The Church is infallible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter aprotestant1983
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
aprotestant1983:
oh, and I forgot one other thing, yes, I believe in the necessity of the infallibility in relation to the bible, my troubles come when we start talking infallibility beyond the bible.
Click to expand...
How do you know the bible is infallible?
 
40.png
aprotestant1983:
oh, and I forgot one other thing, yes, I believe in the necessity of the infallibility in relation to the bible, my troubles come when we start talking infallibility beyond the bible.
Click to expand...
Q1. Is interpreting the bible “infallibility beyond the bible.” ?
Q2. When did you decide Hebrews was infallibly “Scripture” ?
Q3. If you decided it was, On what basis besides “gnostic” revelation?
 
40.png
aprotestant1983:
I was reading an article on this page about proving inspiration in which the author stated that the Church is infallible. How does a group composed of fallible individuals produce infallible results?
Click to expand...
aprotestant1983, it is easy. I know that Protestantism doesn’t teach this, but Christ did found the Church on Peter (the Rock), who became the first Pope. The Church was founded on Peter’s immense faith in Christ, that he is the Messiah, the Son of the Living God.

Yes, people are fallible, but morals, faith, and teachings aren’t. The Church’s teachings are based on the Bible, on Christ’s words, and on the Sacred Traditions that Christ and the early church held (i.e. the Last Supper).

The Church is infallible, not the people. The* teachings* are infallible, not the people.
 
In our liturgy, we pray: “Look not on our sins, but on the faith of your church.”

It is Christ’s church, not "ours."
 
40.png
aprotestant1983:
okay, so the holy spirit is infallible, and this is similar to the belief in an infallible bible, but the difference I’m noticing is that it seems more likely that the Holy Spirit guided some writing of a fallible being to produce infallible results as opposed to the Holy Spirit taking so much control as to say that the Catholic Church managed to never mess up over the past 2000 years. Hmm, this isn’t coming out quite clearly… Paul, for example, acknowledged that he was a sinner and incapable of doing the good he wanted to do, so we are able to make the distinction that we can take what he wrote and apply it directly and purely to our lives, but we don’t assume that he was perfect in all his choices, why can we make that distinction with the Catholic Church, which, as a sidenote, has had to make far more, quantifiably, and far more complicated decisions (in the sense of policy decisions and scope of these decisions) than Paul? Hope this makes sense.
Click to expand...
aprotestant1983, the Holy Spirit guides the Church, there is no doubt about that. When you said that Paul acknowledged that he was a sinner and that he was incapable of doing the good he wanted to do, he meant by himself. “For with God, all things are possible.” The Holy Spirit is part of the Trinity: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Trinity is God. Therefore, you can say, “For with the Father, all things are possible” or “For with the Son, all things are possible” AND “For with the Holy Spirit, all things are possible.” Paul wasn’t perfect, he admitted that, but when he followed the Holy Spirit’s guidance, how can he do wrong?

The same with the Church. The Church has always followed the Holy Spirit’s guidance, therefore the Church has committed no wrong. People in the Church have sinned, there is no doubt about it, but the Church has committed no sins.
 
question: what are the very difficult verses that contradict the belief in Scripture alone?
Click to expand...
I’m referring to everywhere Jesus places a special importance on the apostolic ministry. Giving the keys to Peter, asking him to “Feed his sheep”, etc. Symbolic explanations for these statements seems artificial to me. Plus I don’t know of any place in Scripture where Scripture alone is suggested.
 
question: what are the very difficult verses that contradict the belief in Scripture alone?
These are some Bible verses that support Scripture and Tradition. Here’s the link from the Catholic.com library.
catholic.com/library/Scriptural_Reference_Guide.asp

Here’s what it says:

Scripture and Tradition

“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).

“Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us” (2 Tim. 1:13-14).

“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)

“You, then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:1-2).

“First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God” (2 Peter 1:20-21).

“‘Though I have much to write to you, I would rather not use paper and ink, but I hope to come to see you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete” (2 John 12).

Those seem to support the notion of Sacred Tradition.

I think the biggest thing that refutes Sola Scriptura is history, the fact that there were no Scriptures until 25-35 years after Jesus death, and there was no Bible (canon) until the fourth century. In the beginning there were no Scriptures, so the faith had to be carried on via Tradition. How could a faith be based on Sola Scriptura if there were no Scriptures?
 
40.png
JP2Admirer:
question: what are the very difficult verses that contradict the belief in Scripture alone?
Click to expand...
These are some Bible verses that support Scripture and Tradition. Here’s the link from the Catholic.com library.
catholic.com/library/Scriptural_Reference_Guide.asp

Here’s what it says:

Scripture and Tradition

“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).

“Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us” (2 Tim. 1:13-14).

“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)

“You, then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:1-2).

“First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God” (2 Peter 1:20-21).

“‘Though I have much to write to you, I would rather not use paper and ink, but I hope to come to see you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete” (2 John 12).

Those seem to support the notion of Sacred Tradition.

I think the biggest thing that refutes Sola Scriptura is history, the fact that there were no Scriptures until 25-35 years after Jesus death, and there was no Bible (canon) until the fourth century. In the beginning there were no Scriptures, so the faith had to be carried on via Tradition. How could a faith be based on Sola Scriptura if there were no Scriptures?
And how can it be ‘Bible Alone’ if it’s not even in the book to begin with? Same with things like ‘Trinity?’ The one minute you add a man-made tradition not in the book, the ‘bible alone’ theory is shot. You’ve just violated your rule. Sola Scriptura is invalid!
 
Knock knock,aprotestant1983 …R U there? I had some unanswered questions…waiting…See POST 22.

Where’d he go???

Soooo typical…can’t answer questions from catholics…and in the end THAT is the reason that Catholics get banned from Heretics’ sites… they cannot stand to answer questions without revealing their embrace of contradictions and impossibilities… so you get banned for asking basic questions they CANNOT answer without confronting their conscience.

**“SINCERE” aprotestant1983 come back and visit again. We’ll be here. Please don’t ban yourself.

**
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top