|
Infallibility
|
Posted on 05/16/2012 11:39:02 AM PDT by Salvation
Infallibility
Christ gave to Simon Peter and his successors, the Keys to the Kingdom and the power of binding and loosing. To the Popes was given the authority to teach. To them, in this regard, was given the charism of infallibility. "Infallibility" is not "impeccability" -- the inability to sin. Catholics do not believe that Popes are sinless and never err. Infallibility is simply a gift that is expressed in very specific ways, limited by Sacred Deposit of Faith -- Tradition, Scripture, and the unanimous writings of the early Fathers. As put by Vatican I:
For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by His revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by His assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or Deposit of Faith transmitted by the Apostles.
Or, as put even more bluntly by Pope Pius XII in Mystici Coporis Christi:
[Nor] may anyone argue that the primacy of jurisdiction established in the Church gives such a Mystical Body two heads. For Peter in virtue of his Primacy is only Christ's Vicar; so that there is only one chief Head of this Body, namely Christ, who never ceases Himself to guide the Church invisible, though at the same time He rules it visibly, through Church rested not on Him alone, but on Peter too, its visible foundation stone.
The Pope may explain doctrines more fully, he may go more deeply into them, he can extrapolate from moral principles to shed light on new situations that arise, but he cannot contradict what has been handed down by Christ and the Apostles and still claim infallibility for that teaching.
Protestants believe the first Pope possessed the charism of infallibility.
Now, they might not believe that Peter was the first Pope (which he was), but they believe that his Epistles are infallible. They also believe that Luke, Matthew, Mark, Paul, Jude and John wrote infallibly. They believe that Moses "was infallible," too. And Hosea, Micah, Nehemiah, Isaiah, David, Solomon, Zechariah -- any Patriarch, Prophet, Apostle, or Evangelist who wrote a Bibilical Book is deemed by Protestants to be infallible.
But somehow they see things as having changed, and the idea of the gift of infallibility being given to man is laughed off as "Popish superstition" at best, and as "Romish sacrilege" at worst.
Why they believe this, when since Israel's origins God has always provided authoritative leaders, I don't know. From Abraham to Jacob to Moses to David to Solomon, et. al., throughout the thousands and thousands of years of Israel's existence, God gave Israel earthly authority. But Protestants see this authority as having abruptly ended when the Old Testament Covenant was fulfilled and Israel's King of Kings took on flesh.
Malachi 2-7
For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts.
Matthew 23:2-3
The scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.
Did that earthly authorty pass away? If not, where did that authority pass on to?
Isaiah 22:21-23
And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. And I will fasten him as a nail in a sure place; and he shall be for a glorious throne to his father's house.
Matthew 16:18-19
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
The authority passed to Peter and to the priests of the New Covenant.
"But we don't believe that Moses and Jacob and David were perfect! Look at David -- he committed adultery! Just because they wrote infallible books doesn't mean they were perfect!"
Precisely. And Catholics don't believe that Popes are perfect and can't sin or that every word a Pope mutters is infallible. When David whored around, he sinned. When Solomon prayed to pagan gods, he sinned. When Peter denied Christ three times, he sinned. When Pope John Paul II kissed the Koran or failed to deal with heretic, Modernist Bishops and homosexualist priests, he sinned. Impeccability is not a part of the deal -- but all of these sinners had/have the charism of infallibility.
The Authentic (i.e. "authoritative") Magisterium of the Church -- i.e., the teaching office of the Church exercised by proper authority -- has different levels of infallibility:
Extraordinary Infallible Magisterium ("Solemn Magisterium"): this is exercised when the Pope, as supreme pastor of the entire Church, speaks ex cathedra (from the Chair of Peter) and solemnly defines a dogma concerning faith and morals to be held by the entire Church, or when a Dogmatic Council convened and endorsed by a Pope formally defines a matter of faith and morals to be held by the entire Church. This is a very rarely excercised assertion of authority (only a few times in the past few hundred years). When the Pope teaches using his extraordinary infallible Magisterium, or when a Council dogmatically defines something and the Pope endorses that defintion, Catholics must believe what is taught de fide, as an article of faith.
Ordinary Infallible Magisterium ("Constant Magisterium" or "Universal Magisterium"): this is exercised when the Pope, Council, Bishop, priest or any authorized teacher teaches in accordance with Tradition, the Sacred Deposit of Faith, and what has been always accepted and taught by the Church in the past
Merely Authentic Ordinary Magisterium: any teaching by Pope, Bishop, priest, or any authorized teacher, that does not fall into the above two levels of infallibility is, quite simply, fallible, even though it may be part of the Authentic Magisterium (that is, it is "authorized" teaching). Teaching at this level is owed obedience -- as long as obeying does not harm the Faith, lead to sin or the loss of souls, does not contradict the Faith, etc. If what is being taught contradicts the Faith, it not only can be resisted, it must be resisted.
In addition to Magisterium, the Pope can, of course, simply act as a private person and offer his personal opinions on anything from current events to sports to food to movies. These may be of interest to us Catholics, who tend to sensibly love -- or at least respect the office of -- the Holy Father, but they are not "Church teaching" in any way. In the same way, a Council may be called that is pastoral and not dogmatic in nature (such as Vatican II).
Now, some Catholics forget the second level of the Magisterium, the "Ordinary Infallible Magisterium." They forget the Sacred Deposit of Faith, the unanimous agreement of the early Christian Fathers, and Sacred Tradition. These "Catholics" are the "liberal Catholics" or "modernist Catholics" you hear so much from in the media. They are the ones who root for the ordination of women, the eradication of the Christian view of homosexuality, etc. These are the well-organized, well-funded loudmouth "Catholics" who eat away at the Church's teachings and have become well-entrenched in various dioceses.
Another type of Catholic forgets about that third level of teaching that is not infallible at all. Any time the Pope teaches, he must be heard, his authority given respect, and the teaching given the benefit of the doubt because it comes from the Vicar of Christ. But if it contradicts prior infallible Magisterium, it is not infallible -- and it must not be obeyed if it proves harmful to the faith. Catholics who forget this level of Magisterium try very hard to be "orthodox" by being obedient, but they often have a false sense of obedience -- an obedience that sometimes borders on a pre-conscious papolatry ("pope worship"), though, of course, they know better and know that "worshipping the Pope" would be a terrible sin. They usually have a very healthy sensus catholicus, a desire for traditional Catholicism, and a virtuous patience, but they simply attribute to the Pope authority he does not have and they truly need to come to a better understanding of what the Magisterium is. These Catholics are often called "neo-conservatives," "conservatives," or "neo-Catholics" (they often think of and refer to themselves as "traditional Catholics" though they are not). You will see these otherwise wonderful Catholics tying themselves into knots trying to defend some of the novelties that followed Vatican II, or sweating bullets making excuses for some of the Holy Father's more scandalous actions (e.g., "ecumenical" services that include praying with Animists, Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, Protestants; allowing altar girls and "Extraordinary Eucharistic Ministers", etc.), failures to act (e.g., lack of discipline given to Bishops), and opinions (e.g., support for the anti-subsidiarity, anti-life, anti-Christ United Nations).
Their desire to protect the Holy Father is understandable -- and laudable! -- especially since the papacy has been attacked so unfairly since the Protestant Rebellion and the ensuing secular revolution, most often with outrageous lies. But these Catholics have to wake up, study a bit, and defend true Catholic teaching as it has been known for 2,000 years.
If it has always been taught by the Church as a matter of faith or morals, it is infallible. If it is a solemn definition, it is infallible.
Ex., you are reading two Encyclicals. The first Encyclical reads:
Venerable Brethren, the red dogs runs at night. The cow jumped over the Moon. Jesus Christ is God. Little Jack Horner sat in a corner. Women may not be ordained to the priesthood.
In this document, the only parts which would be infallible would be the lines "Jesus Christ is God" and "women may not be ordained to the priesthood" because these have always been taught. This is teaching at the level of the Universal Magisterium, which is infallible.
The second Encyclical reads:
By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that X, Y, Z. Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith. And, by the way, the red dog runs at night.
Notice the explicit "we define" here? Notice that it is addressed to "anyone," not just to members of the Latin Church or of the Eastern Churches, etc.? Notice the penalty in place for non-acceptance of what is being said (if you don't believe this, you have fallen away from the Catholic Faith)? By these marks, you can know that infallible teaching is being expressed.
In this document, X, Y, and Z are infallible, but not "the red dog runs at night." This is teaching at the level of the Extraordinary (or Solemn) Magisterium, which is also infallible and is to be accepted "de fide." (Note: Protestants and uneducated Catholics who ask blankly, "Is Enclyclical X infallible?" need to recognize that a 100-page Encyclical may be written that is not infallible in any way, or has 10 paragraphs that are infallible, or 1 sentence that is infallible, etc.). This sort of exercise of the Solemn Magisterium is very rare, but very necessary when clarity is needed over a teaching that has always been taught, but whose details haven't been strictly defined.
All other teachings are owed obedience as long as they do not lead to a loss of Faith, harm the Church, impede the salvation of souls, lead to an evil, etc.
Summary:
Always been taught and believed: infallible
Solemnly defined by Pope or Council: infallible
Other teachings: fallible, but owed religious assent unless they prove harmful, lead to sin, etc.
In addition to the above authoritative excercises of the Magisterium is "ecclesiastical tradition." Ecclesiastical tradition is the body of disciplines and practices which Christ's Church has ordained to be the manner in which our Faith is lived out and expressed. To quote Brother Alexis Bugnolo, writing in Seattle Catholic:
Ecclesiastical Tradition is the term used by the Second Ecumenical Council of Nicaea, in 787 A.D., to speak of those pious customs of the Churches founded by the Apostles, which in some manner correctly apply the Catholic Religion to concrete practice over many generations. It does this most importantly in its 4th Anathema:
"If anyone despises or rejects any written or unwritten ecclesiastical tradition, anathema sit."Some examples cited by this council of ecclesiastical tradition are the veneration of the symbol of the Cross, icons, and statues. As an unwritten practice, kneeling for Communion is an ecclesiastical tradition.
The details of ecclesiastical tradition (small "T") are not a matter of dogma per se, but they are the inerrant manner in which dogma and doctrine are taught, learned, expressed, and lived. The details of ecclesiastical tradition may develop; they are not written in stone. But they may develop only slowly, "organically," in terms of quantity or quality (not substance), and in such a manner that is consistent with Natural Law and which better expresses the Faith (or at least doesn't harm the Faith, such as the novel practices since Vatican II do). Many of the problems in the Church since the Second Vatican Council stem from the almost complete eradication or revolutionizing of ecclesiastical tradition, in spite of the Second Council of Nicaea's anathema against such things and in spite of the fact that they have proven dangerous to the Faith.
Amen....!
Not nearly as frightening as willful ignorance. The truth is always better served when one is willing to listen to the author of a statement explain what was meant rather than attempting to tell the author what he "really" meant. What does your secular dictionary say about Deuteronomy 9:23: "In like manner shalt thou do with his ass..."?
Peace to you.
Please read my comment #6. Obviously, the two of you do not believe in the infallibility of the Pope.
YET, you seem to have reached an ‘infallible’ conclusion about scripture in >your mind.
Are you infallible? Yes or No?
Do you have an infallible understanding of scripture? Yes or No?
You might be wrong? Yes or No?
Where did you get your understanding of the scripture? Did you go to a >real school & study the Bible? Yes or No?
Or is God ‘speaking’ to your heart & ‘giving you’ an >infallible message?
Are your ‘revelations’ infallible? Yes or No?
It’s easy for someone to comment on a Catholic thread. But the folks that are always doin’ a lot of carping never tell us about their >religion.
Tell us swapfox101 & boatbums = ARE YOU INFALLABLE? The answer is either Yes or No.
I’m just a sinner. Rom 3:23 But God’s word is truth (John 17:17) and given to us by his Spirit (2 Tim 3:16). Therefor his word is infilibility because God cannot lie..!(Titus 1:2)
“Not nearly as frightening as willful ignorance.”
Acts 3:17“Yet now, brethren, I know that you did it in ignorance, as did also your rulers”.
“The truth is always better served when one is willing to listen to the author of a statement explain what was meant rather than attempting to tell the author what he “really” meant.”
God’s word is truth. (John 17:17) His word(gospel) is the “power of God unto salvation (Rom 1:16)and in his gospel the righteousness of God is revealed. Rom. 1:17) And, it is with these words that we are saved. (Acts 11:14)
“What does your secular dictionary say about Deuteronomy 9:23:”
Right here, Moses reached the climax of Israel’s rebellions. “They did not believe God! ... This was the cardinal sin in the old dispensation as well as in the new.
“In like manner shalt thou do with his ass...”?
Peace to you.
And to u
That’s an extremely >cryptic answer. I was looking for a simple = Yes or No!
As I understand >your answer: you believe >you have an >infallible understanding of Scripture & >you believe that >you are being guided to truth by >God.
It seems >you think >you are a type of >pope in >your church.
The argument >you present is NOT NOT NOT really about the infallibility of the Catholic Pope.
It’s really about: “Who be the real-pope?” Please look again at my comment #6 & especially ‘Patrick Madrid’s comment about infallibility.
That’s an extremely >cryptic answer. I was looking for a simple = Yes or No!
There was NO simple yes or no question.
As I understand >your answer: you believe >you have an >infallible understanding of Scripture & >you believe that >you are being guided to truth by >God.
Do you beieve God’s word to be truth? (John 17:17)
Do you believe God’s Holy Spirit made a mistake in revealing His Word to mankind? (John 14:26 and John 16:13)
Do you believe God’s word is the power of God to salvation? (Rom. 1:16)
Do you believe God righteousness is revealed in the scriptures? (Rom. 1:17)
Do you believe that “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (John 1:1)?
Do you believe the Word became flesh? (”And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.”)
Do you believe something more than God’s word is needed for salvation?
It seems >you think >you are a type of >pope in >your church.
I’m no pope, I have only 1(one) HIGH PRIEST and that is Jesus Christ and NONE OTHER....! And, I have only one mediator between God and me and that is Jesus Christ and none other. I don’t need a pope for an advocate, I have Jesus Christ. (1 John 2:1, 1 Tim. 2:5) Do you think you need another earthly, sinful advocate other than Christ?
Do you have more than one spiritual Father?
The argument >you present is NOT NOT NOT really about the infallibility of the Catholic Pope.
The pope as u choose to call him is a mere man. He’s just a sinner and is NO BETTER than you or me. He in in NO WAY infallible PERIOD. (Rom. 3:23)
It’s really about: “Who be the real-pope?” Please look again at my comment #6
We know who the REAl HIGH PRIEST IS AND He is Jesus Christ. The question is who do you believe. The Catholic Church of God’s word.
& especially ‘Patrick Madrid’s comment about infallibility.
I do believe you are confusing impeccability with infallibility.
It’s obvious, you think you have an infallible understanding of scripture. We can see this ‘truth’ in all your answers.
Maybe, that explains your motive to come on to a Catholic thread & attack the Catholic Pope & Catholic understanding of Scripture.
Obviously swampfox101, you must think you be the pope of your church & have the ability to pontificate infallibility about scripture.
Just out of curiosity: Who elected you pope of your church?
Or, were you appointed by God as pope of your church as part of his infallible design for the salvation of the entire world?
I see you are good at deflecting questions and very poor at answering them.
“I do believe you are confusing impeccability with infallibility.”
I answereed you question on this, you just don’t like the answer.
It’s obvious, you think you have an infallible understanding of scripture.
I don’t believe that at all but I do believe God’s word is infallible. Do you?
Do you think God’s Holy Spirit made a mistake in revealing His GOSPEL to mankind? Do you think the Spirit made it so difficutlt to understand that man in incapable of understanding it? Do you believe God’s word to be TRUTH? Do you believe the WORD became Flesh? Do you believe the gospel can save your soul or do you believe something more is needed?
We can see this ‘truth’ in all your answers.
You are seeing only what u want too see. NO MAN is infallible PERIOD ONLY GOD’S WORD.
Maybe, that explains your motive to come on to a Catholic thread & attack the Catholic Pope & Catholic understanding of Scripture.
I have given you Chapter and verse in God’s word for everything that I have stated, you keep referring to some man and his writing. You can deflect all you want, what your can’t respond to is God’s word.
Obviously swampfox101, you must think you be the pope of your church & have the ability to pontificate infallibility about scripture.
I only quote to you God’s word, I will leave it up to you as to whether or not you think it is infallible. You do think God’s word is infallible don’t you?
Just out of curiosity: Who elected you pope of your church?
My church has NO POPE, only Jesus as HIGH PRIEST? Who is your POPE?
Or, were you appointed by God as pope of your church as part of his infallible design for the salvation of the entire world?
NO. God appointed HIS SON as HIGH PRIEST OF MY CHURCH. HIS infallible design for salvation in laid out in HIS WORD which is truth. John 17:17.
Who wrote the design for salvation in your chruch, GOD OR MAN?
Swampfox101, you be the one NOT NOT answering questions. I ask you: how come >you think your interpretation of Scripture is infallible? You do NOT NOT answer that question.
You quote all these Bible verses that to >you are relevant to infallibility of the Pope. There are other comments that are posted that speak >directly to God’s plan for a Church.
Please read the Bible. You may notice: Jesus Christ did not carry around a big sack of Bibles in the Holy Land. Jesus Christ built a Church. Jesus Christ told the >first Pope, ‘on you I will build my Church.’
Please call up the Pope of the Catholic Church. Ask the Pope, ‘How many Priests are in the Catholic Church?’
I’ll answer for the Pope: The Pope would say there is only >one high-Priest in the Catholic Church & He is Jesus Christ.
All the Priests here on earth stand in for Jesus Christ & carry on the work of Jesus Christ which is building up His body The >Church. All the human-Priests would say, Jesus Christ gave authority to the first >Apostles. & That authority has been handed on >unbroken from human-Priest to human-Priest for >two thousands years.
I keep calling you the >pope of your church because you do NOT NOT tell us the title you have in >your church that gives you the authority to interpret scripture infallibly.
Some folks are known as the Grand-Poobah or the walking Urim-Thummim of the New New covenant church. What is exactly is your Moniker in your church? Swampfox101 doesn’t sound like a very biblical title.
When you ask me ‘What do you believe?’ My answer is: ‘I believe what the Catholic Church teaches.’ There are a series of teaching posted by salvation on freerepublic about the Catholic Church & its beliefs.
What we do NOT NOT know here on this thread is “Where do you get your >authority that >you can state >infallible truths about scripture.”
Be direct, please tell us where do you get your >authority to speak with infallibility?
“Swampfox101, you be the one NOT NOT answering questions. I ask you: how come >”
Again you deflect and don’t answer. (1 Peter 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear;)
“you think your interpretation of Scripture is infallible? You do NOT NOT answer that question.”
When I have stated something, I gave you chapter and verse to back up what I am saying. What did I write that was not biblical? What verse what taken out of context. I am willing to search any verse in the Bible you send me.
“You quote all these Bible verses that to >you are relevant to infallibility of the Pope.”
I also quoted verses that are relevant to me, you, and ALL CHRISTIANS. I quoted those verses from God’s word to let you know that I wasn’t just spouting something I had heard. Verses like John 1:1, John 14:16, John 16:13 and others. These were quoted for the purpose of helping you understand if you chose to look at those scriptures.
There are other comments that are posted that speak >directly to God’s plan for a Church.
People make up God’s Church and God speaks to His Church(people) through His Son and only His Son today. (Hebrews 1:1) If God is writing something that speaks directly to God’s plan for the Church, does that not include me and other Christians? If I am a Christian, am I not part of the Church?
“Please read the Bible. You may notice: Jesus Christ did not carry around a big sack of Bibles in the Holy Land.”
Jesus didn’t have to carry a stack of Bibles around, he was the word. (John 1:1) Do you not understand that Jesus was the word become flesh? ( John 1:14 “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.”)
Jesus knew that the apostles that He chose would not remember everything that He taught them, so he made them a promise.(John 14:26 “These things I have spoken to you while being present with you. But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.”) Jesus sent His own Spirit to guide these men in writing His gospel. Truth (John 17:17)
“Jesus Christ built a Church. Jesus Christ told the >first Pope,”
Where in the “Whole” of the Bible does it say Peter was a Pope? Could you please give me book, chapter, and verse. In fact, could you please give me any book, chapter, or verse in the bible that uses the word pope?
“‘on you I will build my Church.’”
The Church wasn’t built on Peter, it was built on His cofession of Jesus being the Christ.(Matthew 16;17-19 “Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed[a] in heaven.”)
Why? Because Peter recognized who Jesus was..! The Church was built on Jesus. Jesus is the chief corner stone, not Peter.(Luke 20:17 “Then He looked at them and said, “What then is this that is written:‘The stone which the builders rejectedHas become the chief cornerstone’?)
Do you honestly think God would build His Church upon a mere man? Especially a man that denied His own savior just a few short yrs. earlier...!
Please call up the Pope of the Catholic Church. Ask the Pope, ‘How many Priests are in the Catholic Church?’
God’s Church is a royal priest hood. All christians are priest and Jesus in our High Priest. (1 Peter 2:9 “But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;”)
I don’t need a any man to tell me that. I have God’s word. (Hebrews 4:13-15 Seeing then that we have a great High Priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. 15 For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin.)
I’ll answer for the Pope: The Pope would say there is only >one high-Priest in the Catholic Church & He is Jesus Christ.
And ur Pope would be correct. Their is only ONE HIGH PRIEST. But you don’t even need the pope to tell you that, you have God’s word.
All the Priests here on earth stand in for Jesus Christ & carry on the work of Jesus Christ which is building up His body The >Church.
All Christians are priest and our job as priest is to fulfill the commission Jesus gave us to do. (Matthew 28:18-20 “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.)
All the human-Priests would say, Jesus Christ gave authority to the first >Apostles. & That authority has been handed on >unbroken from human-Priest to human-Priest for >two thousands years.
The keys that were given to Peter were given to all the apostles. Paul and others were NO less apostles that Peter. Peter was not in any way over the other apostles. They were all equal. Just as all priest are equal today. God is NO Respector of any man. (2 Cor. 11:5 5 For I consider that I am not at all inferior to the most eminent apostles. )
I keep calling you the >pope of your church because you do NOT NOT tell us the title you have in >your church
My title is believer. I am a believer in Jesus Christ, I am a mere man, a Christian. I have NO title or position.
that gives you the authority to interpret scripture infallibly.
I don’t interpret anything, I just take God at His word. If God throuh the scripture says His Son is our High Priest, I believe it, Period. No more no less. I just read God’s word and I believe it. How bout you? Is God’s word good enough for you or do you needd more? Do you think God’s word can be improve upon? Just curious....! I believe and obey, do you....?
Some folks are known as the Grand-Poobah or the walking Urim-Thummim of the New New covenant church.
In my church that role is reserved for Jesus Christ? How about you? What man in ur Church in your “Grand-Poobah?
What is exactly is your Moniker in your church?
I”m just a pilgrim a sojourner,( 1 Peter 2:11 Beloved, I beg you as sojourners and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts which war against the soul,”) a sinner.”(”Rom. 3;23 “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,”) How bout you? What is exactly your moniker in your Church?
Swampfox101 doesn’t sound like a very biblical title.
NO but it is patriotic.
When you ask me ‘What do you believe?’ My answer is: ‘I believe what the Catholic Church teaches.’
I believe what the Bible teaches. It is from God and it has the power to save. (Rom. 1:16 & 17 “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ,[a] for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. 17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “The just shall live by faith.””)
There are a series of teaching posted by salvation on freerepublic about the Catholic Church & its beliefs.
I have seen some of them.
What we do NOT NOT know here on this thread is “Where do you get your >authority
I have NO authority, I just read God’s word and quote it. The authority is all God’s no mine.
that >you can state >infallible truths about scripture.”
Becaus God’s word is infallible. I believe God and I believe His word, and I believe His word is truth. Do you have evidence to the contary? (John 17:17 “Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth. “)
Be direct, please tell us where do you get your >authority to speak with infallibility?
God’s word. The Bible. Where do you get yours? From God or From men or a group of men?
As I understand your answer: You are now admitting >you are >not infallible. That means you >can be >wrong.
Swampfox101, you have cited a number of passages from the Bible based on >your >fallible interpretation.
God walked Holy Lands building a Church. God promised that the gates of hell would never prevail against His Church.
The Bible & history actually proves that the Roman Catholic Church is the True Church set up by Jesus Christ.
You quote the Bible quite a bit & because you say it, you announce to all of us >your interpretation must be true. Thank you for admitting that >your interpretation may be wrong & that you are fallible.
Swampfox101, your interpretation is only correct when it is completely compatible with the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2813123/posts.
Here is a start about the Roman Catholic Church being the one true Church. The person posting as ‘salvation’ can provide all the links you need to start learning about the Catholic Church.
Please go to the Vatican website & look up the information contained in this post:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2875690/posts.
God gives >everyone the opportunity & the sufficient grace to get into Heaven. It’s a teaching of the Catholic Church.
You will notice that ‘boatbums’ name appears in the last ‘thread.’
Some folks want to just argue & not try to understand a Church that has been here on Earth for >two thousands years.
The person posting this thread has >numerous teachings about the Catholic Church & the Doctrines of the Church. Anyone that is >truly interested in the Catholic Church can ask for her to post a link to information.
Also, That’s a good Moniker. All I know about the Swampfox is from the Walt Disney movies. I’ve never seen the Mel Gibson movie. However, Mel Gibson’s movie about ‘The Passion of The Christ’ has an extraordinary portrayal of the Stations of the Cross.
So will I! In fact, even the Apostle Peter says so:
I Peter 2:5-10
Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light; Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.
Two things, if it's "hijacking" that you guys are afraid of, quit posting provoking threads that criticize other Christian traditions. Then second, when you state something negative and/or incorrect about "Protestants", then why shouldn't you expect some responses back? Hijacking, indeed! Maybe somebody needs some thicker skin.
Is that even a serious question? After all this time you SHOULD know where "our" truth is. It is the Holy Scriptures, The Holy Bible, because that is the ONLY thing God gave us that is infallible. The very words Jesus spoke while here on earth were written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit just as they were when Jesus ascended back to heaven, he continued to reveal truth through the Holy Spirit to those who were chosen to write it down.
Did Jesus give the "keys of the kingdom" to Peter? Yes, He did, but he gave those same keys to the other disciples as well. As much as I like jokes starting with, "St. Peter was standing at the pearly gates...", he isn't. The Gospel of Jesus Christ IS the key and it is the faith in that Gospel, in Him, which is what the church is built upon. I believe Jesus, not some ambitious guys hundreds of years later who thought having a pope/king would help consolidate their power.
I think threads like this are not necessarily provocative, they are factual. It’s that someone of a different stripe might think they are being provoked.
I post threads for the educational content — usuall — today I posted a fun one about dissident nuns, but posters either show ther learning and understanding or lack of learning and understanding on the threads.
They can be quite entertaining as well as the source for some good discussion.
You're supposed to ping someone when you mention their name. If you are referring to me as that "some folks" who want to argue and not try to understand, you couldn't be more wrong. Every doctrine I dispute of the Catholic Church's is based upon full knowledge of what the church teaches and how what Scripture teaches is counter to it. Now maybe you are incapable of accepting that your church could ever BE wrong about anything, but that is a whole different argument.
I hope you understand why I ignored your tricky little challenge to us. As swampfox has seen by your responses, there is no point in answering someone who has no interest in the answer and, instead, is out to prove their own point. The Pharisees tried the same tactic on our Savior many times and he refused to play their game. However, if you ever do have a sincere question about why I left the Roman Catholic Church, I would be more than happy to tell you.
Not "necessarily" provocative? Did you read the whole thing before you posted it? Here is the part that was provocative and NOT factual and which prompted my response:
Protestants believe the first Pope possessed the charism of infallibility.
Now, they might not believe that Peter was the first Pope (which he was), but they believe that his Epistles are infallible. They also believe that Luke, Matthew, Mark, Paul, Jude and John wrote infallibly. They believe that Moses "was infallible," too. And Hosea, Micah, Nehemiah, Isaiah, David, Solomon, Zechariah -- any Patriarch, Prophet, Apostle, or Evangelist who wrote a Bibilical Book is deemed by Protestants to be infallible.
But somehow they see things as having changed, and the idea of the gift of infallibility being given to man is laughed off as "Popish superstition" at best, and as "Romish sacrilege" at worst.
Why they believe this, when since Israel's origins God has always provided authoritative leaders, I don't know. From Abraham to Jacob to Moses to David to Solomon, et. al., throughout the thousands and thousands of years of Israel's existence, God gave Israel earthly authority. But Protestants see this authority as having abruptly ended when the Old Testament Covenant was fulfilled and Israel's King of Kings took on flesh.
The author was purposely provocative as well as incorrect - not factual. You and I have had this conversation many times and, regardless of your intent - be it learning or "entertainment" - it should not come as a surprise when others disagree and do so sometimes forcefully. It isn't a game to me.
This is a Catholic thread, and was hijacked even as I predicted.
I apologize for not ‘pinging’ you. I sent the first comment to you & swampfox. Some how the conversation became between swampfox & me.
I apologize to you again.
But as you are now back in the conversation =
Are you = boatbums = infallible? Do you ever think you may be >wrong when you express your understanding of Jesus Christ & the teachings of the Catholic Church?
It’s been my observation (like Patrick Madrid’s) that the real argument about infallibility is about:
Who possesses the gift of infallibility given by God.
There are a lot of folks that think they are the ‘pope’ of scripture & their understanding of ‘scripture’ is the >only true interpretation.
Are you infallible, boatbums?
It is NOT NOT a trick question. It’s a simple = Yes or No!
I can answer the question = just watch!!!
I gghd am a fallible person & I do NOT NOT have the same charism as any true Catholic Pope. The Pope is infallible as set out in the article leading this thread.
Are you infallible?
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.