Comments or Questions?
Are you suggesting that the Catholic Church is infallible?
ECT THE PRACTICAL NECESSITY OF AN INFALLIBLE & AUTHORITATIVE INTERPRETER
- Thread starter Cruciform
- Start date
Are you suggesting that the Catholic Church is infallible?
Cruciform
New member
Yes, the official teaching office, or Magisterium (body of bishops), of the Catholic Church teaches infallibly in matters of doctrine and morals.
Perhaps you should study the Catholic Church in history.
Cruciform
New member
I've been studying ecclesiastical history---both Catholic and Protestant---for thirty-six years now, including at the university and seminary levels.
Cruciform
New member
Very true. Other things make it so.
Last edited:
genuineoriginal
New member
And you haven't learned a thing in all that time?
Then you know...The Catholic Church is not infallible.
It means that a minute of study of the deeds of the Catholic Church will show that it is not infallible.
I don't care about empty boasting of infallibility, whether it comes from the Catholics, the Muslims, the Mormons or anywhere else. Nobody is infallible, except God.
God's Truth
New member
Comments or Questions?
We can believe what one says if we look to the scriptures to see if what they say is there.
The Catholic's do things God says not to do.
We can see that easily in the written Word.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
:chuckle:
There isn't a pastor in any non-Catholic ecclesial community today, who doesn't teach what he or she believes to be the truth of the Gospel, in the big picture, and all the way down to the details. They may and they may not invoke the word "infallibility" when they teach, but the bottom line is that they are teaching what they believe to be the correct, true, and yes, infallible view of the Maker and His Gospel.
So the Church's magisterium is upfront about the reliability and trustworthiness of what they teach, this is better than those who teach with equal certainty their own opinions on these matters (faith, doctrine and morals), IMO, but hide behind a denial that they're teaching "infallibly."
As to your implied need for a righteousness test of some sort, for whether what somebody teaches is correct, just let us all know when you find that sinless, perfect pastor who never trespasses, even accidentally.
And, mind the context in which the New Testament was written, would you? The New Testament wasn't written before the Church was formed. In fact every single book of the New Testament was written to and for the Church, who already existed long before even the very first book was written, whether Galatians, 1st Thessalonians or Mark. So the Church was already active, gathering together to pray to the Maker in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ (the Mass), breaking bread (the Eucharist), ordaining clergymen and consecrating bishops (Holy Orders), confessing sins (another sacrament), and so on, when the books of the New Testament were rolling off the assembly line one by one. The Church already was, before the Bible was even completed. You need to think about that.
HisServant
New member
None of your Romanist customs existed within Christendom before AD 300. And all the scripture was written way before then.
That is a fact... there were no such things as sacriments, holy orders, mass and the Eucharist was very different from the way the Romanists do it.
The fact that your practice of the Eucharist is anti-Christ is easily shown.... if you do not feed everyone in the congregation first, before passing the bread and cup.. you are anti-Christ. Don't worry, most protestants are the same way. And you will be spending a lot of time together eventually.
Mass is also anti-Christ, because you do the same thing over and over and over ad nauseum.
I agree an infallible interpreter is necessary.
I would like to offer my services as such. Free of charge as well.
If you need any passage of the Bible interpreting, please feel free to ask me. But you'd better be quick as I might be dead tomorrow.
You're just lying. It's the oldest rhetorical trick in the book.
HisServant
New member
Not lying at all.. its the truth.
The early church was decidedly Jewish and the Romans were their blood sworn enemies.
God made Judiasm into a very unique religion, one that had few parallels among its contemporaries. He did that to make sure those who worshiped him knew who they were worshiping, and so they would not worship a false God.
Yet, Romanism, shares so many contemporary practices with its neighbors that its very much indistinguishable from many of its pagan predecessors. (Sacraments are foreign to Israel, yet they were borrowed from Mithraism and fully integrated into Romanism... the same with the doctrine of transubstantiation... and celibate priests and nuns). There is very little uniqueness when it comes to Romanism. Heck, you even have your demi-gods (your man made 'saints') that you pray to... just like the ancients use to pray to their gods to go talk to Zeus, etc.
Romanism is nothing more than a clever rebranding campaign.
Yes, the Church I am a member of existed before the Bible was even completed. What does that have to do with the Roman Church?
It is the "Roman" Church.
Define "decidedly Jewish" specifically.
It had zero parallels since the only paganism then that was the legitimate religion sponsored officially by the Maker was Judaism.
Your views on why the Maker did what He did are mythically insignificant. What the Church's magisterium teaches on the matter is however another matter completely. What the Holy See teaches regarding faith, doctrine and morals is literally what the Maker Himself thinks, and what He wants us to know.
Your view? Mythically insignificant. You're a mosquito.
Once again, there was only one officially recognized and sponsored paganism of the Maker, and that was His Church, which from the start, believed in and worshiped the Son of the Maker become flesh, the Lord Jesus Christ, and celebrated the seven sacraments.
Each of the Church's sacraments is founded upon Scripture. You're implying that Scripture is influenced by pagans now?
As if to rhetorically smack people like you in the face, the Apostle John, when writing his contribution to the New Testament's collection of eyewitness accounts of the Gospel, instead of including yet another account of the Lord uttering both, "This is My body," and, "This is My blood," he provides us with a new record, one where the Lord elaborates on exactly this topic, and here the Beloved Disciple quotes the Lord as saying, instead of, "This is My body,"
Spoiler
"He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: 33 But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife." The Church is rich in pastors, to be able to afford the discipline (not doctrine) of celibate priests and bishops.
And the Church names every building after a saint, did you not notice the difference between this practice, and the practice of naming buildings after their wealthy sponsors, which we find in both industry and in academia, both private and public? The Church names buildings largely after broke people, not rich people.
Your problem is that you don't believe what the Church teaches you about the kingdom of God. That's your problem, not the Church's.
Another baldfaced lie. Par for the course, for you.
:e4e: