individual for sure.

So, does it really matter if we go to the Sacraments then? If we can bear fruit by being Catholic OR by relying solely on Scripture, then what makes being Catholic better?

Well, first of all, it is apparently just how God intended it to be, so it is better b/c it is obedient. And perhaps there is greater opportunity for spiritual growth through the Sacraments. Either way, the problem of fruit-bearing lies in each of us. The Sacraments will have no more affect on hard-hearted or proud Catholics than the Bible will have on hard-hearted or proud non-Catholics. We must have the proper dispositions of humility and repentance and a real desire to know, love and serve God if we will bear fruit. And with that should be a desire to do so to the fullest extent, which surely cannot be acquired outside of God’s will. So although good fruit can be grown from either method (through Sacraments or through Scripture alone), no greater fruit can be grown than the one grown from abandonment to God’s will, which, in this case, mean submission to His Church.

Bless You~

Sounds like you had a productive morning to me.
It truly does boil down to the willingness of the individual to submit his/her will to the Will of God. When one looks at the number of independent Churches all claiming “Bible Authority” and yet having different takes on issues on must suspect an element of pride is involved.
That is why submission to the Church is seen as important. It submits my will to the Will of God through His Church and her teachings. If I disagree with The teachings (not practices mind you but teachings) I must either submit to her, or reject her. and what basis might I have as an individual to reject the prayerfully arrived at, spirit guided teaching of the Church? Do I as an individual have a greater understanding of these things than the Church? Am I smarter than the entire magisterium?

As to the issue of “Bearing Fruit”. I could not agree more. This is the most individual of all, and it speaks directly to Christ’s own words and teaching. The only caveat I would place on this is that we must be careful in looking at the outward signs versus what God sees on the inside. No doubt most Jews considered the Pharasees to be men close to God and Blessed by Him, yet Jesus saw what lay underneath, and called them on it.
I’m just reading “The Story of a Soul” (get it if you haven’t allready) and learning how much good one can do in secret. We just cannot know for certain who the real saints are.

I too am not happy with some of the things I see practiced in the Catholic Church. When my wife and I first came back to the Church we started attending an EF (TLM) Mass. We loved it because there was much more reverence shown by these people than at a regular OF Mass. For health reasons, we cannot make the drive anymore and must attend the OF mass. This has not changed how we dress, when we arrive or leave, or anything else about how WE honor our Lord in the Mass. We dress well, we arrive early enough to say our prayers before communion and remain after to pray in thanksgiving. We do not do this for show, it is simply the way we were raised and feel this is proper. - And perhaps others will see us and reconsider their own dress and deportment. Maybe not, but it is one way to witness to our fellows.

In any event, I am happy that you find the Mennonites to be an admirable group. But by pursuing them are you maybe only seeking the “easy way” of finding a community that agrees with “your” view of what a Christian community should be?
Jesus told us on several occasions to “love our enemies” and to not invite our friends to a banquet lest they return the favor. Jesus Himself ministered to the marginalized and to “sinners”. Perhaps, after learning from the Mennonites, God wishes you to return home so that you may be a light unto your fellows in the Catholic Church.

Just some random thoughts.

Peace
James