Papal Infallibility: A Symbolic, Yet Problematic, Term

Although papal infallibility is commonly found in popular conversation, how well the term is understood is another matter.

As Danny Garland, Jr., pointed out in his recent article on “The Development of the Dogma of Papal Infallibility,” the term “papal infallibility” has a centuries-old history that stretches from Peter John Olivi, in the thirteenth century, through John Henry Newman, in the nineteenth century, and down to the present. ¹

In addition to being a well-known term with a lengthy history, “papal infallibility” is also highly symbolic: for Roman Catholics, it has often been a badge of self-identity—a way of distinguishing themselves from Anglicans, Orthodox and Protestants. Simultaneously, the pope’s infallibility has been a counter-symbol to those Christians who do not recognize the authority of the Bishop of Rome. Indeed, for many non-Catholic Christians, the term symbolizes everything that is wrong with Roman Catholicism.

Although papal infallibility is commonly found in popular conversation, how well the term is understood is another matter. One of the most entertaining discussions of the issue is found in a pub-scene in James Joyce’s Dubliners, where a group is stoutly discussing and strenuously defending the infallible teaching of the pope. In Joyce’s story, Mr. Cunningham summarized the doctrine with Hibernian exuberance: ‘But the astonishing thing is this: Not one of them (the popes), not the biggest drunkard, not the most . . . out-and-out ruffian, not one of them ever preached ex cathedra a word of false doctrine. Now isn’t that an astonishing thing?” ²

Cunningham went on to claim that one of the two prelates who voted against Pastor Aeternus at the Council was a German Cardinal, by the name of Dowling—presumably meaning Johann Joseph Ignaz von Döllinger (1799-1890), a German priest-professor at the University of Munich, who was not at Vatican I, but was excommunicated in 1871 for refusing to accept its teachings about infallibility. ³ Although Cunningham and companions can be credited for knowing the essentials of the doctrine, their theological method makes historians and theologians wince—at least if they know anything concerning the history and teaching of the First Vatican Council (1869-1870) about “infallibility.” As John Tracy Ellis once remarked: “It is doubtful that any event in the history of the modern Church ever gave rise to a greater flow of misinformation than the [First] Vatican Council.” ⁴

Unfortunately, Ellis was all too right. First of all, contrary to popular belief, Vatican I did not really define “infallibility,” at least, not in the sense of stating precisely what infallibility is. Rather, the Council described how infallibility is operative. What the Council actually did was to specify the conditions required for pope to exercise this authority of infallibility. He must: (1) Rely on the divine assistance promised to Peter; (2) Act as pastor and teacher of all Christians; and, (3) Invoke his supreme apostolic authority. In addition, the Council limited the type of teachings that can be taught infallibly to matters of faith and morals, held by the whole Church. Only if all these conditions are fulfilled, does the pope “enjoy” the infallibility given by Christ to the Church. Then, and only then, can such papal definitions be deemed “irreformable.” ⁵

Although the First Vatican Council did not give a precise definition of the nature of infallibility, its operative description suggests that the Council understood it to be an endowment or charism given by Christ to the Church, which can only be exercised by the pope under specific conditions. A charism ensures that the teaching of the pope, in a particular instance, is immune from error. In describing this divinely given gift of infallibility, the Council’s list of conditions serves a double purpose. First, the list specifies the conditions which must be fulfilled (i.e., if a pope truly wants to mandate a particular doctrine by using the charism of infallibility). Secondly, the list of conditions enables Christians to recognize when a particular teaching is being infallibly taught.

The fact that the vast majority of Church teachings are not taught under this charism does not mean that such teachings are unimportant. They do not have the same importance as teachings deemed infallible, which have a greater binding force, precisely because they are closely connected with the essentials of revelation. ⁶ Moreover, while teaching the Gospel is a daily responsibility of the Church, only rarely has the Church invoked infallibility in fulfilling its teaching mission. In fact, since Vatican I’s declaration on infallibility in 1870, there is only one clear-cut instance where a pope has taught infallibly: Pope Pius XII’s 1950 proclamation of Our Lady’s assumption. ⁷

Meaning of Infallibilitas
What is absolutely crucial to any discussion about “infallibility”—but all too often overlooked—is what the term actually means. In English, “infallibility” has simply been taken from the Latin, infallibilitas, without specifying its meaning. ⁸ As a result, many people use the term in a rather elastic sense—often meaning “immunity from error” or “inability of making fundamental mistakes in religious matters.” While such casual explanations may suffice for popular understandings, they have the potential for creating misunderstandings, among Catholics and other Christians.

In contrast, German-speaking theologians have tried to translate the term. The most common translation has been Unfehlbarkeit—“inability of erring.” However, this term is not completely satisfactory, since it can have a pejorative connotation. Unfehlbar can describe a person who thinks that he is incapable of making mistakes, which is obviously not the case here. Accordingly, unfehlbar can make the not-too-subtle suggestion that it is humanly impossible for anyone, including the pope, to claim to exercise “infallibility.” Such a dismissive connotation underpinned Hans Küng’s attack on “infallibility” on the centennial of Vatican I in 1970. ⁹

Some German-speaking theologians, such as Hans Urs von Balthasar, have opted for other understandings of infallibilitas, such as Letzverbindlichkeit, implying that a definitive response can be given to a specific doctrinal question. He states:

Heinrich Fries’ suggestion of Verbindlichkeit (binding power), which “at the highest level can become an ultimate binding power” (Letzverbindlichkeit) seems to me certainly worth considering. ¹⁰

The merit of interpreting infallibility as “ultimate binding power” or “judicial finality” is that a doctrinal decision pronounced under infallibility is final—at least, here and now, for this specific question, unless, and until, new questions are raised.

The understanding of “infallibility” as “judicial finality” has sometimes been popularized in American catechetics, comparing doctrinal declarations to decisions of the Supreme Court: whose decisions are judicially final as there is no higher court to which an appeal can be made. So, too, decisions under infallibility are ecclesially final, as a pope, or an ecumenical council, teaching with infallibility, has the definitive word about the specific doctrinal matter under discussion, with no further appeal possible. Nonetheless, change is possible in the future, that is, a new legal question may arise, resulting in the Supreme Court modifying a previous decision. Similarly, a new doctrinal question may be posed, resulting in a new doctrinal decision—not one contradicting the previous teaching, but one amplifying and developing it.¹¹

In other words, just as “judicial finality” does not preclude the possibility of the Supreme Court modifying a previous Supreme Court decision, infallibility does not exclude the possibility that a later pope, or later council, might amplify and develop it further, and in that sense, change the doctrinal decisions of their predecessors. In this respect, the answer to one doctrinal question sets the stage for further questions, and for further doctrinal decisions in the future. For example, the responses of the ecumenical councils of the early church to a series of Trinitarian and Christological controversies may be seen as instances of this continual dynamic of definitive decisions, followed by new doctrinal developments and consequent clarifications. 12

Papal Infallibility
While papal infallibility is routinely used, not only in common conversation, but also among theologians, it should be emphasized that the First Vatican Council did not use the term. In fact, Vatican I deliberately changed the heading of the fourth chapter of Pastor Aeternus. The original draft read: “the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff,” which was changed to: “the infallible magisterium of the Roman Pontiff.” The importance of this terminological shift is two-fold. First, it avoided the implication that the pope possesses infallibility in such a personal way that all his statements come under infallibility. While Catholics generally take this for granted today, at the time of the First Vatican Council, there were people who felt that any and every doctrinal statement by the pope was a matter of infallibility. The English theologian, W. G. Ward (1812-1882), for example, was famously reported as desiring a daily exercise of infallibility by the pope: “I should like a new Papal Bull every morning with my Times at breakfast.” 13

Secondly, the reason for preferring the term “infallible magisterium” is that infallibility can be exercised not only by the pope, but also by the college of bishops in union with him; as the Second Vatican Council taught:

Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held. ¹⁴

Accordingly, just as Vatican I specified a list of conditions that the pope must follow in order to exercise the Church’s “infallible magisterium,” Vatican II indicated the conditions that the bishops must follow if their teaching is to be considered a collegial exercise of the Church’s “infallible magisterium.”

Infallible Statements
Another term, routinely used in discussions about infallibility, is the expression: “infallible statements.” Again, one must emphasize that this term was not used by Vatican I; rather, the Council used the term “irreformable definitions.” Many commentators on infallibility have ignored the difference, or have even claimed that the two expressions are equivalent. However, in addition to the need to respect the Church’s official terminology, a casual mixing of terms entails a number of philosophical and theological difficulties. For example, to speak of “infallible statements” suggests that such statements are absolute. In contrast, most philosophers insist that all statements are historically and culturally conditioned—expressions delimited by a particular time and place, and so not absolute, but relative. Similarly, many theologians today do not want to speak of “infallible statements” in order to avoid the doctrinal equivalent of “biblical literalism”: if God did not dictate the Bible word for word, why should one suggest that God dictates doctrinal decisions word for word?

Using terms, like “infallible statements” or “infallible teaching,” risks making the doctrine of infallibility both philosophically, and theologically, indefensible. It becomes an easy target for rejection. In effect, defenders of infallible statements, with the best of intentions, can inadvertently become the doctrine’s enemies, just as defenders of biblical literalism can unwittingly destroy the credibility of the Bible. In contrast, the expression “irreformable definitions” harmonizes readily with interpreting infallibility as “judicial finality” or “ultimate binding power” (Leztverbindlichkeit), as proposed by Hans Urs von Balthazar. ¹⁵ Key to this interpretation, however, is the meaning of “irreformable definitions”—which, at first glance, would seem to have the same meaning as “infallible statements” and, therefore, sharing the same philosophical and theological problems.

Why did the First Vatican Council use the term “irreformable definitions”? Apparently, the Council used this term as a way of rejecting Gallicanism—the seventeenth century doctrinal claim that all papal decisions are subject to the approval of local churches. According to the its proponents, no Vatican ecclesiastical decision could be considered authoritatively final unless, and until, it received the official approval of the Church in France. When Pastor Aeternus is read in the context of Gallicanism—an ecclesiological position well-known to the participants at Vatican I, though not so familiar today—the Council is effectively stating that definitions enunciated by the pope, when exercising infallibility, are not subject to any further approval or appeal. ¹⁶ In sum, “irreformable definitions” are not definitions that are philosophically “immutable” or theologically “unchangeable,” but decisions that are “judicially final.”

Lessons from History
The axiom that: “Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it,” has been repeatedly exemplified in the numerous discussions about infallibility in the half-century since Vatican II. There is not only a vast amount of material on the teaching of the two Vatican Councils about infallibility, but, unfortunately, many writers on infallibility have discussed what they presume the Church teaches, rather than carefully examining what the Church actually taught. ¹⁷ Sadly, there is a great deal that has been written about infallibility showing little or no familiarity with, much less critical analysis of, the texts of the two Vatican councils. Surprising as it may seem, some commentators have proposed interpretations about infallibility without analyzing the conciliar texts, much less studying the history of the Councils.

This failure to do the essential historical-theological homework means that many discussions of infallibility are like the conversation in Dubliners—eloquent and entertaining but exaggerated and often erroneous—leading some people to find “infallible statements” everywhere, while leading others to reject “infallibility” out of hand. Neither an outright denial of infallibility, nor an exaggerated extension of it to all church teachings, really serves anyone well. In effect, the many misconceptions about infallibility effectively distort the Church’s teaching, confuse believers, repel prospective converts, and create unnecessary ecumenical difficulties. ¹⁸

Pastoral Suggestions
Admittedly, changing terminology is always a difficult task. Like overcoming an addiction, one keeps falling back into accustomed habits of speech. Yet “papal infallibility” is one of those theological terms that has been misinterpreted so often that it might well be worth the effort to replace it with the terminology that Vatican I actually used: “the infallible magisterium of the pope.” Admittedly, this substitution requires a few more words, and people might be puzzled by the seemingly new terminology, but that reaction might be beneficial. This historical version might succeed in drawing people’s attention to what the two Vatican Councils actually taught, rather than what many people presume the Councils taught.

In addition, terms like “infallible statements” and “infallible teaching” might well be replaced with terms like “irreformable definitions” or “teachings of the Church’s infallible magisterium.” Again, such substitutions involve a few more words, but their use might prompt people to reflect on what the Church’s teaching really is. Last but not least, in explaining the doctrine of infallibility, it would seem not only appropriate, but extremely beneficial to use the short and succinct description of infallibility found in the Glossary of the Catechism of the Catholic Church: “The gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church whereby the pastors of the Church, the pope and bishops in union with him, can definitively proclaim a doctrine of faith or morals for the belief of the faithful.” ¹⁹

Danny Garland, Jr., “The Development of the Dogma of Papal Infallibility,” Homiletic and Pastoral Review 111/9 (June/July, 2011): 48-54, at 50; hereafter cited: Garland, HPR 111/9. ↩
James Joyce, Dubliners (New York: Penguin Books, 1967), 168. ↩
Dubliners, 169-170. For a comparison of the views of Döllinger and Newman on infallibility, see Wolfgang Klausnitzer, Päpstliche Unfehlbarkeit bei Newman und Döllinger: Ein historisch‑systematischer Vergleich, Innsbrucker theologische Studien 6 (Innsbruck‑Vienna‑Munich: Tyrolia, 1980). ↩
John Tracy Ellis, “The Church Faces the Modern World: The First Vatican Council,” in The General Council, edited by William McDonald (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1962), 113‑145, at 135. ↩
The First Vatican Council described conditions for papal infallibility in Pastor Aeternus, in Denzinger-Schönmetzer, Enchiridion Symbolorum §3073-3075 at: http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/03d/1957,_denziger,_enchiridion_symbolorum lt.pdf For English translation: http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/papae1.htm: “Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks ex cathedra , that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals (mores) to be held (tenenda) by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy (pollere) in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.” ↩
Although the prelates at Vatican I acknowledged that infallibility had been previously exercised by various popes, the Council did not provide a list of such teachings; accordingly, theologians differ about which papal decisions prior to Vatican I should be considered exercises of infallibility; for example, theologians disagree whether Unam Sanctam (1302) of Pope Boniface VIII should be considered an exercise of infallibility or not. ↩
Although some theologians in the past considered canonizations an exercise of infallibility (e.g., Francis Kieda, “Infallibility of the Pope in His Decree of Canonization,” The Jurist 6 (1946): 401‑415), few do so today; this view in no way diminishes the importance of canonizations, but it does emphasize that the exercise of infallibility is limited to essential matters of Christian faith. ↩
In fact, many theological terms in English have a Latin background: revelation, Trinity, magisterium, etc., however, if the meanings of revelation and Trinity are clear, some Latin terms, such as magisterium, have a spectrum of meanings in English. ↩
Hans Küng, Infallible? An Inquiry, translated by Edward Quinn (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971); unfortunately, the English translation did not always capture all the nuances of the German original. Among the numerous critiques of Küng’s Infallible?, see: Walter Brandmüller, “Hans Küng and Church History, Some Critical Observations on ‘Infallible? An Inquiry’,” Homiletic and Pastoral Review 72 (1972): 10‑24. ↩
Hans Urs von Balthasar, The Office of Peter and the Structure of the Church, translated by Andrée Emery (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1986), 221-222, cited by Garland, HPR 111/9: 52; the theological problem of translating infallibilitas into German is an often over-looked factor in the “infallibility debate” initiated by Hans Küng in 1970. ↩
Like every comparison, this one has limitations; for example, Supreme Court decisions may effectively revoke laws (e.g., laws that formerly permitted slavery); in contrast, a new dogmatic decision can not contradict previous decisions, although it may significantly reinterpret previous doctrinal decisions. ↩
John Henry Newman discussed the relationship between doctrinal continuity and change in his seminal work, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (18461; 18783); for a comparative study of the differences between the first and third editions of Newman’s Essay, see: Gerard H. McCarren, “Development of Doctrine” in The Cambridge Companion to John Henry Newman, edited by Ian Ker and Terrence Merrigan (Cambridge University Press, 2010), 118-136. ↩
Wilfrid Ward, Life of Cardinal Newman 2:213 (available at: http://www.newmanreader.org/biography/ward/volume2/chapter27.html ). ↩
Lumen Gentium § 25 http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html . ↩
Again, see Garland’s citation of von Balthasar, HPR 111/9: 52. ↩
For a detailed study of the Gallican background of the First Vatican Council, see Richard F. Costigan, The Consensus of the Church and Papal Infallibility: A Study in the Background of Vatican I (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2005). ↩
See the now-dated survey of John T. Ford, “Infallibility: A Review of Recent Studies,” Theological Studies 40/2 (June, 1979): 273‑305. ↩
See John T. Ford, “Differences about infallibility . . . too significant to be brushed aside as inconsequential,” in Church and Theology: Essays in Memory of Carl J. Peter, edited by Peter C. Phan (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1995), 111‑160. ↩
Glossary, Catechism of the Catholic Church, at: http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/glossary.shtml#I This description refers to §891 of the Catechism, and adds: “This gift is related to the inability of the whole body of the faithful to err in matters of faith and morals” (§ 92). ↩

—1. SS means that only the Bible can be used in determining faith and practice, and,-—

Yes. It’s the final authority in matters of faith.

That did not seem to be the extent of your objection before, but this makes your argument to be one that denies that Scripture shows that it is the final authority authority on earth (under Christ) in matters of faith, yet it was upon Scripture, and conformity to the manner in which it shows truth being established, that the Lord Himself established His authority, as did the apostles.

If you deny this then upon what basis are we to ascertain that Rome is the OTC?

-—2. that because Rome is the instrument and stewards of Holy Writ (which promises guidance to the church) then the Roman Catholic church is uniquely the assuredly infallible interpreter of it, and supreme authority on Truth (versus the Scriptures) and that,-—

This is a somewhat circular argument, and not my position.

Therefore it seems that your statement that the Church preceded the writing of the wholly inspired NT only means that SS could not work because of the lack of a finished canon, yet that does not impugn it, as it is abundantly substantiated even by the Scriptures that already were established (without an assuredly infallible magisterium) that it was the standard for obedience and testing truth claims, and by which additional writings became established as being the Word of God.

The restricted formal sufficiency aspect of SS does pertain to a finished canon, but it is upheld in principle, as the word of God always provided for what God wanted men to know to that time, and Scripture is the assured, established Word of God, and it is by Scripture that we also understand that that some of Scripture first existed as oral before being written down, which (as a study of the phrase “the word of the Lord/God” will show) was normatively the case.

The divinely inspired nature of Scripture and the divinely protected teaching authority of the Church can be demonstrated with high probability by initially regarding the Scriptures simply as an historical document. One can then assume with reasonable certainty that Christ is Who He claimed to be, and that His Church exists on earth.

You mean that the RCC is that church, and possesses assured infallibility, yet this is a matter of interpretation, and one in which the EOs and others disagree. One what basis do you have assurance that the claim of Rome is the true one?

Since Christ is Truth, His Church cannot teach error. His Church proposes the Bible as inspired. Therefore, we can trust the Bible to be inspired.

How do we know Christ is Truth, and that the church cannot teach error, if you are not certain that the Scriptures are Divine and thus authoritative?

3. she is necessary for assurance of truth?

Yes, with respect to the truths of faith and morals, granting that moral truths can also be known with certainty through the natural law.

So while one may not need the assuredly infallible magisterium in order to be certain of moral truths, yet one must submit to Rome in order to be certain in issues of faith, and thus an assuredly infallible magisterium is necessary to know such, including that writings are wholly inspired of God, and that Christ is Truth. And thus before there was a church in Rome no one could have assurance of Truth as regards faith, and one cannot be sure that Rome is the OTC except by faith that the supreme magisterium of Rome is assured infallible.

If Jesus is Truth Itself, how could He create a Church that would propose false doctrines as true?

Since we can only assuredly know (what the Bible says) that Jesus is truth by the RCC, and as only she can assured infallibly define Truth, whatever she says is Truth must be Truth, including that she is assuredly infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly define scope and subject-based criteria.

And your premise presupposes that the church must be perfectly like Christ as in never teaching an error, or at least whenever she speaks according to her infallibly declared assured infallibility.

Nowhere do we see any affirmation that all the church will ever speak on faith and morals will be assured infallible, which premise is not even presumed of the writers of Holy Writ, but we see the Holy Spirit uniquely affirming that all Scripture is wholly breathed of God, it being the only transcendent material source to be so, which judges amorphous tradition, which by nature is supremely susceptible to undetectable corruption.

We also see men who presumed veracity based on Divine promises and historical decent being reproved by an “itinerant” preacher on the basis of being unScriptural. (Mk. 7:3-16)

In addition. Scripture does not owe its inspiration or its establishment to the church of Rome, most of it being established as being Scripture before there ever was one. Scripture itself was established as being from God like as true men of God are, that being by manifestly supernatural qualities and attestation, which Scripture transcendentally defines.

God affirmed the faith of Abraham and Moses, and the latter gave the Law, which became (and by principle further established revelation) the standard for obedience and testing truth claims. Both are of God regardless of whether men affirm them by decree, though they should. “For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power.” (1 Cor 4:20)

Jesus COMMANDS his followers to take their disputes “to THE Church,” not A church,or to Scripture (!)./i>

And we know this by Scripture, and SS affirms the magisterium as Scripture provides for it, and for its decrees, subject to conformity with Scripture is precept or principle.

“It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same; which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission; not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in His Word. (Westminster, Cps 1, 31)

"...there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and the government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.”

Thank you for charitable taking the time to understand my position!

Well, i hope i am, and that you understand my position better as well, and that we have a heart that is willing to objectively examine the issue and “follow the Lamb withersover He goeth.”

St Paul calls the Church the pillar and foundation of truth. If Jesus commands us to take our disputes to the Church, It must be inerranc, undivided and visible, otherwise His command would be void.

You seem to be putting a lot of weight upon Jesus speaking about taking "disputes" to the church. You mentioned that part three or four times in this comment alone. I went to the place in Scripture where Jesus spoke about this and here is the context:

And if thy brother sin against thee, go, show him his fault between thee and him alone: if he hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he hear thee not, take with thee one or two more, that at the mouth of two witnesses or three every word may be established. And if he refuse to hear them, tell it unto the church: and if he refuse to hear the church also, let him be unto thee as the Gentile and the publican. (Matthew 18:15-17)

Rather than saying we should take all our disputes to the "church", Jesus very clearly is talking about when a brother does something wrong, either personally to you or when he is sinning in such a way that the "world" is noticing. As should be the case, you must go to the brother at fault and take it up with him, one on one. But if he refuses to hear you and repent of the sin, you should then return with one or two others and confront him. If he still refuses to repent, then you should tell the "church" - your local assembly of believers where the offending brother also attends. If after he continues in the sin and doesn't listen to his fellowship of believers, then the local assembly should expel him from their fellowship.

Now, Jesus seems to be speaking about individual behavior of each member of the church and how overt wrong behavior is to be dealt with, NOT, as you seem to infer, that one, global "church" organization is to be an arbiter of what is and isn't truth. That is why God gave us the Holy Scriptures - so that it is the authority by which truth can be determined for the faith. What Jesus taught, the Apostles taught and what they taught they wrote down for all time through the leading and inspiration of God. The entire "church" - the body of Christ - is to be held to that same standard of truth. The leaders of the local assemblies have no more authority to determine what is truth than some global hierarchy does because God has already told us what is truth and what is false. This revelation is complete and ALL truth claims must be measured by the God-breathed Holy Scriptures.

No man or organization can circumvent nor contradict what God has set forth no matter what "history" he clings to. When Paul said the church is the "pillar and foundation of the truth" (I Timothy 3:15), he most certainly meant that the believers who make up the church, the body of Christ, must support and uphold the truth as God has revealed it to us. Barne's Notes on the Bible explains this well:

Which is the church of the living God - This seems to have been added to impress the mind of Timothy with the solemn nature of the duty which he was to perform. What he did pertained to the honor and welfare of the church of the living God, and hence he should feet the importance of a correct deportment, and of a right administration of its affairs.

The pillar and ground of the truth - There has been no little diversity of opinion among critics whether this phrase is to be taken in connection with the preceding, meaning that "the church" is the pillar and ground of the truth; or whether it is to be taken in connection with what follows, meaning that the principal support of the truth was the doctrine there referred to - that God was manifest in the flesh. Bloomfield remarks on this: "It is surprising that any who have any knowledge or experience in Greek literature could tolerate so harsh a construction as that which arises from the latter method." The more natural interpretation certainly is, to refer it to the former; and this is supported by the consideration that it would then fall in with the object of the apostle. His design here seems to be, to impress Timothy with a deep sense of the importance of correct conduct in relation to the church; of the responsibility of those who presided over it; and of the necessity of care and caution in the selection of proper officers.

To do this, he reminded him that the truth of God - that revealed truth which he had given to save the world - was entrusted to the church; that it was designed to preserve it pure, to defend it, and to transmit it to future times; and that, therefore, every one to whom the administration of the affairs of the church was entrusted, should engage in this duty with a deep conviction of his responsibility. On the construction of the passage, Bloomfield Rosenmuller, and Clarke, may be consulted. The word "pillar" means a column, such as that by which a building is supported, and then any firm prop or support; Galatians 2:9; Revelation 3:12. If it refers to the church here, it means that that is the support of the truth, as a pillar is of a building. It sustains it amidst the war of elements, the natural tendency to fall, and the assaults which may be made on it, and preserves it when it would otherwise tumble into ruin.

Thus it is with the church. It is entrusted with the business of maintaining the truth, of defending it from the assaults of error, and of transmitting it to future times. The truth is, in fact, upheld in the world by the church. The people of the world feel no interest in defending it, and it is to the church of Christ that it is owing that it is preserved and transmitted from age to age. The word rendered "ground" - ἑδραίωμα hedraioÌ„ma - means, properly, a basis, or foundation. The figure here is evidently taken from architecture, as the use of the word pillar is. The proper meaning of the one expression would be, that truth is supported by the church. as an edifice is by a pillar; of the other, that the truth rests "on" the church, as a house does on its foundation. It is that which makes it fixed, stable, permanent; that on which it securely stands amidst storms and tempests; that which renders it firm when systems of error are swept away as a house that is built on the sand; compare notes on Matthew 7:24-27.

The meaning then is, that the stability of the truth on earth is dependent on the church. It is owing to the fact that the church is itself founded on a rock, that the gates of hell cannot prevail against it, that no storms of persecution can overthrow it, that the truth is preserved from age to age. Other systems of religion are swept away; other opinions change; other forms of doctrine vanish; but the knowledge of the great system of redemption is preserved on earth unshaken, because the church is preserved, and because its foundations cannot be moved. This does not refer, I suppose, to creeds and confessions, or to the decisions of synods and councils; but to the living spirit of truth and piety "in" the church itself. As certainly as the church continues to live, so certain it will be that the truth of God will be perpetuated among people.

We all then, as members of this one body, are commanded to be the salt and light to the world and the upholder of the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as God has revealed to us through His word and through the indwelling Holy Spirit. Not, as you seem to suggest, some governing hierarchy seated in one special place deciding what is and is not the truth. Christ most certainly DID establish his church and it most certainly IS guided by the Holy Spirit but it is a universal called-out assembly of individual believers who make up that body - the Bride of Christ - and we are guided by the Holy Scriptures which contain all the truth God has chosen to reveal to us and it is His word which is inerrant. The church rests on the truth, the truth does not rest on the church.

Has the RCC when it has claimed to speak infallibly, ever been wrong, even once? If so, that disqualifies it from being able to claim to be speaking for God

Well, this depends on the interpretation of whether one was speaking infallibly, and thus the denial that pope Honorius and others were guilty of such, as some charge.

And it also depends upon interpertinb what was meant, and as one RC basically said, since Rome defines what is right and wrong [and that there is no external and unchanging rule of faith for the Roman Catholic Church], then they cannot be wrong. What statements are infallible and what are not, as well as the level of obedience owed to to the ordinary magisterium can differ according interpretation, as well as what they mean. One pope or more can,

"declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff,” (Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam 1302)

And,

"The sacrosanct Roman Church...firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that..schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life..unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." (Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino, 1441)

And that

"subjection to the Roman pontiff is necessary for salvation for all Christ's faithful..."( Fifth Lateran CouncilSession 11, 19 December 1516),

Also,

"No one is found in the one Church of Christ, and no one perseveres in it, unless he acknowledges and accepts obediently the supreme authority of St. Peter and his legitimate successors." (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, PTC:873)

And which was understood by no less than the doctor of the church Thomas Aquinas (elevated 1567, patron of all universities and of students), to mean what it sounds like it means, that,

"It is also shown that to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation." St. Thomas Aquinas, Against the Errors of the Greeks, Pt. 2, ch. 36 http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm#b38)

But having lost her unScriptural use of the sword of men, she latter "reformulates" this:

How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? [Cf. Cyprian, Ep. 73.21: PL 3, 1169; De unit.: PL 4, 509-536.] Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the (Catholic) Church which is his Body:

... Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it." (CCC #846)

And,

The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. (Cf. Gal. 4:6; Rom. 8:15-16 and 26)

For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (Cf. Jn. 16:13) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical [Protestant] communities...

They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood...” (Vatican Two; Lumen Gentium 16)

While some RCs yet interpret this as referring only to baptized obedient Protestants who never heard of the claims of Rome, and thus most all need to convert to Rome to be saved, most recognize it as an affirmation of Protestants in general, the exception being those who really know Rome is the church founded by Christ but reject it, rather than referring to those who find her claim to be the OTC as Scripturally unwarranted.

Then there are those Catholics who see this “reformulation” as being contrary to the prior intent and understanding, which i think is the most warranted conclusion, and thus they deny the authority of Vatican Two and (some) even deny the validity of the recent and present pope, and so are held to be in a degree of schism by Rome which they see as deviating from her ancient faith.

In addition to statements which have been held as ex cathedra, which Bellarmine and others held Unam Sanctam was, are statements made in Rome's “ordinary and universal teaching power,” which are “to be believed as divinely revealed.” (Pope Pius IX, Vatican I, Sess. III, Chap. 3) But what statements belong to that category and the level of authority of this very statement (and whether everything that V1 declares is infallible) can also be subject to dispute.

And understandably so, as it would require that statements made in papal encyclicals and public proclamations be upheld consistently, such as condemns the proposition that “persons coming to reside therein [Catholic countries] shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship,” while affirming the right of Rome to secular power and force, (Pope Pius IX, The Syllabus (of Errors)

And condemning in regards to schismatics, “that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone.“ (Quanta Cura, Encyclical of Pope Pius IX) And “that the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error.” (Vehementer Nos [on the French Law of Separation, which in principle can be universally applied], Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906)

And then you have the ecclesiastical and papal statements affirming the use of torture against theological aberrants, such as by Ecumenical Fourth Lateran Council, 1215 (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.asp), and affirmed by Thomas, as well as the papal bull Ad exstirpanda (http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~draker/history/Ad_Extirpanda.html), the reading of which is sufficient to see the point, and in which captured heretics are to be coerced into confessing their errors and accusing others.

The idea that the veracity of Rome is extensive leads to such approved teaching as that asserts,

“All that we do [as must be patent enough now] is to submit our judgment and conform our beliefs to the authority Almighty God has set up on earth to teach us; this, and nothing else.”

“...outside the pale of Rome there is not a scrap of additional truth of Revelation to be found.”

“He willingly submits his judgment on questions the most momentous that can occupy the mind of man-----questions of religion-----to an authority located in Rome.”

“Absolute, immediate, and unfaltering submission to the teaching of God's Church on matters of faith and morals-----this is what all must give..”

“The Vicar of Christ is the Vicar of God; to us the voice of the Pope is the voice of God. This, too, is why Catholics would never dream of calling in question the utterance of a priest in expounding Christian doctrine according to the teaching of the Church;”

“He is as sure of a truth when declared by the Catholic Church as he would be if he saw Jesus Christ standing before him and heard Him declaring it with His Own Divine lips.” —“Henry G. Graham, "What Faith Really Means", (Nihil Obstat:C. SCHUT, S. T.D., Censor Deputatus, Imprimatur: EDM. CANONICUS SURMONT, D.D.,Vicarius Generalis. WESTMONASTERII, Die 30 Septembris, 1914 ); http://www.catholictradition.org/Tradition/faith2-10.htm]

"The intolerance of the Church toward error, the natural position of one who is the custodian of truth, her only reasonable attitude makes her forbid her children to read or to listen to heretical controversy, or to by examining both sides of the question...

The reason of this stand of his is that, for him, there can be no two sides to a question which for him is settled; for him, there is no seeking after the truth: he possesses it in its fulness, as far as God and religion are concerned.” (John H. Stapleton, Explanation of Catholic Morals, cps. XXIII, Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, Censor Librorum. Imprimatur, John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York )

These words of Christ's should be enough to lay to rest the argument that the personal lives of Catholics priests, or any clergy for that matter, are irrelevant in the performance of their duties. If their lives do not demonstrate the fruit of repentance and a changed life, they can be considered false prophets.

The Roman Catholic response to this is to assert that wicked leaders like Caiaphas could speak truth in accordance with Divine promise, (Jn. 11:49-51) so it is condemnd as an error that “if the Pope were a reprobate and an evil man and consequently a member of the devil, he has no power over the faithful." (Council of Constance, Condemnation of Errors, against Wycliffe, Session VIII, and Hus: Session XV; DNZ:621, 617, 588)

However, unlike the old covenant with its physical kingdom and need of physical progeny to lay claim to being a high priest, under the new covenant physical decent is not the basis for authenticity (the church actually began in dissent from those who could lay claim to historical authority, and it excludes the type of men some popes were from even being church members, (1Cor. 5:11-13) let alone successors to Peter.

Rome has actually never followed the method used in selecting a successor for Judas (in order to maintain the original number: Acts 1:15-26; cf. Rv. 21:14, while there was no successor for the apostle James: (Acts 12:1,2) nor do her popes fulfill the requirements of personal discipleship of Christ, while it is presumed that men who were immoral even before they were chosen popes as well as during their reign, and who election by the Holy Spirit was much by politics, were valid successors to Peter, even if the Bull Cum Ex Apostolatus disallows the validity of even the Roman Pontiff if before their election they had deviated from the Catholic faith, which some bad popes, including sexually active ones, may be charged with doing.

-—yet it was upon Scripture, and conformity to the manner in which it shows truth being established, that the Lord Himself established His authority, as did the apostles.——

Then why does He command us to take our disputes “to the church,” rather than Scripture? And “if he will not listen to the church, treat him as a pagan...”

Again, under SS we affirm the magisterium, but by Scripture we also see that the Lord's instructions to appeal to the church as magistrate does not make it the supreme authority anymore than His command to be subject to those who sat in the seat of Moses did. (Mt. 23:2) Like Rome, they effectively presumed a level of authority by which they could enjoin obedience to “the tradition of the elders” that was not warranted by Scripture, and in reproving them by Scripture the Lord, once again, upholds Scripture as the supreme transcendent authority.

The Old Testament magisterium was to be obeyed, “According to the sentence of the law which they shall teach thee, and according to the judgment which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do: thou shalt not decline from the sentence which they shall shew thee, to the right hand, nor to the left.” (Deuteronomy 17:11), and thus yet they judged men of God as worthy of death.

What you have done is confuse being the instrument of Scripture with supremacy over it. The fact is that the church may err in such disciplinary judgment, as Rome has.

-—writing of the wholly inspired NT only means that SS could not work because of the lack of a finished canon, yet that does not impugn it, as it is abundantly substantiated even by the Scriptures-—

I’m not designating Scripture. I am designating the doctrine of the Bible ALONE as the sole,rule of faith.

Shouldn’t that doctrine be in the Bible, to be logically coherent?

Scripture is the assured word of God thus it is supreme, and it materially provides for all that a believer needs for faith and Godliness, (2Tim. 3:16) including the magisterium which is subject to it, as even the instruments of revelation are, as Scripture is God-breathed. And this is what is logical and Scripturally substantiated, versus the perpetual assured formulaic infallibility of an autocratic church.

And of course, the Bible did not determine its own canon. The canon was determined infallibly by Christ’s Church. Luther determined his own. Which canon do you choose to accept? By what Authority?

You mean that Rome infallibly determined it was infallible, and infallibly decreed what was Scripture, even though all her teachings ares not dependent upon the weight of scriptural warrant (nor are the reasons or arguments behind an infallible decree necessarily infallible themselves).

However, writing were established as being Scripture before Rome, and reveals the means by which Truth and authority is established, that being by its supernatural heavenly qualities and attestation, including its conformity and complementarity, and reveals that once the Word of God was written (first by a man whose authority itself was established by supernatural means), it became the standard for obedience and testing truth claims.

Thus most of Scripture was established as such by the time of Christ as shown by the multitude of references to it, and upon which principle more would become manifest as such, and so overall unique were these qualities that progressively it became apparent which ones belonged to it, and also that there was no more like unto this collection of assured word of God. Councils could affirm that, but that is not how Scripture has authority nor the canon.

Thus rather than holding to the same “infallible” indisputable canon by an effectively autocratic Rome, which came over 1400 years after the last book was written (Luther was not historically or contemporaneously alone in his rejection of some books), and which differs from your EOs brothers, Protestantism overall came rather quickly to rest upon its established 66 book canon. And upon that basis, thus this canon has been established from generation to generation — without a binding decree.

And it is also upon this basis of establishment that souls believed on the Lord Jesus, and true men of God essentially are established as being so, and that the church began.

Like as Rome would do to an itinerant preacher that had not its sanction, the Lord Jesus was asked, “By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority to do these things?” (see Mk., 11:27-33) What could He or the Baptist or any of the prophets who contradicted the magisterium say? What they depended upon was the witness of Scripture and the power of God (not that ordination is superfluous, but that is not what actually establishes authenticity).

Therefore the church was founded in dissent from those who could claim authority based upon Divine precepts and promises (Dt. 17:8-13; Neh. 8:5-9; Jer 14:21; 33:20-26 ; Lv 26:44; 2Sa 7:13,15; 1Ki 11:13,32,36) and historical decent, (Mt. 23:2) as the church rested upon the aforementioned conformity to Scripture, in text and in power. (Jn. 5:36,39; Lk. 24:27,44: Acts 4:33; 5:12; 6:8; 17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 6:1-10; 2:13; Heb. 2:3,4) And which the evangelical gospel with its manifest regeneration testifies to, by which the church has its members. (1Cor. 12:13)

As a consequence, the evangelical can have at least the amount of assurance as to the complete canon of his supreme authority as a Roman Catholic has as to the present canon of all the decrees of his supreme authority.

-—On what basis do you have assurance that the claim of Rome is the true one?-—

Considering the Bible simply as a historical document, we know that Christ claimed to found an eternal Church. He also claimed to be God, Who we know through reason is One/Good/True/Beautiful/Being. Since God is Truth, His Church, His mystical Body, cannot teach error.

That is not the basis for your assurance if you are a Catholic, as if it were then you would not need the assuredly infallible magisterium of Rome, and would not criticize the evangelicals for their confidence in the assured word of God (not simply an historical document), for doctrine. Instead the assurance you have is based upon the premise that Rome is assuredly infallible, which she has infallibly declared herself to be, and which you have made a fallible faith decision to to submit to.

Who we know through reason is One/Good/True/Beautiful/Being. Since God is Truth, His Church, His mystical Body, cannot teach error.

Upon which reasoning there must have always been an assuredly infallible magisterium for God's people, as per Rome, but by going to the established assured Word of God we see that God did preserve Truth, but not as per the premise of Rome, but oftentimes by raising up men from without the magisterium (usually prophets, whose authority did not need formal transference of office) to reprove it for teaching error, and upon such means the church began and has often been preserved (and as one becomes part of the church by faith, it is not one particular body, and which can vary, as Rv. 2,3 testifies to) in faith in Christ, to whom “all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.” (Acts 10:43).

For truth has and is often preserved by God raising up from stones children of Abraham, who are rejected by those who presume more than what is written, to reprove them and continue to build his church, which has many members.

Though the kingdom is sadly formally divided on earth amidst those who hold to core salvific truths, Rome is as one denomination at best, and the fully true church is not that which is called to look to a perpetuated supreme magistrate ruling from Rome over all, which is not seen in Scripture (holy Peter's leadership and general pastoral role notwithstanding), and praying to saints, and gaining members by regeneration through infant sprinkling based on proxy faith and which largely preaches itself (even though some within may belong to the body of Christ, as even the church in Laodicea was), but as it always was, the true church consists of the remnant who are of a poor and contrite spirit, and come to God as damned sinners and destitute of any means by which they may escape Hell or gain heaven by their own moral merit or the power of the church, but who out of a contrite heart trust the risen Lord Jesus to save them by His sinless shed blood, and thus overall follow Him, to the glory of God.

And the authenticity of its bodies is not based on visible structure, which they have, but in their demonstration of the gospel as the power of God unto salvation, which results in the need for structure. But in which no separate class of sacerdotal men called priests were ever ordained, nor a class that presumed its head clergy (almost exclusively) had the gift of celibacy, but were (typically) married elders/bishops, that denoting one office. (Titus 1:5-7)

Simply by examining history, we see that only one Church has been in continuous existence from Apostolic times, and that this Church possesses a non-contradictory and incontrovertable body of teaching.

You are ignoring what i said, which is that this is an interpretation (of history, etc.), which the others who also hold to sola ecclesia see differently, including the EOs, which “opposes the Roman doctrines of universal papal jurisdiction, papal infallibility, purgatory, and the Immaculate Conception precisely because they are untraditional." — Clark Carlton, THE WAY: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church, 1997, p 135.

“Both purgatory and indulgences are inter-corrolated theories, unwitnessed in the Bible or in the Ancient Church... — http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7076

and that this Church possesses a non-contradictory and incontrovertable body of teaching.

This sweeping statement rests upon the premise that Rome defines error, including upon what magisterial level this pertains to, and to whether such things as papal advocation of torture, or disallowance of salvation outside formal submission to Rome, contradict later positions, thus resulting in more division within Catholicism.

Such an institution is unparalleled in human history.

Despite gaps in popes and rival claims and confusion, and manifest immoral ones who would not even be allowed to be church members under the N. covenant, (1Cor. 5:11-13) and who were elected contrary to the non-political method Peter used. (Acts 1:26)

Regardless, your argument of validity based upon Divine promises and historical decent effectively nukes the church, as the Jews also claimed both, and who, unlike Rome, had actual precise affirmation of authority, yet like Rome, likewise presumed more than what is written, and likewise they claimed supreme authority of interpretation by which they could assert Scripture supported their excesses claims.

The fulfillment of Christ’s prophecy gives credibility to His claim of divinity. This reasonable conclusion is confirmed by countless public miracles associated with His Church.

And again we know the former from Scripture, as well as that the Lord confirms His word with signs following, (Mk. 16:20; Jn. 5:36,39; Heb. 2:3,4; Rm. 15:19) and evangelical faith testifies to far greater attestation of such in relation to their number, including in manifest regeneration of former Catholics, etc,. as well as consistency in Biblical moral views and tested core truths.

-—How do we know Christ is Truth——

We know from the argument from contingency that God is Being Itself. We also know that Being is convertible with Truth, since truth is the adequation of mind and being/reality. Truth is being as apprehended by the mind. Therefore, God is Truth. If Christ is God, then He must be Truth.We can reasonably conclude that He is God based on His prophecy regarding His Church.

All you are arguing is how one may make a fallible decision, which one can use to come to a conclusion different than your goal of bringing souls to submit to an assuredly infallible magisterium of Rome, faith that it is so being the answer to my question as to the basis for your assurance of Truth.

-—and that the church cannot teach error, if you are not certain that the Scriptures are Divine and thus authoritative? -—

From above, we know that God is Truth and that Jesus is God. His Church cannot propose error as truth, because of Who He is. This is further confirmed by His command to take disputes “to the church.” If the church was invisible, divided, or erroneous, His divine command would be void.

I do not doubt the inspiration of Scripture. But my arguments do not require divine faith, simply a reasonable initial consideration of the Bible as an historical document.

The issue is not that of authority per se, but that of supreme, perpetual assured infallible authority, but as shown, your conclusion is not established by your premise, as again, the Lord preserved Truth, and men where redeemed (looking forward to Christ), without an assuredly infallible magisterium of men.

We know Jesus is God by Scripture and its means of establishment of truth, and that God preserved and revealed Truth without an assuredly infallible magisterium.

Yet we can argue along the same line of reasoning for warrant to believe in Scripture as a supernaturally inspired and established body of writings, as described, but which supremacy you effectively give to a assured infallible Roman body of men, which premise is the real basis source of your assurance that this interpret is correct, having made a fallible decision to assent to it.

-—And thus before there was a church in Rome no one could have assurance of Truth as regards faith, and one cannot be sure that Rome is the OTC except by faith that the supreme magisterium of Rome is assured infallible.-—

Jesus founded His Church during His lifetime. The NT wasn’t completed for another 70 years. And the natural law, which is written on the human heart, is available to all people at all times.

But the church was not founded upon natural law, though reason was appealed to, but upon appeal to Scripture and Scriptural means of establishing truth, all without an assuredly infallible magisterium of men.

——Nowhere do we see any affirmation that all the church will ever speak on faith and morals will be assured infallible-—

Your premise that the church (small “c”) is the pillar and foundation of truth does not establish your conclusion that all the church ever universally speak on faith and morals will be assured infallible, which extrapolation,is not sound exegesis.

Linguistically you cannot establish that “pillar and foundation” means anything more than support, or being grounded and supporting the truth, while going back to scriptural principle and precedent again, we see (in review) that those to whom God were “committed the oracles of God” and the promises, etc. (Rm. 3:2; 9:4) and whom God used in establishment of His truth, were not assuredly infallible, and yet God was still Truth, and His Truth was preserved and conveyed and more revealed, as God knows how to raise up men to do so, even when those who sit in the formal office fail. And thus Christianity began with an itinerant preacher as far as those who claimed historical decent was concerned, and salvific truth and thus the church is preserved by God raising reformers, as needed.

In addition, it is not clear how many of the plethora of Rome's teachings (which of thousands) belong to the magisterial level for which preservation from error, while the church you have fallibly determined to be the OTC autocratically determines what is a contradiction versus a “clarification” (so that Protestants may be saved, etc.).

Sorry for the length and reiteration, but i keep seeing much the same in assertions for Rome.

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.