Infallible Authorities?

[CentralFLJames]

First, God did not inspire the “Catholic” scripture writers unless you you believe both the OT and NT are written by “Catholics”. I’m not sure what you mean by “Catholic Scripture Writers”???

The Catholic Church has always taught that Jesus is the complete and total living Word of God incarnate. Jesus is head of the Catholic Church. Jesus is Catholic or else He would not have founded His Church on Peter and would have founded it on Luther or some other earlier heretic.

Second, my opinion on what Scripture teaches on salvation or any other topic, would be of no use, even to myself, but God, in His love for mankind has revealed it in His word and it is not confusing.

Actually, scripture itself tells us it is difficult to understand and purposely made in part a mystery to thwart outsiders from attempting to break into the kingdom like thieves by simply reciting a few magic-pass phrases or campaign slogans (e.g. “just believe”, “once saved always saved”).

Mark 4:11-12
“To you has been given the mystery of the kingdom of God, but those who are outside get everything in parables, 12 so that WHILE SEEING, THEY MAY SEE AND NOT PERCEIVE, AND WHILE HEARING, THEY MAY HEAR AND NOT UNDERSTAND, OTHERWISE THEY MIGHT RETURN AND BE FORGIVEN.”

Acts 8:27-31
…Now there was an Ethiopian eunuch, a court official of the Candace, 8 that is, the queen of the Ethiopians, in charge of her entire treasury, who had come to Jerusalem to worship, 28
and was returning home. Seated in his chariot, he was reading the prophet Isaiah. 29 The Spirit said to Philip, “Go and join up with that chariot.” 30 9 Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?”
31 He replied, “How can I, unless someone instructs me?” So he invited Philip to get in and sit with him.

2 Peter 3:15-16
And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you, 16 speaking of these things 12 as he does in all his letters. **In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures. **

Finally, God has chosen to show many examples of how we should live as Christians and has chosen to reveal how it everything began and how it will end, I’m glad He included all of this because we would have many more questions plaguing us for a lifetime. The Bible is always pointing to Christ, if we had nothing else except for what Christ said, it would be more than enough to have the knowledge of salvation in Him.

Do a NT word study, just on 3 words…call, called and calling; it may shocking to some.

Yes he has given us the apostolic teaching through His Church - The Catholic Church.

Luke 10:16
The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me; and he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me."

Matthew 12:30
He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters.

Galatians 1:9
As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!

The only way somone can know if they are teaching a different gospel than what the apostles taught is to in fact know what the apostles actually taught. None of the apostles had a “bible” to read from - The Catholic Church assembled it roughly 350 years after Christ’s crucifixion to combat Marcionism (who rejected all the OT teachings) and other heretics who independently developed their own heretical bibles. Therefor, the Catholic Church knows from its very own ancient handed down teaching traditions through the apostolic succession what the apostles actually taught. The Catholic Bishops we have today are all hand chosen from the successors of Peter and his original bishops. So all the neo-Christian scripture 'spin" coming out of the legion of Protestant denominations is just speculation, modern innovation and a new gospel never taught by any apostle. Protestant preachers should know that no one gave them any authority to teach a new non-apostolic gospel and to do so carries an automatic anathema and ancient apostolic curse given by St. Paul himself.

James

 

[NonCatholic]

So the New Testament was apparently written by Jews? That logic makes no sense. God inspired who He inspired. God also established a Church, the Catholic Church, on Earth. The writers of the Old Testament were Jewish, the writers of the New Testament were Catholic. The Church that canonized the Scriptures, is Catholic.

Where does it say the the word Catholic or words Roman Catholic? ***Paul was a Jew and wrote most of the NT. Mark and John does not give reference. We also know that Paul was a preacher to the Gentiles and did not go to places where he would be building on someone else foundation, yet he went to Rome and on the greetings…Peter is never mentioned, but other prominet leaders were…please explain why. Also, Peter was sent to the Jews to preach, but he did go to a few gentile cities where Jews had synagogues. ***

If it’s not confusing, then why does everyone disagree on it? (Other than Catholics, of course).
**Not everyone does disagree on the salvation message; how can anyone miss it is the real question. Always a remnant : Matt 7:13-14 (Few find it & Many enter in)
**

So now the apostles’ teachings are good, but not necessary? Tell me, why is it that people can’t seem to agree on how salvation is accomplished, if it’s so NOT confusing?
It will always be confusing to the weak or unregenerate mind, because it is a gift of God.

Sorry, I prefer to read the Bible in context, not verse by verse.

You might just start by reading the Bible. Scripture will verify itself, so a word study, a common tool used to understand the Word in more detail, can help dig more deeply into the richness of God’s word. I suggested the words Call, Called and calling because I believe people will find it very interesting.

 

[NonCatholic]

Jesus is Catholic or else He would not have founded His Church on Peter

Any piece of a passage taken out of context will lead to error as is the case shown above. Christ said “I will build my church”, why not “Peter will build my church”? Was Jesus trying to confuse us?

The calling of salavation:
Acts 2:39 “For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.”

Eph 4:1 Therefore I, the prisoner of the Lord, implore you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called,

Eph 4:4 {There is} one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling;

1 Cor 1:9 God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

1 Cor 1:24 but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

Gal 1:6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel;

Gal 1:15 But when God, who had set me apart {even} from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace, was pleased

Col 3:15 Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in one body; and be thankful.

1 Thes 4:7 For God has not called us for the purpose of impurity, but in sanctification.

2 Thes 2:14 It was for this He called you through our gospel, that you may gain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Tim 6:12 Fight the good fight of faith; take hold of the eternal life to which you were called, and you made the good confession in the presence of many witnesses.

2 Tim 1:9 who has **saved us and called us **with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity,

Heb 9:15 (b) those who **have been called **may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

1Peter 5:10 After you have suffered for a little while, the God of all grace, who called you to His eternal glory in Christ, **will Himself **perfect, confirm, strengthen {and} establish you.

2 Peter 1:3 seeing that His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him **who called us by His own glory **and excellence.

Jude 1:1 Jude, a bond-servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, To those who are the called, beloved in God the Father, and kept for Jesus Christ:

 

[CentralFLJames]

Any piece of a passage taken out of context will lead to error as is the case shown above. Christ said “I will build my church”, why not “Peter will build my church”? Was Jesus trying to confuse us?

Yes, any piece of scripture verse taken out of historical and apostolicaly taught context can lead to error. This is precisely how Protestants have stumbed onto the heresies and errors they have promoted for the past 500 years now.

The original Greek manuscripts have NO punctuation nor verse numbers. Scripture was never intended to be broken up into bite size “solas” and salvation-campaign slogans. This is a relatively new Protestant tradition that never before taught by the true apostolic Catholic Church up to the time of Luther. Where did this new “tradition of man” come from? The answer is it came from teachings of mere men who invented new contexts since they were more interested in teaching what they wanted to believe and in dis-empowering Christ’s earthly leaders than they were interested in teaching what the apostles actually taught. Those that follow the framework of the Protestant Reformation have have Luther and his sort as their teachers rather than true and proper apostolic teaching.

Yes, Christ DID build His church just as He said He would - with himself as cornerstone and the Rock of Peter as His vicar and earthly leader. Christ in no way ever created an invisible church with no earthly leadership.

So, from whence did the Protestants find the authority to rebel against God’s Church in the bible??? The answer is there is absolutely NO precedence to be found in the OT or the NT for rebelling against divinely established ecclesial authority.

Christ said “I will build my church”, why not “Peter will build my church”? Was Jesus trying to confuse us?

Why not? Because Christ did build His church and continues to build His church through the great commission of His selected disciples and their hand-chosen successors. Notice that there is not one single verse in the Bible that tells anyone to attempt a “do it yourself salvation” by self-study and bible reading groups. NO - the commandment Jesus gives to His apostles and their successors is to TEACH and make new disciples. Christ did not even command the apostles to write NT scripture - He commanded them to TEACH. The bible is quite complex and while it it profitable to a person who studies under the tutelage of an apostolic authority it is not really self teaching for those ungrounded in the true faith. Only authorized disciples and their authorized assigns are commissioned to teach. Check into an RCIA class to get proper apostolic teaching.

*Matthew 28:18-20
And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” *

St. Paul was amazed at how easily people could dessert the true faith and follow a man made gospel. Protestants continue to amaze those of us taught according to the handed down apostolic teachings with ever changing new interpretations of scripture with a different gospel never before heard on the planet.

Gal 1:6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel;

James

 

[NonCatholic]

CentralFLJames:

Christ in no way ever created an invisible church with no earthly leadership.

Invisible in the sense that it is not a particular building or institution. I Timothy and Titus will shown who the earthly shepherds qualifications…no vicar, not ever found nor implied in Scripture…an invention of man.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Invisible in the sense that it is not a particular building or institution. …no vicar, not ever found nor implied in Scripture…an invention of man.

Baloney. You are knee deep in the secular myth of neo-Christianity - a new innovation of modern Protestantism. The Church is VERY real and it’s representative has a physical street address - The Vatican.

If you want the truth start reading your bible without your Protestant colored glasses on:

Peter is the Rock on which the Church is Built
Mark 3:16; John 1:42
Gen. 17:5; 32:28; 2 Kings 23:34; Acts 9:4; 13:9 (examples of name changes when a person becomes God’s agent)

Eph. 2:20, the apostles are called the foundation of the Church. Similarly, in 1 Peter 2:25, Jesus is called the Shepherd of the flock, but in Acts 20:28, the apostles are called the shepherds of the flock.

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus said in Aramaic, you are “Kepha” and on this “Kepha” I will build my Church. In Aramaic, “kepha” means a massive stone, and “evna” means little pebble. Some non-Catholics argue that, because the Greek word for rock is “petra”, that “Petros” actually means “a small rock”, and therefore Jesus was attempting to diminish Peter right after blessing him by calling him a small rock. Not only is this nonsensical in the context of Jesus’ blessing of Peter, Jesus was speaking Aramaic and used “Kepha,” not “evna.” Using Petros to translate Kepha was done simply to reflect the masculine noun of Peter.

Matt. 16:18 - also, in quoting “on this rock,” the Scriptures use the Greek construction “tautee tee” which means on “this” rock; on “this same” rock; or on “this very” rock. “Tautee tee” is a demonstrative construction in Greek, pointing to Peter, the subject of the sentence (and not his confession of faith as some non-Catholics argue) as the very rock on which Jesus builds His Church. The demonstrative (“tautee”) generally refers to its closest antecedent (“Petros”). Also, there is no place in Scripture where “faith” is equated with “rock.”

Matt. 16:18-19 – to further rebut the Protestant argument that Jesus was speaking about Peter’s confession of faith (not Peter himself) based on the revelation he received, the verses are clear that Jesus, after acknowledging Peter’s receipt of divine revelation, turns the whole discourse to the person of Peter: Blessed are “you” Simon, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to “you,” and I tell “you,” “you” are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church. I will give “you” the keys to the kingdom, and whatever “you” bind and loose on earth will be bound and loosed in heaven. Jesus’ whole discourse relates to the person of Peter, not his confession of faith.

Matt. 16:13 - also, from a geographical perspective, Jesus renames Simon to rock in Caesarea Philippi near a massive rock formation on which Herod built a temple to Caesar. Jesus chose this setting to further emphasize that Peter was indeed the rock on which the Church would be built.

Matt. 7:24 - Jesus, like the wise man, builds His house on the rock (Peter), not on grain of sand (Simon) so the house will not fall.

Luke 6:48 - the house (the Church) built upon the rock (Peter) cannot be shaken by floods (which represent the heresies, schisms, and scandals that the Church has faced over the last 2,000 years).

Matt. 16:21 - it is also important to note that it was only after Jesus established Peter as leader of the Church that He began to speak of His death and departure. This is because Jesus had now appointed His representative on earth.

John 21:15 - Jesus asks Peter if he loves Jesus “more than these,” referring to the other apostles. Jesus singles Peter out as the leader of the apostolic college.

John 21:15-17 - Jesus selects Peter to be the chief shepherd of the apostles when He says to Peter, “feed my lambs,” “tend my sheep,” “feed my sheep.” Peter will shepherd the Church as Jesus’ representative.

Luke 22:31-32 - Jesus also prays that Peter’s faith may not fail and charges Peter to be the one to strengthen the other apostles - "Simon, satan demanded to have you (plural, referring to all the apostles) to sift you (plural) like wheat, but I prayed for you (singular) that your (singular) faith may not fail, and when you (singular) have turned again, strengthen your brethren.

Acts 1,2,3,4,5,8,15 - no one questions Peter’s authority to speak for the Church, declare anathemas, and resolve doctrinal debates. Peter is the rock on which the Church is built who feeds Jesus’ sheep and whose faith will not fail.

Matt. 16:18; 18:18 - Jesus uses the word “ecclesia” only twice in the New Testament Scriptures, which demonstrates that Jesus intended a visible, unified, hierarchical, and authoritative Church.

Acts 20:17,28 - Paul refers to both the elders or priests (“presbyteroi”) and the bishops (“episkopoi”) of the Church. Both are ordained leaders within the hierarchical structure of the Church.

1 Cor. 12:28 - God Himself appoints the various positions of authority within the Church. As a loving Father, God gives His children the freedom and authority to act with charity and justice to bring about His work of salvation.

Eph. 4:11 - the Church is hierarchical and includes apostles, prophets, pastors, and teachers, all charged to build up the Church. The Church is not an invisible entity with an invisible foundation.

Phil. 1:1 - Paul addresses the bishops and deacons of the Church. They can all trace their unbroken lineage back to the apostles.

1 Tim. 3:1; Titus 1:7 - Christ’s Church has bishops (“episkopoi”) who are direct successors of the apostles. The bishops can trace the authority conferred upon them back to the apostles.

1 Tim. 5:17; Titus 1:5; James 5:14 - Christ’s Church also has elders or priests (“presbyteroi”) who serve the bishops.

MUCH MORE Here: scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html

James

 

[bookgirl32]

You might just start by reading the Bible. Scripture will verify itself, so a word study, a common tool used to understand the Word in more detail, can help dig more deeply into the richness of God’s word. I suggested the words Call, Called and calling because I believe people will find it very interesting.

I’m not quite sure what you’re talking about when you say Peter wasn’t mentioned? Paul, Peter, and the other apostles, after Pentecost, were no longer Jews. Anyone who they baptised into their new Church were no longer Jews. Unless of course we’re all Jewish too?

This is so tiring. I have read the Bible (and don’t ask me if I’ve read it cover to cover since you’re asking me to jump around). We have two different interpretations. The Holy Spirit either, one, revealed two different truths, two, is confused, or three, one of us is wrong and their is one exact truth. You seem to think yours is the truth. What I’m asking you is how you are sure you’re right? Don’t quote the Bible again b/c we’ve both read it and we’ll be right back where we started.

I can say the Church is my authority, and according to Jesus He established it and gave the Holy Spirit to protect revelation through His Church. You can say you yourself are your own authority and that the Holy Spirit apparently spoke only to you and everyone else should listen.

Yes, there is confusion. There are vast amounts of Protestant denominations who all interpret the Bible differently. Which one of them is right, are they all right (relativism, which is comletely unbiblical), or are they all wrong?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Consider this from a Protestant anti-Catholic website:Would it not be best to simply drop references to the alleged infallibility of the RCC? What exactly does this accomplish that is not already accomplished by the infallibility of the Scriptures?

Even granting ALL concessions to Rome, it cannot be denied that the very decision one must make regarding which infallible authority to follow is itself a FALLIBLE decision.
Any thoughts, Catholics? Thanks in advance.

Gaudium de veritate,

Don
+T+

**There’s something dodgy about the reasoning in the last sentence quoted - but I can’t quite place it **​

---

**BTW, when it comes: Happy New Year **

---

 

[Genesis315]

The infallibility of the Magisterium ultimately exists so that we may know those truths that have been revealed by God for our salvation, since we have no other way of knowing them than that He has revealed them and they are handed down to us.

But we can come to know which authority by natural reason. Truth and reality can be known. The rationale of the example in the OP is that truth cannot be known with certainty at all, so why bother–that leads to agnosticism and ultimately despair.

 

[WindGirl]

The infallibility of the Magisterium ultimately exists so that we may know those truths that have been revealed by God for our salvation, since we have no other way of knowing them than that He has revealed them and they are handed down to us.

What’s the Bible, chopped liver? I don’t think God left out anything out of His word that we need to know about salvation and it’s puzzling to us non Catholic Christians that you think He did. He has revealed and handed down His truth to us in His written word. Nothing has been left out that we need to know for our salvation.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

What’s the Bible, chopped liver? I don’t think God left out anything out of His word that we need to know about salvation and it’s puzzling to us non Catholic Christians that you think He did. He has revealed and handed down His truth to us in His written word. Nothing has been left out that we need to know for our salvation.

I am curious why you believe this (essentially solo scriptura) to be true. I’m all for challenging the idea of infallibility but this is a very weak approach to the subject.

As I see it, to argue fallibility of the CC you have to either accept the fallibility of the Bible’s authors or else argue that at some point in time, after the Bible was written, the CC went off the rails (e.g. Constantine).

As for the original point, it has merit. The mere decision to accept or reject the infallibility of the CC is a fallible decision. If you believe that the Holy Spirit guides that personal decision, then why not believe that it guides personal interpretation? More generally, even if we accept that the CC is infallible we are still left with the task of applying it to our daily lives. Try calling your priest, much less your bishop. for every decision that you make in life.

 

[Luke65]

What’s the Bible, chopped liver? I don’t think God left out anything out of His word that we need to know about salvation and it’s puzzling to us non Catholic Christians that you think He did. He has revealed and handed down His truth to us in His written word. Nothing has been left out that we need to know for our salvation.

True.

Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 16:17-19)

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

What’s the Bible, chopped liver? I don’t think God left out anything out of His word that we need to know about salvation and it’s puzzling to us non Catholic Christians that you think He did. He has revealed and handed down His truth to us in His written word. Nothing has been left out that we need to know for our salvation.

**I don’t recall the Bible being crucified - do you ? It’s been used to justify everything from Christian polygamy to slavery - so it can’t do everything, & it can be made to mean anything, because it is used by sinners. **​

---

**If the Bible was all-sufficient & complete, how come the contemporaries of Jesus did not find it to witness to Him ? As for leaving things out - the parable of Lazarus & the rich man says nothing of a NT - it is a very decided endorsement of thne completeness of the Bible as what we call the OT alone. So why bother with the NT ? Jesus knew nothing of one - except for the one in His Blood. THe NT is an addition to the Bible Jesus knew. So if your reasoning is valid, we ought to tear the NT up. **

---