Is the Catholic Church infallible?

[Justin108]

But it’s in Scripture. “He who hears you, hears me� “Whatever you bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven�. The Church is the ‘pillar and foundation of truth’ – all Scriptural! This IS how we are hear Christ.

Do these verses refer to the Catholic Church specifically? Is the Catholic Church infallible?

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 66 by tam]

Peter was appointed as the shepherd and we are the sheep.



I responded:


Quote:
Peter was never appointed as THE shepherd.

Christ is THE Shepherd.

We are HIS sheep. Peter is one of His sheep as well.


Please note the emphasis on the word THE.

This again? Scripture contradicts you. If Jesus is telling Peter, “feed my sheep�, one must logically ask himself, who feeds sheep? That would be a shepherd. I am NOT denying Christ is The shepherd – the fact that Peter was chosen and appointed to be acting shepherd does NOT deny Christ is The shepherd. My interpretation is Scriptural. Yours leaves out key passages in Scripture in order to fit your conclusion.

But more importantly, please note Christ's own words, because His are the words that matter, yes?

If Christ’s words matter, hear Him. He left us His Church. He told Peter, “Feed my sheep�. Let Peter feed us. Christ entrusted him to. Christ’s words matter, yes?

And I continue to think it odd you only listen to direct quotes from Jesus and ignore the rest of Scripture. Why accept the parts of Scripture that supposedly contain Jesus’ words, but ignore everything else?

6 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a]may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. -2 Timothy 3:16

Are these passages irrelevant because Christ Himself did not say them . . .

27 The fear of the LORD is a fountain of life, turning a person from the snares of death. –Proverbs 14:27

21 The tongue has the power of life and death, and those who love it will eat its fruit. - Proverbs 18:21

12 Fight the good fight of the faith. Take hold of the eternal life to which you were called when you made your good confession in the presence of many witnesses. -1 Timothy 6:12

21 The tongue has the power of life and death, and those who love it will eat its fruit. –Proverbs 18:21

Christ’s words matter AND so does Sacred Scripture AND Sacred Tradition. THIS does NOT contradict Christ! It is the means He gave us.

“I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd sacrifices his life for the sheep. A hired hand will run when he sees a wolf coming. He will abandon the sheep because they don’t belong to him and he isn’t their shepherd. And so the wolf attacks them and scatters the flock. The hired hand runs away because he’s working only for the money and doesn’t really care about the sheep.

“I am the good shepherd; I know my own sheep, and they know me, just as my Father knows me and I know the Father. So I sacrifice my life for the sheep. I have other sheep, too, that are not in this sheepfold. I must bring them also. They will listen tomy voice, and there will be one flock with ONE SHEPHERD.


His words. Not mine.

Yes, His words. These are His words too . . . , “Peter, feed my sheep� Why skip that part?

Quote:
Is the job of a shepherd not to feed his sheep?


The sheep belong to Christ. The sheep do not belong to Peter.

Right – and your point? Sometimes I have had others take care of my children, even make them dinner. They still belong to me, but I have given the person I entrusted their care with authority to act in my place. My children know to listen to this adult I have appointed. Them doing so, honors me. Them not doing so would actually be direct disobedience on their part and it would not be in their best interest to do so.

I show you the Scriptural evidence for my belief and you continue to hold your hands over your ears shouting, “I follow Jesus alone� even when there is proof, Jesus Himself did not say to only listen to Him. He actually said, “He who hears you, hears me�. But again, you cover your ears and simply repeat, “I follow Jesus alone.�


Scriptural evidence such as these?

"Come, follow Me," [Jesus] said, "and I will make you fishers of men."

"Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest."

On the last and greatest day of the feast, Jesus stood up and called out in a loud voice, "If anyone is thirsty, let him come to Me and drink."

Yes, Scriptural evidence just like those. I accept those verses. I accept all verses. You however, pick and choose. The verses you cite do not contradict the verses I cite.

Just in case you think that only applied to the apostles or disciples at that time

I think nothing of the kind, but let’s look at your verses . . .

"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations... teaching them to obey ALL that I have commanded you. Matt 28:19,20



"Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them."

"Whoever has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me. The one who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and reveal Myself to him."

What are Christ’s teachings? Not a lot of sincere truth seeking Christians can seem to come to agreement on this a part from Christ’s Church AND that is important. How can we keep Christ’s commands and follow His teachings (as we are instructed to do) if we don’t even know what those are? And there is no good way to know those teachings a part from the Church Christ left us. It’s why He left us His Church.

I can think of countless examples of the division within Christendom regarding Christ’s teachings, all who claim to be testing the expression according to the appropriate method and as anyone finds out, the only way the method can work is to have an earthly, audible, authoritative, united Church. Again, how can you test what you think you hear from Christ against what Christ actually teaches if there is no standard/universal/authoritative safeguarder of what He teaches? You can’t!!!!!! You are simply relying on personal interpretation – which is what has given us thousands of different Christian churches all teaching different things. Thousands of churches full of sincere individuals believing they are testing the expression. And yet, none of them come to the same conclusion. This is a problem and it should bother you.


It isn’t uncommon to hear about all the sincere devout Christians who love God with their whole heart and soul and want nothing more than to follow Christ and please our Lord. They continually seek Christ and long to know all that He has commanded and taught us. But there inevitably comes the time when they are torn about what Christ meant about this or that. They pray about it. They read Scripture. They discuss it with their fellow truth seeking peers and they are no closer to knowing for certain about something. This realization bothers them deeply. Neither they nor their peers have the authority to settle the matter. They are left with questions unanswered. They know this doesn’t sound like a set up Christ would have designed. They recognize the illogic. If Christ intended His Church to be One – to be united – and promised to remain with her, then He would have had to have made it that she (His Church) has the authority to guide us. After recognizing this is the only thing that makes sense, these tortured souls find their way home – to Christ’s Church on earth – the Catholic Church, where they know they are getting it right, because Christ gave us His promise He would not abandon His Church.

As for testing the inspired expressions (the message itself) I have shared repeatedly what my Lord has taught me:


We must test that message against Christ (His words; His deeds) and against love (since God is love; nothing that comes from Him will be against love), and we can test against scripture as well (always beginning with what Christ is written to have said and done).

And yet you never can answer what a sincere truth seeking Christian who follows your methodology should do when such methodology provides him no answer. When sincere Christians differ on their conclusions?

How do you test against Christ’s words when you and I can’t even agree what Christ’s words actually mean? How can you test against love when one person’s idea of love differs from another? How can you test against Scripture when so many can’t even agree on said Scripture?

The testing the inspired expression methodology can only work with acknowledging One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church as described in Scripture. Like I said, I have already brought up the Scriptural evidence showing us Christ’s Church must be one, visible, holy, authoritative, universal, and apostolic. I could go into greater detail with all of that if you want to start a new thread, but the bottom line is THAT is what Christ established and THAT is the only thing that makes sense.

Okay... first... please... PLEASE... quote this command from Christ for me.

I have already provided how we can know from Scripture that Christ established His Church and left her in charge. I will not repeat all of that again other than to say that is exactly how all the first Christians understood it and is exactly what they did, but you ignore both what Sacred Scripture has to say and history.

Second... you are proving MY point. You say that we must test what we hear against 'sacred scripture and sacred tradition'. When I asked you if you meant 'sacred scripture and sacred tradition' as the RCC interprets and has handed down, you said YES. So the natural conclusion to that is that you would test what YOU hear against the RCC, and if it contradicted the RCC (their teachings, their traditions), you would dismiss it (and you would not believe it could have been Christ to begin with).


Is that a correct or incorrect analysis?

You say that it is. Do those words sound familiar?

Early in the morning, the chief priests, elders, scribes, and the whole Sanhedrin devised a plan. They bound Jesus, led Him away, and handed Him over to Pilate. 2So Pilate questioned Him, “Are You the King of theJews?� “You have said so,� Jesus replied. 3And the chief priests began to accuse Him of many things.… -Mark 15:2

Was Jesus the King of the Jews?

Yes, of course, but not in the way Pilate would have understood that to mean. Jesus was King of all. His power was not simply of this world. You see the Church like many saw Jesus – they saw Him as a mere human. They missed His divine nature, so to them how blasphemous for Him to call Himself the King of the Jews or to think His power transcends earthly matters. You equally think it wrong for the Church to claim authority, even when Christ Himself gave her this authority. You miss it.

And am I to understand you would test what you hear against only the parts of Scripture that contain direct quotes from Christ and what you think those direct quotes mean? So, you would test what you hear and if it doesn’t agree with what you think you have already believe then you do not believe it could come from Christ, even though your current belief is based on your personal interpretation of Christ’s words. So your standard isn’t really Christ, because THAT is what we are testing. I am demonstrating how in your Christian view, the buck ultimately stops with you, not Christ, like you pretend.

Is that a correct analysis?

You: I follow Jesus.

Me: How do you know you are following Jesus?

You: I test all things against Jesus’ words, deeds, and teachings.

Me: And how do you know what Jesus’ words, deeds, and teachings are?

You: Because I follow Jesus.

Hmmmmmmmm . . . .

I'm pretty sure you said it to me, but I could have misread. I'm not going to go searching for it, so I will withdraw until until such a time as I come across it.

Good luck.

In the meantime, I will assume that you do not believe this. Do you believe that said people could learn directly from Christ (as Paul did)?

I have said this many times now too – of course we can learn directly from Christ. Neither Scripture or the Church will contradict Christ. Do you know anything about the Catholic Church beyond your pre conceived false stereotypes? The Church honors and encourages every individual’s deep personal relationship with Jesus, but you would rather paint things otherwise.

You are the one saying that a person MUST listen to the Church (by which you mean the RCC, a claim that is neither established nor true) and that one CANNOT listen solely to Christ.

WRONG!!!!! It IS listening to Christ to listen to the Church. And the reason that a person should listen to the Church is because it is clear Christ told us to. I have provided the Scripture establishing this and showing that it is in fact what all Christians believed. I also can establish the Catholic Church is Christ’s Church on earth. It is the only church that meets the four requirements of how we are to know Christ’s Church that Scripture talks about. The Catholic Church traces her origin back to Christ Himself. Christ promised to remain with His Church. Feel free to start a new thread to discuss it. I have already touched on some of it in this thread.

In the mean time, please stop suggesting Catholics don’t listen to Jesus or have a relationship with Jesus. It only shows you know very little about what Christ’s Church actually teaches and believes.

I might have to stop our conversation as you aren't exactly presenting anything new. I appreciate your passion and love for Our Lord, but believe your faith to be incomplete. It fails to acknowledge all of Sacred Scripture, doesn't acknowledge any Sacred Tradition, and also lacks the logic and reason that are important in any understanding. Peace.

[Overcomer]

How are we defining “church�? It isn’t a building or a denomination. It’s those who are united in accepting Christ’s gift of salvation in faith, being filled with the Holy Spirit, and following the Lord. I love the way Paul refers to the church as “the body of Christ� (see. 1 Cor.:12:12-14 and Eph. 4:1-16).

Also, earlier in this thread, someone stated that “the Bible didn’t exist for the first 400 years�. I would like to clarify that. The Old Testament Scriptures (called The Tanakh by the Jews) were, of course, around long before that. After all, how could Jesus have read from them and how could the authors of the gospels and Paul, etc. quote from them if it weren’t?

With regards to the New Testament, the first collection of its books was by Marcion, approximately 150 A.D., but he was anti-Jewish and left out any books he considered “too Jewish". So historians usually consider the first true canon to be the Muratorian Canon compiled in 170. A.D. The Muratorian Canon included all of the New Testament books except Hebrews, James, and 3 John.

In AD 363, the Council of Laodicea stated that only the Old Testament (along with one book of the Apocrypha) and 26 books of the New Testament (everything but Revelation) were canonical and to be read in the churches. The Council of Hippo (AD 393) and the Council of Carthage (AD 397) also affirmed the same 27 books as authoritative.

We also know that the gospels and letters were circulated in the early church. Second and third-century people such as Origen, Justin Martyr, Clement, Polycarp, etc. quoted them. So while it’s true that the church didn’t make the canon official until the fourth century, that doesn’t mean there was a lot of confusion about what was considered the Word of God in the preceding centuries. There wasn’t.

Now to the phrase, “He who hears you, hears me.� No citation is given, but I’m concluding that it’s Luke 10:16 which reads, “Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me; but whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me.�

In this passage, Jesus is talking to the 72 that he sends out in his name. He gives them the authority to heal people and cast out demons. None of them are named. I don’t think Peter was one of the bunch, however. Therefore, I’m not sure how it can be used to bolster the Roman Catholic Church’s (RCC) claims about Peter as the first pope, etc. It has nothing to do with that and indicates that Jesus entrusted a lot of people to act and preach in his name.

The origins of the RCC actually lie in Constantine’s declaration of Christianity as the imperial religion of the empire in the fourth century. On one hand, that seemed good because it meant an end to the persecution of Christians. On the other, a lot of pagans started joining Christian services without having any heart for the Lord at all just to please the emperor.

And that’s where we see the introduction of a lot of secular influences, things such as the use of incense which had heretofore been used in the courts of emperors, elaborate and luxurious clothing worn by preachers to set them apart from lay people, regal processions, etc. -- things all associated with the Roman Catholic Church today.

Sadly, participation in worship started to be limited to fewer and fewer people and that led to a greater and cumbersome hierarchy in the church. The Body of Christ got away from the “priesthood of believers� (1 Peter 2:5,9), putting more power (and also wealth) in the hands of a few men. See Justo Gonzallez’s The Story of Christianity for more on that.

And that leads me to the three views debated over the century re: the rock, namely, Peter is the rock, Jesus is the rock, and the rock is Peter’s confession of faith.

The early church did not teach that Peter was the rock. Early church fathers such as Augustine, Ambrose, Hilary, Athanasius, Chrysostom, and Origen, for example, interpreted it as meaning either Jesus or the confession of faith as the rock.

In fact, Augustine’s belief that the rock was Jesus was the accepted interpretation until the Middle Ages. Therefore, the Roman Catholic Church cannot say it was the belief since Day #1 of the church. That just isn’t true. And, quite frankly, it may be that those who decided to interpret it that way in the Middle Ages did so to validate their positions of power. See this article for more information:

https://bible.org/seriespage/nature-apostolic-office

If there is any leader among the apostles, it’s James. When the Jerusalem Council convenes, he chairs it(Acts 15:13, 19). He is also an elder of the church, called a “pillar� in Galatians 2:9.

And in Eph. 2:19-20, it speaks of “God’s household� being built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Jesus Christ as the cornerstone. So, while Peter might be one of the stones in that foundation, he wasn't the only one.

Therefore, if Jesus did indeed single out Peter as “the rock�, he didn’t mean that Peter was the ONLY one. In fact, all who know the Lord and spread the gospel of Jesus Christ have the keys to unlock the kingdom of heaven which, again, speaks to the reality of the priesthood of believers as noted in this passage from the second chapter of 1 Peter:

4 As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by humans but chosen by God and precious to him— 5 you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ . . . . 9 But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.

[tam]

[Replying to post 66 by tam]

Peter was appointed as the shepherd and we are the sheep.



I responded:


Quote:
Peter was never appointed as THE shepherd.

Christ is THE Shepherd.

We are HIS sheep. Peter is one of His sheep as well.


Please note the emphasis on the word THE.

This again? Scripture contradicts you.

Which part?

That Christ is the Shepherd? That we are His sheep? That Peter is one of His sheep as well?

If Jesus is telling Peter, “feed my sheep�, one must logically ask himself, who feeds sheep?

Why must one ask oneself that question? Christ told the apostles to feed the people following Him on previous occasions, did He not? He tells us to feed the hungry, does He not? Why must one read something more into these instructions than that?

But more importantly, please note Christ's own words, because His are the words that matter, yes?

If Christ’s words matter, hear Him. He left us His Church. He told Peter, “Feed my sheep�. Let Peter feed us. Christ entrusted him to. Christ’s words matter, yes?

Peter cannot feed anyone. Peter died almost two thousand years ago.

And why do you assume that Christ is referring to something other than physical feeding, physical food?

Why assume that the passage is not also a lesson in obedience.

Do you love me?

Yes?

Then feed my sheep.


If you recall, Christ said "If anyone loves me, they will obey my command." He then repeated this command three times with Peter for emphasis.

And I continue to think it odd you only listen to direct quotes from Jesus and ignore the rest of Scripture.

Christ comes first. His words come first. I don't ignore the rest of scripture but I do not let it (or someone's interpretation of it) override the words of Christ.

I think it odd that you ignore direct quotes from Christ in favor of something or someone else (written words or interpretations).

Why accept the parts of Scripture that supposedly contain Jesus’ words, but ignore everything else?

I do not ignore everything else, but I do put Christ first.

Because:

Christ is the One who is the Truth. He is the One to whom God said to listen. Christ is the One who has the words of eternal life.

And because even Christ said:"You diligently search the scriptures because you think that by them you have eternal life. These are the scriptures that testify to me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life."

To this day, people put other 'scriptures' or their religion first... when Christ should be first.

Continuing:

Because all teachings and claims should be held up to HIM and to HIS light; all teachings and claims must be understood and reconciled in accordance with His words. His words do not need to be understood and reconciled in accordance with someone else and their words.

Why do you do that? Why do you ignore His direct words in favor of the words or interpretations from someone or something else?

You asked below how I know I am following Him? Because HIS words are the ones I listen to and He is the One I put first. And He has never led me wrong.

6 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a]may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. -2 Timothy 3:16

Are these passages irrelevant because Christ Himself did not say them . . .

I never said other passages or scriptures were irrelevant, so that is a strawman. Only that they do not take precedence over the words of Christ. They must be reconciled with HIS words, not the other way around. He and His words come first.

“I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd sacrifices his life for the sheep. A hired hand will run when he sees a wolf coming. He will abandon the sheep because they don’t belong to him and he isn’t their shepherd. And so the wolf attacks them and scatters the flock. The hired hand runs away because he’s working only for the money and doesn’t really care about the sheep.

“I am the good shepherd; I know my own sheep, and they know me, just as my Father knows me and I know the Father. So I sacrifice my life for the sheep. I have other sheep, too, that are not in this sheepfold. I must bring them also. They will listen tomy voice, and there will be one flock with ONE SHEPHERD.


His words. Not mine.

Yes, His words. These are His words too . . . , “Peter, feed my sheep� Why skip that part?

Why do you favor an interpretation that contradicts His direct words?

"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations... teaching them to obey ALL that I have commanded you. Matt 28:19,20



"Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them."

"Whoever has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me. The one who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and reveal Myself to him."

What are Christ’s teachings? Not a lot of sincere truth seeking Christians can seem to come to agreement on this a part from Christ’s Church AND that is important.

I'm sorry, but I find that meaningless. A JW could say the same thing about their sect and so could others in other sects. Just because a religion might be internally consistent with its own teachings does not mean that it is consistent with the teachings of Christ.

Thousands of churches full of sincere individuals believing they are testing the expression. And yet, none of them come to the same conclusion. This is a problem and it should bother you.

It might bother me if I did not know my Lord (and once upon a time it did bother me, when I thought I needed to find the 'correct' religion). It might bother me if did not have faith in Him that He can and does teach and correct and guide and feed His sheep, Himself. Just as He said He would do ("I will not leave you orphans, I will come to you"; "if you love me you will obey my commands and my Father will love you and we will come and make our home within you"). He has proven this to me time and again.

Okay... first... please... PLEASE... quote this command from Christ for me.

I have already provided how we can know from Scripture that Christ established His Church and left her in charge. I will not repeat all of that again other than to say that is exactly how all the first Christians understood it and is exactly what they did, but you ignore both what Sacred Scripture has to say and history.

So you cannot quote this command from Christ.

Second... you are proving MY point. You say that we must test what we hear against 'sacred scripture and sacred tradition'. When I asked you if you meant 'sacred scripture and sacred tradition' as the RCC interprets and has handed down, you said YES. So the natural conclusion to that is that you would test what YOU hear against the RCC, and if it contradicted the RCC (their teachings, their traditions), you would dismiss it (and you would not believe it could have been Christ to begin with).


Is that a correct or incorrect analysis?

You say that it is.Do those words sound familiar?

Early in the morning, the chief priests, elders, scribes, and the whole Sanhedrin devised a plan. They bound Jesus, led Him away, and handed Him over to Pilate. 2So Pilate questioned Him, “Are You the King of theJews?� “You have said so,� Jesus replied. 3And the chief priests began to accuse Him of many things.… -Mark 15:2

Was Jesus the King of the Jews?

Yes, of course, but not in the way Pilate would have understood that to mean. Jesus was King of all. His power was not simply of this world. You see the Church like many saw Jesus – they saw Him as a mere human. They missed His divine nature, so to them how blasphemous for Him to call Himself the King of the Jews or to think His power transcends earthly matters. You equally think it wrong for the Church to claim authority, even when Christ Himself gave her this authority. You miss it.

I appreciate your attempt to explain in a different way, but I think you are dancing around the point that this testing is meaningless. All o f this is just a claim that the RCC makes about itself, and one that her own words and deeds contradict.

And am I to understand you would test what you hear against only the parts of Scripture that contain direct quotes from Christ and what you think those direct quotes mean? So, you would test what you hear and if it doesn’t agree with what you think you have already believe then you do not believe it could come from Christ, even though your current belief is based on your personal interpretation of Christ’s words. So your standard isn’t really Christ, because THAT is what we are testing. I am demonstrating how in your Christian view, the buck ultimately stops with you, not Christ, like you pretend.

Is that a correct analysis?

No.


**

I know I clipped more out of your post than I usually do, but like you said, much of this is repetition from this thread and a few others. And this post was long enough as it is. If there is something specific you still want addressed, please let me know.



Peace again to you, and to your household,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[RightReason]

[Replying to Overcomer]

How are we defining “church�? It isn’t a building or a denomination.

I have already discussed most of this with Tam. You both seem to be in the same camp in regards to what is meant by church, however I already showed via Scripture that the Church is not simply an invisible body of believers. I am afraid your understanding is incomplete.

Here is the evidence that the Catholic understanding of church is more in line with Scripture . . .


V. The Church is Visible and One
Matt. 5:14 – Jesus says a city set on a hill cannot be hidden, and this is in reference to the Church. The Church is not an invisible, ethereal, atmospheric presence, but a single, visible and universal body through the Eucharist. The Church is an extension of the Incarnation.

Matt. 12:25; Mark 3:25; Luke 11:17 – Jesus says a kingdom divided against itself is laid waste and will not stand. This describes Protestantism and the many thousands of denominations that continue to multiply each year.

Matt. 16:18 – Jesus says, “I will build my ‘Church’ (not churches).� There is only one Church built upon one Rock with one teaching authority, not many different denominations, built upon various pastoral opinions and suggestions.

Matt. 16:19; 18:18 – Jesus gave the apostles binding and loosing authority. But this authority requires a visible Church because “binding and loosing� are visible acts. The Church cannot be invisible, or it cannot bind and loose.

John 10:16 – Jesus says there must only be one flock and one shepherd. This cannot mean many denominations and many pastors, all teaching different doctrines. Those outside the fold must be brought into the Church.

John 17:11,21,23 – Jesus prays that His followers may be perfectly one as He is one with the Father. Jesus’ oneness with the Father is perfect. It can never be less. Thus, the oneness Jesus prays for cannot mean the varied divisions of Christianity that have resulted since the Protestant reformation. There is perfect oneness only in the Catholic Church.

John 17:9-26 – Jesus’ prayer, of course, is perfectly effective, as evidenced by the miraculous unity of the Catholic Church during her 2,000 year history.

John 17:21 – Jesus states that the visible unity of the Church would be a sign that He was sent by God. This is an extremely important verse. Jesus tells us that the unity of the Church is what bears witness to Him and the reality of who He is and what He came to do for us. There is only one Church that is universally united, and that is the Catholic Church. Only the unity of the Catholic Church truly bears witness to the reality that Jesus Christ was sent by the Father.

Rom. 15:5 – Paul says that we as Christians must live in harmony with one another. But this can only happen if there is one Church with one body of faith. This can only happen by the charity of the Holy Spirit who dwells within the Church.

Rom. 16:17 – Paul warns us to avoid those who create dissensions and difficulties. This includes those who break away from the Church and create one denomination after another. We need to avoid their teaching, and bring them back into the one fold of Christ.

1 Cor. 1:10- Paul prays for no dissensions and disagreements among Christians, being of the same mind and the same judgment. How can Protestant pastors say that they are all of the same mind and the same judgment on matters of faith and morals?

Eph. 1:22-23; 5:23-32; Col. 1:18,24 – again, the Church does not mean “invisible� unity, because Paul called it the body (not the soul) of Christ. Bodies are visible, and souls are invisible.

Eph. 4:11-14 – God gives members of the Church various gifts in order to attain to the unity of the faith. This unity is only found in the Catholic Church.

Eph. 4:3-5 – we are of one body, one Spirit, one faith and one baptism. This requires doctrinal unity, not 30,000 different denominations.

Eph. 5:25 – the Church is the Bride of Christ. Jesus has only one Bride, not many.

Eph. 5:30; Rom. 12:4-5; 1 Cor. 6:15 – we, as Christians, are one visible body in Christ, not many bodies, many denominations.

Phil. 1:27 – Paul commands that we stand firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the Gospel.

Phil. 2:2 – Paul prays that Christians be of the same mind, of one accord. Yet there are 30,000 different “Protest�ant denominations?

Col. 1:18 – Christ is the Head of the one body, the Church. He is not the Head of many bodies or many sects.

1 Tim. 6:4 – Paul warns about those who seek controversy and disputes about words. There must be a universal authority to appeal to who can trace its authority back to Christ.

2 Tim. 2:14 – do not dispute about words which only ruin the hearers. Two-thousand years of doctrinal unity is a sign of Christ’s Church.

2 Tim. 4:3 – this is a warning on following our own desires and not the teachings of God. It is not a cafeteria where we pick and choose. We must humble ourselves and accept all of Christ’s teachings which He gives us through His Church.

Rev. 7:9 – the heavenly kingdom is filled with those from every nation and from all tribes, peoples and tongues. This is “catholic,� which means universal.

1 Peter 3:8 – Peter charges us to have unity of spirit. This is impossible unless there is a central teaching authority given to us by God.

Gen. 12:2-3 – since Abram God said all the families of the earth shall be blessed. This family unity is fulfilled only in the Catholic Church.

Dan. 7:14 – Daniel prophesies that all peoples, nations and languages shall serve His kingdom. Again, this catholicity is only found in the Catholic Church.

1 Cor. 14:33 – God cannot be the author of the Protestant confusion. Only the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church claims and proves to be Christ’s Church.

VI. The Church is Hierarchical

Matt. 16:18; 18:18 – Jesus uses the word “ecclesia� only twice in the New Testament Scriptures, which demonstrates that Jesus intended a visible, unified, hierarchical, and authoritative Church.

Acts 20:17,28 – Paul refers to both the elders or priests (“presbyteroi�) and the bishops (“episkopoi�) of the Church. Both are ordained leaders within the hierarchical structure of the Church.

1 Cor. 12:28 – God Himself appoints the various positions of authority within the Church. As a loving Father, God gives His children the freedom and authority to act with charity and justice to bring about His work of salvation.

Eph. 4:11 – the Church is hierarchical and includes apostles, prophets, pastors, and teachers, all charged to build up the Church. The Church is not an invisible entity with an invisible foundation.

Phil. 1:1 – Paul addresses the bishops and deacons of the Church. They can all trace their unbroken lineage back to the apostles.

1 Tim. 3:1; Titus 1:7 – Christ’s Church has bishops (“episkopoi�) who are direct successors of the apostles. The bishops can trace the authority conferred upon them back to the apostles.

1 Tim. 5:17; Titus 1:5; James 5:14 – Christ’s Church also has elders or priests (“presbyteroi�) who serve the bishops.

1 Tim. 3:8 – Christ’s Church also has deacons (“diakonoi�). Thus, Jesus Christ’s Church has a hierarchy of authority – bishops, priests and deacons, who can all trace their lineage back to Peter and the apostles.

Exodus 28:1 and 19:6 – shows the three offices of the Old Testament priesthood (1). high priest – Aaron (Ex. 28:1); (2). Ministerial priests – Aaron’s sons (Ex. 19:6; 28:1); and (3). Universal priests – Israel (Ex. 19:6). The New Testament priesthood also has three offices: (1) High Priest – Jesus Christ (Heb. 3:1); (2) Ministerial priests – the ordained bishops and priests (Rom. 15:16; 1 Tim. 3:1,8; 5:17; Titus 1:7); and (3) Universal priests – all the baptized (1 Pet. 2:5,9; Rev. 1:6).

IV. The Church is Infallible and Supernatural

Isa. 35:8, 54:13-17 – this prophecy refers to the Church as the Holy Way where sons will be taught by God and they will not err. The Church has been given the gift of infallibility when teaching about faith and morals, where her sons are taught directly by God and will not err. This gift of infallibility means that the Church is prevented from teaching error by the power of the Holy Spirit (it does not mean that Church leaders do not sin!)

Acts 9:2; 22:4; 24:14,22 – the early Church is identified as the “Way� prophesied in Isaiah 35:8 where fools will not err therein.

Matt. 10:20; Luke 12:12 – Jesus tells His apostles it is not they who speak, but the Spirit of their Father speaking through them. If the Spirit is the one speaking and leading the Church, the Church cannot err on matters of faith and morals.

Matt. 16:18 – Jesus promises the gates of Hades would never prevail against the Church. This requires that the Church teach infallibly. If the Church did not have the gift of infallibility, the gates of Hades and error would prevail. Also, since the Catholic Church was the only Church that existed up until the Reformation, those who follow the Protestant reformers call Christ a liar by saying that Hades did prevail.

Matt. 16:19 – for Jesus to give Peter and the apostles, mere human beings, the authority to bind in heaven what they bound on earth requires infallibility. This is a gift of the Holy Spirit and has nothing to do with the holiness of the person receiving the gift.

Matt. 18:17-18 – the Church (not Scripture) is the final authority on questions of the faith. This demands infallibility when teaching the faith. She must be prevented from teaching error in order to lead her members to the fullness of salvation.

Matt. 28:20 – Jesus promises that He will be with the Church always. Jesus’ presence in the Church assures infallible teaching on faith and morals. With Jesus present, we can never be deceived.

Mark 8:33 – non-Catholics sometimes use this verse to down play Peter’s authority. This does not make sense. In this verse, Jesus rebukes Peter to show the import of His Messianic role as the Savior of humanity. Moreover, at this point, Peter was not yet the Pope with the keys, and Jesus did not rebuke Peter for his teaching. Jesus rebuked Peter for his lack of understanding.

Luke 10:16 – whoever hears you, hears me. Whoever rejects you, rejects me. Jesus is very clear that the bishops of the Church speak with Christ’s infallible authority.

Luke 22:32 – Jesus prays for Peter, that his faith may not fail. Jesus’ prayer for Peter’s faith is perfectly efficacious, and this allows Peter to teach the faith without error (which means infallibly).

John 11:51-52 – some non-Catholics argue that sinners cannot have the power to teach infallibly. But in this verse, God allows Caiaphas to prophesy infallibly, even though he was evil and plotted Jesus’ death. God allows sinners to teach infallibly, just as He allows sinners to become saints. As a loving Father, He exalts His children, and is bound by His own justice to give His children a mechanism to know truth from error.

1 & 2 Peter – for example, Peter denied Christ, he was rebuked by his greatest bishop (Paul), and yet he wrote two infallible encyclicals. Further, if Peter could teach infallibly by writing, why could he not also teach infallibly by preaching? And why couldn’t his successors so teach as well?

Gen. to Deut.; Psalms; Paul – Moses and maybe Paul were murderers and David was an adulterer and murderer, but they also wrote infallibly. God uses us sinful human beings because when they respond to His grace and change their lives, we give God greater glory and His presence is made more manifest in our sinful world.

John 14:16 – Jesus promises that the Holy Spirit would be with the Church forever. The Spirit prevents the teaching of error on faith and morals. It is guaranteed because the guarantee comes from God Himself who cannot lie.

John 14:26 – Jesus promises that the Holy Spirit would teach the Church (the apostles and successors) all things regarding the faith. This means that the Church can teach us the right moral positions on such things as in vitro fertilization, cloning and other issues that are not addressed in the Bible. After all, these issues of morality are necessary for our salvation, and God would not leave such important issues to be decided by us sinners without His divine assistance.

John 16:12 – Jesus had many things to say but the apostles couldn’t bear them at that point. This demonstrates that the Church’s infallible doctrine develops over time. All public Revelation was completed with the death of the last apostle, but the doctrine of God’s Revelation develops as our minds and hearts are able to welcome and understand it. God teaches His children only as much as they can bear, for their own good.

John 16:13 – Jesus promises that the Spirit will “guide� the Church into all truth. Our knowledge of the truth develops as the Spirit guides the Church, and this happens over time.

1 Cor. 2:13 – Paul explains that what the ministers teach is taught, not by human wisdom, but by the Spirit. The ministers are led to interpret and understand the spiritual truths God gives them over time.

Eph. 4:13,15 – Paul indicates that attaining to the unity of the faith and the knowledge of the Son of God to mature manhood is a process. We are to grow up in every way into Christ. Doctrine (which means “teaching�) develops as we understand God’s Revelation.

Acts 15:27-28 – the apostles know that their teaching is being guided by the Holy Spirit. He protects the Church from deception.

Gal. 2:11-14 – non-Catholics sometimes use this verse to diminish Peter’s evident authority over the Church. This is misguided. In this verse, Paul does not oppose Peter’s teaching, but his failure to live by it. Infallibility (teaching without error) does not mean impeccability (living without sinning). Peter was the one who taught infallibly on the Gentile’s salvation in Acts 10,11. With this rebuke, Paul is really saying “Peter, you are our leader, you teach infallibly, and yet your conduct is inconsistent with these facts. You of all people!� The verse really underscores, and not diminishes, the importance of Peter’s leadership in the Church.

Eph. 3:10 – the wisdom of God is known, even to the intellectually superior angels, through the Church (not the Scriptures). This is an incredible verse, for it tells us that God’s infinite wisdom comes to us through the Church. For that to happen, the Church must be protected from teaching error on faith and morals (or she wouldn’t be endowed with the wisdom of God).

Eph. 3:9 – this, in fact, is a mystery hidden for all ages – that God manifests His wisdom through one infallible Church for all people.

Eph. 3:20 – God’s glory is manifested in the Church by the power of the Spirit that works within the Church’s leaders. As a Father, God exalts His children to roles of leadership within the body of Christ.

Eph. 5:23-27, Col. 1:18 – Christ is the head of the Church, His Bride, for which He died to make it Holy and without blemish. There is only one Church, just as Christ only has one Bride.

Eph. 5:32- Paul calls the Church a “mystery.� This means that the significance of the Church as the kingdom of God in our midst cannot be understood by reason alone. Understanding the Church also requires faith. “Church� does not mean a building of believers. That is not a mystery. Non-Catholics often view church as mere community, but not the supernatural mystery of Christ physically present among us.

1 Thess. 5:21 – Paul commands us to test everything. But we must have something against which to test. This requires one infallible guide that is available to us, and this guide is the Catholic Church, whose teachings on faith and morals have never changed.

1 Tim. 3:15 – Paul says the apostolic Church (not Scripture) is the pillar and foundation of the truth. But for the Church to be the pinnacle and foundation of truth, she must be protected from teaching error, or infallible. She also must be the Catholic Church, whose teachings on faith and morals have not changed for 2,000 years. God loves us so much that He gave us a Church that infallibly teaches the truth so that we have the fullness of the means of salvation in His only begotten Son.

1 John 4:6 – John writes that whoever knows God “listens to us� (the bishops and successors to the apostles). Then John writes “This is the way we discern truth and error. John does not say “reading the Bible is the way we discern truth and error.� But if listening to mere human beings helps us discern truth and error, God would have had to endow his chosen leaders with the special gift of infallibility, so that they would be prevented from teaching error.

Matt. to Rev. – we must also note that not all Christian doctrines are explicit in Scripture (for example, the dogma of the Blessed Trinity). However, infallibility is strongly inferred from the foregoing passages. Non-Catholic Christians should ask themselves why they accept the Church’s teaching on the three persons of the Trinity, the two natures of Christ in one divine person, and the New Testament canon of Scripture (all defined by the Catholic Church), but not other teachings regarding the Eucharist, Mary, the saints, and purgatory?

https://www.scripturecatholic.com/the-b ... le_and_One


Need more?

Also, earlier in this thread, someone stated that “the Bible didn’t exist for the first 400 years�. I would like to clarify that. The Old Testament Scriptures (called The Tanakh by the Jews) were, of course, around long before that. After all, how could Jesus have read from them and how could the authors of the gospels and Paul, etc. quote from them if it weren’t?

Not sure who said that, but they have a bit of a point . . . the Bible,as Christians know it, with the New Testament, did not exists until years after the death of Christ and interestingly enough the NT seems to be the only thing people like Tam even listen to. Clearly, Christ’s Church, the first Church did not get her game plan from the Bible. The first Christians turned to the Church for answers. There was no Bible to read. In fact, the Church is who compiled the Bible. So, for those who place their trust in the Bible, they ought to recognize that to do so is actually placing trust in the Church.

So while it’s true that the church didn’t make the canon official until the fourth century, that doesn’t mean there was a lot of confusion about what was considered the Word of God in the preceding centuries. There wasn’t.

You are correct. There wasn’t a lot of confusion about what was considered the Word of God – that is my point. People didn’t get their info from the Bible – they got it from the Church. THAT is where they knew to get it.

Now to the phrase, “He who hears you, hears me.� No citation is given, but I’m concluding that it’s Luke 10:16 which reads, “Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me; but whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me.�

In this passage, Jesus is talking to the 72 that he sends out in his name.

Yes, He was. He was speaking to the Church. The Church had was given the authority to baptize and spread His message. He was emphasizing that the Church held the authority – not just any Tom, Dick, or Harry.

He gives them the authority to heal people and cast out demons. None of them are named. I don’t think Peter was one of the bunch, however. Therefore, I’m not sure how it can be used to bolster the Roman Catholic Church’s (RCC) claims about Peter as the first pope, etc. It has nothing to do with that and indicates that Jesus entrusted a lot of people to act and preach in his name.

He entrusted His Church AND Scripture is pretty clear that He singled out Peter. Did you forget, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I build my church�. “Whatever you bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven�, “I give you the keys to the kingdom� Keys to the kingdom – specifically said to Peter. Not sure how Christians who wish to deny the primacy of Peter get around these verses.

The origins of the RCC actually lie in Constantine’s declaration of Christianity as the imperial religion of the empire in the fourth century.[/quote]

Ha, ha, ha . . . thank you for that lovely Protestant anti- Catholic propaganda.

And that’s where we see the introduction of a lot of secular influences, things such as the use of incense which had heretofore been used in the courts of emperors, elaborate and luxurious clothing worn by preachers to set them apart from lay people, regal processions, etc. -- things all associated with the Roman Catholic Church today.

Ahhhhh . . . more opinion based anti-Catholic propaganda – how revolutionary of you.

Sadly, participation in worship started to be limited to fewer and fewer people and that led to a greater and cumbersome hierarchy in the church. The Body of Christ got away from the “priesthood of believers� (1 Peter 2:5,9), putting more power (and also wealth) in the hands of a few men. See Justo Gonzallez’s The Story of Christianity for more on that.

Wow, and here you even reference the anti-Catholic spin op ed I should check out. Perhaps in my spare time . . .

And that leads me to the three views debated over the century re: the rock, namely, Peter is the rock, Jesus is the rock, and the rock is Peter’s confession of faith.

Debated over the century indeed. The interpretation of the rock being Peter’s confession is a most entertaining rationalization and justification from those who split with Christ’s Church. It’s a shame context, word placement, pronoun usage, the language spoken at the time, and a proper reading of Scripture render such an interpretation impossible.

See

The early church did not teach that Peter was the rock. Early church fathers such as Augustine, Ambrose, Hilary, Athanasius, Chrysostom, and Origen, for example, interpreted it as meaning either Jesus or the confession of faith as the rock.

This is simply not true . . .

I have quotes from Augustine and Origin showing they believed and knew Peter to be the rock . . .

Origen

"f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens" (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]).


Augustine

"Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear ‘I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven’" (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).


"Some things are said which seem to relate especially to the apostle Peter, and yet are not clear in their meaning unless referred to the Church, which he is acknowledged to have represented in a figure on account of the primacy which he bore among the disciples. Such is ‘I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ and other similar passages. In the same way, Judas represents those Jews who were Christ’s enemies" (Commentary on Psalm 108 1 [A.D. 415]).


"Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter?" (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).


As well as many other early Church fathers words regarding Peter . . .


Cyprian of Carthage

"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).



Clement of Alexandria

"[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly g.asped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you’ [Matt. 19:27; Mark 10:28]" (Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved? 21:3–5 [A.D. 200]).


The Letter of Clement to James

"Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect" (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).

https://www.catholic.com/tract/peters-primacy

[brianbbs67]

I think the "church" Christ preferred was the pre 300 church set up by peter and paul. Today's churches are off track. There is lots of fruit, today. But not all good. I think its time to get back to basics. What did CHrist tell us to do? And then view the rest of the NT that way.

[RightReason]

[Replying to brianbbs67]

[quote]I think the "church" Christ preferred was the pre 300 church set up by peter and paul. Today's churches are off track. There is lots of fruit, today. But not all good. I think its time to get back to basics. What did CHrist tell us to do? And then view the rest of the NT that way.[quote]

The Church Christ prefers is His Church – so yes, one of the pre 300 ones . And also the one that has stood the test of time -- He promised to remain with His Church, so unless Christ is a liar His Church would be the Church linked to Him saying, “Thou art Peter and upon this rock, I build my church�.

[Tcg]

I do remember seeing some of Bob Marley's songs in a different light when I realized what he was saying. Phonetically, JAH would be pronounced with the 'y' sound, not the 'j' sound. So I didn't realize who Bob Marley was singing about.

Peace to you!

Thanks for the reply. What is the source then of this name, JAH, that you are using? I don't recall seeing it anywhere else.

[tam]

I do remember seeing some of Bob Marley's songs in a different light when I realized what he was saying. Phonetically, JAH would be pronounced with the 'y' sound, not the 'j' sound. So I didn't realize who Bob Marley was singing about.

Peace to you!

Thanks for the reply. What is the source then of this name, JAH, that you are using? I don't recall seeing it anywhere else.

It is the shortened form for Jahveh. (often spelled Yahweh)

But you can also find it specifically in scripture here:

Hallelujah.. meaning Praise JAH.

I have heard some say that this means praise God, but the word for God is EL. (IsraEL - struggles with God) EL (God) is a title; JAH is His name.


You will also find the name of God (JAH) within many of the prophets' names. Elijah for example, contains both the title (God/EL) and the name (JAH). Elijah means my God is JAH(veh).

https://www.behindthename.com/name/elijah

I realize that we pronounce the 'j' sound in Elijah in English, but if you click on that link you will see that in Hebrew it is a 'y' sound.


Then there is Zechariah, Jeremiah; Isaiah, etc.

These have an 'i' instead of a 'j' but the sound is the same. I have a brother in Christ who has seen from one copy of old scripts to another where the 'j' simply lost its tail and became an 'i', in translation.

But phonetically, iah, yah, jah... all are the same.


Peace to you, and to your household,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 77 by Tcg]

Read Jeremiah, he addresses the Lord as the great Jah.(In the JPS Tanakh for sure) It is part of God's personal name, I am told. (Yahweh or Yehoweh)

[Tcg]

I have heard some say that this means praise God, but the word for God is EL. (IsraEL - struggles with God) EL (God) is a title; JAH is His name.


You will also find the name of God (JAH) within many of the prophets' names. Elijah for example, contains both the title (God/EL) and the name (JAH). Elijah means my God is JAH(veh).

Then there is Zechariah, Jeremiah; Isaiah, etc.

What I still don't understand is why you apply this name to Jesus. Unless I misunderstood you, it is Jesus you follow. Why do you paste a name from the OT onto your NT god?