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

[De_Maria]

Personal belief. Because the keys to the kingdom binding and loose.

The keys were given to St. Peter.

Is obvious in the 9 ministry gifts saint Paul describes in 1 cor 12

Actually, that proves that the Spirit does not give the same gifts to everyone.

1 Corinthians 12:27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular. 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. 29 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?

But religious people believe what they don’t perceive.

Actually, the Catholic Church is visible. It has been Teaching the Word of God since the time of the Apostles and has done so in plain view. Evangelicals came along with Luther. 1500 years too late.

 

[De_Maria]

I think, first, we need to agree upon how we know that they were established by God.

As for Judaism and Catholicism, we have the witness of Scripture, which cannot be broken. So says Jesus Christ.

This is baseless reasoning.

I don’t think so.

Something is not of God because the purveyor brings out his own writings to prove it is.

??? You don’t believe the Bible?

People accept the truth of a religion on an initial leap of faith. Thats why its called faith not proof.

The superiority of Catholicism is that it can be proved.

Likewise for the infallibility that such a religion may or may not say that this God demands of them.

For Catholicism, infallibility is a charism, a gift which God has given His Church.

If you cannot see the compelling logic here further rational discussion is not possible.

There is no logic in what you’ve said.

BTW could you learn to quote properly…
Include the end escape code

or put it on a new line if it doesnt work the first time.

I prefer the blockquote. No need for html.

 

[BlackFriar]

BTW could you learn to quote properly…
Include the end escape code

or put it on a new line if it doesnt work the first time.

If you cannot understand, as those who see the html code exposed in your quotes can, and my helpful solution … then what hope your views on theology.

If you cannot see the compelling logic here further rational discussion is not possible.

Then as I say, no further rational discussion is possible with you.

Something is not of God because the purveyor brings out his own writings to prove it is.

Why would anyone believe God is only with your Church on the sole basis you show me a book written by other members of your Church that allegedly says that… and the same book says,allegedly, this Bible teachingis infallible.

You may as well say it is evident that Joseph Smith teaches truly and must be believed simply because he tells you its in his holy scripture that he wrote down directly as God commanded or gave him on gold plates which he infallibly copied.

Yet this reasoning is circular, one cannot lift oneself up by tugging on bootlaces no matter how earnestly.

[/QUOTE]

 

[De_Maria]

If you cannot understand, as those who see the html code exposed in your quotes can, and my helpful solution … then what hope your views on theology.

I understand html just fine. I use it all the time on other boards. But the blockquote is much easier. And it produces the same effect.

Then as I say, no further rational discussion is possible with you.

Ok.

Why would anyone believe God is only with your Church on the sole basis you show me a book written by other members of your Church that allegedly says that… and the same book says,allegedly, this Bible teachingis infallible.

Do you really consider that polite? You’ve added many things there that I haven’t said. When did I say that anyone should “believe God is only” with my Church? When did I say “on the sole basis of a book”?

I said that that the superiority of Catholicism could be proven. You read the rest of that into my statement.

As for why anyone would believe in the Catholic Church, it would be for the same reasons that I believe in the Catholic Church. Because all her claims have been proven to my satisfaction.

You may as well say it is evident that Joseph Smith teaches truly and must be believed simply because he tells you its in his holy scripture that he wrote down directly as God commanded or gave him on gold plates which he infallibly copied.

That is what you seem to be asserting. I am advising one and all to compare the evidence. Compare Joseph Smith’s teachings and evidence to that of the Catholic Church.

Yet this reasoning is circular, one cannot lift oneself up by tugging on bootlaces no matter how earnestly.

It is your reasoning which is circular. You want people to believe you simply because you say so. But your say so is illogical. There is much information and evidence for Catholicism. In History, culture, archaeology, Sacred Tradition, Church history and Church records including Scripture.

 

[rcwitness]

If we do not have a Church that is able to make infallible judgments, then we cannot have certainty the Bible contains the Word of God.

Peter was given a singular office, which the rest of the Apostles were also to collectively share.

Jesus singled out Peter in order to strengthen His Church. He instantly named him Rock in order to give the Church a mouthpiece for Confirming the faithful regarding matters of faith and morals.

Jesus used language in Matthew 16 that mirrored Isaiah 22. This was establishing a Prime Minister, or Vicar, or Father to the inhabitants.

Luke 12 describes the stewards of the Lord being set over the entire household.

 

[BlackFriar]

If we do not have a Church that is able to make infallible judgments, then we cannot have certainty the Bible contains the Word of God.

That would be a reasonable conclusion.
Our knowledge of who God is and His Church is by faith surely?
I suppose it depends on what we mean by certainty.
What do you mean?

 

[rcwitness]

rcwitness:

If we do not have a Church that is able to make infallible judgments, then we cannot have certainty the Bible contains the Word of God.

That would be a reasonable conclusion.
Our knowledge of who God is and His Church is by faith surely?
I suppose it depends on what we mean by certainty.
What do you mean?

I mean, in the context of the Canon of Scripture. God, in His sovereignty, used His Church’s authority to Confirm and deliver that most precious, written revelation.

It was a process, but one that relied on Tradition and Magisterium. If the Church is not able to Teach infallibly, then we cannot have the confidence we have in the Written Word.

 

[lanman87]

It was a process, but one that relied on Tradition and Magisterium. If the Church is not able to Teach infallibly, then we cannot have the confidence we have in the Written Word.

I don’t necessarily think this is true. In the end it comes down to our faith in the sovereignty of God. If we believe that God is sovereign and that whatever He wanted to become scripture became scripture then there is no conflict between the fallibility of the church and the will of God. God’s will wins out every time.

 

[rcwitness]

rcwitness:

It was a process, but one that relied on Tradition and Magisterium. If the Church is not able to Teach infallibly, then we cannot have the confidence we have in the Written Word.

I don’t necessarily think this is true. In the end it comes down to our faith in the sovereignty of God. If we believe that God is sovereign and that whatever He wanted to become scripture became scripture then there is no conflict between the fallibility of the church and the will of God. God’s will wins out every time.

Of course, that’s what Infallibility of the Church is! God’s will being revealed!

There is actually no conflict between the infallibility of the Church and the will of God.

It’s not the Church or the Bishop of Rome who is Infallible, but they have the ability to tell the faithful what the Lord Jesus Teaches regarding faith and morals. The Canon of Scripture is one of (if not the greatest) example of this!

 

[BlackFriar]

God, in His sovereignty, used His Church’s authority to Confirm and deliver that most precious, written revelation.

I suppose if the authority/meaning of Scripture is decided by the authority of the Church the problem becomes where does the authority of the Church come from and how do we know for sure what sort of authority that is? Different religions see their teaching authority differently.

 

[Duc-in-altum]

Do you believe the Bible is the infallible Word of God? Was Peter, the first pope, infallible when he wrote certain New Testament portions? Was the Pope infallible when the Church assembled the books of the Bible at the Bible Counsel?

Your reading of Matthew 16 is incorrect. Jesus spoke Aramaic to Peter, not Greek, and there is no gender difference in the word “rock” in Aramaic. The gender was added in the greek version so Peter was not given the name of a little girl, and it was written long before anyone could have foreseen the use of “Petros” as the basis used to discredit Jesus’ appointed successor on earth.

Indeed, Jesus does give the power to bind in heaven or loose in heaven to Peter and the Apostles in Matthew 16 and 18, which is the basis for the Catholic Sacriment of Confession. However, he specifically gives Peter the Keys to the Kingdom of heaven. Jesus’ reference to keys relates to Isaiah 22, and is clearly a symbol of authority given to Peter. Why would Jesus do this for Peter if he just insulted Peter and called him a pebble?

 

[rcwitness]

Yes, Protestants do actually believe in a sort of infallible teaching. There is no way around it. They just don’t want to admit it. At some point, the decision has to be made over which books are included, and which books are excluded in whatever they call the Bible. Even many verses are debatable. The earliest versions of any Bibles we have, are Vaticanus and Sinaticus. Neither of these have the same books as the Protestant Bibles. So how do they determine their Canon? Neither the Apostles, or God told us which books were to be regarded as Scripture (unless you believe God gave the Church a Teaching authority that can be relied on with absolute certainty).

There are other doctrines too. Consider remarriage. How do Protestant pastors know they are able to teach and give approval that a second marriage can be allowed to divorced members? They may base it on Matthew’s exception clause, but they are claiming to be absolutely certain what Jesus is teaching. Why would someone trust them, if they said “I think He means this, but I could be wrong, and you could be entering an adulterous relationship”

 

[BlackFriar]

The difficulty is not the authority of Scripture but the authority of the Church. If the Church’s authority is not proven by Scripture, despite the views of some Catholics here, then there is actually no “proof” other than the testimony of the Church’s leaders when we join.

Not exactly infallible any more than that of an Joseph Smith.
And even if it were one could never be infallibly sure.
Though does it really matter…Judaism and other religions survive well without any claim to similar Magisterial infallibility.

 

[rcwitness]

Authority is only as profitable as we allow it to be. Anyone can start a new church and call it a communion Jesus approves.

But each new church finds that if they want to maintain a certain orthodoxy, then an authority must have influence.

The Apostles had members who did not respect their authority (3 John 1:9). But boy, when God performed miracles through them, the people held them in honor (Acts 5:13).

 

[BlackFriar]

But each new church finds that if they want to maintain a certain orthodoxy, then an authority must have influence.

As I observe many religions have that influence and survive quite well without making acceptance of infallible claims as a criterion of membership…nor do they always resort to the equally unprovable ploy of miracles to “prove” same…which presumably are recorded in Scripture as alleged historical truth which we just saw is only as inafallible as Church authority says it is…a circular argument re miracles then.
Miracles if reasonably predicated certainly make for respect. But that is not the same as infallible. Simon Magus was no doubt respected.

 

[rcwitness]

rcwitness:

But each new church finds that if they want to maintain a certain orthodoxy, then an authority must have influence.

As I observe many religions have that influence and survive quite well without making acceptance of infallible claims as a criterion of membership…nor do they always resort to the equally unprovable ploy of miracles to “prove” same…which presumably are recorded in Scripture as alleged historical truth which we just saw is only as inafallible as Church authority says it is…a circular argument re miracles then.
Miracles if reasonably predicated certainly make for respect. But that is not the same as infallible. Simon Magus was no doubt respected.

Hmm… I guess all I have to add, is that all doctrines are to be held with her members. It’s either true, and decreed as Truth, which must be accepted, or it is up to speculation, and has not been officially confirmed.

Miracles were perceived by those who were convinced. Or seen by people they trusted, I guess. In the early days, miracles were needed to help the Church develop. Now the Church is quite developed and only needs to maintain its tune, so to speak.

Simon could create illusions (possibly with sorcery?) but he couldn’t give that ability to others. It’s seems that he saw that and was convinced in the power of the Holy Spirit and His Apostles.

 

[De_Maria]

rcwitness:

It was a process, but one that relied on Tradition and Magisterium. If the Church is not able to Teach infallibly, then we cannot have the confidence we have in the Written Word.

I don’t necessarily think this is true. In the end it comes down to our faith in the sovereignty of God. If we believe that God is sovereign and that whatever He wanted to become scripture became scripture then there is no conflict between the fallibility of the church and the will of God. God’s will wins out every time.

Well, I’d like to say if we believe that God is sovereign and that whatever He wanted to become scripture became scripture then there is no conflict between the infallibility of the church and the will of God, either. God’s will still wins out every time.

Further, If we believe that God is sovereign and that whatever He wanted taught to mankind was passed down infallibly in Sacred Tradition and Scripture, there is no conflict between the infallibility of the church and the will of God. I see none and God’s will still wins out.

Why do you believe that God’s Sacred Traditions are moot? Is that in Scripture somewhere? Does Scripture say, “learn only from Scripture, the Word of God is no longer passed down in word of mouth.” Where?

Do you not see the wisdom of a Teacher whose Teachings are protected from error by the Holy Spirit?

 

[De_Maria]

rcwitness:

If we do not have a Church that is able to make infallible judgments, then we cannot have certainty the Bible contains the Word of God.

That would be a reasonable conclusion.
Our knowledge of who God is and His Church is by faith surely?

What does faith mean to you? If I say, for example, “I have faith in my Dad, because he loves me and I can count on him to help me when I’m in need.”

Or, do you think of faith as, “I have faith that this coin will end up heads 50% of the time because that is the statistical probability?”

I suppose it depends on what we mean by certainty.
What do you mean?

I’m certain that God exists and that He is all good and all wise and would therefore make certain that His Word would be passed down infallibly through all generations.

 

[De_Maria]

rcwitness:

God, in His sovereignty, used His Church’s authority to Confirm and deliver that most precious, written revelation.

I suppose if the authority/meaning of Scripture is decided by the authority of the Church the problem becomes where does the authority of the Church come from and how do we know for sure what sort of authority that is?

Really? But, aren’t we Catholic? Well, since you have said this, I’ll assume that you’re not.

I suppose if the authority/meaning of Scripture is decided by the authority of the Church the problem becomes where does the authority of the Church come from

From God.

and how do we know for sure what sort of authority that is?

It’s called the Great Commission. The authority to Teach all that Jesus Christ commanded. And to do it infallibly. This is revealed in Sacred Tradition and confirmed in Scripture.

Different religions see their teaching authority differently.

But we’re not discussing any other religions. The title of this thread is, “where does the Word of God teach that the Catholic Church is infallible?”

 

[De_Maria]

rcwitness:

But each new church finds that if they want to maintain a certain orthodoxy, then an authority must have influence.

As I observe many religions have that influence and survive quite well without making acceptance of infallible claims as a criterion of membership…

What’s the point of surviving in a false religion which teaches error and leads their followers to perdition?