The Indestructibility of the Church

[Erick_Ybarra]

How do Catholics understand Jesus’ statement “I will build my Church and the gates of hell with not prevail against it” (Matthew 16). What is this Church? Well, before we go on to tell how Catholics understand that, we must first note that Catholics point to the fact that “…the gates of hell will not prevail against it”, and so it is indestructible, infallible, and kept pure in it’s continuing temporal duration until Christ returns. They will point to Jesus’ statement “And I am with you, even to the end of the age” (Matthew 28). Such structures seem to teach that Christ is building a Church from the beginning of his commissioning with the Apostles, and he is continuing to build that Church and to keep it from destruction, all the way until He comes back.

However, It seems as though the Catholic faith believes that “the Church” is not the indestructible visible assembly of believing human beings on earth. Rather, it seems to me, the only indestructible substance of the catholic church is the office of the apostles (Peter being primary) rather than the human beings who fill it. I say this because when we ask a Catholic “What about those bishops and popes which were evil and reprobate?”, a catholic apologist will respond that even though these men were damned (presumed because of their wickedness) God still protected the church from error, particularly in the same wicked bishops and popes, for the simple fact they occupy an office which cannot err. Therefore, if we can allow such evil men to be infallible, for no other reason than that they sit in the chair of the apostles, then it is not the human beings who are considered infallible, but rather the ***office or ministry itself ***, distinct from the human himself, which, once occupied by whatever and whoever, is subject to the perfection of that ministry.

It is this principle, if I have it right, which bothers me. For what this does is it allows the mission of Christ to disciple the world to be run by people who hate God and can never disciple anyone. Therefore, when I hear a Catholic apologist now speaking about “the Church” or the infallibility of the “Papacy” or that Christ’s church will never be taken by the gates of hell, what they are referring to is not the general assembly of human beings, but rather the ***office ***itself, distinct from the human, which is what Christ is building and will never let fail. Do you see what I am saying? It bothers me to think that when Christ gave His promise to build his Church, he did not refer to the human beings, but to the offices of the apostles itself as what is incorruptible. If we can just 1 pope who isn’t a follower or disciple of Christ to be the successor of Peter and thus Shepherd the Church of God, then we are saying that every Pope could be as such and still the Church would remains aright in it’s growth. This division between the indestructibility of the office itself and the quality of the human being who occupies it is what stands between me and becoming Catholic, at the moment.

For in my understanding, Paul’s exhortations to Timothy were that doctrine and the holiness of the Bishop were hand and hand. Thus, an ungodly Bishop cannot run the Church, and if he is, one who is approved must take the seat. And if there is 600 years of evil Bishops who claim to the run the Church, that is not the Church of God, it is something else. Therefore, when I read of the Popes during the time of Luther (though I have great trouble believing in the protestant reformation) or during the time of the inquisition, I do not see Popes who are validly Bishops and thus they are not part of the Church of God. And so when a catholic apologist claims that the Catholic church is 2000 years old because Christ planted it and that it has NO GAPS in between, I want to respond and say that the leaven that existed in the Church forms those gaps for such behavior on the part of the Pope and the Bishops goes so far from being Christlike that they cannot be considered the Church of God.

In addition, we do see the function of binding/loosing to be granted to “the Church” in Matthew 18, and there is no doubt that Christ has in mind the local parish or Local church, since believers in Australia and not to bring an issue between 2 brothers to the Pope or the college of Bishops. Therefore, the keys of the kingdom of heaven are being used everywhere in the world by churches. How can we reconcile this with the Catholic claim that they hand around the neck of Peter’s successor alone?
I hope that I can get through this difficulty.

 

[stewstew03]

How do Catholics understand Jesus’ statement “I will build my Church and the gates of hell with not prevail against it” (Matthew 16). What is this Church? Well, before we go on to tell how Catholics understand that, we must first note that Catholics point to the fact that “…the gates of hell will not prevail against it”, and so it is indestructible, infallible, and kept pure in it’s continuing temporal duration until Christ returns. They will point to Jesus’ statement “And I am with you, even to the end of the age” (Matthew 28). Such structures seem to teach that Christ is building a Church from the beginning of his commissioning with the Apostles, and he is continuing to build that Church and to keep it from destruction, all the way until He comes back.

However, It seems as though the Catholic faith believes that “the Church” is not the indestructible visible assembly of believing human beings on earth. Rather, it seems to me, the only indestructible substance of the catholic church is the office of the apostles (Peter being primary) rather than the human beings who fill it. I say this because when we ask a Catholic “What about those bishops and popes which were evil and reprobate?”, a catholic apologist will respond that even though these men were damned (presumed because of their wickedness) God still protected the church from error, particularly in the same wicked bishops and popes, for the simple fact they occupy an office which cannot err. Therefore, if we can allow such evil men to be infallible, for no other reason than that they sit in the chair of the apostles, then it is not the human beings who are considered infallible, but rather the ***office or ministry itself ***, distinct from the human himself, which, once occupied by whatever and whoever, is subject to the perfection of that ministry.

It is this principle, if I have it right, which bothers me. For what this does is it allows the mission of Christ to disciple the world to be run by people who hate God and can never disciple anyone. Therefore, when I hear a Catholic apologist now speaking about “the Church” or the infallibility of the “Papacy” or that Christ’s church will never be taken by the gates of hell, what they are referring to is not the general assembly of human beings, but rather the ***office ***itself, distinct from the human, which is what Christ is building and will never let fail. Do you see what I am saying? It bothers me to think that when Christ gave His promise to build his Church, he did not refer to the human beings, but to the offices of the apostles itself as what is incorruptible. If we can just 1 pope who isn’t a follower or disciple of Christ to be the successor of Peter and thus Shepherd the Church of God, then we are saying that every Pope could be as such and still the Church would remains aright in it’s growth. This division between the indestructibility of the office itself and the quality of the human being who occupies it is what stands between me and becoming Catholic, at the moment.

For in my understanding, Paul’s exhortations to Timothy were that doctrine and the holiness of the Bishop were hand and hand. Thus, an ungodly Bishop cannot run the Church, and if he is, one who is approved must take the seat. And if there is 600 years of evil Bishops who claim to the run the Church, that is not the Church of God, it is something else. Therefore, when I read of the Popes during the time of Luther (though I have great trouble believing in the protestant reformation) or during the time of the inquisition, I do not see Popes who are validly Bishops and thus they are not part of the Church of God. And so when a catholic apologist claims that the Catholic church is 2000 years old because Christ planted it and that it has NO GAPS in between, I want to respond and say that the leaven that existed in the Church forms those gaps for such behavior on the part of the Pope and the Bishops goes so far from being Christlike that they cannot be considered the Church of God.

In addition, we do see the function of binding/loosing to be granted to “the Church” in Matthew 18, and there is no doubt that Christ has in mind the local parish or Local church, since believers in Australia and not to bring an issue between 2 brothers to the Pope or the college of Bishops. Therefore, the keys of the kingdom of heaven are being used everywhere in the world by churches. How can we reconcile this with the Catholic claim that they hand around the neck of Peter’s successor alone?
I hope that I can get through this difficulty.

There are many un-righteous and un-holy protestant pastors, and yet, you, as a protestant, have obviously found Christ among those un-righteous and un-holy protestant pastors.

 

[franc1sc0]

Jesus said the gates of hell shall not prevail against the church. Not a single individual at any point in time. The Church is protected against the Gates of hell. The people of the Church are always under attack from satan. Nowhere does it say we are immune from these attacks. If we use your logic on this matter then no Church on earth is worthy. What church is with out scandal? Who has a perfect history? Does yours?

The Catholic Church is not a pyramid scheme trying to get as many converts to be a part of her. She is the deposit of faith. How hard is it to believe that the Holy Spirit can guide a sinful man to make right decisions when it is related to the Church teachings? Do you think God can’t or in unable to do this?

The Pope is only infallible at certain times when a moral teaching or something to that matter is being decided or approved or what have you. Some one more informed on this can chime in. Take for example a Pope who sees his flock questioning the teaching on contraception. Maybe he is womanizer and kicks dogs on the street. When he gathers the Magisterium to discuss the new trend and what the Church’s belief is. I would think he would pray, fast, and go to confession before all this therefore being in a state of grace when the council happens. The Holy Spirit has the power to open his heart and mind into seeing the truth of what is God’s will. Do you think God has limits to what he can do through sinful men who are a part of Christ’s Church?

If I may ask does your current Church somehow have more claim to the truth of the Catholic Church? I would like to see, cause I have seen plenty of evidence that the CC is Apostolic and True.

Peace be with you,

-Frank

Laus Deo

 

[R_C]

I think your understanding of infallibility is not complete. It does not mean that a bishop or a pope cannot err. Any human being can and will err.

Here is what the Church teaches about this in the Catechism:

The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals

The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council.

In this context, the Magisterium is

The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition

Here is a general audience on the assistance of the Holy Spirit to the pope.

the infallibility attributed to the Roman Pontiff is personal, in the sense that it falls to him by virtue of his personal succession to Peter …] It is clear, however, that infallibility was not given to the Roman Pontiff as a private person …] Lastly, he does not possess it as if it were available or he could count on it in every circumstance, but only “when he speaks ex cathedra,” and only in a doctrinal matter limited to truths of faith and morals and to those closely connected to them.

the object of the infallible Magisterium is the “doctrine on faith and morals to be held by the whole Church”

the conditions for the Roman Pontiff’s exercise of the infallible Magisterium …] can be summarized in this way: the Pope must act as “the shepherd and teacher of all Christians,” pronouncing on truths regarding “faith and morals,” in terms clearly showing his intention to define a certain truth and to require definitive assent of all Christians.

The Supreme Pontiffs can exercise this form of Magisterium, and in fact they have done so. Many Popes, however, have not exercised it.

Alongside this infallibility of ex cathedra definitions, there is the charism of the Holy Spirit’s assistance, granted to Peter and his successors so that they would not err in matters of faith and morals

I hope this has helped clarify the doctrine of the Church on these matters. Now you say:

It is this principle, if I have it right, which bothers me. For what this does is it allows the mission of Christ to disciple the world to be run by people who hate God and can never disciple anyone.

Though you did not have it entirely right, I seem your conclusion is also not entirely right. First of all, who claims that the pope and the bishops are people who hate God and can never disciple anyone? That is a very harsh judgment, coming from someone who, like me, is supposed neither to judge nor to condemn. I wish to remind you of the following teaching by Ignatius of Antioch, Father of the Church (35 - 98) and student of the apostle John:

Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father.

Obey your clergy too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God.

Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s sanction. The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him.

Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church.

In like manner let everyone respect the deacons as they would respect Jesus Christ, and just as they respect the bishop as a type of the Father, and the presbyters as the council of God and college of the apostles.

Without these, it cannot be called a Church.

I hope that this clarifies a little your doubts on this matter. Personal sanctification is entirely different from a particular charism or gift granted to someone in virtue of an office. Remember when the Lord told Peter He had prayed for him, that he may confirm his brothers? That prayer was not for Peter the man, but for Peter the head of the apostles, in virtue of his “office”.

You may also wish to learn more about the Sacrament of Holy Orders and of Reconciliation. As Catholics, we know that when we confess, we confess to Christ, not to a man, because by the Holy Orders the minister receives authority from the Church to act in persona Christi. That does not mean the priest becomes a saint and reflects Christ in all his endeavors. That is a matter of personal sanctification. It only means that, for instance, when he is acting in the office of confessor, Christ listens through him and absolves through him. That also means that the Sacrament is valid thanks to God, or ex opere operato.

 

[R_C]

A totally different matter is your question (criticism) of Church vs. churches. Again, you should go in deep into the doctrine that clearly explains these matters. There is nothing to which the Magisterium does not have a clear and valid answer fully based on scriptures and sacred tradition. In this case, you may want to read this section of the Catechism to understand about unity of the Church.

The Church of Christ is really present in all legitimately organized local groups of the faithful, which, in so far as they are united to their pastors, are also quite appropriately called Churches in the New Testament. . . . In them the faithful are gathered together through the preaching of the Gospel of Christ, and the mystery of the Lord’s Supper is celebrated. . . . In these communities, though they may often be small and poor, or existing in the diaspora, Christ is present, through whose power and influence the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church is constituted.

The phrase “particular Church,” which is first of all the diocese (or eparchy), refers to a community of the Christian faithful in communion of faith and sacraments with their bishop ordained in apostolic succession. These particular Churches "are constituted after the model of the universal Church; it is in these and formed out of them that the one and unique Catholic Church exists.

Particular Churches are fully catholic through their communion with one of them, the Church of Rome “which presides in charity.” “For with this church, by reason of its pre-eminence, the whole Church, that is the faithful everywhere, must necessarily be in accord.” Indeed, "from the incarnate Word’s descent to us, all Christian churches everywhere have held and hold the great Church that is here [at Rome] to be their only basis and foundation since, according to the Savior’s promise, the gates of hell have never prevailed against her.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

There are many un-righteous and un-holy protestant pastors, and yet, you, as a protestant, have obviously found Christ among those un-righteous and un-holy protestant pastors.

Actually, I would not consider myself a protestant. At least in the doctrine of Luther, Calvin, or any other mainline denomination out there. I would consider myself anglo-catholic in theory, but this is all too uncomfortable for me for this is such a minority to believe it is the universal church.

But let that be said, protestants do not claim an infallible office of apostleship outliving the original 12. Therefore the burden is on those who claim there is a succession of apostles such that the authority and office of the original apostles is present with us today in the succession of bishops. The protestant hopes to get doctrine and teaching right on how well they read the Scripture. This is very weak in my opinion. But it is off their shoulders to prove the magnificent claim (though very comforting) that the apostles live with us today and their ministry and unique authority to lead the Church through Jesus Christ outlives them for us.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

Jesus said the gates of hell shall not prevail against the church. Not a single individual at any point in time. The Church is protected against the Gates of hell. The people of the Church are always under attack from satan. Nowhere does it say we are immune from these attacks. If we use your logic on this matter then no Church on earth is worthy. What church is with out scandal? Who has a perfect history? Does yours?

The Catholic Church is not a pyramid scheme trying to get as many converts to be a part of her. She is the deposit of faith. How hard is it to believe that the Holy Spirit can guide a sinful man to make right decisions when it is related to the Church teachings? Do you think God can’t or in unable to do this?

The Pope is only infallible at certain times when a moral teaching or something to that matter is being decided or approved or what have you. Some one more informed on this can chime in. Take for example a Pope who sees his flock questioning the teaching on contraception. Maybe he is womanizer and kicks dogs on the street. When he gathers the Magisterium to discuss the new trend and what the Church’s belief is. I would think he would pray, fast, and go to confession before all this therefore being in a state of grace when the council happens. The Holy Spirit has the power to open his heart and mind into seeing the truth of what is God’s will. Do you think God has limits to what he can do through sinful men who are a part of Christ’s Church?

If I may ask does your current Church somehow have more claim to the truth of the Catholic Church? I would like to see, cause I have seen plenty of evidence that the CC is Apostolic and True.

Peace be with you,

-Frank

Laus Deo

Thanks for your comments. But do you see what you just said? You just said “The Catholic Church is not a pyramid scheme trying to get as many converts to be a part of her. She is the deposit of faith.” You just made a distinction between the “faith” of the Church and the “human beings” who make it up at any given time. Therefore are you admitting that when Christ Jesus said “I will build my Church”, he was referring to “I will build my doctrine”? Doesn’t it seem to be teaching that he is building His “church”- the collection of human beings who are saved?

 

[Bismarck]

If we don’t get a handle on this rampant pro choice Catholics, its a house of cards.

 

[franc1sc0]

An example would be like me as a father of two sons. One is a little less rambunctious than the other. We are walking through the park and we come up to a creek. The less rambunctious one walks with care and stays away from the edge. The other one walks on the edge and gets closer than I would like but I let him and see what he does. At the point I see when there is a danger of him falling into the creek and getting himself or his brother hurt, I will intervene and get him to walk carefully and guide him while we are on the banks of the creek. I hope this makes sense brother. I really want to explain this to you but I am not the smartest or word savy guy around.

-Frank

 

[mymamamary]

How do Catholics understand Jesus’ statement “I will build my Church and the gates of hell with not prevail against it” (Matthew 16). What is this Church? Well, before we go on to tell how Catholics understand that, we must first note that Catholics point to the fact that “…the gates of hell will not prevail against it”, and so it is indestructible, infallible, and kept pure in it’s continuing temporal duration until Christ returns. They will point to Jesus’ statement “And I am with you, even to the end of the age” (Matthew 28). Such structures seem to teach that Christ is building a Church from the beginning of his commissioning with the Apostles, and he is continuing to build that Church and to keep it from destruction, all the way until He comes back.

However, It seems as though the Catholic faith believes that “the Church” is not the indestructible visible assembly of believing human beings on earth. Rather, it seems to me, the only indestructible substance of the catholic church is the office of the apostles (Peter being primary) rather than the human beings who fill it. I say this because when we ask a Catholic “What about those bishops and popes which were evil and reprobate?”, a catholic apologist will respond that even though these men were damned (presumed because of their wickedness) God still protected the church from error, particularly in the same wicked bishops and popes, for the simple fact they occupy an office which cannot err. Therefore, if we can allow such evil men to be infallible, for no other reason than that they sit in the chair of the apostles, then it is not the human beings who are considered infallible, but rather the ***office or ministry itself ***, distinct from the human himself, which, once occupied by whatever and whoever, is subject to the perfection of that ministry.

It is this principle, if I have it right, which bothers me. For what this does is it allows the mission of Christ to disciple the world to be run by people who hate God and can never disciple anyone. Therefore, when I hear a Catholic apologist now speaking about “the Church” or the infallibility of the “Papacy” or that Christ’s church will never be taken by the gates of hell, what they are referring to is not the general assembly of human beings, but rather the ***office ***itself, distinct from the human, which is what Christ is building and will never let fail. Do you see what I am saying? It bothers me to think that when Christ gave His promise to build his Church, he did not refer to the human beings, but to the offices of the apostles itself as what is incorruptible. If we can just 1 pope who isn’t a follower or disciple of Christ to be the successor of Peter and thus Shepherd the Church of God, then we are saying that every Pope could be as such and still the Church would remains aright in it’s growth. This division between the indestructibility of the office itself and the quality of the human being who occupies it is what stands between me and becoming Catholic, at the moment.

For in my understanding, Paul’s exhortations to Timothy were that doctrine and the holiness of the Bishop were hand and hand. Thus, an ungodly Bishop cannot run the Church, and if he is, one who is approved must take the seat. And if there is 600 years of evil Bishops who claim to the run the Church, that is not the Church of God, it is something else. Therefore, when I read of the Popes during the time of Luther (though I have great trouble believing in the protestant reformation) or during the time of the inquisition, I do not see Popes who are validly Bishops and thus they are not part of the Church of God. And so when a catholic apologist claims that the Catholic church is 2000 years old because Christ planted it and that it has NO GAPS in between, I want to respond and say that the leaven that existed in the Church forms those gaps for such behavior on the part of the Pope and the Bishops goes so far from being Christlike that they cannot be considered the Church of God.

In addition, we do see the function of binding/loosing to be granted to “the Church” in Matthew 18, and there is no doubt that Christ has in mind the local parish or Local church, since believers in Australia and not to bring an issue between 2 brothers to the Pope or the college of Bishops. Therefore, the keys of the kingdom of heaven are being used everywhere in the world by churches. How can we reconcile this with the Catholic claim that they hand around the neck of Peter’s successor alone?
I hope that I can get through this difficulty.

the “Binding/Loosing” is not a physical one. It is the forgiveness of sins, for making vows and loosing sacred vows (I.e Poverty, Chastity and obedience). Also, you forget that this authority was conferred upon the College of Bishops, as well as the Holy Father. So the bishops do have the authority to forgive sins, dissolve or confer vows etc., and by his extension His Priests of the Diocese. Also, Papal Infallibilty means that the HOLY SPIRIT loves Us, the Faithful in the Church so much, that HE will protect us from bad leaders shabby teaching. A Pope may be hell-bound with his lifestyle, but when he speaks from His Chair, HIS CATHEDRA, the HOLY SPIRIT prevents him from speaking error, on matters of Faith and Morals ONLY! the Pope may not understand science and is fallible on everhything EXCEPT FAITH AND MORALS, when spoken From His Chair!!

 

[franc1sc0]

Thanks for your comments. But do you see what you just said? You just said “The Catholic Church is not a pyramid scheme trying to get as many converts to be a part of her. She is the deposit of faith.” You just made a distinction between the “faith” of the Church and the “human beings” who make it up at any given time. Therefore are you admitting that when Christ Jesus said “I will build my Church”, he was referring to “I will build my doctrine”? Doesn’t it seem to be teaching that he is building His “church”- the collection of human beings who are saved?

The Church is the people as well, but the people are sinful. Who doesn’t have sin? We need a Church that is protected by the Holy Spirit to guide us. The Catholic Church is that Church.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

Yes, this makes sense. And that belief that the Roman Pontiff is God’s elected Bishop to conduct such care for the universal Church is a tremendously comforting idea. I am eager to believe it, you understand?

However, what I am trying to get at here is that Christ promised to build His Church and that this Building who never collapse, but be safe from the gates of Hell.

He said “…on this rock I will build my Church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it” (Matthew 16).

This is the ground for infallibility? Right? I may have this wrong. But Christ’s protection of the Church being built off the Rock (St. Peter) from any error of darkness legitimizes the belief in infallibility?

Well, since human beings who make up the visible church all around the world apostatize, fall away, do wicked things, turn up to be heretics,etc,etc THEN That means that this cannot be a part of that building, do I have that right? Since the building can never contain error?

This would mean that ALL that Christ refers to when He says “I will build my church” is the office of St. Peter and the college of apostles…NOT EVEN the people who occupy the office, but just the office itself is the church.

Does that sound right?

 

[franc1sc0]

Christ came to save sinners. They are the ones he calls to repent.
I am not sure on this but where does it say the apostles were always sinless. Peter denied Christ 7 times. Yet he received the keys. God can protect the Church against it’s members who have strayed.

 

[stewstew03]

Yes, this makes sense. And that belief that the Roman Pontiff is God’s elected Bishop to conduct such care for the universal Church is a tremendously comforting idea. I am eager to believe it, you understand?

However, what I am trying to get at here is that Christ promised to build His Church and that this Building who never collapse, but be safe from the gates of Hell.

He said “…on this rock I will build my Church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it” (Matthew 16).

This is the ground for infallibility? Right? I may have this wrong. But Christ’s protection of the Church being built off the Rock (St. Peter) from any error of darkness legitimizes the belief in infallibility?

Well, since human beings who make up the visible church all around the world apostatize, fall away, do wicked things, turn up to be heretics,etc,etc THEN That means that this cannot be a part of that building, do I have that right? Since the building can never contain error?

This would mean that ALL that Christ refers to when He says “I will build my church” is the office of St. Peter and the college of apostles…NOT EVEN the people who occupy the office, but just the office itself is the church.

Does that sound right?

By way of analogy, let’s consider the institution of marriage.

In marriage, two people make a covenant with God to love one another “in sickness and in health, for richer or poorer” etc. There exists within marriage a contract between two people to love one another unconditionally. Marriage is sacred. Now, suppose a wife behaves badly. Does her behavior destroy the whole institution of marriage? Of course not - marriage is still a sacred institution despite bad actors.

In the same way, the Church is the Bride of Christ. Certainly Christ new that His Bride would have bad actors. Peter denied Christ three times! (Imagine if PBXVI held a press conference in which he denied knowing Christ). Yet, Peter’s denial of Christ did not destroy the Church, did it…?

:bible1:

 

[R_C]

Well, hold on just a second The Lord says that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church. Prevail means to overcome entirely. Every person that is baptized is incorporated in the Church and can never be separated from it, regardless of what sins they commit or whether they are heretics or excommunicated or what else.

Infallibility is different from the gift of sanctifying grace which inspires us and guides us, allowing us to become better children of God.

However, for our salvation, God has given a special gift to those who hold a certain office, by virtue of their specific office.

Let me give you a concrete example.

Calling the Twelve to him, he sent them out two by two and gave them authority over evil spirits.

The disciples did not have that particular authority to expel evil spirits on their own, but they received it for the mission they were fulfilling, and only the Twelve received it.

Now consider this passage from the Acts:

Some Jews who went around driving out evil spirits tried to invoke the name of the Lord Jesus over those who were demon-possessed. They would say, “In the name of Jesus, whom Paul preaches, I command you to come out.” …] But one time when they tried it, the evil spirit replied, “I know Jesus, and I know Paul, but who are you?” Then the man who had the evil spirit jumped on them and overpowered them all.

What did just happen? The apostles by virtue of a specific mandate were allowed to drive away demons. When these other disciples tried to do the same, no doubt they must have been very holy people who could do this out of their great faith (Mark 9: 38-39), but at one point Satan replied: I know Jesus, who is Lord, and Paul, who has received authority from Jesus, but you have no authority.

Clearly at this point, if their faith had been greater, they perhaps could have still expelled the demon. But because they were relying on themselves and did not have the special charism granted by virtue of a specific office, they were overpowered. Yet we know that even in the hardest times the demons would perhaps not respond to the apostles while exercising their ministry, but never attack them, much less be able to overcome them!

The point being: Christ grants those in a specific office an additional grace to better fulfill their mandate, for the benefit of souls.

God still grants a shower of gifts, beginning with sanctifying grace and the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit - to each of us individually, in order to make us grow individually in holiness, that evil may not prevail over us.

 

[TimothyH]

However, It seems as though the Catholic faith believes that “the Church” is not the indestructible visible assembly of believing human beings on earth. Rather, it seems to me, the only indestructible substance of the catholic church is the office of the apostles (Peter being primary) rather than the human beings who fill it.

The Church is Christ’s body, and it is indestructible because Christ’s body is indestructible. We are incorporated into that Body.

This division between the indestructibility of the office itself and the quality of the human being who occupies it is what stands between me and becoming Catholic, at the moment.

Look to the Old Testament.

God called the nation of Israel his “First born son” and made covenants with them. There were wicked kings, yet God never forgot his covenant. Israel suffered consequences due to their sin but God never forsook them.

-Tim-

 

[DavidFilmer]

Ah, hypocrisy. Always a tough one to deal with.

The Apostles dealt with this in Jesus’ time, and we are still dealing with it today. I doubt the Church will ever be free of it - we are, after all, a Church of both saints and sinners. Jesus told us that the wheat and tares would grow together in the Kingdom until the final days.

But Jesus also told us that we must accept the authority of the Church, even if the leaders of the Church were wicked:

The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ [or Peter’s] seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. [Matt 23:2]

 

[JRKH]

Yes, this makes sense. And that belief that the Roman Pontiff is God’s elected Bishop to conduct such care for the universal Church is a tremendously comforting idea. I am eager to believe it, you understand?

This is good…

However, what I am trying to get at here is that Christ promised to build His Church and that this Building who never collapse, but be safe from the gates of Hell.

He said “…on this rock I will build my Church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it” (Matthew 16).

This is the ground for infallibility? Right? I may have this wrong. But Christ’s protection of the Church being built off the Rock (St. Peter) from any error of darkness legitimizes the belief in infallibility?

Not entirely right. It is one of the grounds upon infallibility is based, but there are others. The Authority to “Bind and Loose - Whatever” on earth and the same is bound or loosed in heaven as expressed in the passage Mt 18:15-18 is a biggie along with the promise of the Holy Spirit to lead us into all truth.

Well, since human beings who make up the visible church all around the world apostatize, fall away, do wicked things, turn up to be heretics,etc,etc THEN That means that this cannot be a part of that building, do I have that right? Since the building can never contain error?

This is not a “black or white” issue. A term often used, especially in ecumenical conversation is someone not being in “full communion” with the Church.
While certainly there are those who are entirely fallen away (Catholic in name only) there are also many who embrace much of the teaching of the Church but struggle with some parts and, whether from ignorance or from pride, teach some error…
The “Building” though that you refer to might be best exemplified by the “magisterium” which is simply Latin for teaching office. The magisterium is that office which holds, protects, studies, copies, distributes and teaches the deposit of faith.

This would mean that ALL that Christ refers to when He says “I will build my church” is the office of St. Peter and the college of apostles…NOT EVEN the people who occupy the office, but just the office itself is the church.

If you take out the ALL in the above I thing you would have a pretty good basic statement…
But to better understand it I would suggest that you look at two passages in the bible that can be considered as - instruction - instruction in action.
First read carefully Mt 18:15-18. Now note that “sin” as used in this passage would include “teaching a different gospel” - in other words doctrinal error.
Next - Read carefully the account in Acts 15 especially the early portion - and note how similar it sounds to what is instructed in Mt 18.

Now - note that the “Elders of the Church”, the Apostles and others, held counsel and after much debate and deliberation came to a decision that “…seems good to the Holy Spirit and to us…”. They then promulgated that decision in a letter sent back to Antioch and undoubtedly from there to the many other church locations. This became part of magisterial teaching. Later Bishops could not go back and revoke this teaching willy-nilly. It is now a part of the “deposit of faith” and what it says must be considered when dealing with other questions that might touch on it.
As time went on and more questions came up, more problems needed answers this deposit of faith - body of teaching grew until we have the deposit of faith, the magisterial teachings as they exist today. All arrived at through the Totally biblical methods outlined above.

One other comment about the “evil popes”…These generally occurred during a period when the pope was both temporal and spiritual leader. As a rule, those who were corrupt were only interested in things temporal and gave little or no thought to things spiritual. Thus they were not interested in changing fundamental Church doctrine and the Holy Spirit would not have allowed it anyway. Thus did the Holy Spirit preserve the inerrant body of Church teaching…

Hope some of this helps.

Peace
James

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Ericik

 You said an awful lot and made some good points. I would like to clarify just a couple of points. We have had bad Popes, bad Bishops, and bad priests in our history. That has nothing to do with the fact that the Holy Spirit will guide and protect the Church until the end of time in all truth and holiness. The Church is guided through the offices of the Pope and Bishops who hand on the truth infallibly. And it is also protected by the assent in mind and will on the part of the priests and faithful in general. So it is both a handing on and a faithful response.

 As far as the power of the keys is concerned, the Pope has the fullness of these powers and the Bishops next, and then the Priests. All these have the power to forgive sin or not as the case may be. The Bishop can exercise certain powers of the keys that priests cannot, and the Pope has the fullness of this power.

 As far as the Holiness of the Church is concerned, it applies to the Church as an institution and the entire body of the faithful in a communion of holiness through the exercise of worship and prayer, reception of the sacrements, and living lives of holiness , charity, and penance. I speak here as a whole with the understanding that we are all sinners, some greater and some less so. Nevertheless, the Church's holiness is witnessed by the lives of the faithful as well as in the other ways mentioned.

I don't think any Pope has ever been deposed because he was sinful. However, some Bishops have and many priests.

One of the really great things about the Church is that there is never any doubt what the truth of faith is. Now the Catechism of the Catholic Church contains most of what Catholics must believe. I say most because there are some Dogmas the Catechism does not mention. Of course we also have to believe what is contained in Holy Scriptures, the proceedings of the Ecuminical Councils, Papal documents etc. Most of these present no problems if one can accept the teachings in the Catechism.

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

The Tiber is waiting.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

Thanks for the statements and comments.

I guess if we can toss out the issue of the popes being evil for a second.

I think the main question I have is what does Christ mean when he says “I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matthew 18). Is this referring to the infallibility of the papal teaching office ex cathedra? Or is this referring to the body of Christ consisting of human beings?