Infallible Papal Statements

[itsjustdave1988]

ahimsaman72:

Let’s pretend you are correct for a minute .

Now, if I understand you correctly, I am to hold *others *responsible for my soul-keeping (such as the priest, bishop and pope).

No. Only you are responsible for your obedience or disobedience to the authority established by God. By obedience to the true government established by Christ, you cannot harm your soul.

In contrast, the first baptist parish was established by John Smyth, baptizing himself by pouring, ironically enough. Was this Church established by Christ or by man? I think the latter. So, Heb 13:17 doesn’t bind me to obey any baptist pastor, as no baptist pastor has been truly ordained. College certificates of ordination are entirley unscriptural and fail to convince. NT presbyters were chosen by apostolic men, in historic successorship from the original apostles who were given the power to ordain by Christ Hiself. I am only bound to obey lawfully ordained pastors who are ordained by an historical successor to the apostles, to which Christ gave the power to bind and loose. And even among these, I’m only bound to those who submit to the See of Peter, as by the power of God, it is this See that holds the keys to the kingdom given to Peter by Christ.

So, it’s a matter of discerning which is Christ’s Church. Not every Church claiming to have the lampstand of Christ actually does. Catholicism claims to be the infallible Church that Christ established. Her claims are easily defended with Scripture and history. All those Churches established by men during Protestant reformation and afterwards have a no claim to pastoral authority. They commit the sin of Korah’s rebellion (cf. Num 16, Jude 11). Luther was a Catholic monk, for example, who disobeyed his prelates in constrast to what God demands in Heb 13:17. His solution? Omit Hebrews from his Bible.

So, in the end of time and judgement of my soul if there’s a problem with the way I lived my life I can tell God that Pope X said Y and Z and since he was in authority, I believed him. If that conflicted with God’s plans - I guess I can play dumb?

Divine obedience is never contrary to obedience to the Catholic Church. The only one’s having to splain themselves will be those who failed to obey Catholic teaching and discipline.

The problem I see with that is that other religions can do the same thing. If I was born a Muslim (for example) the local Muslim cleric could say the same thing. “What I tell you is truth”. “As long as you believe what I say, you’ll be fine when you meet Allah”. That doesn’t wash with me.

Christ is the truth. Christ did not establish other religions.

Not every authority instituted is correct or by nature infallible.

Correct. Only the Catholic Church is established and guided by Christ, and as such is infallible. Not by nature, but by super-nature.

President X is in authority. President X says men must have many wives. President X says this is the new law. As long as you follow this law, you are doing what your government says and are in good standing with him and his government.

If I am to have integrity, then I ought to be a good citizen of the nation to which I profess to belong. I belong to the US and as such I am bound to obey the laws of the government of the US, whether I agree with them or not. But, I am also a Catholic citizen, a member of a holy nation that transcends civil boundaries. If there is a conflict with the laws of the US and the Catholic nation, I am bound by Divine obedience to obey ecclesiastical law. The Catholic Church is a nation that has been established by God and is governed by Him. Her laws can never be opposed to God’s laws.

I understand that Protestants have a different view of ecclesiology. In their view, man establishes the Church and the laws that govern the Church. This is of course, erroneous, as obedience to Heb 13:17 can be harmful to the faithful in a man-made Protestant Church. That’s not what God intended, however.

When you place your conscience above all else, you assert an ecclesiology that is unreconcilable with Heb 13:17. The first premise which you need to understand is that God’s Church is infallible. That is the only way obedience as commanded in Heb 13:17 cannot be harmful to the faithful. Protestants just don’t get it. They take as their first premise, the Church is fallible, and that despite the Almighty Power of God, the Church can never be infallible. Then all else is chaos after that. With Protestant ecclesiology, Heb 13:17 can actaully send you to hell. That’s absurd in my opinion.

 

[ahimsaman72]

itsjustdave1988:

No. Only you are responsible for your obedience or disobedience to the authority established by God. By obedience to the true government established by Christ, you cannot harm your soul.

In contrast, the first baptist parish was established by John Smyth, baptizing himself by pouring, ironically enough. Was this Church established by Christ or by man? I think the latter. So, Heb 13:17 doesn’t bind me to obey any baptist pastor, as no baptist pastor has been truly ordained. College certificates fail to convince. NT presbyters were chosen by apostolic men, in historic successorship from the apostles who were given the power to ordain by Christ. I am only bound to obey lawfully ordained pastors, ordained by an historical successor to the apostles, to which Christ gave the power to bind and loose.

So, it’s a matter of discerning which is Christ’s Church. Not every Church claiming to have the lampstand of Christ actually does. Catholicism claims to be the infallible Church that Christ established. Her claims are easily defended with Scripture and history. All those Churches established by men after the Protestant reformation have a no claim to pastoral authority. They commit the sin of Korah’s rebellion. Luther was a Catholic monk, for example, who disobeyed his prelates in constrast to Heb 13:17. His solution? Omit Hebrews from his Bible.

Divine obedience is never contrary to obedience to the Catholic Church. The only one’s having to splain themselves will be those who failed to obey Catholic teaching and discipline.
Christ is the truth. Christ did not establish other religions.
Correct. Only the Catholic Church is established and guided by Christ, and as such is infallible. Not by nature, but by super-nature.
If I am to have integrity, then I ought to be a good citizen of the nation to which I profess to belong. I belong to the US and as such I am bound to obey the laws of the government of the US, whether I agree with them or not. But, I am also a Catholic citizen, a member of a holy nation that transcends civil boundaries. If there is a conflict with the laws of the US and the Catholic nation, I am bound by Divine obedience to obey ecclesiastical law. The Catholic Church is a nation that has been established by God and is governed by Him. Her laws can never be opposed to God’s laws.

I understand that Protestants have a different view of ecclesiology. In their view, man establishes the Church and the laws that govern the Church. This is of course, erroneous, as obedience to Heb 13:17 can be harmful to the faithful in a man-made Protestant Church. That’s not what God intended, however.

When you place your conscience above all else, you assert an ecclesiology that is unreconcilable with Heb 13:17. The first premise which you need to understand is that God’s Church is infallible. That is the only way obedience as commanded in Heb 13:17 cannot be harmful to the faithful. Protestants just don’t get it. That take as their first premise, the Church is fallible. Then all else is chaos after that. With Protestant ecclesiology, Heb 13:17 can actaully send you to hell. That’s absurd in my opinion.

And it all breaks down to “he said, she said”.

CC: We are the true church we have …
Mormons: No, we are the true church we have …
Baptists: You’re both wrong, we are the true church we have …
Muslim: You’re all crazy! Mohammed is the only true prophet!!

Everything you have said has been said by other members of other denominations and religions. Simply by asserting the Catholic Church is the true church instituted by Christ (based on evidence, etc, etc.) doesn’t make it so.

Everything you say is based on the beliefs of the Catholic Church. You base your arguments on the foundation of authority of the Catholic Church. Everything else follows based on that. At least you are consistent. But others are consistent in their beliefs also and claim truth just like you.

I hope you understand I was trying to use analogies to help you understand my reasoning. Just because Joe says it’s true, doesn’t make Joe true. And, when what Joe says contradicts my conscience and reason, then it would make no sense to follow what Joe said.

Peace…

 

[itsjustdave1988]

And it all breaks down to “he said, she said”.

If you are Christian, yes. Except the “he said” starts with that guy who died and came back to life.

If you deny this, you delude yourself. The only way we know anything about Jesus is because of what “He said” to the apostles. And this according to what the testimony of the past 2000 years worth of Catholics has said. Protestants would not even have a Bible if they didn’t rely upon “he said, she said.” The astonishing thing is, Protestants seem oblivious to this fact. In a single breath they reject the trustworthyness of the very institution that gave them the Bible. How very inconsistent.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

And it all breaks down to “he said, she said”.

If you are Christian, yes. Except the “he said” starts with that guy who died and came back to life.

If you deny this, you delude yourself. The only way we know anything about Jesus is because of what “He said” to the apostles. And what the apostles said to their successors, and so on. And this we only know based upon a trust of the testimony of the past 2000 years worth of Catholics has said.

Protestants would not even have a Bible if they didn’t rely upon “he said, she said.” The astonishing thing is, Protestants seem oblivious to this fact. In a single breath they reject the trustworthiness of the very institution that gave them the Bible. How very inconsistent.

If you still don’t get it, then please tell me who wrote the Gospel according to Mark? Was it an apostle? Was it even somebody associated with an apostle? Why do you include it in your Bible? Hint: Because you trust what the Catholic Church has taught you regarding the Gospel of Mark, namely, that it was an apostolic person who wrote it and it was in accord with apostolic teaching.

The Gospel of Mark has no internal evidence as to who wrote it. You rely solely upon “he said; she said” of the Catholic Church, and yet, you don’t even seem to realize it.

 

[ahimsaman72]

itsjustdave1988:

If you are Christian, yes. Except the “he said” starts with that guy who died and came back to life.

If you deny this, you delude yourself. The only way we know anything about Jesus is because of what “He said” to the apostles. And this according to what the testimony of the past 2000 years worth of Catholics has said. Protestants would not even have a Bible if they didn’t rely upon “he said, she said.” The astonishing thing is, Protestants seem oblivious to this fact. In a single breath they reject the trustworthyness of the very institution that gave them the Bible. How very inconsistent.

An orthodox Jew or atheist can give you 100 “proofs” to discredit the Bible and/or the Catholic Church. If you deny this, you delude yourself. They could easily counter thus:

1. How do you know for sure what He told the apostles?
2. Aren’t you taking someone else’s word for it?
3. Haven’t Catholics just repeated what their fathers and grandfathers have said?
4. There are many contradictions in the Bible…

on and on and on.

In the end, it is a simple matter of faith. For the Orthodox Jew, it means rejection of Jesus. For the Baptist, it is rejection of the Catholic understanding of Jesus. People in the end simply put faith/confidence in the evidence.

I can’t prove to an atheist that God exists or prove Jesus was the Christ unless they are open-minded and willing to believe.

Peace…

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I can’t prove to an atheist that God exists or prove Jesus was the Christ unless they are open-minded and willing to believe.

Of course you can’t. Your religion is man-made and filled with contradictions. My religion was established by that guy who died and rose again, and continues to be guided infallibly by Him. Yours doesn’t even pretend to be correct, claiming instead that nobody can interpret the Bible without error. Why ought anybody trust another man-made institution?

What does protestantism bring to the table? 30,000+ differing views, none claiming to be infallibe. Seems to be a poor revision of the authentic and authoritative Christianity that existed for the 1500 years before Protestantism. There’s no certainty within Protestantism because it is based merely upon fanciful revisions of what had been taught before, it converst the Holy Religon that God established into the mere opinions of men.

When a non-Christian asks me why I believe, I can tell them exactly why. At least my answer is consistent within itself. Yours … not so much. Try to tell them why the Bible is to be trusted if the entirely untrustworthy Catholics had their grubby hands upon it for 1500 years before the reformers got a hold of it.

The logical conclusion of Protestantism is the fanciful yet unsupported theories of Dan Brown and his Da Vinci Code, or the Protestants “scholars” of the Jesus Seminar, where the Bible can’t be trusted anymore because the corrupt Church re-wrote Scripture to keep the REAL truth from the populous.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

RSiscoe:

Dave,

The following proposition is condemned as an error. In other words, anyone who believes what I am about to quote is in error.

Syllabus of Errors #15. “Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true”. – CONDEMNED STATEMENT ( Allocution “Maxima quidem,” June 9, 1862; Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851.)

Do you believe each person is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true? Do you believe that? A person who believes such a thing is condemned by the Catholic Church.

I don’t mean to pick on you, but I am curious whether or not you believe each person is free to believe and profess whatever religion they choose; or if you believe people are not free to believe and profess any religion they choose.

I’ll start another thread.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

RSiscoe,

See here: Against Indifferentism

 

[ahimsaman72]

itsjustdave1988:

The Gospel of Mark has no internal evidence as to who wrote it. You rely solely upon “he said; she said” of the Catholic Church, and yet, you don’t even seem to realize it.

I don’t care who wrote it as long as it coincides with other writings saying the same things. It could be anonymous and the truths he tells wouldn’t be tainted in any way. You create a false dichotomy.

Peace…

 

[ahimsaman72]

itsjustdave1988:

Of course you can’t. Your religion is man-made and filled with contradictions. My religion was established by that guy who died and rose again, and continues to be guided infallibly by Him. Yours doesn’t even pretend to be correct, claiming instead that nobody can interpret the Bible without error. Why ought anybody trust another man-made institution?

What does protestantism bring to the table? 30,000+ differing views, none claiming to be infallibe. Seems to be a poor revision of the authentic and authoritative Christianity that existed for the 1500 years before Protestantism. There’s no certainty within Protestantism because it is based merely upon fanciful revisions of what had been taught before, it converst the Holy Religon that God established into the mere opinions of men.

When a non-Christian asks me why I believe, I can tell them exactly why. At least my answer is consistent within itself. Yours … not so much. Try to tell them why the Bible is to be trusted if the entirely untrustworthy Catholics had their grubby hands upon it for 1500 years before the reformers got a hold of it.

The logical conclusion of Protestantism is the fanciful yet unsupported theories of Dan Brown and his Da Vinci Code, or the Protestants “scholars” of the Jesus Seminar, where the Bible can’t be trusted anymore because the corrupt Church re-wrote Scripture to keep the REAL truth from the populous.

Now you are relying on rhetorical and fanatical statements to bolster your opinions.

Peace be with you…

 

[RSiscoe]

ahimsaman72:

Now you are relying on rhetorical and fanatical statements to bolster your opinions.

Peace be with you…

Ahimsaman,

I would suggest studying the subject of apostolic succession and reading what the Church Fathers had to say about it. I converted to the Catholic Church about 7 years ago and I found the topic of apostolic succession very interesting, and persuasive.

Try typing “apostolic succession” and “Church Fathers” into a search engine. If you can’t find any good information, let me know and I will post something that I wrote a few years ago.

God Bless,

 

[ahimsaman72]

RSiscoe:

Ahimsaman,

I would suggest studying the subject of apostolic succession and reading what the Church Fathers had to say about it. I converted to the Catholic Church about 7 years ago and I found the topic of apostolic succession very interesting, and persuasive.

Try typing “apostolic succession” and “Church Fathers” into a search engine. If you can’t find any good information, let me know and I will post something that I wrote a few years ago.

God Bless,

Thank you - I will. I spoke in haste. I value Catholicism highly. I’ve said many times that I appreciate the beauty of it. I just haven’t gotten to a point where I am comfortable in both heart and mind with aspects of it.

Peace…

 

[RSiscoe]

ahimsaman72:

Thank you - I will. I spoke in haste. I value Catholicism highly. I’ve said many times that I appreciate the beauty of it. I just haven’t gotten to a point where I am comfortable in both heart and mind with aspects of it.

Peace…

Sometimes conversion takes a while. I believe that with you current disposition, you will eventually come to that point. I will post something for you on apostolic succession. As I said, I personally found it very interesting and very persuasive.

God Bless

 

[itsjustdave1988]

ahimsaman72:

I don’t care who wrote it as long as it coincides with other writings saying the same things. It could be anonymous and the truths he tells wouldn’t be tainted in any way. You create a false dichotomy.

Peace…

Ah, so we can add anything we like to Scripture, so long as it coincides with the other books of Scripture? Interesting theory of canonization. I kinda like C.S. Lewis’ *Mere Christianity, *so I’ve added it to my canon of Scripture. Same with the *Didache, *the *Shepherd of Hermas, *and the *First Letter of Clement to the Corinthians. *All are in my Bible now.

I don’t mean to drive you nuts with my replies, just to drive you to seek to discover more, as there is so much more within Catholicism than what you have been led to believe. Good luck in your studies. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon14.gif

 

[ahimsaman72]

itsjustdave1988:

Ah, so we can add anything we like to Scripture, so long as it coincides with the other books of Scripture? Interesting theory of canonization. I kinda like C.S. Lewis’ *Mere Christianity, *so I’ve added it to my canon of Scripture. Same with the *Didache, *the *Shepherd of Hermas, *and the *First Letter of Clement to the Corinthians. *All are in my Bible now.

I don’t mean to drive you nuts with my replies, just to drive you to seek to discover more, as there is so much more within Catholicism than what you have been led to believe. Good luck in your studies. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon14.gif

Whether or not Catholics or protestants canonized anything doesn’t deter from the fact that the gospel attributed to St. Mark is inherently true. We don’t believe it to be true just because Tradition says it was St. Mark who wrote it. The fact that it resembles the other gospels would make it acceptable rather than unacceptable.

I accept that the Catholic Church defined the NT canon. It would be rather odd for the Catholic Church to try to validate the Torah and prophets since these were by definition texts in Judaism and were accepted by Jews to begin with. But, let it be so.

No, no driving nuts. I’m already a nut, so I can’t get much nuttier.

Peace…

 

[JGC]

RSiscoe:

Ahimsaman,

I would suggest studying the subject of apostolic succession and reading what the Church Fathers had to say about it. I converted to the Catholic Church about 7 years ago and I found the topic of apostolic succession very interesting, and persuasive.

Try typing “apostolic succession” and “Church Fathers” into a search engine. If you can’t find any good information, let me know and I will post something that I wrote a few years ago.

God Bless,

Apostles Can Become Bishops (Apostolic Succession)
ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ262.HTM

**Bishops in the New Testament and the Early Church
ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ486.HTM
**

 

[mark_a]

michaelp:

You mean that you all don’t have an infallible list of infallible statements? How ironic.

Michael

Good one!

 

[Greyhawk]

michaelp:

You mean that you all don’t have an infallible list of infallible statements? How ironic.

Michael

Just a small comment, if there were an infallible list of infallible statments, that would mean the list contains all statements ever needed and would be no future pronouncements of infallible statements…

Dei Gratia,
Greyhawk

 

[Matt16_18]

exile:

As an outsider looking in, there does seem to be some conflict of opinion amongst Catholics here …

The confusion of this thread is caused by the fact that many Catholics do not understand how the church receives her infallible teachings.

A papal ex cathedra teaching is an extraordinary exercise of the magisterium of the Church. All dogmas defined by papal ex cathedra statements are infallible teachings.

The dogmas defined by papal ex cathedra statements, and the dogmas solemnly defined at valid Ecumenical Councils are the two ways that the Church receives infallible teaching through the extraordinary exercise of the teaching office of the Church.

The vast majority of the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church has NOT been received through extraordinary exercises of the magisterium, but through the teachings that have been received through the exercise of the ordinary universal magisterium. For example, the teaching that abortion is gravely sinful in every circumstance is an infallible teaching of the ordinary universal magisterium. Most of the infallible moral teaching of the Catholic Church has been received through the ordinary universal magisterium.MAGESTERIUM, EXTRAORDINARY The Church’s teaching office exercised in a solemn way, as in formal declarations of the Pope or ecumenical councils of bishops approved by the Pope. When the extraordinary magesterium takes the form of papal definitions or conciliar decisions binding on the consciences of all the faithful in matters of faith and morals, it is infallible.

MAGESTERIUM, ORDINARY The teaching office of the hierarchy under the Pope, exercised normally, that is, through the regular means of instructing the faithful. These means are all the usual channels of communication, whether written, spoken, or practical. When the ordinary magesterium is also universal, that is, collectively intended for all the faithful, it is also infallible.

Pocket Catholic Dictionary, John A. Hardon, S. J.

 

[Matt16_18]

michaelp:

So, the catechism is infallible?

No, not every statement written in the Catechism can be considered to be an infallible teaching of the Catholic Church. There are, however, many statements that affirm infallible teaching, such as: **Catechism of the Catholic Church

1378 ** Worship of the Eucharist. In the liturgy of the Mass we express our faith in the real presence of Christ under the species of bread and wine …There are found within the Catechism many direct quotes of solemnly defined infallible dogmas that that have been received through the extraordinary magisterium, as well as summaries of infallible teachings that have been received through the ordinary universal magisterium. There are also many direct quotes within the Catechism of infallible teaching received through what is written in Sacred Scripture.

If I were to ask you to make a list of every infallible teaching that can be derived from scriptures, could you do it? Of course not. So why should anyone be surprised that the Catholic Church has never made a definitive list of every infallible teaching that she has?