We say it, so you must believe us.
Posted on 04/28/2015 6:01:54 PM PDT by Salvation
Only God is infallible. Anyone who asserts otherwise is satanic and anti-Christ.
Tradition, Scripture and Magisterium Ping!
Exactly what this article says.
Thanks.
Allen interview of Cardinal George supports report of ‘parallel magisterium’ worries
The Magisterium: A Precious Gift (Catholic Caucus)
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: The Charism of Infallibility: The Magisterium
Anti-Popes and Dangers of a Parallel Magisterium (Church under attack) [Catholic Caucus]
Pontiff Calls for Complete Fidelity to Magisterium
Modernism and the Magisterium
Catholic Word of the Day: EXTRAORDINARY MAGISTERIUM , 10-23-09
“Exemplary loyalty and devotion to the Holy Father and the magisterium”
Nostra Aetate [Catholic Magisterium Rejecting Collective Guilt of Jews]
The Magisterium: A precious gift
Correction:
God’s teaching of ONE truth is infallible. The Bible we have did not fall from the skies and robotically self assemble itself.
They were assembled by the early Church Fathers under Petrine infallibility, and that Petrine infallibility did not disappear some eleven centuries later with the Reformation after the canonical texts were validated by the Church in the Synod of Rome in AD 382.
If you think the Church wrongly included some books or accidentally left out others, and therefore doubt Petrine infallibility, you need to assemble your own books in the Bible.
The Catholic Church has ONE Credo. We don’t need 30,000 different types of Protestant scriptural interpretations from David Koresh to Billy Graham to Jeremiah Wright. The latter is what you get from the heresy of Protestantism.
As the renowned essayist Hillaire Belloc put it, unlike other heresies, Protestantism “spawned a cluster of heresies.”
We say it, so you must believe us.
Amen. And I have a mixed= Catholic and Protestant family (and some Jewish members as well)
quote==>
Ja.2.21 Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?
James made this claim to justify his works-righteousness gospel:
Ja.2.22-24 You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23 And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called God's friend. 24 You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.
But Abraham was credited as righteous (Ge.15.6, Ga.3.6) ten years before the incident with Isaac in Ge.22. There is nothing about Abraham being considered righteous because of the incident with Isaac. This incident with Isaac was about Abraham's obedience to God's specific instructions and subsequent earthly blessings bestowed on him, not his righteousness. "Now I know that you fear God...I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and the sand on the seashore." Abraham's righteousness was "fulfilled" when "he believed God" in Ge.15. Between these two events God instructed Abraham to institute circumcision as part of His covenant with Abraham (Ge.17). Why would James not site this as the "fulfillment" of Abraham's righteousness? Was it not enough works? Paul explains:
Ro.4.9-11a Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness. 10 Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! 11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised.
Paul confirms that Abraham was credited with "righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised." Here's the timeline:
1) faith/righteousness = Ge.15
2) circumcision = Ge.17
3) Isaac incident = Ge.22
But, presuming James is correct, how does James know that the Isaac incident was enough? And how are we to know when we have done enough works so that our own righteousness is "complete" as James attributed to Abraham? Must we offer up our sons as well? What if we don't hear God say "stop!"? And just what are we to make of the statement of Ge.15.6 "Abraham believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness"? If Abraham, without sufficient works, was not "completely" credited as justified for the ensuing ten years, what did Moses think he was doing declaring that God credited Abraham as righteous just for believing?
Ja.2.24 You see that a person is [being] justified by what he does and not by faith alone.
James here illustrates that not only does he not understand justification, but he is not even consistent in what he espouses. In verse twenty one he claimed that Abraham "was considered righteous for what he did". He also claims in verse twenty two that "his faith was made complete by what he did." So Abraham had accomplished righteousness according to James. But then James in an about face claims that justification is an ongoing process - "a person is [being] justified by what he does". (Even though the "being" is excluded from most translations it is correct based on the Greek grammar.) James now claims that justification is an open-ended proposition. In other words, James insists that justification is a continually on-going process - a complete contrast with what he claimed about Abraham.
The answer to James’ original question is NO, Abraham was NOT considered righteous "for what he did." Paul confirms this in Romans:
Ro.4.1-5 What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, discovered in this matter? 2 If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works [or as James put it, "what he did"], he had something to boast about—but not before God. 3 What does Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”
4 Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation. 5 However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness.
If Paul had agreed with James he would have confirmed what James said. But he did not - he contradicted James in stark black and white. Paul and Moses agree, and James is the odd man out. James tried to pull a fast one, and even if this were the only evidence against the canonicity of James, it would be enough by itself.
<==/quote
As a side note, Mid-Acts Dispensationalism does not explain this blatant contradiction between James, and Moses and Paul.
This is just one of many evidences that I explore in my book that leads the conclusion that the epistle of James is not inspired of God and not canonical.
This proves that there are serious questions about the legitimacy of the Sacred Magisterium and the NT canon.
Sorry, but this is just a bunch of gobbledygook.
“Petrine infallibility”
Repeating this claim is silly. It wasn’t true the first time you posted it Steelfish.
There isn’t a single Christian that is infallible, but we serve a perfect God.
That, of course is absolutely true....however, He can, and did, guide and inspire man to make infallible statements and proclamations. He does have that power you know....and the authors of the Bible and the Catholic church have been granted that extraordinary and exclusive authority.
what you bind on Earth will be bound in Heaven....do you suppose that He would allow error to be bound on Earth????
You misread. The Bible was put together by Petrine authority after hundreds of years of sorting out various scriptural fragments. Maybe it will help if you study historical texts and traditions. If you think the Catholic Church was not infallible, then please do not refer to the Bible since maybe our Church faltered in sorting out the valid Biblical texts.
Protestantism today is a joke and a caricature. It has disintegrated into bits and pieces with every Tom, Dick, and Harry and Foursquare Church pastor purporting to teach the Word of God.This is the rubbish the Reformation spawned and why any number of eminent Protestant theologies have come around toward dumping this heresy and embraced Catholicism.
Dr. David Anders speaks for a number of them.
“By the time I finished my Ph.D., I had completely revised my understanding of the Catholic Church. I saw that her sacramental doctrine, her view of salvation, her veneration of Mary and the saints, and her claims to authority were all grounded in Scripture, in the oldest traditions, and in the plain teaching of Christ and the apostles.”
“I also realized that Protestantism was a confused mass of inconsistencies and tortured logic. Not only was Protestant doctrine untrue, it bred contention, and could not even remain unchanged.”
Of course, we are not quoting here the great Catholic theologians in the traditions of the early Church fathers (theologians) like Augustine, Aquinas, Neman, and Benedict.
The real problem with Protestantism is that it thrives in shallow waters. This is why we have crooks like Joel Osteen and Creflo Dollar because of the low -information congregations they attract, not unlike the local neighborhood Protestant churches.
Nor is the pope as an individual. What is infallible is Jesus Christ working through the church that he established. Thus the pronouncements of the pope are only infallible when he officially exercises his office on questions of faith and morals. It is the office, not the person, which is infallible. God is quite capable of preventing his church from teaching error, no? If not then we have no way to know what should be included in the Bible in the first place.
“Did God REALLY say.....?”
First, friend, I did not misread.
The Scriptures were inspired by the Holy Spirit - two thirds before the Christian assembly began on earth. God continued to inspire, preserve and collect His Sacred Words. In saying so, Christians assign infallibility where it was - on the God who soveignly worked through history and through fallible men to inspire, preserve and collect His Word. It is our faith in His attributes that gives us confidence in His Word.
Since the early collections were first assembled, they have been re examined and corrections made.
None of the inspired writers were infallible. God “moved them” as He willed, to write his word.
Protestantism has problems exactly because all men have the nature of Adam and consequently are fallible. We see the same in your gay and pedaephile priests. In the heresy of your bishops, in the lack of conversion of your “members”, who never attend. It is the nature of man.
Best.
“Nor is the pope as an individual. What is infallible is Jesus Christ working through the church that he established. Thus the pronouncements of the pope are only infallible when he officially exercises his office on questions of faith and morals. It is the office, not the person, which is infallible. “
Of course I would expect you to believe this kind of thing, since you are required to believe it. My point is that as an argument, it is ineffective unless you have prebelief in it as a truth. We find no such evidence in Scripture.
“God is quite capable of preventing his church from teaching error, no? If not then we have no way to know what should be included in the Bible in the first place.”
This is a false argument. God is capable of many things He does not do and didn’t do in history. The catholic denomination has taught error and teaches error today. Despite those things, we have confidence in His Word.
Our sovereign God is the foundation of our confidence in His Word.
**What is infallible is Jesus Christ working through the church that he established. **
Right you are.
The Word of God = Jesus Christ, right?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.