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?

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 77 by Tcg]

Read Jeremiah,

No need. Tam has answered the question I addressed to her.

[RightReason]

[Replying to tam]

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?

No, the contradiction is that it is clear in Scripture that Christ singled out Peter, gave him the keys to the kingdom, and specifically told him, “feed my sheep�/�whatever you bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven�. There is no other way then to see this proof and these words from Scripture as making Peter an acting shepherd. These facts do NOT contradict that Christ is the shepherd, but they clearly show Jesus was giving Peter authority. There is no other way to interpret it. So, yes, Scripture contradicts your understanding. Christ’s very words contradict your incomplete conclusion The example provided by the first Church also contradicts your understanding – as they recognized an authoritative Church.

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

Ahhhhhhh . . . which brings us to why the only understanding of all of this is Apostolic succession. Always in Scripture keys implied an office. I encourage you to look into this. People were given keys to something when they were put in charge of the office. The authority resides with the office.

Are we to believe Christ only wanted those who lived during Peter’s lifetime to be taken care of]/i] to be fed? Sorry, but that is just plain silly.

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

You cannot be serious. You honestly believe Jesus’ words to Peter, “feed my sheep� meant Peter was to simply provide Jesus’ followers with a BBQ? The role of the Church was never simply to provide only food and shelter for Christ’s followers. The Church was entrusted to take care of our spiritual needs. Man does not live on bread alone. It is impossible to think/believe Christ was referring merely to physical food. You miss the mark yet again.
.

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

Nope. Never. I listen to all that Christ said and did. I don’t pick and choose the passages that fit my existing theology.

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."

Ha! Since when have I ever suggested Scripture alone is our authority – NEVER. In fact, I rebuke such a notion. Scripture itself tells us we were to listen to that which has been handed down whether written or by word of mouth via Sacred Tradition (the Church). I am not the one who refuses to listen to Christ’s Church and instead hides behind direct quotes from Christ, even though Christ Himself told us, “He who hears you, hears me�.

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

Yes they do and I am afraid you might be oblivious to the speck in your own eye here. It would be NOT putting Christ first to ignore His very words, “Whatever you bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven�. It would be not taking the Bible (the Word of God) seriously to ignore that Scripture refers to the Church as the ‘pillar and foundation of truth’. To simply repeat over and over again, “Only Christ is the truth. Only Christ is the truth� is actually disobedience to Christ. To not recognize the Church as the ‘pillar and foundation of truth’ is to offend our Lord.

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.

We’ve been through this already. When He Himself appoints others and tells others to “feed my sheep�, “He who hears you, hears me�, “If he refuses to listen even to the church . . . “ then He is telling us how we are to understand His teachings and His claims. He points us to His Church.

And we’ve been through this too, but one must have something to test something against. THIS is exactly why Christ left us His Church.

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

Pot meet kettle. I do not ignore His words, but we see that you do in favor of your own interpretation.

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.

You misunderstand my point. How would one know if a teaching were consistent with the teachings of Christ if sincere truth seeking Christians differ on what they think as the meaning of Christ’s words? Even Jesus’ direct words and teachings need to be interpreted/understood. So, who makes the deciding factor in proper interpretation? According to notion of faith, it comes down to the individual’s personal interpretation (disguised as “following Christ�). Now THAT is problematic and what is meaningless!

You don’t seem to be able to explain the reason and logic in your position. From where I stand, it comes down to private interpretation, so unless you have anything else, I prefer to follow Christ according to Christ’s plan – not my own personal take. Praise be to God.

[OnceConvinced]

[Replying to post 59 by dianaiad]

[Replying to post 59 by dianaiad]

Moderator Warning


Do not make comments about, especially negative comments about, the writer of a post. Talk about the content of it, but do not get personally insulting

I did talk about the content of her posts the first and second times I answered her same questions, but then she repeats the same straw man I already corrected. At that point it seems fair to point out the dishonesty and rudeness of not acknowledging my first few responses. But I will try to be more charitable in the future.

Moderator Warning


It is not appropriate to challenge moderator action in the forums. If you have an issue with the warning, then PM the moderator concerned. Also it is never ok to accuse another member of dishonesty. If you feel that a member is breaking forum rules then simply report their posts and the moderation team will deal with them where appropriate.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[RightReason]

[Replying to OnceConvinced]

It is not appropriate to challenge moderator action in the forums.

Copy that.

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 77 by Tcg]

Read Jeremiah,

No need. Tam has answered the question I addressed to her.

Do you think it is wiser to accept things as true on the word of someone else?

Or is it wiser to read and understand yourself, then know it is truth?

[tam]

Peace to you RR,

[Replying to tam]

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?

No, the contradiction is that it is clear in Scripture that Christ singled out Peter, gave him the keys to the kingdom, and specifically told him, “feed my sheep�/�whatever you bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven�. There is no other way then to see this proof and these words from Scripture as making Peter an acting shepherd. These facts do NOT contradict that Christ is the shepherd, but they clearly show Jesus was giving Peter authority. There is no other way to interpret it. So, yes, Scripture contradicts your understanding. Christ’s very words contradict your incomplete conclusion The example provided by the first Church also contradicts your understanding – as they recognized an authoritative Church.

Thank you. So nothing I actually said there was contradicted by scripture.

(To be clear, I have never said that Peter was not given any authority. I have said that he was not given authority over the other apostles; that they were all equal; that they all received holy spirit, as do all who are Christian and anointed with holy spirit).

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

Ahhhhhhh . . . which brings us to why the only understanding of all of this is Apostolic succession.

You keep saying 'the only understanding is this' but in fact it is just the only understanding you were taught and that you accept. I have seen no reason to accept this doctrine of 'apostolic succession'.

Always in Scripture keys implied an office. I encourage you to look into this. People were given keys to something when they were put in charge of the office. The authority resides with the office.

This is not quite accurate.


Keys lock and unlock things/places. Keys open and close things; keys bind and loosen (such as setting people free/forgiving them... or not).

From Revelation:

Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven with the key to the Abyss, holding in his hand a great chain. He seized the dragon, the ancient serpent who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years.


Keys opened the abyss so as to bind Satan there for a thousand years.


To the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: These are the words of the One who is holy and true, who holds the key of David. What He opens, no one will shut; and what He shuts, no one will open.

I am the Living One; I was dead, and now look, I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.




Then there is the binding and loosing:

Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. Matthew 18:18

Christ did say this to Peter (at Matthew 16:19); but He also said this to His disciples at Matthew 18:18. So he is not speaking only to Peter. Nor is He speaking only to Peter when He mentions how they can bind and loosen:

“Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you withhold forgiveness from anyone, it is withheld." (John 20:23)


These things are not limited to Peter; these things are not even limited to the apostles.

Are we to believe Christ only wanted those who lived during Peter’s lifetime to be taken care of]/i] to be fed? Sorry, but that is just plain silly.

Of courses that is silly. I also never said that.

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

You cannot be serious. You honestly believe Jesus’ words to Peter, “feed my sheep� meant Peter was to simply provide Jesus’ followers with a BBQ?

You will note that you said only one explanation was possible. I have shared two other explanations (and you ignored the second), and both are true.

The role of the Church was never simply to provide only food and shelter for Christ’s followers. The Church was entrusted to take care of our spiritual needs. Man does not live on bread alone. It is impossible to think/believe Christ was referring merely to physical food. You miss the mark yet again.

Christ is the true manna from heaven. HE feeds His sheep. We (all of us) may then share what He gives us with one another; but He is the One who feeds us spiritual food. As for physical food (or shelter, etc) we are to help one another with that, yes?

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."

Ha! Since when have I ever suggested Scripture alone is our authority – NEVER. In fact, I rebuke such a notion. Scripture itself tells us we were to listen to that which has been handed down whether written or by word of mouth via Sacred Tradition (the Church). I am not the one who refuses to listen to Christ’s Church and instead hides behind direct quotes from Christ, even though Christ Himself told us, “He who hears you, hears me�.

How can one hide behind a direct quote from Christ?

Do you hear yourself?

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

Yes they do and I am afraid you might be oblivious to the speck in your own eye here. It would be NOT putting Christ first to ignore His very words, “Whatever you bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven�.

I have not ignored those words. I have disputed your interpretation of them (which interpretation I assume the RCC has taught you).

It would be not taking the Bible (the Word of God) seriously to ignore that Scripture refers to the Church as the ‘pillar and foundation of truth’.

Christ is the Word of God. Not the bible; the bible as the 'Word of God' is a false teaching of men.

As for the verse you are referring to, those words are from Paul. What do you think he meant by them?

To simply repeat over and over again, “Only Christ is the truth. Only Christ is the truth� is actually disobedience to Christ.

Do you HEAR yourself?

Christ said He is the Truth. Yet somehow, to believe Him and to repeat what He has said is disobedience to Him?



Someone has taught you wrong.


Christ is the Truth. Everything He spoke and taught is true. Truth is the PURE language that He speaks (the sword that comes out of His mouth). He taught no falsehood; no lies; no errors.

NO man or institution (or 'holy' book) can make this claim. None. Not one single person; not one single institution. ALL of them at some point speak or teach falsehood; tell a lie; teach in error. So none of them can be the Truth.

Only Christ is the Truth (save for His Father; of whom Christ is the reflection/image).

To not recognize the Church as the ‘pillar and foundation of truth’ is to offend our Lord.

Christ did not say this; Paul did. Paul is not my Lord, Christ is my Lord.

So can you please tell me what you think Paul meant by this and explain how it means what you think?

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.

We’ve been through this already. When He Himself appoints others and tells others to “feed my sheep�, “He who hears you, hears me�, “If he refuses to listen even to the church . . . “ then He is telling us how we are to understand His teachings and His claims. He points us to His Church.

And we’ve been through this too, but one must have something to test something against. THIS is exactly why Christ left us His Church.

You have taken all of those quotes out of context. But we have been through this many times now and so I will leave my previous posts to stand.

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

Pot meet kettle. I do not ignore His words, but we see that you do in favor of your own interpretation.

I did not interpret anything. I believed and went with exactly what He said. If you are suggesting that He meant something other than what He said, then you are the one interpreting. (or rather, the RCC is interpreting, and you are accepting their interpretation).

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.

You misunderstand my point. How would one know if a teaching were consistent with the teachings of Christ if sincere truth seeking Christians differ on what they think as the meaning of Christ’s words? Even Jesus’ direct words and teachings need to be interpreted/understood.

Unfortunately, this is also something men have taught in order to get away with disobeying Him; ignoring Him; dismissing His words and teaching others to do the same. Teaching people who listen to them, to believe that they (religions; religious leaders) are NECESSARY in order to understand and know the truth (and Truth).

"You NEED us", they say, "...you can't do it on your own."

Even though one who is in Christ is NEVER on their own; for Christ is with them.




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

[marco]

I have seen no reason to accept this doctrine of 'apostolic succession'.

There are very good reasons. We have documentation as a result of the Church meticulously keeping old manuscripts and records. You are singularly blessed perhaps by having a link but if Christ came down on Earth simply to establish a few individual links, then Christianity would be less than a whisper. The instruction: "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:" doesn't seem to mean, "listen to me in a specialised way." Were Christ so accessible, the apostles and their ministry would be superfluous. I am not discrediting your access point; I am suggesting that universal propagation is sensible and so therefore is apostolic succession. Of course the sheep knowing the Shepherd gives you leave to expect direct access but I don't think it is fair to deny as correct the way others choose to approach the garments of Christ.

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 86 by tam]

So much to say and so little time. . . . I am giving up Internet fun for Lent, so will have to leave our discussion as is. I think my points have been clear -- at least when taken at face value without your revision of them.

I understand your desire to make sure we are putting Christ first. It is what absolutely should be the goal of every Christian. I don't question your passion only your logic and methodology. Peace and in 40+ days Happy Easter.

[tam]

Peace to you Marco, as always!

I have seen no reason to accept this doctrine of 'apostolic succession'.

There are very good reasons.

I do not know them. If apostolic succession is based upon Matthias being appointed to replace Judas (and I do not know if that is what the doctrine is based upon), then this does not apply to apostolic succession for two reasons:

The first... there are 12 thrones for the 12 apostles. But Judas betrayed and left Christ (he did not just die) before being able to receive holy spirit (power from on high). So there were now eleven apostles but twelve thrones.

The second... Peter said that the one they chose to replace Judas needed to be someone who had been with them from the beginning. In other words, that person needed to be an EYEWITNESS to Christ (in the flesh) and to His teachings (word and deed).

Soon after the death of the last of the apostles (as long as at least one of them died in old age), there really wasn't anyone who was a firsthand eyewitness to Christ.

We have documentation as a result of the Church meticulously keeping old manuscripts and records.

Yes, but Marco, how does preserving old manuscripts and records indicate apostolic succession?

You are singularly blessed

Blessed, yes... singularly blessed, no.

Were Christ so accessible, the apostles and their ministry would be superfluous. I am not discrediting your access point; I am suggesting that universal propagation is sensible and so therefore is apostolic succession.

Thank you Marco. I understand what you are suggesting. But I still do not see how apostolic succession is required for that.

Of course the sheep knowing the Shepherd gives you leave to expect direct access but I don't think it is fair to deny as correct the way others choose to approach the garments of Christ.

I would never deny anyone their choice, and I am not judging anyone for their choices.

But if we are going to speak about what is fair (and I don't think you disagree):

I do not think it is fair to these others that certain men and religions teach their members that they cannot come to Christ and/or know what is true OUTSIDE of them (the religion). Or that they teach people to FEAR being outside of them. Or that they teach people that leaving them (the religion) is leaving Christ and leaving God. None of these teachings are true. That last one is one of the worst lies, and it is a lie that keeps people trapped and fearful to leave (or sometimes even question) their religion... and all because they do not want to leave God or Christ.

These things are not only unfair, they are untrue.



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

[tam]

[Replying to post 86 by tam]

So much to say and so little time. . . . I am giving up Internet fun for Lent, so will have to leave our discussion as is. I think my points have been clear -- at least when taken at face value without your revision of them.

I understand your desire to make sure we are putting Christ first. It is what absolutely should be the goal of every Christian. I don't question your passion only your logic and methodology. Peace and in 40+ days Happy Easter.

Peace also to you RR, and to your household. See you when you get back.

.