Skip to comments.Infallibility
Posted on 05/16/2012 11:39:02 AM PDT by Salvation
Christ gave to Simon Peter and his successors, the Keys to the Kingdom and the power of binding and loosing. To the Popes was given the authority to teach. To them, in this regard, was given the charism of infallibility. "Infallibility" is not "impeccability" -- the inability to sin. Catholics do not believe that Popes are sinless and never err. Infallibility is simply a gift that is expressed in very specific ways, limited by Sacred Deposit of Faith -- Tradition, Scripture, and the unanimous writings of the early Fathers. As put by Vatican I:
For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by His revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by His assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or Deposit of Faith transmitted by the Apostles.
Or, as put even more bluntly by Pope Pius XII in Mystici Coporis Christi:
[Nor] may anyone argue that the primacy of jurisdiction established in the Church gives such a Mystical Body two heads. For Peter in virtue of his Primacy is only Christ's Vicar; so that there is only one chief Head of this Body, namely Christ, who never ceases Himself to guide the Church invisible, though at the same time He rules it visibly, through Church rested not on Him alone, but on Peter too, its visible foundation stone.
The Pope may explain doctrines more fully, he may go more deeply into them, he can extrapolate from moral principles to shed light on new situations that arise, but he cannot contradict what has been handed down by Christ and the Apostles and still claim infallibility for that teaching.
Protestants believe the first Pope possessed the charism of infallibility.
Now, they might not believe that Peter was the first Pope (which he was), but they believe that his Epistles are infallible. They also believe that Luke, Matthew, Mark, Paul, Jude and John wrote infallibly. They believe that Moses "was infallible," too. And Hosea, Micah, Nehemiah, Isaiah, David, Solomon, Zechariah -- any Patriarch, Prophet, Apostle, or Evangelist who wrote a Bibilical Book is deemed by Protestants to be infallible.
But somehow they see things as having changed, and the idea of the gift of infallibility being given to man is laughed off as "Popish superstition" at best, and as "Romish sacrilege" at worst.
Why they believe this, when since Israel's origins God has always provided authoritative leaders, I don't know. From Abraham to Jacob to Moses to David to Solomon, et. al., throughout the thousands and thousands of years of Israel's existence, God gave Israel earthly authority. But Protestants see this authority as having abruptly ended when the Old Testament Covenant was fulfilled and Israel's King of Kings took on flesh.
For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts.
The scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.
Did that earthly authorty pass away? If not, where did that authority pass on to?
And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. And I will fasten him as a nail in a sure place; and he shall be for a glorious throne to his father's house.
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
The authority passed to Peter and to the priests of the New Covenant.
"But we don't believe that Moses and Jacob and David were perfect! Look at David -- he committed adultery! Just because they wrote infallible books doesn't mean they were perfect!"
Precisely. And Catholics don't believe that Popes are perfect and can't sin or that every word a Pope mutters is infallible. When David whored around, he sinned. When Solomon prayed to pagan gods, he sinned. When Peter denied Christ three times, he sinned. When Pope John Paul II kissed the Koran or failed to deal with heretic, Modernist Bishops and homosexualist priests, he sinned. Impeccability is not a part of the deal -- but all of these sinners had/have the charism of infallibility.
The Authentic (i.e. "authoritative") Magisterium of the Church -- i.e., the teaching office of the Church exercised by proper authority -- has different levels of infallibility:
Extraordinary Infallible Magisterium ("Solemn Magisterium"): this is exercised when the Pope, as supreme pastor of the entire Church, speaks ex cathedra (from the Chair of Peter) and solemnly defines a dogma concerning faith and morals to be held by the entire Church, or when a Dogmatic Council convened and endorsed by a Pope formally defines a matter of faith and morals to be held by the entire Church. This is a very rarely excercised assertion of authority (only a few times in the past few hundred years). When the Pope teaches using his extraordinary infallible Magisterium, or when a Council dogmatically defines something and the Pope endorses that defintion, Catholics must believe what is taught de fide, as an article of faith.
Ordinary Infallible Magisterium ("Constant Magisterium" or "Universal Magisterium"): this is exercised when the Pope, Council, Bishop, priest or any authorized teacher teaches in accordance with Tradition, the Sacred Deposit of Faith, and what has been always accepted and taught by the Church in the past
Merely Authentic Ordinary Magisterium: any teaching by Pope, Bishop, priest, or any authorized teacher, that does not fall into the above two levels of infallibility is, quite simply, fallible, even though it may be part of the Authentic Magisterium (that is, it is "authorized" teaching). Teaching at this level is owed obedience -- as long as obeying does not harm the Faith, lead to sin or the loss of souls, does not contradict the Faith, etc. If what is being taught contradicts the Faith, it not only can be resisted, it must be resisted.
In addition to Magisterium, the Pope can, of course, simply act as a private person and offer his personal opinions on anything from current events to sports to food to movies. These may be of interest to us Catholics, who tend to sensibly love -- or at least respect the office of -- the Holy Father, but they are not "Church teaching" in any way. In the same way, a Council may be called that is pastoral and not dogmatic in nature (such as Vatican II).
Now, some Catholics forget the second level of the Magisterium, the "Ordinary Infallible Magisterium." They forget the Sacred Deposit of Faith, the unanimous agreement of the early Christian Fathers, and Sacred Tradition. These "Catholics" are the "liberal Catholics" or "modernist Catholics" you hear so much from in the media. They are the ones who root for the ordination of women, the eradication of the Christian view of homosexuality, etc. These are the well-organized, well-funded loudmouth "Catholics" who eat away at the Church's teachings and have become well-entrenched in various dioceses.
Another type of Catholic forgets about that third level of teaching that is not infallible at all. Any time the Pope teaches, he must be heard, his authority given respect, and the teaching given the benefit of the doubt because it comes from the Vicar of Christ. But if it contradicts prior infallible Magisterium, it is not infallible -- and it must not be obeyed if it proves harmful to the faith. Catholics who forget this level of Magisterium try very hard to be "orthodox" by being obedient, but they often have a false sense of obedience -- an obedience that sometimes borders on a pre-conscious papolatry ("pope worship"), though, of course, they know better and know that "worshipping the Pope" would be a terrible sin. They usually have a very healthy sensus catholicus, a desire for traditional Catholicism, and a virtuous patience, but they simply attribute to the Pope authority he does not have and they truly need to come to a better understanding of what the Magisterium is. These Catholics are often called "neo-conservatives," "conservatives," or "neo-Catholics" (they often think of and refer to themselves as "traditional Catholics" though they are not). You will see these otherwise wonderful Catholics tying themselves into knots trying to defend some of the novelties that followed Vatican II, or sweating bullets making excuses for some of the Holy Father's more scandalous actions (e.g., "ecumenical" services that include praying with Animists, Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, Protestants; allowing altar girls and "Extraordinary Eucharistic Ministers", etc.), failures to act (e.g., lack of discipline given to Bishops), and opinions (e.g., support for the anti-subsidiarity, anti-life, anti-Christ United Nations).
Their desire to protect the Holy Father is understandable -- and laudable! -- especially since the papacy has been attacked so unfairly since the Protestant Rebellion and the ensuing secular revolution, most often with outrageous lies. But these Catholics have to wake up, study a bit, and defend true Catholic teaching as it has been known for 2,000 years.
If it has always been taught by the Church as a matter of faith or morals, it is infallible. If it is a solemn definition, it is infallible.
Ex., you are reading two Encyclicals. The first Encyclical reads:
Venerable Brethren, the red dogs runs at night. The cow jumped over the Moon. Jesus Christ is God. Little Jack Horner sat in a corner. Women may not be ordained to the priesthood.
In this document, the only parts which would be infallible would be the lines "Jesus Christ is God" and "women may not be ordained to the priesthood" because these have always been taught. This is teaching at the level of the Universal Magisterium, which is infallible.
The second Encyclical reads:
By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that X, Y, Z. Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith. And, by the way, the red dog runs at night.
Notice the explicit "we define" here? Notice that it is addressed to "anyone," not just to members of the Latin Church or of the Eastern Churches, etc.? Notice the penalty in place for non-acceptance of what is being said (if you don't believe this, you have fallen away from the Catholic Faith)? By these marks, you can know that infallible teaching is being expressed.
In this document, X, Y, and Z are infallible, but not "the red dog runs at night." This is teaching at the level of the Extraordinary (or Solemn) Magisterium, which is also infallible and is to be accepted "de fide." (Note: Protestants and uneducated Catholics who ask blankly, "Is Enclyclical X infallible?" need to recognize that a 100-page Encyclical may be written that is not infallible in any way, or has 10 paragraphs that are infallible, or 1 sentence that is infallible, etc.). This sort of exercise of the Solemn Magisterium is very rare, but very necessary when clarity is needed over a teaching that has always been taught, but whose details haven't been strictly defined.
All other teachings are owed obedience as long as they do not lead to a loss of Faith, harm the Church, impede the salvation of souls, lead to an evil, etc.
Always been taught and believed: infallible
Solemnly defined by Pope or Council: infallible
Other teachings: fallible, but owed religious assent unless they prove harmful, lead to sin, etc.
In addition to the above authoritative excercises of the Magisterium is "ecclesiastical tradition." Ecclesiastical tradition is the body of disciplines and practices which Christ's Church has ordained to be the manner in which our Faith is lived out and expressed. To quote Brother Alexis Bugnolo, writing in Seattle Catholic:
Ecclesiastical Tradition is the term used by the Second Ecumenical Council of Nicaea, in 787 A.D., to speak of those pious customs of the Churches founded by the Apostles, which in some manner correctly apply the Catholic Religion to concrete practice over many generations. It does this most importantly in its 4th Anathema:"If anyone despises or rejects any written or unwritten ecclesiastical tradition, anathema sit."
Some examples cited by this council of ecclesiastical tradition are the veneration of the symbol of the Cross, icons, and statues. As an unwritten practice, kneeling for Communion is an ecclesiastical tradition.
The details of ecclesiastical tradition (small "T") are not a matter of dogma per se, but they are the inerrant manner in which dogma and doctrine are taught, learned, expressed, and lived. The details of ecclesiastical tradition may develop; they are not written in stone. But they may develop only slowly, "organically," in terms of quantity or quality (not substance), and in such a manner that is consistent with Natural Law and which better expresses the Faith (or at least doesn't harm the Faith, such as the novel practices since Vatican II do). Many of the problems in the Church since the Second Vatican Council stem from the almost complete eradication or revolutionizing of ecclesiastical tradition, in spite of the Second Council of Nicaea's anathema against such things and in spite of the fact that they have proven dangerous to the Faith.
“Good definition of your posts which say that Christ’s words are just metphors...”
Christ used them quite often to teach a point but if you’d read His word w/o some corrupt pope spoon - feeding u ur religion, you’d know that.
let's look at scripture:
if you read in the Bible, starting from John 6:30, we readThey asked Him for a sign, saying that Moses gave them manna in the desert. If Jesus (according to them) was aspiring to the level of Moses, He should do something as big as that.
30 So they asked him, What sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do?
31 Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written: He gave them bread from heaven to eat.
32 Jesus said to them, Very truly I tell you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven.
33 For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.
34 Sir, they said, always give us this bread.
35 Then Jesus declared, I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.
36 But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe.
and Jesus says something strange to them -- He says Moses didn't give you bread, My father did, and bread that comes down from heaven. Then He says that HE is the bread of life, HE is the manna -- and manna was to be eaten.
The people around Him made the same mistake you did, which is to think he was speaking as a metaphor.
Yet Jesus REPEATED the same thing, sayingAnd now the crowd is openly rebellious saying How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died.
50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die.
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
AndNote -- Jesus doesn't clear up the Metaphor, like he did in Matt. 16:512
53 Jesus said to them, Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.
57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.
58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.5 When they went across the lake, the disciples forgot to take bread.So, Jesus DOES indicate when it is a metaphor and when it isn't.
6 Be careful, Jesus said to them. Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
7 They discussed this among themselves and said, It is because we didnt bring any bread.
8 Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked, You of little faith, why are you talking among yourselves about having no bread?
9 Do you still not understand? Dont you remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?
10 Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?
11 How is it you dont understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
12 Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
In this case, look at the reaction of his DISCIPLES, people who had heard his teachings for so long and followed himYou cannot say that this was just bread and wine of that this is a metphor for coming and having faith in the Lord or some kind of metphor for believing in Christ because of the reaction of the Jews and the very language -- to eat one's flesh and drink the blood means to do violence on some one. You see it even in Hindi where a threat is "Mein tera Khoon pie jaongaa" or "I will drink your blood" -- and this is among vegetarians! To drink a persons blood means a serious threat of injury.So, if you believe that this was just a metphor, you mean to say that Christ is rewarding people for crucifying Him?!! That's nonsensical, sorry.
60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?...
66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.
You cannot even say it was a metaphor by incorreclty comparing it to John 10:9 (I am the gate/doorway) or John 15:1 (I am the true vine) is because this is not referenced in the entire verse in the same way as John 6 which shows the entire incident from start to finish of Jesus saying His body is to be eaten, repeating it and seeing his disciples go and not correcting them (as he did in Matthew 16).
Even in the literal sense -- Christ says he is the gateway to heaven and the vine such that we get nourishment with him as the connecting path. But John 6 is much much more than mere symbolism as He categorically states that "For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed" (John 6:55).
Even at the end of John 6, Jesus rebukes those who think of what He has said as a metaphor by emphasising thatJesus repeats the rebuke against just thinking in terms of human logic (Calvin's main problem) by saying
61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, Does this offend you?
62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!
63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to youthey are full of the Spirit[e] and life.
64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.
John 8:15 You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one.
16 But if I do judge, my decisions are true, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me.
so, why don't you actually read?
Christ utaught that we must repent, believe, eat of His body and endurate to the end but if youd read His word w/o some James Coffman spoon - feeding u ur cult, youd know that
“to all of the words of scripture you have no answer but a quote from some dude. Wow... and your posts have an issue with Christs teachings...”
What difference does it make, I would have said the same thing.
I understand Christ’s teaching quite well, I believe in Him and His word, and only that......!
But, that’s not good enough for you and other catholics, you need a silly little pope sitting in Rome telling u what to think.
“Reject your false teachings and come to Christ, to the community that Christ inaugurated the One Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church”
Why don’t rid yourself of that idol over in Rome and quit worshipping a man. A ursurper that claims he’s Christ on earth.
No thank you, I’ll stick with Jesus and His word. You can have your apostate church and your false gods.
Swampfox, I haven’t spoken to you for a bit.
From reading your comments, Swampfox101 considers himself to be pope of his own church.
Swampfox101 attacks the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church because swampfox101 considers himself to the ‘Vicar of Jesus Christ & the pope of the scriptures.’
That is the message swampfox101 puts forth in all his comments. Basically, you consider your armchair church to be the ‘true church of Jesus Christ.’
swampfox101 what Protestant churches do you consider faithful to Jesus Christ? Can you please name them?
Is there someone on television or radio that you consider to be preaching the ‘True Word of Jesus Christ.’ If so, please name that person.
Swampfox101, about how many people on the earth are part of what you consider to be the ‘Lord’s Church?’
Because we desire the completeness of Revelation. Jesus, when asked in Matthew 22:37-40 what Law was the greatest, rewrote the entire Old Testament in Matthew 22:37-40 when He gave us His Two Greatest Commandments; "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind" and to "Love your neighbor as yourself."
It can be argued that nothing else is required, if not the rest of Scripture or the Traditions of the Church He founded, then certainly not the interpretations of the Reformation.
"The oral traditions of the Church is the GOSPEL thats what the apostles taught."
The Bible was not written to replace the Traditions, but to supplement them. To borrow a phrase from Protestants; "show me where in Scripture it says that the Bible was to replace Tradition the moment it was canonized, or where it says in Scripture what the Canon process was to be, or who was to determine the Canon, and what the table of contents of the Bible was to be. It was the traditions of the Church between the death and resurrection of Jesus and the formalizing of the Canon that preserved and defended the Gospels.
Note that although all of the Apostles preached the Gospels only two of the Gospels were written by Apostles. Numerous books purportedly written by Apostles were not included in canon.
I checked 3 gk manuscripts (TR, Westcott, & UBS) and all 3 say for John 6:63 The words I speak to you “spirit are and life are”.
The translation used below says “The words I have spoken to youthey are full of the Spirit[e] and life.”
Note the addition “full of”. Those words appear no place in any text I can find.
Since the words just spoken have to do with eating Jesus’ flesh and blood, and since He had just commented that those words were causing the disciples difficulty, “the words” that are “spirit and life” are those difficult words about eating His flesh and drinking His blood.
IOW, those words about flesh and blood give Divine insight into something that touches on the Spirit aspect of reality and the life aspect of reality.
“It can be argued that nothing else is required, if not the rest of Scripture or the Traditions of the Church He founded, then certainly not the interpretations of the Reformation.
The Catholic Church was corrupt to the core, it had to be reformed. It’s STILL an apostate Church. It even disparages the very words of the ONE it claims it loves.
“Bible was not written to replace the Traditions,”
Correct, the corrupt traditions of men came afer the law. The Jews tried to replace God’s laws with traditions and now the Catholic Church and other try to replace the teaching of Christ with the corrupt teachings and traditions of sinful men.
‘but to supplement them ‘
What a strange, strange religion you believe in. God’s words are superceded by sinful men’s traditions. Okay....! You just keep believing that.
“show me where in Scripture it says that the Bible was to replace Tradition the moment it was canonized,”
God’s word has always been there. (John 1:1) Its men with there sinful traditons that have tried to replace the word of God. Aka the Jews and the Catholic Church. (Mark 7:7-8 And in vain they worship Me,Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.8 For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men[)
(Col. 2:8 “Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.”)
“Numerous books purportedly written by Apostles were not included in canon.”
I could care less about hearsay and gnostic writers.
“From reading your comments, Swampfox101 considers himself to be pope of his own church.”
I don’t believe in popes, that’s an office created by sinful men. I have God’s word, I don’t follow a mere man, claiming himself to be Christ on earth, I follow the TRUE Christ and His teachings.
‘Swampfox101 attacks the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church’
becauseswampfox101 considers himself to the Vicar of Jesus Christ & the pope of the scriptures.
LOL. You are confusing me with the pope. He’s the charlaton, not me. I only claiam to be a follower of Christ and His word. Its you, the Catholic Church and the pope that dispise Christ and His word. It’s you, your church and you sinful pope that mock and make fun of His word and call is “sola scripture”, not me.
That is the message swampfox101 puts forth in all his comments. Basically, you consider your armchair church to be the true church of Jesus Christ.
No. The Lord’s church is the one true Church. Study the book of Acts and you will find it.
swampfox101 what Protestant churches do you consider faithful to Jesus Christ? Can you please name them?
I’ve told you numerous time, I belong to the Lord’s Church. Put down that garbage you receive from ur silly little pope, pick up ur Bible and you’ll find the ONE TRUE CHURCH.
Is there someone on television or radio that you consider to be preaching the True Word of Jesus Christ. If so, please name that person.
I don’t watch TV preachers.
Swampfox101, about how many people on the earth are part of what you consider to be the Lords Church?
The Lord’s Church, if I had to guess, probably has between 6 and 8 million members.
gghd you and Infallibility have been a hoot to talk with but we seem to be chasing our tails. Have a good evening and keep on studying.
upport your claim or retract it.
"I could care less about hearsay and gnostic writers."
Why? How do you know that the Gospel of Mark, not an Apostle, belong in the Bible and the Gospels of Thomas and Philip, both Apostles, do not? Is your acceptance of the Magisterium conditional or merely inconsistent?
On this you are wrong.
First let us understand the meaning of the word church. It is not the definition as is proposed by most Protestant apologists which is an invisible church. The linguistic and theological context was the Jewish Qahal. The Qahal was a rigid and formal theocratic organizational structure in ancient Israelite society, aligned to the Masoretic Text of the Bible. The Greek equivalent was the ekklesia. It's meaning is more correctly translated as a convocation; a group called together for a specific purpose or function, and not some voluntary assemblage or membership. It has a deep tradition in Greek culture dating nearly 500 years before the time of Christ. Literally meaning "the called" or "called out", it was a governing assembly of Greek city state. Its membership was very narrowly restricted to males over the age of 18 who had served at least two years in military service to the city. The Ekklesia had a very structured organization and was empowered to make the most important decisions for the city, that of declaring war, suing for peace, judging all capitol cases and the hiring, firing and trying of any public officials. It was in these traditions that Jesus formed His formal, structured, hierarchical, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Matthew 16 tells us the how, why and context that Jesus established His Church. After feeding the 5,000 and having a number of His disciple walk away when He declared the Eucharit, Jesus took the Apostles and some Disciples to Caesarea Philippi and before the rock and the gates of Hell, asked them who the people said He was. He was demonstrating His rejection of a democratic, self interpreting Church. The response to the question was varied. Some said John the Baptist, some said Elijah, some said one of the prophets. All were wrong.
He then asked the Apostles collectively who they thought He was and there was silence and He rejected an oligarchical or elite governance. Then, without consulting the other Apostles, Peter stepped forward and declared that Jesus was indeed the Son of the Living God, which was the correct answer. Jesus acknowledged this and declared that Peter could only have learned this from God, designating that like the He had through out the history of His people God had chosen one person to be the spiritual leader to carry on after Jesus. And there, before the rock that stood between the ancient temple city of Caesarea Philippi and the cave grotto that was known to the people on the region as the gates or jaws of hell declared, it was upon Peter that he would found his Church, His Ekklesia, His Qahal.
Swampfox, where did you learn all about your scriptures?
Historically, people have learned scripture in the home & then thoroughly in a Church.
Acts Philip and the Ethiopian 8:26-39 in part, “Then the angel of the Lord spoke to Philip, ‘Get up and head south on the road... Now there was an Ethiopian eunuch, a court official of the Candace...Seated in his chariot, he was reading the prophet Isaiah.
The Spirit said to Philip, ‘Go and join up with that chariot.’ Philip ran up...and said, ‘Do you understand what you are reading?’ He (Ethiopian) replied, ‘How can I unless someone instructs me.’...
Then Philip opened his mouth and, beginning with this scripture passage, he proclaimed Jesus to him.”
Swampfox, what church did you attend & learn scripture? Every church I have ever heard of, has taught that scripture is handed on from generation to generation. Who taught you, or did you receive your knowledge directly from God?
Acts8 continuing in part, “As they traveled along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, ‘Look there is water. What is to prevent my being baptized?’...and Philip and the eunuch both went down into the water, and he baptized him.”
Swampfox, have you ever been baptized in a church? What was the name of that church? Do you baptize people in your armchair church, or do you just ‘pontificate as the pope of your scriptures?’
Swampfox, are you truly >saved? Swampfox have you been baptized by water? Swampfox have you been baptized by the Holy Spirit?
Swampfox, Are you really a Christian & a member of the Church of Jesus Christ?
Historically, baptism is a required act = for membership in the Kingdom of Jesus Christ.
Swampfox, do you ever listen to ministers preaching about Jesus Christ on the Radio? I noticed you didn’t answer that question?
How did you learn the scriptures?
“upport your claim or retract it.”
8 These people draw near to Me with their mouth,
And honor Me with their lips,
But their heart is far from Me.
9 And in vain they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.
“Why? How do you know that the Gospel of Mark, not an Apostle, belong in the Bible and the Gospels of Thomas and Philip, both Apostles, do not? Is your acceptance of the Magisterium conditional or merely inconsistent?”
You Catholics amaze me, you will go to any length to discredit the Word of God. I bet you also believe the da vinci code was factual huh?
Eph. 4:17-19 17 This I say, therefore, and testify in the Lord, that you should no longer walk as the rest of[a] the Gentiles walk, in the futility of their mind, 18 having their understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart; 19 who, being past feeling, have given themselves over to lewdness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.
30 Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent,
“Swampfox, where did you learn all about your scriptures?”
From Scripture and Church.
“Swampfox, what church did you attend & learn scripture? Every church I have ever heard of, has taught that scripture is handed on from generation to generation.”
NO. God’s word has always been and always will be. (John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend[a] it.) God’s word, Jesus, is light. Read it and understand. Just as the Eunuch was doing.
2 Tim 2:15 ( Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.)
“Who taught you, or did you receive your knowledge directly from God?”
The Bible is from God. Do you doubt that? 2 Tim.3:16 (cripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness_, John 14:16, John 16:13.
2 Cor. 4:3-5 (3 But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, 4 whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them. 5 For we do not preach ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord, and ourselves your bondservants for Jesus sake.)
2 Peter 1:15-17 (16 For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty. 17 For He received from God the Father honor and glory when such a voice came to Him from the Excellent Glory: This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.)
Swampfox, have you ever been baptized in a church? What was the name of that church? Do you baptize people in your armchair church,
I was baptized into the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ in 1969.
‘o you just pontificate as the pope of your scriptures?”
All of you Catholics have a real problem with God’s word huh? Just don’t like it do you? Don’t like it being quoted do you?
“wampfox, are you truly >saved? Swampfox have you been baptized by water? Swampfox have you been baptized by the Holy Spirit?”
I have been baptized in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Hoy Spirit for the remission of sins just as Jesus has commanded. Matt. 28:18-20 (And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore[a] and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age. Amen.)
“wampfox, do you ever listen to ministers preaching about Jesus Christ on the Radio? I noticed you didnt answer that question?
How did you learn the scriptures?”
I do not listen to tv preachers, this is the second time I have answered it. I learned scripture from reading and studying God’s word. I learn scripture from Church and I learned it from my parents.
Mostly from studing and reading God’s word.
Have a great Sunday, time to prepare for worship.
You did not answer my question and the versus you cited in no way reflect the relationship between Catholics and God or Catholics and Scripture. Honesty would require that you admit that you know very little about the Catholic Church beyond what you have been told from non-Catholic sources but choose to accept that for the basis of your disdain and hatreds. Study the Church, its doctrines and Catechism before you make your conclusions. I will pray that the Holy Spirit give you the gifts of knowledge and wisdom so that your eyes may be opened.
Peace be with you.
“the versus you cited in no way reflect the relationship between Catholics and God or Catholics and Scripture.”
God will be the judge of that with His very words.
(47 And if anyone hears My words and does not believe,[a] I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. 48 He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges himthe word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day. 49 For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak.)
Your choice God’s word or the pope.
Have a good life.
Swampfox, you are being deceitful. It doesn’t sound like you are really a Christian.
Where were you Baptized? Did you Baptize yourself?
Swampfox, have you been ‘born again’ & received the Holy Spirit?
Swampfox please read the Bible, you don’t understand it. Swampfox, you just spout words without understanding!
Acts 8: in part, “Philip ran up...and said, ‘Do you understand what you are reading?’ He (Ethiopian) replied, ‘How can I unless someone instructs me...’”
Swampfox, please read the Book of Acts with >understanding. The Bible teaches us that >understanding comes through a >Church.
Swampfox, always claims a ‘Lord’s Church.’ Swampfox, is there an >actual church we can see with our own eyes that you believe teaches the Word of God faithfully.’ Or is it, you have decided you are the ‘pope of your armchair church?’
Are you >self taught in scriptural understanding?
Swampfox, you make an >erroneous claim that other people do not read scripture. We do.
Swampfox, if our understanding is not like yours, swampfox tells us we don’t know scripture.
Swampfox that’s why I call you the ‘pope of your armchair church.’
Swampfox, you might say you ‘do not believe in Popes,’ But you act as the ‘pope of your armchair church.’
Swampfox, do you believe in >>>”freewill” in terms of Salvation. & That all people in the world are given sufficient Grace by God to become members of God’s eternal Church in Heaven?
Or, do you, swampfox, believe that God had already chosen the members destined for the Kingdom of God before God created the world. = Predestination.
Once again: Swampfox, Are you Born Again? Have you been Baptized by the Holy Spirit?
Once again: Swampfox, Do you listen to a preacher on >Radio talk about the Bible?
Swampfox, you do not answer the question about the radio. For some reason, I picture you tap-dancing around the question like Herodias’ daughter Salome dancing the dance of the Seven Veils.
Swampfox, you avoid answering the >radio question don’t you.
1. Swampfox, do you believe in theological >predestination that God chose members of the Kingdom of God before the world was created?
2. Swampfox, Are you ‘Born Again?’ Have you received Baptism by the Holy Spirit?
3. Swampfox, is there an >actual church we can see with our eyes that ‘preaches’ the true Word of God as you understand it?
4. Swampfox, do you now or have you ever listened to a preacher on the >>>radio? Has that preacher helped formed your views on Christianity?
Do you listen to Christian Radio?
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
It is not an either/or proposition. If you knew anything about Catholicism beyond what you learn from unobjective sources you would know that. I don't expect you to fully embrace all of Catholic doctrine, but you owe it to yourself to make your judgments on fact not fallacy.
Peace be with you.