Where does word of God teach the Catholic Church is infallible?

[De_Maria]

Uhhh… no.

I assume you’re responding to me and I say, “Uh, yeah.”

The narrative about Peter feeding God’s sheep does not go as far as you do. Paul also fed God’s sheep. James also fed God’s sheep. John fed God’s sheep. All of these were Apostles who function in a pastoral role but the bible is clear, “Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ…” 1st. Peter chp. 1 verse 1

To whom was Jesus speaking when He said?

Luke 22:30 that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom; and you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Peter’s Denial Foretold. 31 “Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, 32 but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers.”

When you say “Church” you are not using the word in the intent of the Apostles.

In fact, it is you who is not. Read this and tell me what intent is meant:

Matthew 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

For them, the Church were people willing to come out into the public to proclaim God’s Kingdom. The idea that it is some kind of organization like a business is outside of New Testament thinking.

Well, Jesus didn’t call everyone. He called 12, initially. And He selected one of them over the rest. Therefore, it resembles what we call today a “corporation”. In fact, the Apostles call it His “corpus” or body.

Rome is not the headquarters for this global organization with all of its tradition and style. The Church is made up of “living stones” (1st. Pet. 2:5) from all over the world, some of them are in the Roman Catholic Church.

Rome is the Headquarters of this global “corporation”. And yes, we are all living stones that compose this organization. That doesn’t argue against it. We are members of the body.

1 Corinthians 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

Jesus Christ established an organization with a hierarchy. That’s obvious from the New Testament.

 

[tgGodsway]

Well… the best case scenario, the Roman Church seemed to be sinning by giving him such partiality. After all is he not called “the vicar of Christ?” If John Paul is the substitution of Christ, are not we all? Not that I agree that the pope substituted Christ. The bible is clear that Jesus Christ is the head of the Church and not substituted by a man who is a sinner. But they had a high throne for him to sit as king. a sickening feeling at the time.

 

[joeybaggz]

Substitution or Representative?? You say potato and I … well you know how that goes.

 

[De_Maria]

Well… the best case scenario, the Roman Church seemed to be sinning by giving him such partiality.

It is Christ who put him in charge of His Church. The Church merely obeyed Christ’s commands.

After all is he not called “the vicar of Christ?”

That’s true. He is the greatest in that regard. Have you never heard that our Priests all walk in “persona Christi”? The person of Christ.

If John Paul is the substitution of Christ, are not we all?

All Catholics. I’m not sure about Protestants since you don’t understand Christ’s message.

Not that I agree that the pope substituted Christ. The bible is clear that Jesus Christ is the head of the Church and not substituted by a man who is a sinner. But they had a high throne for him to sit as king. a sickening feeling at the time.

The Pope is the Vicar of Christ, therefore, where ever Peter sits, there is Christ.

2 Corinthians 5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.

 

[De_Maria]

There is no disagreement that the Church is to preach the manifold wisdom of God to the whole world, especially the principalities and powers in the heavenly places. This is what the Church does even now!

Not Protestants, though. If you do, your message is confusing since there are thousands of iterations of the Gospel in the Protestant world. Just one example, how important is baptism?

Some say, “not at all”. Some say, “top priority”. And there are many variations in between.

 

[tgGodsway]

that’s funny. Okay representative is much better.

 

[BlackFriar]

There’s a difference between “the Church is infallible” and “Papal infallibility”. The verses which speak to Papal infallibility are Matt 16:18-19 and John 21:17.

The difficulty for you is they don’t really, you are just reading that in but it isn’t really there and could mean any number of other things. Just like the “brothers” of Jesus.

You didn’t answer my question? Why? I asked:

Why what? I don’t know why you claim it can infallibly interpret Scripture on verses allegedly about infallibility. That sounds like a circular argument to me.

Are you positing that we don’t have an interpretative authority?

I just stated:

unless we posit that this interpretative authority is justified outside of Scripture.

You’re creating a straw man in order to justify your prejudices

Please observe charity.

The fact that Protestants don’t read it the same way we do says nothing about the objective nature of the passage.

Well we will just have to agree to disagree on this one as I regard it as self evident truth that if an interpretation held by a clique is not readily seen by large numbers outside of that clique then the matter in question is not objective but ambiguous.

 

[De_Maria]

The difficulty for you is they don’t really, you are just reading that in but it isn’t really there and could mean any number of other things. Just like the “brothers” of Jesus.

The difficulty for you is to answer the question. What does Eph 3:10 mean if it doesn’t say that the Church is infallible?

Please observe charity.

1st. Prejudice is not an insult. Everyone has prejudice of something or another.
2. It is charitable to answer questions.

Well we will just have to agree to disagree on this one as I regard it as self evident truth that if an interpretation held by a clique is not readily seen by large numbers outside of that clique then the matter in question is not objective but ambiguous.

Do you have a different definition of “objective”?

Definition of objective

1 a :relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence —used chiefly in medieval philosophy
b f, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers :having reality independent of the mind objective reality
… our reveries … are significantly and repeatedly shaped by our transactions with the objective world. —Marvin Reznikoff

The fact that Protestants read it subjectively does not affect the objective nature of the written word.

 

[BlackFriar]

BlackFriar:

The difficulty for you is they don’t really, you are just reading that in but it isn’t really there and could mean any number of other things. Just like the “brothers” of Jesus.

The difficulty for you is to answer the question. What does Eph 3:10 mean if it doesn’t say that the Church is infallible?.

This is not difficult. Consult some of the 100s of scholarly commentaries available. I have yet to find one that affirms your view that the verse clearly states the infallibility of the Catholic Magisterium.

DM if you are training to be an apologist the aggressive tone you are exhibiting here does not seem to behove this endeavour.

Please observe charity

Prejudice is not an insult. Everyone has prejudice of something or another.

Oxford Dictionary: “prejudice - preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience”
Webster: “an irrational attitude of hostility”

If understand something as simple as the word “prejudice” is difficult then understanding of ambiguous Bible verses is going to be even more fraught methinks.

As I say, we will just have to agree to disagree.
There is really nothing more to say if what I and dozens of scholarly commentaries is not self-evident for you.
God bless.

 

[De_Maria]

This is not difficult. Consult some of the 100s of scholarly commentaries available. I have yet to find one that affirms your view that the verse clearly states the infallibility of the Catholic Magisterium.

http://dhspriory.org/thomas/Eph3.htm#3
This is St. Thomas’ commentary. Wherein he says that God is speaking through the Church, “to enlighten all men, not only the Jews, but the Gentiles as well, through preaching and miracles”. Should I interpret that to mean that God is fallible?

DM if you are training to be an apologist the aggressive tone you are exhibiting here does not seem to behove this endeavour.

You are interpreting it as aggressive. I interpret it as assertive. Must I accept everything that you say on your mere say so?

Oxford Dictionary: “prejudice - preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience”
Webster: “an irrational attitude of hostility”

I prefer an American dictionary:
Definition of prejudice

1 :injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another in disregard of one’s rights; especially :detriment to one’s legal rights or claims
2 a (1) reconceived judgment or opinion (2) :an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge
b :an instance of such judgment or opinion
c :an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics

Note the highlighted (bolded) words. It merely means to hold preconceived opinions. You chose to take it in an insulting manner.

If understand something as simple as the word “prejudice” is difficult then understanding of ambiguous Bible verses is going to be even more fraught methinks.

It certainly is, if you don’t take into account the context.

Of the two of us, you must be the novice in apologetics. My skin is not so thin as to see an insult around every corner.

As I say, we will just have to agree to disagree.
There is really nothing more to say if what I and dozens of scholarly commentaries is not self-evident for you.
God bless.

Which scholarly commentary says that Eph 3:10 means that the Church is fallible?

 

[lanman87]

Consider this:

In Colossians 2:20-23 we are warned to not follow human teachings
In Hebrews 13:9 we are warned to avoid strange new ideas
In Romans 16:17-18 we are warned to not follow false teachers
In Galatians 2:11-15 we see that even Peter wasn’t “in step of the truth that is the Gospel” ESV or as the NLT puts it " they were not following the truth of the Gospel"
In 2 Cor 11 Paul tells the church "But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. 4 For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough"

He then goes on to say “For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. 15 So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds.”

We see in Galatians 1:6 that the church was turning to a different gospel which is one of the primary reasons for him writing the letter to the Galatians.

Satan has servants who disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. They are the false teachers who are accepted as authorities/leaders by the church and deceive the church. That is why there are so many warnings about following false apostles and false teachers. If it is impossible for the church to be deceived by these false teachers then there would have been no need for all these warnings. This was the way it was when the Apostles were alive and how it has been ever since.

And consider, this is how it was before an organized hierarchical church was formed. To say that the church is infallible is to say that no false teachers have either ever existed in the church or that if any did exist that none achieved the reputation and political clout to influence accepted doctrine and practice.

The doctrine of church infallibility is circular logic. We can never be wrong because we are the church and we are the church because we are never wrong. Therefore any accusation of the church has made mistakes in doctrine and practice is dismissed because the church can’t be wrong.

 

[BlackFriar]

As I say, we will just have to agree to disagree.
There is really nothing more to say if what I and dozens of scholarly commentaries state is not self-evident for you.
God bless.

 

[De_Maria]

As I say, we will just have to agree to disagree.
There is really nothing more to say if what I and dozens of scholarly commentaries state is not self-evident for you.
God bless.

What you say is not. What the scholarly commentaries say is crystal clear. God speaks through His Church. Thus, His Church is infallible.

 

[De_Maria]

Consider this:
In Colossians 2:20-23 we are warned to not follow human teachings

That’s true. But we don’t follow human teachings. We follow Christ.

1 Corinthians 11:1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.

In Hebrews 13:9 we are warned to avoid strange new ideas

10 We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle.

Did you notice that we have an altar wherein we offer Sacrifice? What is an altar for, if not for sacrifice? But you deny the Sacrifice of the Eucharist, do you not?

In Romans 16:17-18 we are warned to not follow false teachers

True. But we are not told to stop following the Church:
Rom 16:19 For your obedience is come abroad unto all men. I am glad therefore on your behalf: but yet I would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil.

In Galatians 2:11-15 we see that even Peter wasn’t “in step of the truth that is the Gospel” ESV
or as the NLT puts it " they were not following the truth of the Gospel"

Throughout history, Popes have been fraternally reprimanded by other Bishops and even by lay Saints. That doesn’t mean they are not infallible when they speak ex-Cathedra.

In 2 Cor 11 Paul tells the church "But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. 4 For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough"

Who is “we” in we proclaimed? I’ll tell you. That is the Magisterium. If someone comes along who is not one of the Magisterium, he is a serpent who deceives.

cont’d

 

[De_Maria]

cont’d

He then goes on to say “For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. 15 So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds.”

Notice that he doesn’t say that they are men of the Church. But that they are “false” apostles who are “in disguise”.

We see in Galatians 1:6 that the church was turning to a different gospel which is one of the primary reasons for him writing the letter to the Galatians.

The local Church in Galatia. Throughout Church history, every single Bishoprick has fallen into heresy, except the Bishop of Rome.

Satan has servants who disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. …

In the 4th century, Arianism controlled 90% of the Church. But was declared a heresy by the Pope and the Bishops together with him, in the Council of Nicea.

And consider, this is how it was before an organized hierarchical church was formed. …

Jesus Christ organized the Church from day one. It is He who established the organization.

The doctrine of church infallibility is circular logic. We can never be wrong because we are the church and we are the church because we are never wrong. Therefore any accusation of the church has made mistakes in doctrine and practice is dismissed because the church can’t be wrong.

The Catholic Church can not be wrong because it is led by Jesus Christ. If that is circular reasoning, so be it. Circular reasoning isn’t always wrong. Or have you not heard the circular Protestant ditty which says, “I know, because the Bible tells me so.”

 

[fhansen]

Would God establish a Church that is fallible in its teachings? Would He establish a church which is internally divided in its teachings? And if not, where is that church? Either way, there can only be “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” Eph 4:5

 

[po18guy]

And consider, this is how it was before an organized hierarchical church was formed. To say that the church is infallible is to say that no false teachers have either ever existed in the church or that if any did exist that none achieved the reputation and political clout to influence accepted doctrine and practice.

Not true in the slightest. The Church is comprised of sinners, but the deposit of faith is infallible, as it was revealed to man by God. Your argument is a red herring, a canard which you have been erroneously taught by “false teachers” - no matter how well intended they were!

The doctrine of church infallibility is circular logic. We can never be wrong because we are the church and we are the church because we are never wrong. Therefore any accusation of the church has made mistakes in doctrine and practice is dismissed because the church can’t be wrong.

Again, you mislead yourself. It is linear. Christ founds Church > Christ proclaims that the gates of hell will not prevail against His Church > Church is Christ’s Mystical Body > Holy Spirit guides Church into all truth > Church across the ages and continents defends the faith at a price in blood > FF to today. Truth is truth and man-made doctrines such as ‘bible alone’ are clearly neither biblical, nor taught by Christ, nor revealed through the Holy Spirit.

 

[De_Maria]

Would God establish a Church that is fallible in its teachings?

I don’t think so.

Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Would He establish a church which is internally divided in its teachings?

Certainly not.

Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

And if not, where is that church?

The Catholic Church.

Either way, there can only be “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” Eph 4:5

Amen!

 

[BlackFriar]

Would God establish a Church that is fallible in its teachings?

Ahem, yes he would. Judaism for example.
Also the Orthodox Church.
Anglicanism, Presbyterianism and Lutherans believe they are established by God and don’t hold to the sort of infallibility that our Church holds to. They follow the same Scriptures as we do.

I suppose it depends what we mean by “infallible”.
Any organisation is infallible in the sense that anyone who doesn’t toe the party line is out.
In other words who is left to say they are wrong.

 

[fhansen]

fhansen:

Would God establish a Church that is fallible in its teachings?

Ahem, yes he would. Judaism for example.
Also the Orthodox Church.
Anglicanism, Presbyterianism and Lutherans believe they are established by God and don’t hold to the sort of infallibility that our Church holds to. They follow the same Scriptures as we do.

I suppose it depends what we mean by “infallible”.
Any organisation is infallible in the sense that anyone who doesn’t toe the party line is out.
In other words who is left to say they are wrong.

So the criteria for being the church established by God should be that they believe they’re a church established by God? Such as Jehovah’s Witnesses? And it should make sense that those churches should believe their teachings may be wrong, that their entire foundation and raison d’etre may well be completely unfounded? Do you think Luther believed his doctrine on justification may’ve been faulty, allowing that the RCC could’ve been right after all?