second question for our non-catholic brethern

[spina1953]

some sound like the bahai or the mormons. they make the assertion that the people who wrote sacred scripture do not know its meaning.

the RCC wrote the new testament. the RCC is the only body that has the authority to preach the meaning of what it has written.

of course people can deny that. but, the denial implies that the people who wrote the book are not qualified to interpret what they wrote, but others who did not write it are qualified.

eddie too: that was a mouth full in what you stated. I do agree. The part I like the best is those who wrote are not qualified and those who did not write are qualitifed, that was a good one and I have been wondering about that since I stated reading the posts in these forums where it seems to me to be interpretations or what others have said that so far as I understand has been refuted several times by Catholic posters. However, that does not mean that those who have opposed Catholic thinking can’t make their opinion known, its just that it seem to me to be the same arguments time after time, but then again maybe I got it wrong. Thanks for the post.

 

[eddie_too]

the Church has declared papal infallibility a dogma.

that settles the discussion unless the Church does not possess the power to declare dogmas.

 

[eddie_too]

vatican 1 clearly defined the doctrine of papal infallibility if that is what is needed.

everything in Church history supported that definition.

one can disagree, but in disagreeing surely the weight of the disagreement is contigent upon the reasoning, history and theology that supports the disagreement.

saying, “i do not see it” is the weakest of arguments.

on the other hand, saying, “i do not see it because of …” this part of history, this lack of reasonableness or this theological objection is much stronger and lends itself to discussion.

simply naysaying or saying your evidence does not persuade me is not discussion at all.

to claim you are discussing something while simply disagreeing with what another says on a subject is simply not true. such a claim has not legitimacy as being part of a discussion.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

i seriously doubt that when peter denied Christ that peter was acting infallibly.

one adds to the dubiousness of such a claim when one uses it to defy Church teaching on papal infallibility.

implying that he was imposes on the one doing the implying an obligation to provide some kind of support for making such an assertion.

to base one’s belief on such an assertion demands more that simply asserting but something beyond a person saying, it is my opinion and that settles it.

Hi Eddie: this sounds more like a complaint than an argument. You have been very kind and polite with me throughout this thread and I hope that I have been the same in return. If I haven’t then I truly apologize, as this has not been my aim. I just want to get at the truth.

The situation is this: We have stated a Catholic position on tihs thread that our church leaders, namely the Pope are infallible. Some Protestants have shown up and called us on it. Now is our chance to prove it. Instead, we have fallen all over ourselves through layers of obfuscation. If we have a claim to infallibility from our Church, we just need to produce it, explain it and answer questions. We have declined the opportunity at every turn. First step: produce the documents. Then we go from there.

Thanks Eddie!
Gary

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

vatican 1 clearly defined the doctrine of papal infallibility if that is what is needed.

everything in Church history supported that definition.

one can disagree, but in disagreeing surely the weight of the disagreement is contigent upon the reasoning, history and theology that supports the disagreement.

saying, “i do not see it” is the weakest of arguments.

on the other hand, saying, “i do not see it because of …” this part of history, this lack of reasonableness or this theological objection is much stronger and lends itself to discussion.

simply naysaying or saying your evidence does not persuade me is not discussion at all.

to claim you are discussing something while simply disagreeing with what another says on a subject is simply not true. such a claim has not legitimacy as being part of a discussion.

Okay, let me sound like a gangster here: the documents Eddie, the documents. Let’s post the contents and explain them and then answer any questions from Protestants about them. This is how we get our point across and come to some mutual understanding.

The documents Eddie, the documents.

 

[eddie_too]

gary,

have you read the thread? there have been numerous posts providing support for the teaching from sacred scripture, from the use of reason and from church history.

there has been nothing that refutes those supporting posts.

it is kind of hard to carry on a discussion when one side simply makes a declarative statement over and over.

perhaps you could explain what you mean by asking for proof? what would satisfy such a request?

 

[Randy_Carson]

I don’t recall that Clement said that God was speaking through him. Can you refresh me on that?

Post #160.

Yes, according to Rome. That is good enough for you and I because we are Catholic. I expect that sounds a bit unsubstantiated and nonsensical to those outside of our church. If the SBC came out and said the same of themselves tomorrow, you would laugh. This is probably the same reaction that the SBC and others have to our assertion of the same.

If the person is Orthodox, then there will be no problem because the Church Fathers are venerated by the Orthodox. If the person is Baptist, then they should listen closely to these “Bible Christians” like Irenaeus of Lyons who wrote long before the Catholic Church was invented by Constantine in AD 313.

Again, as I have said many times of this and other examples given on this thread. It establishes authority and does not assert infallibility. Where is the seat of Peter established by Christ or by Peter as being infallible?

“Whither no error can come” has to do with obedience? :nope:

Error has to do with teaching. Cyprian states that no false teaching can come from Rome. This is infallibility.

Read back a few posts on this thread. Peter was very fallible soon after being given the name Rock in saying that he never knew Jesus. That was fallacious both in intent and content that is pertinent to the core of Christian teaching, which is the fact that Jesus and Peter knew one another. I think Peter would agree, as he seems to have been pretty guileless, which is why Jesus probably liked him. So, we are back to where we started.

Peter’s denial of Jesus was not an attempt to publicly teach the entire Church everywhere, was it? Moreover, Jesus had not yet died, risen and ascended, and the Spirit had not been poured out at Pentecost. So, there is no basis whatsoever to justify the idea that Peter’s denial of Jesus represents proof that infallibility is false because Peter wasn’t infallible. Yet.

While we have posted many statements on authority, a clear statement Infallibility has not been produced. I have no interest in who is right and who is wrong. I am interested in the truth, and I have still not seen anything that says that the Church is infallible. Only scripture showing that Peter was not infallible.

Church infallibility? Well, why didn’t you say so?

The Infallibility of the Catholic Church Proved from Scripture

The following verses suggest that the Catholic Church is prevented from teaching error in matters of faith and morals by God Himself. I provide questions below each verse to illustrate why it is applicable to our understanding of infallibility.

Matthew 16:18
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Q: If Jesus promised to build his own church and that Church ever fell into doctrinal error, would this mean that a) Jesus was a liar, b) Jesus did not have the power to protect his own church, or c) Jesus was incompetent as a church builder?

Matthew 28:20
And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.

Q: If the Church fell into doctrinal error at any time during the 1500 years before the Protestant Reformation, would that suggest that Jesus did not remain with the Church “always”?

John 14:15-16
15"If you love me, you will obey what I command. 16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever—

Q: If the Church ever fell into doctrinal error, would that mean that Jesus did not give the Counselor or that the Counselor simply failed to remain with the Church “forever”?

John 14:18
18I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.

Q: If the Church ever fell into doctrinal error, would that imply that Jesus actually did leave us as “orphans” during all that time?

John 14:26
26But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

Q: If the Church fell into error despite this promise, would that mean the Holy Spirit failed to teach the Church “all things” or to remind the Church of the things that Jesus had said to the Apostles?

John 16:13
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

Q: Could the Holy Spirit fail to guide the Church into all truth - or allow the Church to fall into error - if Jesus promised otherwise?

Now, consider the following three verses:

1 John 4:4
4You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.

1 Timothy 3:13
15if 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.

Mark 3:27
27In fact, no one can enter a strong man’s house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he can rob his house.

Q: Is Satan stronger than Jesus, is the Church the household of God, and can Satan rob the Church of the deposit of truth by “binding” Jesus in any way?

In light of the above, is it possible that the Church fell into doctrinal error? Taken individually, each of these verses creates a problem for those that assert that the Church “went off the rails” at some point in history. Taken as a whole, they portray Christ’s own involvement in building, nurturing and protecting His Church until the end of time. The Catholic Church remains strong and vibrant – not by her own efforts or innate qualities – but because God Himself is leading and guiding her to ensure that “the gates of hell will not overcome it.”

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Post #160.

If the person is Orthodox, then there will be no problem because the Church Fathers are venerated by the Orthodox. If the person is Baptist, then they should listen closely to these “Bible Christians” like Irenaeus of Lyons who wrote long before the Catholic Church was invented by Constantine in AD 313.

“Whither no error can come” has to do with obedience? :nope:

Error has to do with teaching. Cyprian states that no false teaching can come from Rome. This is infallibility.

Peter’s denial of Jesus was not an attempt to publicly teach the entire Church everywhere, was it? Moreover, Jesus had not yet died, risen and ascended, and the Spirit had not been poured out at Pentecost. So, there is no basis whatsoever to justify the idea that Peter’s denial of Jesus represents proof that infallibility is false.

Church infallibility? Well, why didn’t you say so?

The Infallibility of the Catholic Church Proved from Scripture

The following verses suggest that the Catholic Church is prevented from teaching error in matters of faith and morals by God Himself. I provide questions below each verse to illustrate why it is applicable to our understanding of infallibility.

Matthew 16:18
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Q: If Jesus promised to build his own church and that Church ever fell into doctrinal error, would this mean that a) Jesus was a liar, b) Jesus did not have the power to protect his own church, or c) Jesus was incompetent as a church builder?

Matthew 28:20
And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.

Q: If the Church fell into doctrinal error at any time during the 1500 years before the Protestant Reformation, would that suggest that Jesus did not remain with the Church “always”?

John 14:15-16
15"If you love me, you will obey what I command. 16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever—

Q: If the Church ever fell into doctrinal error, would that mean that Jesus did not give the Counselor or that the Counselor simply failed to remain with the Church “forever”?

John 14:18
18I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.

Q: If the Church ever fell into doctrinal error, would that imply that Jesus actually did leave us as “orphans” during all that time?

John 14:26
26But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

Q: If the Church fell into error despite this promise, would that mean the Holy Spirit failed to teach the Church “all things” or to remind the Church of the things that Jesus had said to the Apostles?

John 16:13
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

Q: Could the Holy Spirit fail to guide the Church into all truth - or allow the Church to fall into error - if Jesus promised otherwise?

Now, consider the following three verses:

1 John 4:4
4You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.

1 Timothy 3:13
15if 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.

Mark 3:27
27In fact, no one can enter a strong man’s house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he can rob his house.

Q: Is Satan stronger than Jesus, is the Church the household of God, and can Satan rob the Church of the deposit of truth by “binding” Jesus in any way?

In light of the above, is it possible that the Church fell into doctrinal error? Taken individually, each of these verses creates a problem for those that assert that the Church “went off the rails” at some point in history. Taken as a whole, they portray Christ’s own involvement in building, nurturing and protecting His Church until the end of time. The Catholic Church remains strong and vibrant – not by her own efforts or innate qualities – but because God Himself is leading and guiding her to ensure that “the gates of hell will not overcome it.”

Good stuff. Thanks Randy. Let’s talk about it. I have to pick some people up at the airport, cook dinner and all that, but I want to go over this with you as soon as I can.

 

[eddie_too]

"Papal infallibility is a dogma of the Catholic Church which states that, in virtue of the promise of Jesus to Peter, the Pope is preserved from the possibility of error[1] “when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church”.[2]

This doctrine was defined dogmatically in the First Vatican Council of 1869–1870, but had been defended before that, appearing already in medieval tradition and becoming the majority opinion at the time of the Counter-Reformation.[3]

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Thanks Eddie - we have a document finally:

“Papal infallibility is a dogma of the Catholic Church which states that, in virtue of the promise of Jesus to Peter, the Pope is preserved from the possibility of error[1] “when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church”.[2]”

As a measure to counter reformation views, we have the Church issuing a statement that the Pope is infallible. As a Catholic, how would I convince a Protestant this is correct? . For those who don’t recognize the Church, how do we explain it’s validity? What is the intrinsic logic to this truth that would resonate with those who would be prone to dismiss it as bluster from one denomination aimed at other denominations or anyone within the same denomination who might have questions?

 

[spina1953]

eddie too: I agree!!!

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Randy Carson;11438644]Post #160

See my replies to 160. We already covered that ground. did you have some comments in regards to my replies?

If the person is Orthodox, then there will be no problem because the Church Fathers are venerated by the Orthodox. If the person is Baptist, then they should listen closely to these “Bible Christians” like Irenaeus of Lyons who wrote long before the Catholic Church was invented by Constantine in AD 313.

I think Bible Christians claim to go by go by what is in the bible. I am not a bible scholar, is Ireanus in the bible?

Error has to do with teaching. Cyprian states that no false teaching can come from Rome. This is infallibility.

Again, I think Bible Christians claim to go by go by what is in the bible. Is Cyprian in the bible?

Peter’s denial of Jesus was not an attempt to publicly teach the entire Church everywhere, was it? Moreover, Jesus had not yet died, risen and ascended, and the Spirit had not been poured out at Pentecost. So, there is no basis whatsoever to justify the idea that Peter’s denial of Jesus represents proof that infallibility is false because Peter wasn’t infallible. Yet.

Without the life of Christ and the story of his ministries and experiences with the apostles, there is in fact no faith for Peter or any Pope thereafter to teach. They are the basis of all Christian thought. In this part of the canonical scriptures, Peter tells a fallacy, and it was after he was told that whatsoever he bindeth and looseth so on, which is the point at which we have recently asserted that he became infallible. Are we moving the timing of that event at this point in the discussion to the descent of the Holy Spirit?

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Parte The Seconde:

Church infallibility? Well, why didn’t you say so?

The Infallibility of the Catholic Church Proved from Scripture

The following verses suggest that the Catholic Church is prevented from teaching error in matters of faith and morals by God Himself. I provide questions below each verse to illustrate why it is applicable to our understanding of infallibility.

Matthew 16:18
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

:

I thought that according to your statement above that Peter was not proclaimed infallible yet at this point, leaving it possible for him to lie when Jesus was arrested without being infallible later. Specifically, my sense was that you had just suggested a few lines ago that it was at Pentecost. Am I confused or are you offering two stories? I am not looking to argue, I just want to know what you mean.

If Jesus promised to build his own church and that Church ever fell into doctrinal error, would this mean that a) Jesus was a liar, b) Jesus did not have the power to protect his own church, or c) Jesus was incompetent as a church builder?

We cannot blame every error made by or tribulation suffered by the Church on Jesus.

And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.

Even when I am wrong, I trust.

Q: If the Church fell into doctrinal error at any time during the 1500 years before the Protestant Reformation, would that suggest that Jesus did not remain with the Church “always”?

I suspect that He remains with us when we say and do the right things and wit us when we err. I think we do a lot of both. I know I do.

Q: If the Church ever fell into doctrinal error, would that mean that Jesus did not give the Counselor or that the Counselor simply failed to remain with the Church “forever”?

I have been to many churches in my time. I am not in a position to say that “the Counselor” is not in all of them. If I were to assert that “the Counselor” is not in all of them, it would seem to be a lack of faith in “the Counselor” on my part. There are people who love God in those congregations. I trust that God is there as well. **I think that Peter was clear on that too: " I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism 35 but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right." **

John 14:18
18I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.

Just us, not everyone else who follows Him, right?

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Parte the Third…

Q: If the Church ever fell into doctrinal error, would that imply that Jesus actually did leave us as “orphans” during all that time?

‘’

I would mean that he remains with us even when we err. Nothing more.

John 14:26
26But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

Q: If the Church fell into error despite this promise, would that mean the Holy Spirit failed to teach the Church “all things” or to remind the Church of the things that Jesus had said to the Apostles?

He promised to teach, but did not promise tat we would hear or that we would never forget or that we would never err. No promise broken here at all.

John 16:13
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

Protestants claim to hear the Holy Spirit too. Who am I to say that they do not?

Q: Could the Holy Spirit fail to guide the Church into all truth - or allow the Church to fall into error - if Jesus promised otherwise?

Anyone being guided can stray. This is not the fault of the guide.

1

John 4:4
4You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.

Perhaps I am tired, but I don’t see the significance of this passage.

1 Timothy 3:13
15if 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.

What are the parameters of the household of the One who creates stars, galaxies, universes and all beings strewn among them?

27In fact, no one can enter a strong man’s house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he can rob his house.

I’ll need some explanation on how you see that as relating to the subject at hand.

Q: Is Satan stronger than Jesus, is the Church the household of God, and can Satan rob the Church of the deposit of truth by “binding” Jesus in any way?

I don’t think Jesus can be bound in any way, so why are we trying to bind Him into one particular institution.

In light of the above, is it possible that the Church fell into doctrinal error? Taken individually, each of these verses creates a problem for those that assert that the Church “went off the rails” at some point in history. Taken as a whole, they portray Christ’s own involvement in building, nurturing and protecting His Church until the end of time. The Catholic Church remains strong and vibrant – not by her own efforts or innate qualities – but because God Himself is leading and guiding her to ensure that “the gates of hell will not overcome it.

I wonder if anything you have posted has dissuaded any Protestant from thinking what they will, but they will have to answer for themselves. I am Catholic and it hasn’t done much for me in terms of persuading me as it relates to the argument of the exclusivity of the RCC’s rights to following Christ. And yet I am content to be Catholic without needing any such august claims.

Thanks Randy!

 

[jmcrae]

Parte The Seconde:
:

I thought that according to your statement above that Peter was not proclaimed infallible yet at this point, leaving it possible for him to lie when Jesus was arrested without being infallible later. Specifically, my sense was that you had just suggested a few lines ago that it was at Pentecost. Am I confused or are you offering two stories? I am not looking to argue, I just want to know what you mean.

Was Peter proclaiming dogma to the Church at that time? Did he say “I define and declare …”

Just us, not everyone else who follows Him, right?

To “follow” is to obey and imitate. Not merely to claim friendship.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Was Peter proclaiming dogma to the Church at that time? Did he say “I define and declare …”

Good question, How much Dogma sis Peter write?

To “follow” is to obey and imitate. Not merely to claim friendship.

I will leave that up to the Protestants to the thread to answer. I know quite a few who say they follow Jesus, but this is not for me to say.

 

[jmcrae]

Good question, How much Dogma sis Peter write?

I will leave that up to the Protestants to the thread to answer. I know quite a few who say they follow Jesus, but this is not for me to say.

Just how close are you to someone, if you say mean things about their mother?

 

[Kliska]

I will leave that up to the Protestants to the thread to answer. I know quite a few who say they follow Jesus, but this is not for me to say.

One of the hymns of my youth;

“When we walk with the Lord
in the light of his word,
what a glory he sheds on our way!
While we do his good will,
he abides with us still,
and with all who will trust and obey.
Refrain:
Trust and obey, for there’s no other way
to be happy in Jesus, but to trust and obey.”

Just how close are you to someone, if you say mean things about their mother?

This protestant only sees respect for her in scripture and a woman held up to be a model, and a benchmark of faith to aspire to. As Jesus taught, those who do the will of the Father are the same a Jesus’ sister, brother, mother… Mary was/is truly blessed, and a great woman of faith.

 

[Randy_Carson]

See my replies to 160. We already covered that ground. did you have some comments in regards to my replies?

Not unless you specify your post.

I think Bible Christians claim to go by go by what is in the bible. I am not a bible scholar, is Ireanus in the bible?

Again, I think Bible Christians claim to go by go by what is in the bible. Is Cyprian in the bible?

Many Protestants place great weight on what the early Church believed (they think Catholicism was invented by Constantine in AD 313), and they have a desire to return to the simplicity of the Early Church. The ECF’s give us a glimpse into what the Earliest Christians believed BEFORE the Bible was compiled and before Constantine, so there is no way non-Catholics can wiggle out of this.

Without the life of Christ and the story of his ministries and experiences with the apostles, there is in fact no faith for Peter or any Pope thereafter to teach. They are the basis of all Christian thought. In this part of the canonical scriptures, Peter tells a fallacy, and it was after he was told that whatsoever he bindeth and looseth so on, which is the point at which we have recently asserted that he became infallible. Are we moving the timing of that event at this point in the discussion to the descent of the Holy Spirit?

Are you a Catholic? Or are you pretending to be Catholic so that you can advance Protestant arguments in a Trojan Horse post?

Matthew 16:18-19
18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

Jesus says “I will” not “I have already” or “here are the keys”. There is a future tense element to this promise.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Parte The Seconde:
:

I thought that according to your statement above that Peter was not proclaimed infallible yet at this point, leaving it possible for him to lie when Jesus was arrested without being infallible later. Specifically, my sense was that you had just suggested a few lines ago that it was at Pentecost. Am I confused or are you offering two stories? I am not looking to argue, I just want to know what you mean.

Peter was not infallible prior to the Ascension. After that, he declared the need to replace Judas, he preached at Pentecost, etc, etc. My reason for quoting Mt. 16:19-19 is because of the promise of Jesus - the promise that was fulfilled when the Spirit descended at Pentecost. By the way, Jesus breathed on the eleven at the very end of Matthew (before Pentecost), so there is some basis for thinking they got something earlier.

We cannot blame every error made by or tribulation suffered by the Church on Jesus.

Nor did I. What I said is that if the Church falls into error then its builder has done a poor job. Since that is unthinkable, we can conclude that Jesus’ church can never teach error.

Even when I am wrong, I trust.

If Jesus is always with the Church, how can it teach error?

I suspect that He remains with us when we say and do the right things and wit us when we err. I think we do a lot of both. I know I do.

Can the Church fall into error if Jesus is with her?

I have been to many churches in my time. I am not in a position to say that “the Counselor” is not in all of them. If I were to assert that “the Counselor” is not in all of them, it would seem to be a lack of faith in “the Counselor” on my part. There are people who love God in those congregations. I trust that God is there as well. **I think that Peter was clear on that too: " I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism 35 but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right." **

God did not show favoritism with regard to Jew or Gentile, slave or free…but that does not mean that He does not show favoritism to the ONE Church that He himself built beginning with Peter the rock.

Just us, not everyone else who follows Him, right?

Right. Only Catholics are saved. :nope:

I’m kidding. No Catholic would ask that question. This is the kind of thing that I would expect a Protestant to ask…baiting me to fall into a trap. I’m not sure where you’re coming from, but I’m gonna wrap this up.

:tiphat: