Poor Theology - God Told Me / You're Arguing With God

[tango]

My "Good" applied only the the acknowledgement that Martin Luther was not and is not infallible. The rest of the comments in your earlier post were gratuitous insults hurled at the Catholic Church and I offer no approval and no commendation for that. It's bad taste and inaccurate commentary of no value to me.

I suppose the question would be whether the allegation that the RCC does make the claims listed in the thread are accurate or not.

If they are inaccurate an obvious response would be to indicate that the claims made by Josiah are inaccurate (or misquoted, or fabricated, or whatever else). If they are accurate an obvious response would be to ask whether it's appropriate to make such claims.

I don't know RCC doctrine well enough to comment either way, so perhaps those who are familiar with it might weigh in?

 

[MoreCoffee]

I suppose the question would be whether the allegation that the RCC does make the claims listed in the thread are accurate or not.

If they are inaccurate an obvious response would be to indicate that the claims made by Josiah are inaccurate (or misquoted, or fabricated, or whatever else). If they are accurate an obvious response would be to ask whether it's appropriate to make such claims.

I don't know RCC doctrine well enough to comment either way, so perhaps those who are familiar with it might weigh in?

I've exchanged posts with Josiah in ChristianForums and I prefer not to repeat the process. Suffice it to say that Catholic Dogma is available online and explanations of it can be obtained from online sources such as the Catechism of the Catholic Church and other reputable catechisms. I posted several links to such sources in the Catholic section of this forum - have a look at them when you want to check the sources for yourself.

 

[tango]

I've exchanges posts with Josiah in ChristianForums and I prefer not to repeat the process. Suffice it to say that Catholic Dogma is available online and explanations of it can be obtained from online sources such as the Catechism of the Catholic Church and other reputable catechisms. I posted several links to such sources in the Catholic section of this forum - have a look at them when you want to check the sources for yourself.

Having not seen the exchanges, perhaps you could link me to the relevant sections of the dogma? I must admit I'd rather see the specific section(s) to read rather than wading through what could be quite a long document.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Having not seen the exchanges, perhaps you could link me to the relevant sections of the dogma? I must admit I'd rather see the specific section(s) to read rather than wading through what could be quite a long document.

I think Josiah was intending to say something about infallibility. I'll find the relevant material and post it in here.

Infallible Authority of the Church

The Church has authority from God to teach regarding faith and morals, and in her teaching she is preserved from error by the special guidance of the Holy Ghost.

The prerogative of infallibility is clearly deduced from the attributes of the Church already mentioned. The Catholic Church is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. Preaching the same creed everywhere and at all times; teaching holiness and truth, she is, of course, essentially unerring in her doctrine; for what is one, holy or unchangeable must be infallibly true.

That the Church was infallible in the Apostolic age is denied by no Christian. We never question the truth of the Apostles' declarations;[See Gal. iv. 14; I Thess. ii. 13.] they were, in fact, the only authority in the Church for the first century. The New Testament was not completed till the close of the first century. There is no just ground for denying to the Apostolic teachers of the nineteenth century in which we live a prerogative clearly possessed by those of the first, especially as the Divine Word nowhere intimates that this unerring guidance was to die with the Apostles. On the contrary, as the Apostles transmitted to their successors their power to preach, to baptize, to ordain, to confirm, etc., they must also have handed down to them the no less essential gift of infallibility.

God loves us as much as He loved the primitive Christians; Christ died for us as well as for them and we have as much need of unerring teachers as they had.

It will not suffice to tell me: "We have an infallible Scripture as a substitute for an infallible apostolate of the first century," for an infallible book is of no use to me without an infallible interpreter, as the history of Protestantism too clearly demonstrates.

But besides these presumptive arguments, we have positive evidence from Scripture that the Church cannot err in her teachings. Our blessed Lord, in constituting St. Peter Prince of His Apostles, says to him: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."[Matt. xvi. 18.] Christ makes here a solemn prediction that no error shall ever invade His Church, and if she fell into error the gates of hell have certainly prevailed against her.

The Reformers of the sixteenth century affirm that the Church did fall into error; that the gates of hell did prevail against her; that from the sixth to the sixteenth century she was a sink of iniquity. The Book of Homilies of the Church of England says that the Church "lay buried in damnable idolatry for eight hundred years or more." The personal veracity of our Savior and of the Reformers is here at issue, for our Lord makes a statement which they contradict. Who is to be believed, Jesus or the Reformers?

If the prediction of our Savior about the preservation of His Church from error be false, then Jesus Christ is not God, since God cannot lie. He is not even a prophet, since He predicted falsehood. Nay, He is an imposter, and all Christianity is a miserable failure and a huge deception, since it rests on a false Prophet.

But if Jesus predicted the truth when He declared that the gates of hell should not prevail against His Church--and who dare deny it?--then the Church never has and never could have fallen from the truth; then the Catholic Church is infallible, for she alone claims that prerogative, and she is the only Church that is acknowledged to have existed from the beginning. Truly is Jesus that wise Architect mentioned in the Gospel, "who built his house upon a rock; and the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat upon that house, and it fell not, for it was founded upon a rock."[Matt. vii. 24. et seq.]

Jesus sends forth the Apostles with plenipotentiary powers to preach the Gospel. "As the Father," He says, "hath sent Me, I also send you."[John xx. 21.] "Going therefore, teach all nations, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you."[Matt. xxviii. 19, 20.] "Preach the Gospel to every creature."[Mark xvi. 15.] "Ye shall be witnesses unto Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and Samaria, and even to the uttermost part of the earth."[Acts I. 8.]

This commission evidently applies not to the Apostles only, but also to their successors, to the end of time, since it was utterly impossible for the Apostles personally to preach to the whole world.

Not only does our Lord empower His Apostles to preach the Gospel, but He commands, and under the most severe penalties, those to whom they preach to listen and obey. "Whosoever will not receive you, nor hear your words, going forth from that house or city, shake the dust from your feet. Amen, I say to you, it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment that for that city."[Matt. x. 14, 15.] "If he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican."[Matt. xviii. 17.] "He that believeth shall be saved; he that believeth not shall be condemned."[Mark xvi. 16.] "He that heareth you heareth Me; he that despiseth you despiseth Me; and he that despiseth Me despiseth Him that sent Me."[Luke x. 16.]

From these passages we see, on the one hand, that the Apostles and their successors have received full powers to announce the Gospel; and on the other, that their hearers are obliged to listen with docility and to obey not merely by an external compliance, but also by an internal assent of the intellect. If, therefore, the Catholic Church could preach error, would not God Himself be responsible for the error? And could not the faithful soul say to God with all reverence and truth: Thou hast commanded me, O Lord, to hear Thy Church; if I am deceived by obeying her, Thou art the cause of my error?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Continuing from my last post

But we may rest assured that an all-wise Providence who commands His Church to speak in His name will so guide her in the path of truth that she shall never lead into error those that follow her teachings.

But as this privilege of Infallibility was a very extraordinary favor, our Savior confers it on the rulers of His Church in language which removes all doubt from the sincere inquirer, and under circumstances which add to the majesty of His word. Shortly before His death Jesus consoles His disciples by this promise: "I will ask the Father, and He shall give you another Paraclete, that He may abide with you forever... But when He, the Spirit of truth, shall come, He will teach you all truth."[John xiv. 16; xvi. 13.]

The following text of the same import forms the concluding words recorded of our Savior in St. Matthew's Gospel: "All power is given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, ... teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world."[Matt. xxviii. 18-20.]

He begins by asserting His own Divine authority and mission. "All power is given," etc. That power He then delegates to His Apostles and to their successors: "Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations," etc. He does not instruct them to scatter Bibles broadcast over the earth, but to teach by word of mouth. "And behold!" Our Savior never arrests the attention of His hearers by using the interjection, behold, unless when He has something unusually solemn and extraordinary to communicate. An important announcement is sure to follow this word. "Behold, I am with you." These words, "I am with you," are frequently addressed in Sacred Scripture by the Almighty to His Prophets and Patriarchs, and they always imply a special presence and a particular supervision of the Deity.[Ex. iii. 12; Jer. xv. 20, etc.] They convey the same meaning in the present instance. Christ says equivalently I who "am the way, the truth and the life," will protect you from error and will guide you in your speech. I will be with you, not merely during your natural lives, not for a century only, but all days, at all times, without intermission, even to the end of the world.

These words of Jesus Christ establish two important facts: First--A promise to guard His Church from error. Second-A promise that His presence with the Church will be continuous, without any interval of absence, to the consummation of the world.

And this is also the sentiment of the Apostle of the Gentiles writing to the Ephesians: God "gave some indeed Apostles, and some Prophets, and some Evangelists, and other Pastors and Teachers, for the perfecting of the Saints, for the work of the ministry, for the building up of the body of Christ, until we all meet in the unity of faith, ... that we may no more be children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the wickedness of men, in craft, by which they lie in wait to deceive."[Eph. iv. 11-14.]

Notwithstanding these plain declarations of Scripture, some persons think it an unwarrantable assumption for the Church to claim infallibility. But mark the consequences that follow from denying it.

If your church is not infallible it is liable to err, for there is no medium between infallibility and liability to error. If your church and her ministers are fallible in their doctrinal teachings, as they admit, they may be preaching falsehood to you, instead of truth. If so, you are in doubt whether you are listening to truth or falsehood. If you are in doubt you can have no faith, for faith excludes doubt, and in that state you displease God, for "without faith it is impossible to please God."[Heb. xi. 6.] Faith and infallibility must go hand in hand. The one cannot exist without the other. There can be no faith in the hearer unless there is unerring authority in the speaker--an authority founded upon such certain knowledge as precludes the possibility of falling into error on his part, and including such unquestioned veracity as to prevent his deceiving him who accepts his word.

You admit infallible certainty in the physical sciences; why should you deny it in the science of salvation? The astronomer can predict with accuracy a hundred years beforehand an eclipse of the sun or moon. He can tell what point in the heavens a planet will reach on a given day. The mariner, guided by his compass, knows, amid the raging storm and the darkness of night, that he is steering his course directly to the city of his destination; and is not an infallible guide as necessary to conduct you to the city of God in heaven? Is it not, moreover, a blessing and a consolation that, amid the ever-changing views of men, amid the conflict of human opinion and the tumultuous waves of human passion, there is one voice heard above the din and uproar, crying in clear, unerring tones: "Thus saith the Lord!"

It is very strange that the Catholic Church must apologize to the world for simply declaring that she speaks the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

The Roman Pantheon was dedicated to all the gods of the Empire, and their name was legion. Formidable also in numbers are the Founders of the religious sects existing in our country. A Pantheon as vast as Westminster Abbey would hardly be spacious enough to contain life-sized statues for their accommodation.

If you were to confront those figures, and to ask them, one by one, to give an account of the faith they had professed, and if they were endowed with the gift of speech, you would find that no two of them were in entire accord, but that they all differed among themselves on some fundamental principle of revelation.

Would you not be acting very unwisely and be hazarding your soul's salvation in submitting to the teachings of so many discordant and conflicting oracles.

Children of the Catholic Church, give thanks to God that you are members of that Communion, which proclaims year after year the one same and unalterable message of truth, peace and love, and that you are preserved from all errors in faith, and from all illusion in the practice of virtue. You are happily strangers to those interior conflicts, to those perplexing doubts and to that frightful uncertainty which distracts the souls of those whose private judgment is their only guide, who are "ever learning and never attaining to the knowledge of truth."[Tim. iii. 7.] You are not, like others, drifting helplessly over the ocean of uncertainty and "carried about by every wind of doctrine." You are not as "blind men led by blind guides." You are not like those who are in the midst of a spiritual desert intersected by various by-paths, not knowing which to pursue; but you are on that high road spoken of by the prophet Isaiah, which is so "straight a way that fools shall not err therein."[Isaiah xxxv. 8.] You are a part of that universal Communion which has no "High Church" and "Low Church;" no "New School" and "Old School," for you all belong to that School which is "ever ancient and ever new." You enjoy that profound peace and tranquility which springs from the conscious possession of the whole truth. Well may you exclaim: "Behold how good and how pleasing it is for brethren to dwell together in unity."[Ps. cxxxii.]

Give thanks, moreover, to God that you belong to a Church which has also a keen sense to detect and expose those moral shams, those pious frauds, those socialistic schemes which are so often undertaken in this country ostensibly in the name of religion and morality, but which, in reality, are subversive of morality and order, which are the offspring of fanaticism, and serve as a mask to hide the most debasing passions. Neither Mormons nor Millerites, nor the advocates of free love or of women's rights, so called, find any recruits in the Catholic Church. She will never suffer her children to be ensnared by these impostures, how specious soever they may be.

From what has been said in the preceding pages, it follows that the Catholic Church cannot be reformed. I do not mean, of course, that the Pastors of the Church are personally impeccable or not subject to sin. Every teacher in the Church, from the Pope down to the humblest Priest, is liable at any moment, like any of the faithful, to fall from grace and to stand in need or moral reformation. We all carry "this treasure (of innocence) in earthen vessels."

My meaning is that the Church is not susceptible of being reformed in her doctrines. The Church is the work of an Incarnate God. Like all God's works, it is perfect. It is, therefore, incapable of reform. Is it not the height of presumption for men to attempt to improve upon the work of God? Is it not ridiculous for the Luthers, the Calvins, the Knoxes and the Henries and a thousand lesser lights to be offering their amendments to the Constitution of the Church, as if it were a human Institution?

Our Lord Himself has never ceased to rule personally over His Church. It is time enough for little men to take charge of the Ship when the great Captain abandons the helm.

 

[MoreCoffee]

last part. I bet you're relieved

A Protestant gentleman of very liberal education remarked to me, before the opening of the late Ecumenical Council: "I am assured, sir, by a friend, in confidence, that, at a secret Conclave of Bishops recently held in Rome it was resolved that the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception would be reconsidered and abolished at the approaching General Council; in fact, that the definition was a mistake, and that the blunder of 1854 would be repaired in 1869." I told him, of course, that no such question could be entertained in the Council; that the doctrinal decrees of the Church were irrevocable, and that the dogma of the Immaculate Conception was defined once and forever.

If only one instance could be given in which the Church ceased to teach a doctrine of faith which had been previously held, that single instance would be the death blow of her claim to infallibility. But it is a marvelous fact worthy of record that in the whole history of the Church, for the nineteenth century to the first, no solitary example can be adduced to show that any Pope or General Council ever revoked a decree of faith or morals enacted by any preceding Pontiff or Council. Her record in the past ought to be a sufficient warrant that she will tolerate no doctrinal variations in the future.

If, as we have seen, the Church has authority from God to teach, and if she teaches nothing but the truth, is it not the duty of all Christians to hear her voice and obey her commands? She is the organ of the Holy Ghost. She is the Representative of Jesus Christ, who has said to her: "He that heareth you heareth Me; he that despiseth you despiseth Me." She is the Mistress of truth. It is the property of the human mind to embrace truth wherever it finds it. It would, therefore, be not only an act of irreverence, but of sheer folly, to disobey the voice of this ever-truthful Mother.

If a citizen is bound to obey the laws of his country, though these laws may not in all respects be conformable to strict justice; if a child is bound by natural and divine law to obey his mother, though she may sometimes err in her judgments, how much more strictly are not we obliged to be docile to the teachings of the Catholic Church, our Mother, whose admonitions are always just, whose precepts are immutable!

"For twenty years," observed a recently converted Minister of the Protestant Church, "I fought and struggled against the Church with all the energy of my will. But when I became a Catholic all my doubts ended, my inquiries ceased. I became as a little child, and rushed like a lisping babe into the arms of my mother." By Baptism Christians become children of the Church, no matter who pours upon them the regenerating waters. If she is our Mother, where is our love and obedience? When the infant seeks nourishment at its mother's breast it does not analyze its food. When it receives instructions from its mother's lips it never doubts, but instinctively believes. When the mother stretches forth her hand the child follows unhesitatingly. The Christian should have for his spiritual Mother all the simplicity, all the credulity, I might say, of a child, guided by the instincts of faith. "Unless ye become," says our Lord, "as little children, ye shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven."[Matt. xviii. 3.] "As new-born babes, desire the rational milk without guile; that thereby you may grow unto salvation."[Pet. ii. 2.] In her nourishment there is no poison; in her doctrines there is no guile.

 

[tango]

I think Josiah was intending to say something about infallibility. I'll find the relevant material and post it in here.

Thanks for the quote there MoreCoffee. It raises a few questions (and these are genuine questions because I don't see how the document stands up to scrutiny, I'm not looking to dig for the sake of digging):

Infallible Authority of the Church

The Church has authority from God to teach regarding faith and morals, and in her teaching she is preserved from error by the special guidance of the Holy Ghost.

This wasn't true during the time of the apostles - the apostles weren't infallible when they walked the earth. Paul openly rebuked Peter for the stance he took regarding eating unclean foods (Gal 2:14)

The prerogative of infallibility is clearly deduced from the attributes of the Church already mentioned. The Catholic Church is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. Preaching the same creed everywhere and at all times; teaching holiness and truth, she is, of course, essentially unerring in her doctrine; for what is one, holy or unchangeable must be infallibly true.

"Preaching the same creed everywhere" only works if the same creed is preached. Where different denominations preach different creeds how does one determine which is correct and, more importantly, where deviations are a matter of preference and where they are a matter of salvation?

That the Church was infallible in the Apostolic age is denied by no Christian. We never question the truth of the Apostles' declarations;[See Gal. iv. 14; I Thess. ii. 13.] they were, in fact, the only authority in the Church for the first century. The New Testament was not completed till the close of the first century. There is no just ground for denying to the Apostolic teachers of the nineteenth century in which we live a prerogative clearly possessed by those of the first, especially as the Divine Word nowhere intimates that this unerring guidance was to die with the Apostles. On the contrary, as the Apostles transmitted to their successors their power to preach, to baptize, to ordain, to confirm, etc., they must also have handed down to them the no less essential gift of infallibility.

If the leaders in the Apostolic age were fallible (as shown above where Paul openly rebuked Peter), why does this say that the infallibility is denied by no Christian? The church is led by human beings who are flawed, which means we sometimes make mistakes, no?

Also, I don't see how the "gift of infallibility" (which I don't see in my Bible anywhere) can be handed down, especially if it isn't possessed in the first place. We might "pass on a mantle" to preach, baptize etc (although if we regard the Great Commission as applying to all of Christ's people there is no need for anyone to transmit any such powers to their successors). If some people can be regarded as infallible, why didn't Paul mention it when writing to the Thessalonians - he could have written "test all things, but if it came from Peter it's safe". If Paul praised the Bereans for "studying the Scriptures daily", why was he so happy that they didn't regard him as infallible?

God loves us as much as He loved the primitive Christians; Christ died for us as well as for them and we have as much need of unerring teachers as they had.

Why do we think that anyone is unable to make an error? Jesus warned his disciples to "take heed that no one deceives you" (Matt 24:4) - presumably if even the disciples who had walked with Jesus needed warning against deception then any of us who walk with Jesus in a spiritual rather than a literally physical sense needs the same warning. Paul warned in Acts 20:29 that after he left "savage wolves would rise up" from among the people, drawing people away after themselves. If we regard someone as inerrant don't we expose ourselves to huge danger if it turns out they are just as fallible as the rest of us?

It will not suffice to tell me: "We have an infallible Scripture as a substitute for an infallible apostolate of the first century," for an infallible book is of no use to me without an infallible interpreter, as the history of Protestantism too clearly demonstrates.

This seems to say nothing more than "it is so, because it is so".

But besides these presumptive arguments, we have positive evidence from Scripture that the Church cannot err in her teachings. Our blessed Lord, in constituting St. Peter Prince of His Apostles, says to him: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."[Matt. xvi. 18.] Christ makes here a solemn prediction that no error shall ever invade His Church, and if she fell into error the gates of hell have certainly prevailed against her.

The Church as a people may survive the onslaught from hell but that doesn't mean that some members of the church won't choose to abandon ship and perish. When different people have different views it is clear that some are wrong, but that doesn't inherently mean that any one particular view is right. If you say "the church must survive because Jesus promised it would be so", and "the church has split into group A and group B", that isn't enough information to determine whether A or B is correct. It may be that the breakaway group B is in error but it may also be that A is in error and B is the group against which the gates of hell shall not prevail.

If the prediction of our Savior about the preservation of His Church from error be false, then Jesus Christ is not God, since God cannot lie. He is not even a prophet, since He predicted falsehood. Nay, He is an imposter, and all Christianity is a miserable failure and a huge deception, since it rests on a false Prophet.

This certainly makes sense in isolation but still doesn't demonstrate whether group A or group B is correct.

But if Jesus predicted the truth when He declared that the gates of hell should not prevail against His Church--and who dare deny it?--then the Church never has and never could have fallen from the truth; then the Catholic Church is infallible, for she alone claims that prerogative, and she is the only Church that is acknowledged to have existed from the beginning. Truly is Jesus that wise Architect mentioned in the Gospel, "who built his house upon a rock; and the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat upon that house, and it fell not, for it was founded upon a rock."[Matt. vii. 24. et seq.]

Where does the "the Catholic Church... is the only Church that is acknowledged to have existed from the beginning" come from? Does the Catholic Church of today look like the early church we see in the book of Acts? If not, surely it either did not exist from the beginning or has deviated from how it worked in the beginning and has therefore fallen into error?

Jesus sends forth the Apostles with plenipotentiary powers to preach the Gospel. "As the Father," He says, "hath sent Me, I also send you."[John xx. 21.] "Going therefore, teach all nations, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you."[Matt. xxviii. 19, 20.] "Preach the Gospel to every creature."[Mark xvi. 15.] "Ye shall be witnesses unto Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and Samaria, and even to the uttermost part of the earth."[Acts I. 8.]

This commission evidently applies not to the Apostles only, but also to their successors, to the end of time, since it was utterly impossible for the Apostles personally to preach to the whole world.

Not only does our Lord empower His Apostles to preach the Gospel, but He commands, and under the most severe penalties, those to whom they preach to listen and obey. "Whosoever will not receive you, nor hear your words, going forth from that house or city, shake the dust from your feet. Amen, I say to you, it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment that for that city."[Matt. x. 14, 15.] "If he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican."[Matt. xviii. 17.] "He that believeth shall be saved; he that believeth not shall be condemned."[Mark xvi. 16.] "He that heareth you heareth Me; he that despiseth you despiseth Me; and he that despiseth Me despiseth Him that sent Me."[Luke x. 16.]

From these passages we see, on the one hand, that the Apostles and their successors have received full powers to announce the Gospel; and on the other, that their hearers are obliged to listen with docility and to obey not merely by an external compliance, but also by an internal assent of the intellect. If, therefore, the Catholic Church could preach error, would not God Himself be responsible for the error? And could not the faithful soul say to God with all reverence and truth: Thou hast commanded me, O Lord, to hear Thy Church; if I am deceived by obeying her, Thou art the cause of my error?

We see that we are to spread the word but to argue that hearers are obliged to do anything seems to be stretching things. Jesus clearly said what to do when people wouldn't receive the message, which seems to me to be a pretty clear statement that not everybody would listen to the message. His warnings about how the world would hate us for his sake suggest that most people won't listen to us, and certainly if they had any obligation to "listen with docility" they wouldn't be persecuting us for spreading the message.

I'm also not sure how the sentence about the Catholic Church preaching error stands other than by referencing itself. It seems to be saying "we are always right, therefore if we preach we are right because if we weren't right then we wouldn't be right, and we're always right".

 

[MoreCoffee]

Your post is long so I shall reply in parts as time permits and I hope that some points raised in the earlier parts may be answered and thus make unnecessary giving answers to some later parts because the matter is already cleared away in the earlier answers.

Apostles are not and were not infallible as people, the gift of infallibility no more makes a prophet or an apostle personally incapable of error than the same gift makes them personally incapable of sins. One is not impeccable simply because the grace of infallibility resides in some things that one says or writes while the grace is active because what is said or written is doctrine for the whole church. In truth the gift of infallibility is given to the church much more than to any individual, so saint Peter could err and saint Paul could forget who he baptised yet the letters of saints Paul and Peter are infallible and inerrant as well as inspired. So we come to the nature of the Church's infallibility and how it is expressed. James Cardinal Gibbons says this in his chapter (the one I quoted) on infallibility but the Catechism of the Catholic Church and other church documents make it abundantly clear that infallibility resides in the whole church (clergy and laity taken together) but finds expression in the teaching of the bishops and especially in the teaching of church councils and of the pope. None act alone and none is impeccable and infallible personally as if they were made perfect. Thus one can easily find clergy teaching error and whole districts and even nations following bad moral examples doing wicked things in the name of God yet even so the church remains infallible and the wickedness of her members (even her office bearers) cannot remove that quality from her. The scriptures teach us that the Church is the body of Christ and the bride of Christ and in these things she is spoken of as pure, without blemish, and holy all of which is true even though there was a Judas among the twelve chosen by Christ and a Borgia among the Popes. So the meaning of infallibility is that the whole church enjoys this charism yet that it is expressed by one part of her (her mouth, so to speak) and this is what one would expect in the body of Christ which has many members and not just one. The answer to your first question then, is that infallibility does not appertain to a person as if that person were always right and never in the wrong yet when saint Peter spoke from God he spoke infallible truth just as Isaiah the Prophet did when his lips were cleansed by the coal from the heavenly altar and as saint Paul's letters are when he writes as a command received from the Lord and not as his own frail recollection or in his own apostolic opinion.

 

[MoreCoffee]

You ask about being self referential (basically, that infallibility is a circular argument because the very Church which lays claim to it uses it as proof of her infallibility) and I will answer this way. The church is infallible as I explained in my previous post but not as some (who are usually not in communion with her) say as individuals who have some special (near magical) claim on personal infallibility. As I mentioned not even the apostles of our Lord could claim a permanent personal inability to err yet they were infallible teachers of the gospel as the holy scriptures affirm. Now it is true that this claim to infallibility appears to be circular, even the claim in saint Paul's second letter to saint Timothy is circular when it says that all scripture is inspired of God and is useful for teaching and so forth. The claim to infallibility, when it is credible, always comes from the mouth of one who claims it for himself but it is not from himself insofar as it is God who gives the gift and it is time and history as well as God himself who shows it to be true. Thus the prophets of the old covenant were infallible when they spoke the word of the Lord to the people and the kings of their times but the proof of their infallibility was not present immediately in their own time; some of the proof had to wait for events to unfold and some events did not unfold for centuries. The same is true of the Catholic Church's claim to infallibility; the proof unfolds and some of it is yet to be unfolded but the proof is not from the church about herself it is from history and from God. Some doubt and some deny this doctrine of infallibility, that is to be expected; some denied the infallibility of our Lord Jesus Christ and some deny it even now yet we who are Christians take it to heart and believe it not only outwardly but also inwardly as an article of our personal faith that we cannot deny without denying the very faith that defines us as Christian. So the answer to your question is that the Catholic Church's claim to infallibility appears to be circular in exactly the same sort of way that the prophets's claims did and that the Lord Jesus Christ's claims did and as our own claims about the holy scriptures do yet we (who are Christians) do not believe the claim to be circular because at its root is God and he is the proof and supplies the proofs in history and in the unfolding of things in this world and the next.

 

[MoreCoffee]

You wrote

It will not suffice to tell me: "We have an infallible Scripture as a substitute for an infallible apostolate of the first century," for an infallible book is of no use to me without an infallible interpreter, as the history of Protestantism too clearly demonstrates.

This seems to say nothing more than "it is so, because it is so".

I think that the purpose of what Cardinal Gibbons said is this: The need for an infallible interpreter of holy scripture is self evident when we look at what has happened among our separated brethren who reject the need; they have divided into many denominations each teaching what it believes to be the truth and the essentials of the faith yet all differing one from another on some points and some matters that they think to be essential or at least important enough to have divided from the rest.

 

[MoreCoffee]

You wrote

But if Jesus predicted the truth when He declared that the gates of hell should not prevail against His Church--and who dare deny it?--then the Church never has and never could have fallen from the truth; then the Catholic Church is infallible, for she alone claims that prerogative, and she is the only Church that is acknowledged to have existed from the beginning. Truly is Jesus that wise Architect mentioned in the Gospel, "who built his house upon a rock; and the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat upon that house, and it fell not, for it was founded upon a rock."[Matt. vii. 24. et seq.]

Where does the "the Catholic Church... is the only Church that is acknowledged to have existed from the beginning" come from? Does the Catholic Church of today look like the early church we see in the book of Acts? If not, surely it either did not exist from the beginning or has deviated from how it worked in the beginning and has therefore fallen into error?

The short answer is "yes" the long answer is that like any living thing the Catholic Church ages and grows so in its infancy it was not exactly like it is in its maturity.

 

[popsthebuilder]

PRIDE.... I think that is the most common appeal in bad theology.....

Individuals (persons, denominations, sects, cults) insisting that SELF is smarter than God and has been individually appointed by God to "make sense" out of the "mess He left us in Scripture." It is an appeal to the BRAIN of SELF who - being SO smart and/or the SOLE one God leads and teachers - will clear things up for God who frankly did a really bad (or just inadequate) job of revealing things to us.

In the words of my Greek Orthodox friend, "the heart of all heresy is the unwillingness to shut up." Pride.... individualism....

My Lutheran pastor often comments that HUMILITY is the basis of all good theology. That includes the humility to SHUT UP, to let GOD have the last word, to admit "I don't know," to let things stand as Scripture states. And the humility to embrace that Scripture wasn't given to ME exclusively and individually (whether ME is a person or church or deneomination or sect or cult), the Holy Spirit doesn't just lead ME, the church is not ME.

Ironically, Christianity has often been dominated with enormous, unmitigated, self-glorifying, power-grabbing PRIDE..... humility/community have not been hallmarks. This point was central as to why I left the RCC.



My view...


- Josiah

We must be selfless and giving in all that we do. Pride can only come in as a side effect from Faith and the knowledge of doing right by God through Christ. Pride, and praise must all be directed through Christ to the Father only.

Faith in selfless Unity through Good

 

[popsthebuilder]

You know the rhyme, paraphrasing a hymn:

"Wonderful things in the Bible I see,
Especially what's put there by you and by me."

That's terrible, and the cause of much confusion. The Romans did a pretty thorough job of making a mass of neutered confusion out of man, despite man's best efforts a to understand reality.

Faith in selfless Unity through Good

 

[popsthebuilder]

The Roman Catholic Church has been deceiving people for over two thousand years. The Age of Enlightenment was actually humanity's downfall. Science as we know it or imperial it data comes from the word Imperial this word comes from the word imp and literally means shell or husk or neutered it is in reference to how humanity is now worthless and with no power. The Roman Catholic Church and its partners knowingly manipulated scripture through translation in order to confuse the Gentiles. This in no way means that the scripture is wrong they simply used small unnecessary words for confusion. The teachings of Christ are to follow in his likeness and do as he did. He was selfless and giving everything that he thought and did was through God and for the good of all existence. Thank you, praise God.

Faith in selfless Unity through Good

 

[popsthebuilder]

None are infallible who are but men. Only through Christ can one be infallible, for how can you place fault on that which has paid for all sin through self sacrifice? We must rise from curruption and manipulation to a new life with God. Only if we claim to be truthful in our knowledge and belief, of course. Thank you.

Faith in selfless Unity through Good

 

[popsthebuilder]

The church is in error through its division. Christianity is to be the religion of unity under God, not division under man.

Faith in selfless Unity through Good

 

[popsthebuilder]

You ask about being self referential (basically, that infallibility is a circular argument because the very Church which lays claim to it uses it as proof of her infallibility) and I will answer this way. The church is infallible as I explained in my previous post but not as some (who are usually not in communion with her) say as individuals who have some special (near magical) claim on personal infallibility. As I mentioned not even the apostles of our Lord could claim a permanent personal inability to err yet they were infallible teachers of the gospel as the holy scriptures affirm. Now it is true that this claim to infallibility appears to be circular, even the claim in saint Paul's second letter to saint Timothy is circular when it says that all scripture is inspired of God and is useful for teaching and so forth. The claim to infallibility, when it is credible, always comes from the mouth of one who claims it for himself but it is not from himself insofar as it is God who gives the gift and it is time and history as well as God himself who shows it to be true. Thus the prophets of the old covenant were infallible when they spoke the word of the Lord to the people and the kings of their times but the proof of their infallibility was not present immediately in their own time; some of the proof had to wait for events to unfold and some events did not unfold for centuries. The same is true of the Catholic Church's claim to infallibility; the proof unfolds and some of it is yet to be unfolded but the proof is not from the church about herself it is from history and from God. Some doubt and some deny this doctrine of infallibility, that is to be expected; some denied the infallibility of our Lord Jesus Christ and some deny it even now yet we who are Christians take it to heart and believe it not only outwardly but also inwardly as an article of our personal faith that we cannot deny without denying the very faith that defines us as Christian. So the answer to your question is that the Catholic Church's claim to infallibility appears to be circular in exactly the same sort of way that the prophets's claims did and that the Lord Jesus Christ's claims did and as our own claims about the holy scriptures do yet we (who are Christians) do not believe the claim to be circular because at its root is God and he is the proof and supplies the proofs in history and in the unfolding of things in this world and the next.

No. Not the same. Not the same circular. You speak of the individual. What you speak of is the betterment of few by the sacrifice of many. You knowingly blind, yet not with light but, spinning of deceit. Infallibility is orbital, or reciprocal in nature, and in no way benefits the cause, yet maintains order for the sake of good of all. As in unity through God for the sake of his miraculous creation. Good begets good. Thank you, praise God.

Faith in selfless Unity through Good

 

[MoreCoffee]

The Roman Catholic Church has been deceiving people for over two thousand years. The Age of Enlightenment was actually humanity's downfall. Science as we know it or imperial it data comes from the word Imperial this word comes from the word imp and literally means shell or husk or neutered it is in reference to how humanity is now worthless and with no power. The Roman Catholic Church and its partners knowingly manipulated scripture through translation in order to confuse the Gentiles. This in no way means that the scripture is wrong they simply used small unnecessary words for confusion. The teachings of Christ are to follow in his likeness and do as he did. He was selfless and giving everything that he thought and did was through God and for the good of all existence. Thank you, praise God.

Faith in selfless Unity through Good

There's a confusing mixture of ideas expressed in your post. So let's deal with the ideas separately and one at a time.

The Roman Catholic Church has been deceiving people for over two thousand years.

The Catholic Church is about 2,000 years old but certainly not more than 2,000.​

The Age of Enlightenment was actually humanity's downfall.

Your post jumps to the 17th century which is commonly called the age of enlightenment or just simply the enlightenment. IT does not seem to have anything to do with the Catholic Church.​

Science as we know it or imperial it data comes from the word Imperial this word comes from the word imp and literally means shell or husk or neutered it is in reference to how humanity is now worthless and with no power.

I guess you meant empirical data which has not connection to "imp".​

The Roman Catholic Church and its partners knowingly manipulated scripture through translation in order to confuse the Gentiles.

I have no idea what you think happened with the holy scriptures but the Catholic Church played a major role in preserving them and propagating them in western Europe and throughout the world. I do not know what you think confused the Gentiles but the Romans were Gentiles themselves and the Catholic Church has a majority Gentile membership. But what has this to do with anything in this thread?​

This in no way means that the scripture is wrong they simply used small unnecessary words for confusion.

Which words are these "small unnecessary words"?​

The teachings of Christ are to follow in his likeness and do as he did. He was selfless and giving everything that he thought and did was through God and for the good of all existence.

You are correct when you say that Christians are called to follow Chrict's example and to generously give of themselves and of their wealth for the benefit of all.​

 

[popsthebuilder]

You wrote


The short answer is "yes" the long answer is that like any living thing the Catholic Church ages and grows so in its infancy it was not exactly like it is in its maturity.

Blasphemy.

The RCC is the only nonchurch for its insidious he'll bent manipulation. At its highest levels is fronts the likeness of God while all the while being of its twin, and most damning. Time is up. Too bad all that effort couldn't have been put to good use. Time is but temporary though. We know how it will end.

All praise is to the one loving, merciful, God of all creation through Christ.

Faith in selfless Unity through Good

 

[MoreCoffee]

Blasphemy.

The RCC is the only nonchurch for its insidious he'll bent manipulation. At its highest levels is fronts the likeness of God while all the while being of its twin, and most damning. Time is up. Too bad all that effort couldn't have been put to good use. Time is but temporary though. We know how it will end.

All praise is to the one loving, merciful, God of all creation through Christ.

Faith in selfless Unity through Good

Your post says "blasphemy" and your faith icon says "agnostic" so I am wondering which is it, are you an agnostic?