Protestant here with Some Words

[jpete79]

To All:

I joined this forum about a week ago and in that time I have learned a bit about Catholicism but unfortunately many posts became a he said/she said battle of Protestantism vs. Catholicism. I have been asked a million questions on beliefs only to be answered by some (but not all) with sarcastic responses and occassional snips (although I myself snipped back). When I answer something with Scripture references I have been told that it is not properly interpretated by me and that is why I need the Magisterium.

Now first and foremost, I believe that the authority of God has been written down in the Bible. Whether it was the Catholics who canonized it or the protestants (Wycliffe and Tyndale) who first tried publishing it into different languages is irrelevant to me. The Catechism even talks about the divinity behind Scripture and that it is indeed perfect.

But it is not the Bible itself that brings us to God but it is God himself. There are other ways of coming to the Lord than through the Bible. The Church is one, divine revelation (though I feel this is extremely rare); I have even heard of people starting to put faith in an almighty Creator by seeing His creation itself. Many scientists and astronomers realize that the world is not merely a coincidence. To unknown people groups, Missionaries walk and live a Godly life to show others Christ in them.

I am going to be blunt and be honest right now. Can a Catholic be Christian and know Christ? Without a doubt. But it is the premise of infallibility in the Magisterium and the Pope that I cannot acknowledge.

I cannot acknowledge that a person with a title or position gets authority to be 100% accurate in morals and faith. Especially when you look at people that have held this position. The Popes who stood at the forefront of the Crusades and the Inquisition. The Popes who stood by while the Holocaust went on and the Popes who cover-up sexual abuse scandals.

Again, I don’t say that people can’t be Catholic and Christian but to have people that have stood by while millions were killed in different periods of time and say they are infallible in matters of morals and faith I just can’t understand.

I do believe tradition itself is important to know. I believe learning about what people like Origen and Augustine did and said are vital in understanding faith. However, though studying it, I will not always agree with it as they just like every man, woman and child are not infallible or impeccable.

Can you please answer this idea of infallibility passed down the generations and how these atrocities could be committed if a man were infallible (if he were perfect in his moral decisions then it would be assumed that he would live the same moral life)?

 

[mosher]

Sorry to answer a question with another question but it is necessary.

What certitude do you have that Scripture is the infalable Word of God?

 

[Trick]

jpete79,

Amazing !

Do you really believe all the accusations that you spout against the Catholic Church ?

Trick

 

[jpete79]

mosher:

Sorry to answer a question with another question but it is necessary.

What certitude do you have that Scripture is the infalable Word of God?

Scriptures according to Paul are God-breathed. That means perfect. Now everyone will tell me, well Scripture doesn’t imply New Testament, in which case if you read certain books like Timothy and Peter…they say Pauls letters and other Scripture (meaning there was indeed a Canon in the Biblical era because the Pauline epistles were directly associated with Scripture). I won’t put exact quotes from the Bible as I’m sure you’ve heard them all before and I will only hear back how I’m a close-minded Protestant who is illogical and that I cannot interpret the Bible which is why I am in need of the Magisterium…

But I want to ask this…if the Bible’s authors are under the inspiration of God, then why can’t Scripture be determined as OT and NT? Since God is not limited to our timeframe, why couldn’t He knowing that Scriptures would mean Bible in the future let Paul word it that way on purpose? The Words are supposed to be living and therefore you could assume that these words change with time purposefully…Just a question.

 

[jpete79]

Trick:

jpete79,

Amazing !

Do you really believe all the accusations that you spout against the Catholic Church ?

Trick

Are you going to tell me that the Church had nothing to do with the Crusades or the Inquisition? Many Jews also feel that the Church could have weilded power to assist them during the Holocaust instead of sitting idly by (granted there were many stories of Christians who assisted personally in those times).

If you say these things did happen; then would you say that the Catholic Church is headed by a loving body?

If you say they didn’t happen; are you going to say that the historians throughout time are mistaken?

 

[Montie_Claunch]

To All:

I joined this forum about a week ago and in that time I have learned a bit about Catholicism but unfortunately many posts became a he said/she said battle of Protestantism vs. Catholicism. I have been asked a million questions on beliefs only to be answered by some (but not all) with sarcastic responses and occassional snips (although I myself snipped back). When I answer something with Scripture references I have been told that it is not properly interpretated by me and that is why I need the Magisterium.

O.K. I would like to apologize for everyone if we hurt your feelings. But, a lot of us here I am sure (myself inculded) have just noticed that some Protestant do misuse scripture (to mean what it simply doesn’t mean) against the Catholic Church and has lead us (well me at least) to value the Magisterium all the more for its quidance.

Now first and foremost, I believe that the authority of God has been written down in the Bible. Whether it was the Catholics who canonized it or the protestants (Wycliffe and Tyndale) who first tried publishing it into different languages is irrelevant to me. The Catechism even talks about the divinity behind Scripture and that it is indeed perfect.

Alright I agree (as I am sure all here do) (though the Catholic Church does not recognize it as the Sole authority).

But it is not the Bible itself that brings us to God but it is God himself. There are other ways of coming to the Lord than through the Bible. The Church is one, divine revelation (though I feel this is extremely rare); I have even heard of people starting to put faith in an almighty Creator by seeing His creation itself. Many scientists and astronomers realize that the world is not merely a coincidence. To unknown people groups, Missionaries walk and live a Godly life to show others Christ in them.

alright. agreed.

I am going to be blunt and be honest right now. Can a Catholic be Christian and know Christ? Without a doubt. But it is the premise of infallibility in the Magisterium and the Pope that I cannot acknowledge.

Yes we can be both (I don’t see why they are seprete).

I cannot acknowledge that a person with a title or position gets authority to be 100% accurate in morals and faith. Especially when you look at people that have held this position. The Popes who stood at the forefront of the Crusades and the Inquisition. The Popes who stood by while the Holocaust went on and the Popes who cover-up sexual abuse scandals.

Well, There is a defrence between the two (being infallable on eithics and practiceing). For example, I had a Math Teacher, whom shall forever remain nameless, I was told did rather unethical things but, if he did or didn’t wouldn’t change the fact that when he said Tan was opposite/agaenst (sp?) that Tan was exactly that.

Again, I don’t say that people can’t be Catholic and Christian but to have people that have stood by while millions were killed in different periods of time and say they are infallible in matters of morals and faith I just can’t understand.

If the Pope said sleeping around was wrong and went and slept around doesn’t mean that he was wrong in what he said just what he did.

Can you please answer this idea of infallibility passed down the generations and how these atrocities could be committed if a man were infallible (if he were perfect in his moral decisions then it would be assumed that he would live the same moral life)?

Alright. Look at the old Testament as count how many time isreal turned away from God and srcewed up royaly. That doesn’t take away from the old testament. If it did I don’t see how you could trust it. I mean it was held on to by “Stiffnecked” (as the KJV say on accasion) people. This is not to be mean but, simply show you that just because pope whoever was a Jackdonkey doesn’t mean eavrything he said was wrong.

I hoped I helped.

 

[vern_humphrey]

jpete79:

To All:

I joined this forum about a week ago and in that time I have learned a bit about Catholicism but unfortunately many posts became a he said/she said battle of Protestantism vs. Catholicism. I have been asked a million questions on beliefs only to be answered by some (but not all) with sarcastic responses and occassional snips (although I myself snipped back). When I answer something with Scripture references I have been told that it is not properly interpretated by me and that is why I need the Magisterium.

Is it possible that someone studying an ancient document, in a language other than it was written in can come up with a better interpretation than an expert, who speaks, reads and writes those languages?

Secondly, if the Bible is the key to Christianity, how could Christianity exist in the hundreds of years before the New Testament emerged?

Christianity is based on the traditional teachings of Jesus, which formed the core of Christian teaching evern before the first books of the New Testament were written.

Next, what authority formed the canon of the Bible? The Catholic Church!

And on what basis and authority did they form that canon? On the basis of tradition and the authority ot the Magisterium.

jpete79:

Now first and foremost, I believe that the authority of God has been written down in the Bible. Whether it was the Catholics who canonized it or the protestants (Wycliffe and Tyndale) who first tried publishing it into different languages

The Bible, both Old and New Testaments had been translated into other languages nearly a thousand years before Wycliffe was born. It was widely published, and most Catholic churches maintained a public Bible on a reading stand for the general public.

jpete79:

But it is not the Bible itself that brings us to God but it is God himself. There are other ways of coming to the Lord than through the Bible. The Church is one, divine revelation (though I feel this is extremely rare); I have even heard of people starting to put faith in an almighty Creator by seeing His creation itself. Many scientists and astronomers realize that the world is not merely a coincidence. To unknown people groups, Missionaries walk and live a Godly life to show others Christ in them.

I am going to be blunt and be honest right now. Can a Catholic be Christian and know Christ? Without a doubt. But it is the premise of infallibility in the Magisterium and the Pope that I cannot acknowledge.

Since the Bible as we know it is based on the Magisterium, if you believe on one, you must accept the other.

jpete79:

I cannot acknowledge that a person with a title or position gets authority to be 100% accurate in morals and faith. Especially when you look at people that have held this position. The Popes who stood at the forefront of the Crusades and the Inquisition. The Popes who stood by while the Holocaust went on and the Popes who cover-up sexual abuse scandals.

That’s an ancient heresy called Donatism – the concept that the validity of a sacrement is contigent on the state of grace of the celebrant. If you follow that like of thinking, how can you be a Christian – since you cannot be sure the person who baptized you was sinless!!

jpete79:

Can you please answer this idea of infallibility passed down the generations and how these atrocities could be committed if a man were infallible (if he were perfect in his moral decisions then it would be assumed that he would live the same moral life)?

Simple – Donatism is false. God is well aware of our failings and created a Church for man based on man’s imperfect nature.

 

[Brian_C]

As someone w/ a master’s in history, I must admit embarassment that I, too, fell for the claims against Pius XII. However, I encourage you to look beyond whatever pop source you got the information about w/ regard to Pius and the Holocaust. Pius saved perhaps more Jews than any other man in Europe and was revered by the Jews after WWII. This johnny-come-lately revisionism is appaling.

Try this link for more info:

piusxiipope.info/

Also, I suggest you research infallibility a bit more.

I am undergoing RCIA currently and it was a big step from Southern Baptist. However, I truly believe that if you want to follow the words of the Bible closely, you can’t help but feel the only way to do so is to become one w/ the Mother Church. We hear people say fundamentalist this and that but you know what, Catholicism is as fundamentalist as it gets. Read the church fathers. What Catholicism practices today IS primative Christianity. This IS the original church, founded by Jesus. What’s more fundamental than that?

 

[Della]

I am going to be blunt and be honest right now. Can a Catholic be Christian and know Christ? Without a doubt. But it is the premise of infallibility in the Magisterium and the Pope that I cannot acknowledge.

I cannot acknowledge that a person with a title or position gets authority to be 100% accurate in morals and faith. Especially when you look at people that have held this position. The Popes who stood at the forefront of the Crusades and the Inquisition. The Popes who stood by while the Holocaust went on and the Popes who cover-up sexual abuse scandals.

Again, I don’t say that people can’t be Catholic and Christian but to have people that have stood by while millions were killed in different periods of time and say they are infallible in matters of morals and faith I just can’t understand.

I do believe tradition itself is important to know. I believe learning about what people like Origen and Augustine did and said are vital in understanding faith. However, though studying it, I will not always agree with it as they just like every man, woman and child are not infallible or impeccable.

Can you please answer this idea of infallibility passed down the generations and how these atrocities could be committed if a man were infallible (if he were perfect in his moral decisions then it would be assumed that he would live the same moral life)?

Please forgive a couple of the previous posters, blessings on them. I don’t think they understand your dilemma.

Infallibility does not in any way depend on the impeccability of the person holding the office of pope, thanks be! You are certainly right that there have been people who held that office that were unworthy of it, but the office isn’t merely a human institution. Rather, it is a divine institution established by Christ, as is the Magisterium.

It might help to understand what the words pope and magisterium mean within Catholic theology. The word pope simply means father or papa. In his writings, St. Paul called himself the father of those who were born into Christ through his ministry, yes? That is the kind of father the pope is to all the Church. Christ gave to Peter and his successors the charism of infallibility when declaring matters of faith and morals. The charism goes with the divine office, and not to the man personally.

And the word magisterium merely means a body of teachers. Christ promised the Apostles and their successors that the Holy Spirit would guide Christ’s Church into all truth through their words. Indeed, the words of the Apostles were only oral for most of them. Where are the writings of Thaddeus or of Simon the Zealot or the others whose writings we don’t have? Their words were just as much inspired by the Holy Spirit as those written in the writings that the Church compiled into the NT. So, we see that the charism of teaching was on all the Apostles and their successors.

There is so much Church history you really need to understand in order to understand what the Church is and why we cannot do without it. I strongly suggest you do that reading–of both Catholic and secular sources. Be sure the sources are reliable and have actually done real research not merely dressed up their biases in a lot of fancy words and supported them with quotes out of context or edited to seem as if they support their positions.

Within the Catholic Church subsists the whole of the truth, the faith. There is no truth of which the Church is afraid or wishes to hide from anyone. You will see this for yourself if you do a bit of simple research.

 

[johnnykins]

jpete79:

To All:

I joined this forum about a week ago and in that time I have learned a bit about Catholicism but unfortunately many posts became a he said/she said battle of Protestantism vs. Catholicism. I have been asked a million questions on beliefs only to be answered by some (but not all) with sarcastic responses and occassional snips (although I myself snipped back). When I answer something with Scripture references I have been told that it is not properly interpretated by me and that is why I need the Magisterium.

Now first and foremost, I believe that the authority of God has been written down in the Bible. Whether it was the Catholics who canonized it or the protestants (Wycliffe and Tyndale) who first tried publishing it into different languages is irrelevant to me. The Catechism even talks about the divinity behind Scripture and that it is indeed perfect.

But it is not the Bible itself that brings us to God but it is God himself. There are other ways of coming to the Lord than through the Bible. The Church is one, divine revelation (though I feel this is extremely rare); I have even heard of people starting to put faith in an almighty Creator by seeing His creation itself. Many scientists and astronomers realize that the world is not merely a coincidence. To unknown people groups, Missionaries walk and live a Godly life to show others Christ in them.

I am going to be blunt and be honest right now. Can a Catholic be Christian and know Christ? Without a doubt. But it is the premise of infallibility in the Magisterium and the Pope that I cannot acknowledge.

I cannot acknowledge that a person with a title or position gets authority to be 100% accurate in morals and faith. Especially when you look at people that have held this position. The Popes who stood at the forefront of the Crusades and the Inquisition. The Popes who stood by while the Holocaust went on and the Popes who cover-up sexual abuse scandals.

Again, I don’t say that people can’t be Catholic and Christian but to have people that have stood by while millions were killed in different periods of time and say they are infallible in matters of morals and faith I just can’t understand.

I do believe tradition itself is important to know. I believe learning about what people like Origen and Augustine did and said are vital in understanding faith. However, though studying it, I will not always agree with it as they just like every man, woman and child are not infallible or impeccable.

Can you please answer this idea of infallibility passed down the generations and how these atrocities could be committed if a man were infallible (if he were perfect in his moral decisions then it would be assumed that he would live the same moral life)?

An issue that’s been gone over a hundred times. Check out Karl’s book on Catholicism and Fundamentalism. There is a good explanation in that. Your basic problem is you are confusing the finely nuanced definition of infallibility with impeccability - the preservation from sin. Suffice it to say the Popes and hierarchy are not impeccable - yes they sin, and sometimes gravely. That has zip to do with infallibility - particularly as limited and as nuanced as the definition is. So read Keating’s book.

BTW - the Crusades was a defensive war - ever wonder what the Moslems were doing in Spain, France and Austria, or how they got there? Let’s just say they weren’t invited. That they were finally driven out and attacked in the Levant should not be a shock to anyone.

 

[Aaron_I]

We both agree that Scripture is the word of God. The issue is the cannon. How does a Protestant determine the cannon? We have the authority of the Church, but Protestants seem to be on their own. Basically, on what grounds do you accept the Bible, and why not accept Gospel of Thomas and all the other books that all christians reject.

To address the holocaust issue, please read this . Perhaps the most significant part is this: "The Pope’s efforts did not go unrecognized by Jewish authorities, even during the War. The Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem, Isaac Herzog, sent the Pope a personal message of thanks on February 28, 1944, in which he said: “The people of Israel will never forget what His Holiness and his illustrious delegates, inspired by the eternal principles of religion which form the very foundations of true civilization, are doing for us unfortunate brothers and sisters in the most tragic hour of our history, which is living proof of divine Providence in this world.”

The Inquisition was bad, but so was the rest of the world at that time (think Salem). If nothing else, the Inquisition was regulated and gave people time to reform and change.

Basically, your problem with infallibility comes from this:

Can you please answer this idea of infallibility passed down the generations and how these atrocities could be committed if a man were infallible (if he were perfect in his moral decisions then it would be assumed that he would live the same moral life)?

Infallibility works negatively. I don’t know if you’re familiar with Socrates at all, but it would work kind of like his daimon. Consider this example: the determining of the canon. God doesn’t shout out in the sky “ignore the Gospel of Thomas”, rather he prevents the church from accepting it. There have been times of crisis in the church where the Pope needed to speak out but didn’t. That doesn’t take away from infallibility because he didn’t teach a false doctrine.

Not every Pope was a saint, but none of them taught falsely because the Holy Spirit prevented it. Most Protestants would say that God prevented a false cannon from being brought forth. My question is why is it so much of a stretch for God to guide other important issues too.

 

[Orionthehunter]

jpete79:

Scriptures according to Paul are God-breathed. That means perfect. Now everyone will tell me, well Scripture doesn’t imply New Testament, in which case if you read certain books like Timothy and Peter…they say Pauls letters and other Scripture (meaning there was indeed a Canon in the Biblical era because the Pauline epistles were directly associated with Scripture). I won’t put exact quotes from the Bible as I’m sure you’ve heard them all before and I will only hear back how I’m a close-minded Protestant who is illogical and that I cannot interpret the Bible which is why I am in need of the Magisterium…

But I want to ask this…if the Bible’s authors are under the inspiration of God, then why can’t Scripture be determined as OT and NT? Since God is not limited to our timeframe, why couldn’t He knowing that Scriptures would mean Bible in the future let Paul word it that way on purpose? The Words are supposed to be living and therefore you could assume that these words change with time purposefully…Just a question.

Jpete, you didn’t answer the question “How do you know that the Bible is perfect?”

You answered it by saying the the Bible says so. Let me give you an analogy. If I said I was God and perfect, would that make me God and perfect? Of course not.

So, I’ll ask the question again. Either answer the original question or answer this question.

How do you know that the Bible wasn’t written by some really smart people who were also deluded to think that their wisdom was from a Supreme Being?

 

[mosher]

jpete79:

Scriptures according to Paul are God-breathed. That means perfect. Now everyone will tell me, well Scripture doesn’t imply New Testament, in which case if you read certain books like Timothy and Peter…they say Pauls letters and other Scripture (meaning there was indeed a Canon in the Biblical era because the Pauline epistles were directly associated with Scripture). I won’t put exact quotes from the Bible as I’m sure you’ve heard them all before and I will only hear back how I’m a close-minded Protestant who is illogical and that I cannot interpret the Bible which is why I am in need of the Magisterium…

But I want to ask this…if the Bible’s authors are under the inspiration of God, then why can’t Scripture be determined as OT and NT? Since God is not limited to our timeframe, why couldn’t He knowing that Scriptures would mean Bible in the future let Paul word it that way on purpose? The Words are supposed to be living and therefore you could assume that these words change with time purposefully…Just a question.

I’ll get to your question in a moment but let’s stay on topic. I undrstand what you are saying about Paul and such. However, the problem here is that you are citing internal sources which are not credible. the Hindu or the Muslim makes the same claim about their “Holy Writ” because that same writ says it is the word of God. However, I am asking about certitude. How is one to know for sure that Sacred Scripture is what it says it is?

 

[mosher]

Trick:

jpete79,

Amazing !

Do you really believe all the accusations that you spout against the Catholic Church ?

Trick

This does not help the question but rather causes further bias. Please refrain from approaching this issue with such an accusitory air.

 

[jpete79]

Montie Claunch:

O.K. I would like to apologize for everyone if we hurt your feelings. But, a lot of us here I am sure (myself inculded) have just noticed that some Protestant do misuse scripture (to mean what it simply doesn’t mean) against the Catholic Church and has lead us (well me at least) to value the Magisterium all the more for its quidance.

Alright I agree (as I am sure all here do) (though the Catholic Church does not recognize it as the Sole authority).

alright. agreed.
Yes we can be both (I don’t see why they are seprete).
Well, There is a defrence between the two (being infallable on eithics and practiceing). For example, I had a Math Teacher, whom shall forever remain nameless, I was told did rather unethical things but, if he did or didn’t wouldn’t change the fact that when he said Tan was opposite/agaenst (sp?) that Tan was exactly that.

If the Pope said sleeping around was wrong and went and slept around doesn’t mean that he was wrong in what he said just what he did.Alright. Look at the old Testament as count how many time isreal turned away from God and srcewed up royaly. That doesn’t take away from the old testament. If it did I don’t see how you could trust it. I mean it was held on to by “Stiffnecked” (as the KJV say on accasion) people. This is not to be mean but, simply show you that just because pope whoever was a Jackdonkey doesn’t mean eavrything he said was wrong.

I hoped I helped.

Thank you first for not criticizing me about my words. I admit I was blunt but did not know how else to make the argument.

Now, on the discussion of the Pope. Christ ripped the Pharisees apart for being hypocrites. He said they looked like Holy men on the outside but on the inside they were vile. Its the idea of practicing what you preach. Christ’s commands were to love your enemy and turn the other cheek. Paul said to love your enemies to save them from burning coals upon their heads. The Pope during those times watched and even authored in some cases the genocide of millions of people. Morals and lifestyle are linked, especially if you are teaching to others about morals.

I’m not saying all Popes are evil or wrong on everything. John Paul II was a great man who was very Holy and indeed wanted to bring the world closer to God. But to say that he couldn’t be wrong on moral ideals would be wrong if he doesn’t practice what he preaches (or at least attempt to)

If you had a teacher that told you sleeping around was wrong and then found out that he had various lovers would you trust him? Or if he said that you should give money to charities and then found that he takes money off the top of his company?

 

[Mickey]

jpete79:

If you had a teacher that told you sleeping around was wrong and then found out that he had various lovers would you trust him? Or if he said that you should give money to charities and then found that he takes money off the top of his company?

You continue to misunderstand infallibility.

 

[b_justb]

jpete79:

I cannot acknowledge that a person with a title or position gets authority to be 100% accurate in morals and faith. Especially when you look at people that have held this position. The Popes who stood at the forefront of the Crusades and the Inquisition. The Popes who stood by while the Holocaust went on and the Popes who cover-up sexual abuse scandals.

Can you please answer this idea of infallibility passed down the generations and how these atrocities could be committed if a man were infallible (if he were perfect in his moral decisions then it would be assumed that he would live the same moral life)?

Please site whatever you like from any teaching doctrine of the Church that would have come from the infallible sources that you find to be in error and why you find it to be in error.

Let me be specific here, to avoid flamage.

As an example:

The Catholic Church teaches that Jesus Christ is both fully human and divine as defined by Pope Leo the Great and ratified into the Christian Tradition at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD. I disagree because Jesus could not possibly have 2 natures in a single body, I find this to be impossible because of 1), 2), 3).

 

[RyanL]

jpete,

Hello! I don’t have anything to add. I simply wanted to say that if any of my Catholic brothers and sisters are giving you a hard time, let me know and I’ll knock them around for ya’!

Some are a bit battle hardened from being called “the Whore of Babylon” by various zealots, so please understand if they can be a bit touchy; that said, there’s no excuse for being rude or mean.

Welcome, and God Bless,
RyanL

 

[jpete79]

vern humphrey:

Is it possible that someone studying an ancient document, in a language other than it was written in can come up with a better interpretation than an expert, who speaks, reads and writes those languages?

Secondly, if the Bible is the key to Christianity, how could Christianity exist in the hundreds of years before the New Testament emerged?

Did I say the Bible was key to Christianity; I said CHRIST WAS KEY. The Bible is a way of getting to Him.

Christianity is based on the traditional teachings of Jesus, which formed the core of Christian teaching evern before the first books of the New Testament were written.

Agreed that tradition had a role…but tradition was later recorded into what the Bible now is.

Next, what authority formed the canon of the Bible? The Catholic Church!

And on what basis and authority did they form that canon? On the basis of tradition and the authority ot the Magisterium.

That is not true as there was a Canon long before 400 AD. There were Greek and Hebrew Bibles long before they were interpreted.

The Bible, both Old and New Testaments had been translated into other languages nearly a thousand years before Wycliffe was born. It was widely published, and most Catholic churches maintained a public Bible on a reading stand for the general public.

Since the Bible as we know it is based on the Magisterium, if you believe on one, you must accept the other.

Obviously not, I believe in the Bible (God’s Words) but not the Magisterium (Man’s words about God).

That’s an ancient heresy called Donatism – the concept that the validity of a sacrement is contigent on the state of grace of the celebrant. If you follow that like of thinking, how can you be a Christian – since you cannot be sure the person who baptized you was sinless!!

I don’t follow that line of thinking. I believe all men are short of God’s glory and therefore all men sin.

Simple – Donatism is false. God is well aware of our failings and created a Church for man based on man’s imperfect nature.

Christ is the head of the Church and whoever believes in Him are the adopted sons of God. God’s household is the Church. Now, if this is true the Church is made of sinners, therefore the Church still contains imperfections and will not be made perfect until it is presented as a Bride to Christ.

 

[Aaron_I]

jpete79:

Now, on the discussion of the Pope. Christ ripped the Pharisees apart for being hypocrites. He said they looked like Holy men on the outside but on the inside they were vile. Its the idea of practicing what you preach. Christ’s commands were to love your enemy and turn the other cheek. Paul said to love your enemies to save them from burning coals upon their heads. The Pope during those times watched and even authored in some cases the genocide of millions of people. Morals and lifestyle are linked, especially if you are teaching to others about morals.

Morals and lifestyle are linked. But realize that just because someone is immoral does not mean that they teach immorality. Does it make them a bad person? Quite possibly, but that doesn’t affect infallibility.

Also, Christ ripped the Pharisees for being hypocrites. You stated this correctly. But does Christ say, “Therefore, their teachings are invalide”? No, he says to do whatever they say because they hold authority. Please review this (and maybe even the actual church teaching on infallibility) before appealing to practice what you preach as a valid argument.