Church was also defined as two or more people coming together to worship HIM. Never mentioned anything about a Pope. And calling anyone “infallable” is blasphemous
your ignorance of history is showing here.....the pope isnt infallible unless speaking ‘ex cathedra’ on faith and moral issues being defined for the whole church.
secondly, the scripture is: For where two or more gather in my name, there I am with them.
nowhere does it mention that as a church.
I do find it fascinating though. In one breath, i can be criticized for looking solely to the scripture and prayer (direct to God prayer),,,,
Then without a hint of irony, the same critic will try to use the scripture to try to prove HIS point of the moment, usually the papacy, what constitutes the church, etc.
I always smirk when im wrong for following the Bible, and a catholic can prove it to me by referring to,,,,wait for it.
The BIBLE.
As i see it, the main difference is who gets to tell me what it means. DO you need a centralized authority figure in a castle, or can an individual read it, and prayerfully approach God? And i think this is why the RCC has had such historic success in places plagued by Monarches and strong central governments (excepting communist).
Protestant doctrine seems to appeal more to people as they embrace the individual and freedom of thought.
I feel fine when i remember that everyone stands alone to be judged before God. So if i am judged that way, it makes sense that God is comfortable being prayed to by me and won’t worry that i didn’t follow some temporal, error prone, chain of command.
I'll bite on that. If I say "Paul was infallible [definition: preserved from teaching error by the indwelling power of the Holy Spirit] in writing Romans," who or what have I blasphemed?
Meanwhile, Kenneth Copeland taught that "Jesus died spiritually". That's real blasphemy, right here in River City.