Where to begin?

[Randy_Carson]

Randy, this is your argument: 1) Christ is telling the disciples that whatever they bind/loose on earth God will also bind/loose in Heaven 2) God would not bind/loose in error 3) Therefore the disciples (and by extension the Church) is infallible.

Correct. However, to be more precise, the Apostles would not be permitted by the Holy Spirit to bind/loose anything on earth that God was not prepared to bind/loose in heaven; therefore, the Apostles were prevented from teaching error by God.

It’s not that the Apostles ARE infallible and can do no wrong in and of themselves; it’s that the Apostles are infallible precisely because the Holy Spirit PREVENTS them from teaching something wrong.

What I am saying is that by this same kind of logic, John 14:14 would seem to suggest Christians are infallible in their prayers. Observe how the same logic would apply in this case: 1) Christ is telling His followers that whatever they ask in his name He will do 2) Christ would not do anything that is in error 3) Therefore, Christians must be infallible in their prayers.

Of course, neither one of us agree with this conclusion, but you see how I have used your logical argument to infer infallibility just as you have. My challenge to you, therefore, is to explain why the inconsistent application of this logic (you deny its use here in John 14:14, but insist on its use in Matthew 16:18). Since infallibility is not mentioned in either place we have to use human reasoning to infer it, but I am saying that the human reasoning is wrong.

You’re comparing apples and oranges. Oh, sure…you can say that Christ has promised to do whatever “two or three” agree upon, but teaching about the triune nature of God or the hypostatic union is not the same thing as asking God for good weather so that you can get the hay put up in the barn, now is it? Answering our prayers is one thing; actively overseeing the official teaching of His Church is quite another. And as an aside, I would ask you to be honest about whether Jesus has answered every single on of your personal prayers. My bet is that you’re not feeling especially confident about that, either. But I digress.

Can you provide references and links to scripture scholars who have reached the conclusion that all Christians are infallible in their prayers? No, of course, not - because as you point out, the argument is not sensical and no one believes it. But not because infallibility does not exist. To say that B is not equal to A doesn’t prove that A simply doesn’t exist - it is a non sequitur. You’re comparing apples and oranges, and I do not believe there is a single verse of scripture wherein God promises to lead all Christians individually into infallible understanding of the truth.

Additionally, I would be willing to bet that you cannot find any other serious, non-Catholic/anti-Catholic scholar or apologist who would even bother making the argument that you are making. Why? Because the logic is so flawed that no one would seriously attempt to disprove infallibility on the basis of John 14:14 - at least no one that I have come across…and I do spend an absurd amount of time trying to explain and defend the Catholic Church. As best I can tell, you have attempted something completely novel, and that should give you pause. Perhaps there’s a reason why none of the most brilliant minds of the past 500 years have argued along this line. Or perhaps I simply don’t know everything. Believe me when I say that I love to learn, so I await your response on this point. Really.

As a Catholic, you assume that big “C” Church must necessarily mean the RCC.

No, as a Christian, I realized that Jesus only founded one Church and that only the Catholic Church qualified as that Church. So, I converted.

There is nothing here, however, to preclude Christ from using the term in a general sense, as in the “invisible” (small “c” catholic) Church. In fact, this is what He had to have intended since the RCC did not even exist as an entity at that point (because the schism with the eastern church had not happened).

Rubbish and revisionist. Jesus did not envision His ONE Body being fractured and broken into thousands of competing denominations teaching conflicting and contradictory doctrines. (As God, He might have foreseen it, but it was not His will for things to be as they currently are due to weaknesses and mistakes on both sides.)

One Lord. One Faith. One Baptism. One Flock. One Shepherd.

Once again, I know you do not accept this. But, if we do accept this, then we are relieved of having to infer infallibility into texts where it does not exist through selective application of suspect reasoning.

More rubbish. The doctrine of infallibility was understood from the beginning of the Church - though it has been developed and understood more fully over time.

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

The answer to your question (and all of the other questions in your response), then, is that, yes, there may be many small “c” churches that fall into such a degree of error that they become apostates and are no longer a part of the big “C” Church, but the big “C” Church will prevail nonetheless because Christ said it would.

Well, this echoes a Church document to an amazing degree. I refer you to paragraph 17 of Dominus Iesus which I quote in its entirety to say you some bother:

1. Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.58 The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.59 Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.60
   On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery,61 are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church.62 Baptism in fact tends per se toward the full development of life in Christ, through the integral profession of faith, the Eucharist, and full communion in the Church.63
   “The Christian faithful are therefore not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection — divided, yet in some way one — of Churches and ecclesial communities; nor are they free to hold that today the Church of Christ nowhere really exists, and must be considered only as a goal which all Churches and ecclesial communities must strive to reach”.64 In fact, “the elements of this already-given Church exist, joined together in their fullness in the Catholic Church and, without this fullness, in the other communities”.65 “Therefore, these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.66
   The lack of unity among Christians is certainly a wound for the Church; not in the sense that she is deprived of her unity, but “in that it hinders the complete fulfilment of her universality in history”.67

Does this necessitate that all of the small “c” churches within the big “C” Church agree on every single doctrinal issue? There is nothing in the New Testament that says all Christians must be uniform in their doctrine. In fact, the entire chapter of Romans 14 is about tolerance of a brother who has different doctrines about things like fasting and the observance of holy days.

But Romans 14 is not all that scripture says on the matter. Consider

1 Corinthians 1:10

I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought.”

Now, tell me, Solus, are you and I “perfectly united in mind and thought”?

That’s what Jesus and Paul both wanted.

 

[jmcrae]

No, as a Christian, I realized that Jesus only founded one Church and that only the Catholic Church qualified as that Church. So, I converted.

As the Early Fathers would have said, “We believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.”

One Lord. One Faith. One Baptism. One Flock. One Shepherd.

Just as St. Paul continually teaches in all of his Epistles.

 

[Solus_Christus]

The Mormon takes your advice to “Listen to what God has told us in His Word and accept Him at His word” and embraces his Book of Mormon.

The Muslim takes your advice to “Listen to what God has told us in His Word and accept Him at His word” and embraces his Koran.

The Protestant takes your advice to “Listen to what God has told us in His Word and accept Him at His word” and embraces his shorter version of the Old Testament.

A few remarks:

1. These statements are extremely disingenuous. Neither Mormons nor Muslims can be said to subscribe to Sola Scriptura (they certainly are not listening to God or accepting Him at His word, and you and I both know that).
2. “The Protestant” is disimilar to the other elements in the list as they have supposedly taken something out of God’s Word or, at least, that is your clear implication. The Hebrew canon (called the Tanakh), however, does not include the apocryphal books accepted by the RCC, so it is really the RCC which has added something.
3. The list would have been more coherent if you compared the approaches of the Mormons, Muslims, and the RCC to God’s word. The reason for this is that all three accept the Bible to some degree, but qualify it with their own teachings (the Book of Mormon, the Koran, and Tradition, respectively).

Sorry, but apart from the testimony of an infallible Church, you have no way of determining that one holy book is any more special than any other…Bible, Koran, Book of Mormon…they’re all the same and make similar claims.

Both the book of Mormon and the Koran have a single author. Therefore, adherents to those belief systems require faith to believe the claims of the author, but it is a faith that is unreasonable. Belief in the Bible is a reasonable belief for several reasons. I will describe them if you like, but that is basic Christian apologetics, and think we can both agree on this much at least.

 

[Solus_Christus]

Gee, we have something like that concerning infant baptism, and that has not prevented non-Catholics from continuing to deny that sacrament.

I’m not sure what you are referring to here, but of course some Protestants do baptize infants. As for my original challenge, your earliest quote is from about 200 years after the time of the apostles, so the challenge still stands.

 

[Solus_Christus]

And I just showed in posts #112 & 113 that you are wrong. Go back and read them.

Mr. Bonocore’s explanation sure seems nice and tidy, but is not very believable if the apostles really believed Peter was infallible. First of all, I find it intriguing that James had to show his support for Peter’s stance in order to convince the Judaizers. If Peter were believed to be infallible, it is inconceivable the Judaizers would have been ignorant about this belief. And, if they had opposed Peter’s pronouncement while in possession of this knowledge, then it would have meant the first split in the Church. More likely, however, the Judaizers would not have opposed someone known to be infallible, so there would not have been any need for James to bring his fellow Judaizers on-board with the pronouncement. In addition, I strongly suspect that verse 6 would read: “The apostles and elders approached Peter to learn the truth of the matter” rather than the way it actually reads: “The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter.” Finally, it seems odd that Peter did not correct the Judaizers while in Antioch, rather than joining them in their folly. This whole ordeal could have been nipped in the bud from the get-go if Peter had been prevented from teaching error. By refusing to eat with the Gentiles, Peter was reinforcing the error of the Judaizers. How exactly was Peter NOT teaching error while in Antioch?

Please demonstrate from scripture where Jesus gave a key each of the other eleven.

Convenient how you refuse to answer my question (stated here for a third time): If it is by way of these figurative keys that binding and loosing occurs (according to your own words), and Christ gave this power to all of his disciples (Matthew 18:18), then does it not stand to reason that the other disciples also have these keys?

Wow. What a misunderstanding you have. Infallibility does not apply to “behavior”.

As I pointed out above, there are many situations where behavior IS teaching. By Peter refusing to eat with the Gentiles, he was reinforcing the error of the Judaizers. The questions you pose to “prove” infallibility are all about keeping the Church from falling into error. So what good is infallibility if, by his words or by his actions, he led the Church into error? It is a flimsy but convenient defense that Peter’s refusing to eat with the Gentiles was not “formal teaching.” Either way the effect was the same: the Church was led into error. Yes, the whole thing was straightened out in Jerusalem. But the fact remains that, far from being turned from their error, the Judaizers were reinforced in their error by the holder of the keys. So I might answer your litany of questions (post #106) with another question: Was Christ on hiatus while Peter was in Antioch that He did not keep the Church from error? Would you suggest that Christ was okay with the Judaizers being reinforced in their error because of a technicality (i.e. Peter’s action was not a formal teaching)?

 

[jmcrae]

I’m not sure what you are referring to here, but of course some Protestants do baptize infants. As for my original challenge, your earliest quote is from about 200 years after the time of the apostles, so the challenge still stands.

If it was 200 years after the Apostles, then we are still in the time before there was such a thing as a Christian Bible.

Pope Innocent I approved the publication of the Old and New Testaments together, for the first time in history, in 405 AD. And even in that case, it was only technologically possible to produce a sufficient number for the parishes - the technology to be able to publish Bibles for every Christian on earth to be able to own one didn’t actually exist until the 1800s.

 

[Solus_Christus]

Why do you think that the qualifications of the Bishop of Rome would be any different from those needed to be the Bishop of any other Diocese?

Only because it is the most important role of all. You consistently stress how Peter alone received the keys, but now you are asking why the role of pope should be any different from other bishops. Why the inconsistency? Either the position is unique and imbued with special abilities/protections or it is not. You cannot exalt the position in one breathe and then deny its uniqueness in the next.

 

[jmcrae]

Mr. Bonocore’s explanation sure seems nice and tidy, but is not very believable if the apostles really believed Peter was infallible. First of all, I find it intriguing that James had to show his support for Peter’s stance in order to convince the Judaizers.

James was their Bishop.

It’s the same as now, when the Pope says something that is hard to hear, the people go to their Bishop and say, “Really?” and the Bishop says, “Yes, really.”

This doesn’t mean that either the Pope or the Bishop are perfect in their behaviour. Jesus said, “Do as they command ye to do, and not as they do.” He knew His own sheep well enough.

 

[Solus_Christus]

You’re comparing apples and oranges. Oh, sure…you can say that Christ has promised to do whatever “two or three” agree upon, but teaching about the triune nature of God or the hypostatic union is not the same thing as asking God for good weather so that you can get the hay put up in the barn, now is it? Answering our prayers is one thing; actively overseeing the official teaching of His Church is quite another. And as an aside, I would ask you to be honest about whether Jesus has answered every single on of your personal prayers. My bet is that you’re not feeling especially confident about that, either. But I digress.

Can you provide references and links to scripture scholars who have reached the conclusion that all Christians are infallible in their prayers? No, of course, not - because as you point out, the argument is not sensical and no one believes it. But not because infallibility does not exist. To say that B is not equal to A doesn’t prove that A simply doesn’t exist - it is a non sequitur. You’re comparing apples and oranges, and I do not believe there is a single verse of scripture wherein God promises to lead all Christians individually into infallible understanding of the truth.

Additionally, I would be willing to bet that you cannot find any other serious, non-Catholic/anti-Catholic scholar or apologist who would even bother making the argument that you are making. Why? Because the logic is so flawed that no one would seriously attempt to disprove infallibility on the basis of John 14:14 - at least no one that I have come across…and I do spend an absurd amount of time trying to explain and defend the Catholic Church. As best I can tell, you have attempted something completely novel, and that should give you pause. Perhaps there’s a reason why none of the most brilliant minds of the past 500 years have argued along this line. Or perhaps I simply don’t know everything. Believe me when I say that I love to learn, so I await your response on this point. Really.

First let me say that I make the argument specifically because Jesus has not answered every single one of my personal prayers. So to throw the question back at me does not make any sense at all.

Second of all, since my logic is so flawed, it should be child’s play for you to answer why the RCC applies this line of reasoning inconsistently. If Christ promises to do whatever we ask, then why wouldn’t He prevent us from praying in error? The lynchpin of the RCC argument is that God would not bind/loose in error. The same would certainly be true about the deeds of God done in response to our prayers.

I can alternatively state the whole matter in positive terms: We understand the reason Christ does not answer all our prayers is because sometimes we do not pray according to the Father’s will (1 John 5:14). So when we read John 14:14, we temper our understanding of Christ’s words with this knowledge. Along similar lines, why would we not be consistent in our applying this same reasoning and conclude that God binds and looses in Heaven provided the binding and loosing done on earth was accomplished in accordance with His will? In this way we are not forced to infer infallibility and our application of logic is consistent.

If Scripture were explicit about this infallibility there would be no need to conjure arguments to infer it. Since this is not the case, I would humbly suggest that we consider carefully the validity of the argument as a great deal rides upon it.

Finally, I am not saying “infallibility does not exist” since obviously I believe God infallibly conveyed his Word through the Scripture writers. My argument is that infallibility is not necessitated as the RCC insists.

No, as a Christian, I realized that Jesus only founded one Church and that only the Catholic Church qualified as that Church. So, I converted.

The RCC insists that the Church is a visible one, namely itself. If this were true, however, then you either have to argue that 1) The Church was suddenly reduced roughly in-half during the East-West Schism (i.e. Christ suffered amputation) or 2) The entire eastern church was a wolf in sheep’s clothing filled with apostates that had infiltrated the one true Church until their removal. In this case, I would say the RCC preaches predestination since apparently God favored the east over the west and did not extend his salvation to the eastern church in the first place.

The third option is, I know, repulsive to the RCC. The third option is that the Church Christ founded was an invisible one, and therefore people in the east were a part of the Church both before and after the schism. The one, invisible, small “c” catholic Church remained intact (the gates of Hell did not prevail), though now people were affiliated with different institutions arising from man-made distinctions.

Rubbish and revisionist. Jesus did not envision His ONE Body being fractured and broken into thousands of competing denominations teaching conflicting and contradictory doctrines. (As God, He might have foreseen it, but it was not His will for things to be as they currently are due to weaknesses and mistakes on both sides.)

What is rubbish and revisionist? You don’t believe the East-West Schism really took place?

Also, when you say it is not God’s “will for things to be as they currently are,” are you suggesting God has lost control over His creation? You think Satan has the upper hand maybe or pulled a fast one on God? That, my friend, is truly rubbish.

 

[Solus_Christus]

Well, this echoes a Church document to an amazing degree. I refer you to paragraph 17 of Dominus Iesus which I quote in its entirety to say you some bother:

I will need your help with this because it is very confusing to me. So some Christians are not a part of the Church. Am I understanding that correctly?

First, there are “The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds.”

Second, there are "the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery,61 are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ "

So my question is whether these are all a part of the body of Christ. If so, then this would seem to be consistent with the idea of an invisible, small “c” catholic Church. If not then things get a bit more hairy. Are the people in the first group cancerous appendages to Christ? And the second group, are they body parts that have been removed but are being preserved in jars of formaldehyde? If you insist that the body of Christ must be unified, then it seems like an all or nothing proposition to me.

But Romans 14 is not all that scripture says on the matter. Consider

1 Corinthians 1:10

I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought.”

Now, tell me, Solus, are you and I “perfectly united in mind and thought”?

That’s what Jesus and Paul both wanted.

Question for you, Randy: Are all Catholics perfectly united in mind and thought? What about those Catholics that disagree about issues like abortion? Is murder something about which Christians can/should have differences of opinion? Or is it only important that they all believe in transubstantiation? Let me take this one step farther: are any Catholics perfectly united in mind and thought? I bet you a buffalo nickle that if you get any two Catholics together and they talk long enough they will eventually find something upon which they disagree.

Don’t get me wrong. I absolutely agree, Randy, that unity is good and it is important. Paul is setting the goal in this verse. I would argue, however, that while we ought to strive toward that goal here on earth it will only be fully realized in Heaven. Also, please note that unity does not mean the same thing as uniformity.

 

[Solus_Christus]

James was their Bishop.

It’s the same as now, when the Pope says something that is hard to hear, the people go to their Bishop and say, “Really?” and the Bishop says, “Yes, really.”.

So you’re saying that sometimes Catholics still have to go to their bishops from time to time to make sure the Pope is still infallible??? I’m not buying it.

This doesn’t mean that either the Pope or the Bishop are perfect in their behaviour. Jesus said, “Do as they command ye to do, and not as they do.” He knew His own sheep well enough.

When Jesus said the quote you provided, he was speaking about the Pharisees, so it is not at all applicable.

 

[jmcrae]

So you’re saying that sometimes Catholics still have to go to their bishops from time to time to make sure the Pope is still infallible??? I’m not buying it.

No. They go to their Bishops to find out whether the Pope really said that, or not.

When Jesus said the quote you provided, he was speaking about the Pharisees, so it is not at all applicable.

Of course it is. The Pharisees were the successors of Moses, just as the Pope and Bishops are the successors of Peter and the Apostles. The role of spiritual authority that was held by the Pharisees at that time, was taken over by the Apostles and their successors.

 

[jmcrae]

Question for you, Randy: Are all Catholics perfectly united in mind and thought? What about those Catholics that disagree about issues like abortion?

They are separated from the Church.

The Church is not a polling station of opinions - it is a body of Tradition. As far as we adhere to those teachings, customs, and laws, we are Christians. In every jot and iota that we depart from the teachings, customs, and laws, we depart from the Church. The Tradition comes from Christ, who gave it to the Apostles, who gave it to the Catholic Church in Rome, where they were imprisoned and died.

 

[Solus_Christus]

No. They go to their Bishops to find out whether the Pope really said that, or not.

You’re forgetting that James made his statement DURING the council in Jerusalem. The Judaizers would not have needed to check things out with James because they would have just heard Peter speak for themselves.

Of course it is. The Pharisees were the successors of Moses, just as the Pope and Bishops are the successors of Peter and the Apostles. The role of spiritual authority that was held by the Pharisees at that time, was taken over by the Apostles and their successors.

I will agree with you here: The RCC is certainly the modern day equivalent of the Pharisees. And to that end the RCC should heed Christ’s words because they nullify the word of God for the sake of their tradition.

 

[Solus_Christus]

They are separated from the Church.

Are they? They haven’t been excommunicated and they continue to partake of the eucharist, so I am not convinced.

 

[Tomster]

You’re forgetting that James made his statement DURING the council in Jerusalem. The Judaizers would not have needed to check things out with James because they would have just heard Peter speak for themselves.

I will agree with you here: The RCC is certainly the modern day equivalent of the Pharisees. And to that end the RCC should heed Christ’s words because they nullify the word of God for the sake of their tradition.

Puhleese!

Are you going to sit there and tell us you do not sit in church on Sunday, listen to whoever happens to be in the pulpit that day interpreting the Bible (you know, giving his spin on the Bible), and taking his interpretation (read: oral tradition) to heart?

Give us all a break would you.

 

[Solus_Christus]

If it was 200 years after the Apostles, then we are still in the time before there was such a thing as a Christian Bible.

Not true. The Christian Bible began with Moses. And the New Testament portion of the Christian Bible was completed and widely recognized long before 200 A.D. (even if it wasn’t formally ratified until 393 A.D.). In fact, Peter was already acknowledging Paul’s letters as Scripture in his second epistle (2 Peter 3:16).

 

[Solus_Christus]

Puhleese!

Are you going to sit there and tell us you do not sit in church on Sunday, listen to whoever happens to be in the pulpit that day interpreting the Bible (you know, giving his spin on the Bible), and taking his interpretation (read: oral tradition) to heart?

Give us all a break would you.

You deny the perspicuity of Scripture? You believe that God condescended to man to give man His Word, but only in a manner that the greatest of men (bishops and popes) could understand it?

A preacher can read and discuss Scripture without injecting his own spin. It’s called exegesis. It is similar to when you read an owner’s manual. You do not require an infallible interpretation of the manual. You just read it and do what it says.

 

[Tomster]

You deny the perspicuity of Scripture? You believe that God condescended to man to give man His Word, but only in a manner that the greatest of men (bishops and popes) could understand it?

A preacher can read and discuss Scripture without injecting his own spin. It’s called exegesis. It is similar to when you read an owner’s manual. You do not require an infallible interpretation of the manual. You just read it and do what it says.

Thanks for the admission. You do, then, admit that you adhere to the oral tradition given to you from the pulpit.

Another question though.

How do you know that the exegesis you are given is correct?