I think the story is in the Bible to teach future generations that God has put people into positions of authority and men should not usurp what God has established. I don't think it is meant to tell us that all people who disobey authority will be condemned to die, or to eternal death. It is a precedent for the attitude of humility that is demanded of us.
You appear to define some truth by the opinions of men you agree with.
Not at all. I came to the faith by first exploring the claims of Christianity, as I did for all religions. I searched for the truth, not taking for granted that the Bible was the inspired word of God. I took it to be just another historical book with religious writings, no different than any other "holy" book. I believed that there was a God, and so I explored whether we could see if He has spoken to man or a select group of men. Once I found that Catholicism had a legitimate claim, that its book WAS inspired by God, then naturally, I submitted to their authority. If this Church was established by God (which I believe it was, historically), then I follow ITS interpretations of its holy book, not my own. I didn't come up with my own theology, and then decide who was closest, and then followed them. I came a different route to Christianity. I was open to the truth, wherever I found it, wherever God led me. The points of convergence end in the Catholic Church.
Peter and the other apostles were human, were sinners, and were subject to error. Jesus himself proved that. I do not accept that Peter was infallible. As an apostle, he had a special closeness with Jesus, but he remained human and subject to human failing. His writings in the Bible were inspired, and thus perfect, but I don't see what made him a perfect man after Pentacost.
You misunderstand what the charism of infallibility is. It has nothing to do with a PERSON, but the person's OFFICE. Peter was not infallible. Galatians makes that clear. BUT when Peter was teaching the faith, he WAS infallible by nature of the Holy Spirit's protection. Paul ALSO thought HE was infallible:"
"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." Gal 1:8
As an Apostle of Christ, Paul KNEW that the Gospel he taught could NOT be incorrect - it was from God (not because Paul was perfect). The Church teaches that it is infallible ONLY when it makes a solemn definition of faith or morals. Individual bishops are not infallible, with the exception of the Bishop of Rome - and this is considered an extraordinary charism (not normal). This particular infallibility was only used twice in 150 years, for example. Ordinarily, though, the Church is considered infallible when it has taught something "all the time, everywhere, in every age". Again, don't confuse infalliblity with impeccability. Popes sin. But the doctrines that they teach, the Gospel, cannot be in error, because they are guided by the Spirit of Truth. Christ will not allow His Church to teach error.
We just don't put our trust in men.
You seem to be trusting your own interpretations above and beyond what the Church has taught for 2000 years on particular subjects. Why are you right and the Church has been wrong for so long? So the Christians of pre-100 AD who believed that the Eucharist was the REAL presence of Christ were wrong, all the way up to today? See where private interpretation leads you? You place your trust in yourself. The Spirit guides the Church on such matters, not ourselves. We are wounded charecters and cannot be relyed upon to agree on doctrine. Doesn't thousands of denominations make this clear?
You seem to say that your Church has "the keys" to truth because you trace it back to the apostles.
The Apostles were given special protection to not teach error, not me. By their conveyance of the Holy Spirit upon their successors through the laying on of hands, they continued Apostolic Succession, the guarantee that Christ's doctrine would not be corrupted. The Church teaches what was handed down, not what they make up.
Of course, you would admit that certain Catholic clergy have proven themselves unworthy, either through commission or omission. Why would I trust a priest who could be among those who commit such and such a sin habitually, 100% in defiance of the core of "Christian in general"/Catholic teachings?
Yes, some have been a source of scandal to the faithful. Again, we place our trust in the fact that the Spirit guides the Church as a whole, not individual priests or bishops. Christ said that there would be weeds within the Church, wolves in sheep's clothing. Christ said these would be...
"...better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones." Luke 17:2
To whom much is given, more will be expected. Thus, those priests will be judged accordingly. Bishops who were lax with their charge. Priests who were perverts or taught heresy. Christ promised we'd see such things. But He also promised that He would guard His Church from error. The teachings of the Church, not the individual priest or bishop, is guarded. The Sacred Deposit of the Faith cannot be corrupted by men. We believe that DESPITE man, Christ will continue to have the Word presented to future generations - the Kingdom of God must go out to all the world.
When I hear a priest or bishop who teaches heterodoxy, or is lax in his morals, I pray for them. I pray for those who hear their incorrect teachings or witness their un-Christ-like life. But it is not our place to lead the Church. We have confidence that Christ will provide new men to lead His sheep. We trust in God that He will provide a way to cleanse His Church. If we relyed on unguided men, the Church would have fallen hundreds of years ago. Its existence throughout its checkered history is proof that it is guided by God, despite the devil's efforts to destroy it.
My point is only that men sin, whether they are in the clergy or not, of any faith. I do not trust my own pastor, whom I love, just because he is my pastor. I trust in God, prayer, and the word.
As a Catholic, we have sources to go to and check against what a priest might teach. We don't have to take his word for something. The job of a priest or bishop (regarding teaching) is to preach the FAITH, not HIS spin on it. We take the Deposit of Faith seriously because we believe it was handed down from generation to generation, beginning with Christ and the Apostles. As a result, we, knowing that the faith is presented in the Catechism or in Counciliar documents, can figure out if a priest is on the level or not. WE do not judge whether a priest is incorrect. We weigh his word against what has gone before him - the Deposit of faith. Thus, WE are not using private interpretation. Catholics believe what has been passed down from Peter and Paul and their successors who have plumbed the depths of the Apostles' teachings.
Regards
You believed there was a God. You searched. You found Catholicism, you liked it, and you accepted their teachings. You accepted that the Church interprets scripture. You were open to the truth, wherever you found it, wherever God led you. Your points of convergence ended in the Catholic Church. Based on God's leadership, you believe that you are right in your faith and that other faiths contain error.
I believed there was a God. I searched. I found a Bible-based faith, I liked it, and I accepted its teachings. I accepted that the Bible interprets itself. I was open to the truth, wherever I found it, wherever God led me. My points of convergence ended in a Bible-based faith. Based on God's leadership, I believe that my faith is right and that other faiths contain error.
Again, don't confuse infallibility with impeccability. Popes sin. But the doctrines that they teach, the Gospel, cannot be in error, because they are guided by the Spirit of Truth. Christ will not allow His Church to teach error.
This is a brand new teaching for me, so thank you. In the normal course of life, I have heard it said a hundred times by lay Catholics, something to the effect that "the Pope is infallible and cannot sin". (I had to look up "impeccable" to put your use into context, and now I see what you mean.) Just to be sure, are you saying that whenever we talk about "papal infallibility" we are only talking about the truth of the message, and it has nothing to do with the man himself?
You seem to be trusting your own interpretations above and beyond what the Church has taught for 2000 years on particular subjects. Why are you right and the Church has been wrong for so long? So the Christians of pre-100 AD who believed that the Eucharist was the REAL presence of Christ were wrong, all the way up to today? See where private interpretation leads you? You place your trust in yourself. The Spirit guides the Church on such matters, not ourselves.
I claim no authority on any of my beliefs because I say so. You believe the Spirit leads you to the truth through the Church, and I believe the Spirit leads me to the truth through the Bible. I do make interpretations, and they are in part based on what other men I trust have thought before me. My ultimate test is always whether the teaching is Biblical and in context. Yes, I do believe the Spirit knows the extent of my spiritual gift of intellect, uses it, and leads me to understanding.
Why are you right and the Church has been wrong for so long? So the Christians of pre-100 AD who believed that the Eucharist was the REAL presence of Christ were wrong, all the way up to today?
Well, IN THE ONLY SENSE THAT LONG-TERM ERROR IS POSSIBLE, how long have the Muslims been wrong?
The Spirit guides the Church on such matters, not ourselves. We are wounded characters and cannot be relied upon to agree on doctrine. Doesn't thousands of denominations make this clear?
Jo, that is a flat out distortion and you know it. Protestants are not splintered into thousands of different directions. Do you really think this? The core principles are fairly simple and substantially universal. We claim no ownership of or responsibility for such other faiths as Mormonism or JWs. That isn't us.
The Apostles were given special protection to not teach error, not me. By their conveyance of the Holy Spirit upon their successors through the laying on of hands, they continued Apostolic Succession, the guarantee that Christ's doctrine would not be corrupted. The Church teaches what was handed down, not what they make up.
(I did not mean to imply that I thought you were declaring anything on your own authority.) Does the Church really only teach what was handed down to them from predecessors, or does it install new teachings? I thought that Church history is filled with new teachings, even if they are based on what was handed down they are still new. There is nothing wrong with this, new issues in modern life present themselves and the Pope gives a teaching.
My point is that Popes are still men. You must have a private list of "favorite" Popes who did things you agree with. You must also have a list of least "favorite" Popes who did not. Whatever the Pope says is what the Church adopts and teaches. There's no vote as far as I know. Do you hold that Christ's doctrine has never been corrupted under any Pope, as you said?
When I hear a priest or bishop who teaches heterodoxy, or is lax in his morals, I pray for them. I pray for those who hear their incorrect teachings or witness their un-Christ-like life.
So as do I for mine own, amen. I think that is the perfect approach to take.