Not By Scripture Alone

[hoosierdaddy]

Randy, I myself don’t believe in the infallibility of the Church. The Bible even says there will be a great falling away. However, I don’t believe this means that Jesus lied about the devil not prevailing against the Church. I think someone else had said it to: that the devil can and does win battles but he will not win the war.

I believe in an infallible Lord protecting a fallible Church by His Spirit and by His infallible, inerrant Word.

I think it’s in 1John that says that we overcome Him by the Blood of the Lamb and the word of our testimony.

This is unrelated but I cannot find the post. I just remember reading it. Someone mentioned how we had to overcome in order to get to heaven; well, all believers do overcome. Please, if anyone knows the thread where this was mentioned, let me know and I’ll say this over there. Thanks.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Hoosier said:

Randy, I myself don’t believe in the infallibility of the Church.

1Ti 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

How can the church not be infallible if it is the pillar and foundation of truth?

The Bible even says there will be a great falling away. However, I don’t believe this means that Jesus lied about the devil not prevailing against the Church. I think someone else had said it to: that the devil can and does win battles but he will not win the war.

A great falling away does not diminish the church at all. What is your idea of the Great Falling Away?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hoosier said:
1Ti 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

How can the church not be infallible if it is the pillar and foundation of truth?

A great falling away does not diminish the church at all. What is your idea of the Great Falling Away?

Joey-

This is correct. The Bible is not the pillar and foundation of Truth. The Church is.

Jesus declared Peter to be the rock, the bedrock, if you will. The Church is the foundation laid upon that Rock - and it is Jesus who is the Builder of the Church.

We can know that our “house” will survive the storms because it is built solidly and not upon the shifting sands of theological novelties.

As for a falling away, I can think of no greater historical example of God’s Church being abandoned than that which occurred in the 1500’s. However, perhaps the worst is yet to come.

 

[Redbandito]

Actually you raise an interesting point on “burden of proof”.

In debate, the one making the claim has the “burden of proof”.

John Wesley was a non Catholic. To us non Catholics, the RC denomination at first glance appears to be just that, another Christian denomination with its distinct ecclesiastical organization and its distinct doctrine.

Therefore, if you want to make the claim to us that you are the “one true church” and that we are following heresy, you have the burden of proof in that case. Otherwise, we will just stay where we are thank you.

Similarly, if we want to claim to you that you are wrong and we are correct, the burden of proof rests upon us to prove our claims.

But that’s just it Mozart. “Protestants” by their very nature arose from a “protest” of the Catholic Church. Therefore, it was and remains incumbent upon them to prove the Catholic Church wrong. Whether you agree that the Catholic Church is the original Church formed by Jesus Christ, you cannot deny that Protestantism arose from the Catholic Church. Therefore, by your own principle the Protestants who claim that the Catholic Church was and is wrong, must prove this. The Catholic Church stands uncontested until this proof is given.

So, again, the burden of proof does not lay with the Catholic position. The Catholic position historically preceded Protestantism. That’s a no-brainer. Thus, Protestantism’s very existence relies upon the “wrongness” of the Catholic Church. One can deny this til the cows come home, but that is plain as day. If the Catholic Church is right, Protestantism has no need to exist. If the Catholic Church is wrong (which remains incumbent upon the Protestant to prove) which Protestant denomination is right? Are any of them completely right?

Remember, it is not the Catholic who made the unprecedented claim in the 16th century. It was Martin Luther, a CATHOLIC priest. Therefore, simply because the burden was never met at this time does not alleviate the modern day Protestant from the responsibility of meeting this burden, aware of it or not.

Therefore the burden of proof was not upon John Wesley, unless he was making specific charges against the RC denomination. And if you examine his life (see letter to a Catholic) you will actually find he was quite an ecumenical guy, so it was doubtful he was…

As far as Wesley being ecumenical, I have no doubt this is true. However, whether he took a firm stand or made specific declarations about the Church is irrelevant. If Wesley’s church was to stand on it’s own, it had to reject (at least implicitly) certain Catholic doctrine (i.e. Apostolic Succession, the Papacy, etc.), since the Catholic Church preceded Wesley’s church. Thus, he still had the burden of proof because HE was rejecting a long standing Tradition, whether he made formal declarations or not.

to be continued…

 

[Redbandito]

As far as the topic of this thread, if I want to claim to you that the Bible teaches it is the sole authority, the burden of proof rests upon me. Now here we immediately have a problem, because the best I can make is an implicit argument. An implicit argument is one that can not be proved, only believed.

Besides, you have three other problems that if you are not really careful you can trip over (1) first of all “sola scriptura” is just a title. Definition please. (2) if the Bible teaches this, how did it apply in the time period after the death of Christ to the point in time the canon was recognized. Remember, Biblical principles are universal and independent of time (3) Unless you want to make the argument the rules suddenly changed the day the canon was recognized…

These are not problems for me. I can define sola scriptura in many different ways, as many different Protestants have. Yet, they all remain incorrect. The only true formula is the one laid out by Jesus Christ to the Apostles, working through the HS. That is that the “Traditions” of the “Word of God” were to be revealed by “word of mouth and letter.”

And since the Bible does not teach sola scriptura, it is quite clear that this did not apply in the time period after the death of Christ. Historically, there are too many writings that teach that the Church is the “pillar and foundation of truth,” including the Bible itself. And that the Church is the reason we can have faith even in the authenticity of the Bible, not vice versa.

And while moral principles are independent of time, that it not the same as saying Biblical principles are. The Jews were not privy to the fullness of divine revelation in the time preceding Christ. That does not mean that the Son is not true for all time. It simply means that we understand things through time as God reveals them. Thus, when God revealed Himself as man, and established His Church, this did bring something new and better to the establishment of Judaism that predated it. Of course we knew this would be the case, since Jeremiah told us that God would establish a new and better covenant (Jer 31:31-33).

And your third question is also one that should be asked of the Protestant, not the Catholic. I don’t believe in sola scriptura, so I have no need to prove that this changed post-canon. In fact, the reality that there was no “canon” as we know it today for centuries after the Apostles is precisely why we cannot believe in sola scriptura. For that would have left 4 centuries of Christians without the “only infallible source of divine revelation.” That seems rather odd considering the depth of understanding the Christians possessed in their writings, and the fact that they were much closer to Jesus and the Apostles than we are today.

Furthermore, if indeed you reject sola scriptura for the first four centuries until the canon was formed, it becomes incumbent upon you to prove that the Bible was now to replace the Church as the only infallible source of the Word of God. Thus, this argument only works to strengthen my position as a Catholic. Because, in fact, the mode of transmission for the infallible Word of God has not changed. It has always been via the two sources originally transmitted by the Apostles through the HS and now passed down through their successors.

However, if you (or anyone) wants to claim to me their faith source du jour is equivalent to the Bible (given the assumption I recognize it to be the inerrant word of God), the burden of proof is upon you (or whomever) to prove the case. If nobody proves their case, what you end up with is a type of sola scriptura by default anyway.

That’s just how burden of proof operates.

Not really. Again, this line of argumentation ignores history. Again, C.S. Lewis stated in the Abolition of Man, “Wherever traditional values are questioned, as if the burden of proof lay with them, we have taken the wrong position.” Historically, Catholicism preceded Protestantism. Thus, the one making the “NEW” claim has the burden of proof, not just anyone making a claim. Prior to Protestantism, Catholic teaching was accepted as authoritative.

 

[kaycee]

Joey-

This is correct. The Bible is not the pillar and foundation of Truth. The Church is.

1Ti 3:15 -
if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

The Church upholds the TRUTH. The “once for all” Faith given through the apostles teaching as found in scripture! The Gospel of Grace!

Jude 1:3 - Show Context
Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.

Jesus declared Peter to be the rock, the bedrock, if you will. The Church is the foundation laid upon that Rock - and it is Jesus who is the Builder of the Church.

Actually, Jesus is the cornerstone, the Apostles and Prophets are the foundation.

Eph 2:19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.

**Augustine let the reader decide who the rock was!!!

Can you imagine? The single foundational verse used to support the papacy left up to the reader to decide the meaning??**

"In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: ‘On him as on a rock the Church was built.’…But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him. But ‘the rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable.

Clearly, Augustine was unaware of ANY papacy as is taught today.

Would Augustine not be anathematized by todays Roman catholic church?

 

[Randy_Carson]

1Ti 3:15 -
if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

The Church upholds the TRUTH. The “once for all” Faith given through the apostles teaching as found in scripture! The Gospel of Grace!

Jude 1:3 - Show Context
Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to **contend for the faith that was once for all **entrusted to the saints.

Actually, Jesus is the cornerstone, the Apostles and Prophets are the foundation.

Eph 2:19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.

Augustine let the reader decide who the rock was!!!

Can you imagine? The single foundational verse used to support the papacy left up to the reader to decide the meaning??

"In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: ‘On him as on a rock the Church was built.’…But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him. But ‘the rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable.

Clearly, Augustine was unaware of ANY papacy as is taught today.

Would Augustine not be anathematized by todays Roman catholic church?

If you like, start another thread on Augustine and the papacy.

To put all the rest in context:

Two men of God (you and me) quoting from the Bible Alone and dividing the Word of God very differently.

So much for the perspicuity of scripture and the foolish - nay, dangerous - man-made tradition of sola scriptura.

 

[kaycee]

If you like, start another thread on Augustine and the papacy.

To put all the rest in context:

Two men of God (you and me) quoting from the Bible Alone and dividing the Word of God very differently.

So much for the perspicuity of scripture and the foolish - nay, dangerous - man-made tradition of sola scriptura.

hmmmm. You mean 3 of us with 2 views. Augustine and myself then you ?

 

[FCEGM]

hmmmm. You mean 3 of us with 2 views. Augustine and myself then you ?

If you feel so confident, take a chance and we shall see.

 

[mozart-250]

But that’s just it Mozart. “Protestants” by their very nature arose from a “protest” of the Catholic Church. Therefore, it was and remains incumbent upon them to prove the Catholic Church wrong. Whether you agree that the Catholic Church is the original Church formed by Jesus Christ, you cannot deny that Protestantism arose from the Catholic Church. Therefore, by your own principle the Protestants who claim that the Catholic Church was and is wrong, must prove this. The Catholic Church stands uncontested until this proof is given.

But the point is that I am not claiming the Catholic denomination is “wrong”. If Catholic and Protestant apologists (people who are much smarter than me) basically debate to a draw, this indicates to me that neither side has the smoking gun to nail the other to the wall.

Absent such smoking gun, I am inclined to live and let live regarding the RC denomination. If any Catholic that expresses faith in Christ and has evidence of the fruit of the Holy Spirit I am inclined to believe is a brother in Christ just like I would a Baptist and let God sort out the other stuff.

My only claim is that there is some dogma of the Catholic denomination I have absolutely no reason. Elevating their interpretation of tradition and their magisterium to authority level equal to the Bible is one of them.

I am not going to believe something is true just because somebody tells me. I must have clear and convincing evidence. Therefore the burden of proof rests upon the one who wants me to believe something is true that I now do not believe.

Otherwise I could end up believing the earth is flat.

BTW, the one person that actually did that here suggested the early church fathers. I actually might agree that if the earliest of the early church fathers (in the years 100-200) that I know were authorities in the earliest church closely match an existing denomination to the exclusion of all others , it would be evidence that must be considered.

 

[Redbandito]

But the point is that I am not claiming the Catholic denomination is “wrong”. If Catholic and Protestant apologists (people who are much smarter than me) basically debate to a draw, this indicates to me that neither side has the smoking gun to nail the other to the wall.

Again, you may not make any formal claims that Catholicism in wrong. However, the fact you are not Catholic, and you have certain doctrinal disputes with the Catholic Church shows that you believe the Catholic “denomination” is wrong.

As far as Protestant apologists debating to a draw the Catholic apologists, I disagree. I have heard Catholics get obliterated by good Protestant apologist. However, I have heard good Catholic apologists do the same thing to those very same Protestant apologists. Therefore, I simply disagree that the debate is simply a draw, and we don’t have any way to come to a more complete conclusion. I really don’t understand how anyone could be satisfied with such relativism.

Otherwise I could end up believing the earth is flat.

BTW, the one person that actually did that here suggested the early church fathers. I actually might agree that if the earliest of the early church fathers (in the years 100-200) that I know were authorities in the earliest church closely match an existing denomination to the exclusion of all others , it would be evidence that must be considered.

No you couldn’t Mozart. People believed the earth was flat, until someone came along and proved it wasn’t. The TRADITIONAL belief was that the Earth was flat. The new claim- the Earth is not flat- came and proved itself to be correct. This is the model for burden of proof. The commonly accepted belief did not have to prove itself, but rather those trying to show that the Earth is not flat. In this case, the newcomers were correct.

And finally, I think it would be great for you to look into the Church fathers. I certainly agree that it is information that must be considered.

 

[Reformed1]

Your pick.

This isn’t a “debate” question, but aren’t the two masses quite different in form? I realize that they are at least similar or identical in purpose but I have seen both the Novus Ordo and the Tridentine mass and they are quite different in practice.

 

[MariaG]

My only claim is that there is some dogma of the Catholic denomination I have absolutely no reason. Elevating their interpretation of tradition and their magisterium to authority level equal to the Bible is one of them.

Respectfully, your point is backwards. The Catholic Church can show from the writings of the Early Church that scripture and Tradition interpreted by the magesterium is how things have been done.

Protestants came along and invented a new doctrine elevated the written word into a position never held in the history of Christianity before. Divorcing God’s inspired word from the Sacred tradition which properly interprets it brings about confusion as seen in the different interpretations of scritpure by the different Protestant denominations.

From CA Apostolic Tradition

Thus Paul tells the Corinthians, “I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you” (1 Cor. 11:2), and he commands the Thessalonians, “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:15). He even goes so far as to order, “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us” (2 Thess. 3:6).

To make sure that the apostolic tradition would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, “[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first four generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, the generation Timothy will teach, and the generation they in turn will teach.

And the Fathers:

Papias

“Papias [A.D. 120], who is now mentioned by us, affirms that he received the sayings of the apostles from those who accompanied them, and he, moreover, asserts that he heard in person Aristion and the presbyter John. Accordingly, he mentions them frequently by name, and in his writings gives their traditions [concerning Jesus]. . . . [There are] other passages of his in which he relates some miraculous deeds, stating that he acquired the knowledge of them from tradition” (fragment in Eusebius, *Church History *3:39 [A.D. 312]).

God Bless,
Maria

 

[mozart-250]

Respectfully, your point is backwards. The Catholic Church can show from the writings of the Early Church that scripture and Tradition interpreted by the magesterium is how things have been done.

The issue in my mind is not that the entities of “tradition” and “magisterium” exist. I mean Protestant denominations have their own traditions and their own magisteriums. The issues with each are…

The problem with “tradition” is the only tradition that you could even begin to argue is equivalent to the Bible is apostolic tradition (the scriptures in the Bible that reference tradition specifically restrict themselves to apostolic tradition). I agree that the earliest church first had the oral words of the apostles. Then it had men who were spiritual children and grandchildren of the apostles.

Where is disagree is that apostolic tradition tradition today is identifiable apart from the 400-450 pages of apostolic writing we now call the New Testament. I do agree that the writings of the very earliest and the most authoritative of the church fathers are helpful in understanding how the earliest Christians understood the teachings of the apostles that now we read in the New Testament.

In respect to the magisterium, Protestant denominations have their own magisteriums that interpret Scriptures. That is not the point of contention really. Although Protestants should hold their own magisteriums in high regard as subject matter experts, they do not however believe that their magisteriums are incapable of being wrong.

I have not seen anything in the writings of the earliest church authorities or in the Bible itself that leads me to believe that the earliest church considered its magisterium incapable of being incorrect or that the earliest church held in high regard any tradition other than tradition that was apostolic.

Protestants came along and invented a new doctrine elevated the written word into a position never held in the history of Christianity before. Divorcing God’s inspired word from the Sacred tradition which properly interprets it brings about confusion as seen in the different interpretations of scritpure by the different Protestant denominations.

Technically, the Protestants did not elevate Scripture any higher than it has always been…God’s inspired, inerrent written word. Now if you want to say that the Protestants did not believe that the Catholic magisterium and the Catholic interpretation of tradition were incapable of being wrong, I would agree…

Cause and effect…it can not be shown that the reason for 7,456,329 Protestant denomination is that Protestants do not believe the Catholic magisterium and the Catholic interpretation of apostolic tradition is incapable of being incorrect.

 

[mozart-250]

Again, you may not make any formal claims that Catholicism in wrong. However, the fact you are not Catholic, and you have certain doctrinal disputes with the Catholic Church shows that you believe the Catholic “denomination” is wrong.

Honestly I believe we are all wrong…just in different ways.

The problem with debating Christianity over the internet is that we all can fall into the trap of trying to remove the speck from your brothers eye without seeing the log in your own.

I am not sure what your point is though? Are you saying that unless I can prove my beliefs relative to yours I should recant mine and convert to yours? If that is what you are saying, you are asking me to cut you some slack that I most certainly would not cut to any other religious organization with competing claims.

 

[mozart-250]

But that’s just it Mozart. “Protestants” by their very nature arose from a “protest” of the Catholic Church. Therefore, it was and remains incumbent upon them to prove the Catholic Church wrong. Whether you agree that the Catholic Church is the original Church formed by Jesus Christ, you cannot deny that Protestantism arose from the Catholic Church. Therefore, by your own principle the Protestants who claim that the Catholic Church was and is wrong, must prove this. The Catholic Church stands uncontested until this proof is given.

Now I understand your point a little better…you seem to be saying that because the Catholic retains the lineage, I should cut the Catholic slack that I would not cut anyone else.

Here is my problem…in many cases where an entity divides upon itself, one part of the division retains the lineage while the other part loses it. But that does not necessarily mean that the part that retains the lineage is any more “correct” than the part that loses it.

Even in a divorce, one part keeps the family name while another part loses it. (one part keeps the house and one loses it etc). That does not mean I should favour the party that keeps the lineage.

In most cases where an entity divides upon itself, if I were to play the blame game I would assign it equally to both halves. Just saying.

Anyway, just because the church divided upon itself 500 years or so ago does not mean that 500 years after the fact I have to prove the side that does not retain the lineage is correct relative to the other side, or failing that I should return to the side that retains the lineage.

 

[mozart-250]

Mozie-

Start at the top of the list. Put all the other things on hold.

Actually, that makes sense. If the Catholic claims of infallibility are true, then every other argument is besides the point. Mary was assumed because Pope Pius said so. Debate over.

Of course it the Catholic claims of infallibility are not true, then it holds to an interpretation of the Bible that can charitably be called “creative” (on some points anyway…maybe not overall).

If you can get your arms around Apostolic Succession, you will make a good first step.

Actually I recall reading (it might have been Clement) where the Catholic can make a good case that apostolic succession was a historical fact.

After Apostolic Succession, then you realize that Apostolic Authority begins to make sense. Then infallibility.

I see a big difference between authority and infallibility.

Protestant denominations have their own versions of magisterium that are authoritative within the scope of the denomination anyway. That does not mean that these magisteriums are incapable of being incorrect.

When I have read the arguments of Catholic apologists on this topic they all seem to not make one of these distinctions:

• The distinction between being correct and incapable of being wrong.
• The distinction between being authoritative and incapable of being wrong.

It is also troubling that every argument I have heard regarding infallibility could just as easily be made for impeccability. Except for impeccability I can read history and easily disprove it.

 

[Redbandito]

Honestly I believe we are all wrong…just in different ways.

The problem with debating Christianity over the internet is that we all can fall into the trap of trying to remove the speck from your brothers eye without seeing the log in your own.

I am not sure what your point is though? Are you saying that unless I can prove my beliefs relative to yours I should recant mine and convert to yours? If that is what you are saying, you are asking me to cut you some slack that I most certainly would not cut to any other religious organization with competing claims.

That’s just so depressing for me. This view is becoming more and more prominent as Protestantism continues to splinter more and more. The thought that Christ, who is the “truth,” came and left the fullness of divine revelation in the hands of each individual to fin for themselves is simply unthinkable to me. It makes no sense. Why go to all the trouble to deliver the fullness of truth in revelation to the Apostles, only to let each individual figure out what they want to believe, while never possessing this truth in it’s fullness? I realize this isn’t a proof, but in having this discussion it just renewed my sadness over the devastating effects the Reformation has brought to Christianity.

As far as saying you should convert to Catholicism based on not being able to prove it wrong, I was not saying that. My point was a response to your statement, "But the point is that I am not claiming the Catholic denomination is “wrong”. I was saying that despite not making formal denunciations of the Catholic Church, you are claiming that Catholicism is wrong, and that the BOP still remains with you to disprove it as a Protestant. Again, without Catholicism being wrong, Protestantism has no need to exist.

 

[Redbandito]

Now I understand your point a little better…you seem to be saying that because the Catholic retains the lineage, I should cut the Catholic slack that I would not cut anyone else.

Here is my problem…in many cases where an entity divides upon itself, one part of the division retains the lineage while the other part loses it. But that does not necessarily mean that the part that retains the lineage is any more “correct” than the part that loses it.

Even in a divorce, one part keeps the family name while another part loses it. (one part keeps the house and one loses it etc). That does not mean I should favour the party that keeps the lineage.

In most cases where an entity divides upon itself, if I were to play the blame game I would assign it equally to both halves. Just saying.

Anyway, just because the church divided upon itself 500 years or so ago does not mean that 500 years after the fact I have to prove the side that does not retain the lineage is correct relative to the other side, or failing that I should return to the side that retains the lineage.

Thank you for your response. The problem I have with this analogy is that you did not go far enough. The Church is the Bride of Christ. How can the Church be two, or three, or 30,000? Christ prayed for His Church to be ONE as He and the Father are one. That means completely and totally. How can we justify disunity in this case, especially over matters of the faith?

Secondly, if the Church is Christ’s, and retains Christ’s name, then I will definitely “favour” that Church. And while I understand what you are saying in the divorce analogy, that is not a historically accurate portrayal of the event. If we are married to Christ through this mystical body (the Church), then to leave that Church is in some way to leave that marriage. Thus, while reform may be necessary, it must come from within. Just as in marriage, divorce between two people who truly love each other is not an option. Thus, they must work on their marriage from within.

 

[Redbandito]

Actually, that makes sense. If the Catholic claims of infallibility are true, then every other argument is besides the point. Mary was assumed because Pope Pius said so. Debate over.

Of course it the Catholic claims of infallibility are not true, then it holds to an interpretation of the Bible that can charitably be called “creative” (on some points anyway…maybe not overall)…

Amen to that Mozart! Which is why it is so important that we really test this topic. What if you were to find that Christ really did leave us an infallible Church? What would that mean for your life today? Could you leave the comforts or your church and follow Christ to this Church, even if it meant becoming Catholic? I know I could, because I did. And if I ever found that this Church was not infallible, I would quite possibly be gone tomorrow.

Actually I recall reading (it might have been Clement) where the Catholic can make a good case that apostolic succession was a historical fact.

I see a big difference between authority and infallibility…

Great point! There is a difference. But they are certainly not mutually exclusive. This is a great place to start with the distinction and acknowledgement of a possible succession of the Apostles and infallibility. Are you up for investigating this more?

Protestant denominations have their own versions of magisterium that are authoritative within the scope of the denomination anyway. That does not mean that these magisteriums are incapable of being incorrect…

While this is somewhat true, it is comparing apples and oranges. For starters, most Protestant churches and denominations remain autonomous. Thus, despite getting together and discussing issues of the faith, each Protestant attendee has no obligation to return to their church and teach the things discussed in these “conventions.” Thus, there really is no such thing as a magisterium outside of the RCC.

Secondly, the question of succession again arises here. Where did these denominations receive their authority? Is God the author of chaos, confusion, and disunity? Is God behind the myriad of denominations, or is this man getting in God’s way? Again, Christ prayed for the unity of His Church, not for 30,000+ denominations. So again, if God is not the author disunity, where do all these denominations derive their authority? They can’t all be successors of the Apostles since many of these churches are no more than 100 years old. Nor can they all be successors when they are teaching things in opposition to each other, all claiming that they are teaching the things the Apostles taught. But I do agree that simply claiming authority amongst a particular denomination does not in itself mean infallibility.

When I have read the arguments of Catholic apologists on this topic they all seem to not make one of these distinctions:

• The distinction between being correct and incapable of being wrong.
• The distinction between being authoritative and incapable of being wrong.

I’m not clear which apologists you are referring to, or their arguments. Can you be more specific?

Also, “What you bind on earth, will be bound in Heaven, and what you loose on earth, will be loosed in Heaven” says a lot to me. Do you think Jesus would give the authority to bind untruth in Heaven amongst the faithful? I don’t. This granting of authority makes no sense unless Jesus knew the Apostles would not bind the faithful with error.

It is also troubling that every argument I have heard regarding infallibility could just as easily be made for impeccability. Except for impeccability I can read history and easily disprove it.

I am not sure what you’re saying here. For starters, I disagree that the argument could be used for impeccability, since we know quite well that Peter was not perfect. He struggled in his faith as much or more than any of the Apostles. He denied Christ three times. Paul had to reprimand him for not living up to the doctrine of the Gentiles that he shared from his revelation. Peter was not perfect, or sinless. YET, Peter did not teach error on faith and morals. What Peter said was binding on the faithful, because it was also bound in Heaven. There is a difference.

And while you state the argument could be used for impeccability, wouldn’t this be a non sequitor? Nowhere is it used. Thus, this point is really moot. Hope that makes a little more sense. It seems like we are beginning to understand each other’s positions a little better.