Infallible Authority Of The Church.

[Xeno.of.athens]

So you're speaking out of both sides of your mouth, then? Since on the one hand you say it isn't specifically about Roman Catholic authority and on the other you clearly intend to shoehorn in the Roman church as that authority. Being a bit duplicitous, aren't you?

No, but you are being ungenerous in your replies.

I am a Catholic so it is natural for me to identify the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church as the Catholic Church; others will have their own view. But the distinguishing marks are unchanging, thus the Church must be

1. one, not divided into many
2. ancient and apostolic because one cannot be the Church of the apostles and Jesus Christ if one is a recent human enterprise
3. holy in teaching and conduct, even when some members turn out to be tares many will be proven true and faithful
4. and catholic because she is present everywhere and everywhen - her apostolic commission is to spread the gospel to all people

she cannot be divided and racked with errors.

 

[Fervent]

No, but you are being ungenerous in your replies.

I am a Catholic so it is natural for me to identify the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church as the Catholic Church; others will have their own view. But the distinguishing marks are unchanging, thus the Church must be

1. one, not divided into many
2. ancient and apostolic because one cannot be the Church of the apostles and Jesus Christ if one is a recent human enterprise
3. holy in teaching and conduct, even when some members turn out to be tares many will be proven true and faithful
4. and catholic because she is present everywhere and everywhen - her apostolic commission is to spread the gospel to all people

she cannot be divided and racked with errors.

It's rather pointless to talk about the church's authority if we disagree as to what the church is, with the only thing to discuss being why claimants either are or fail to meet the standard. So unless we discuss a particular ecclesial position, there's nothing to talk about regarding "church authority." Especially since the disagreement is not over whether the church has authority, but precisely what(if any) identifiable church is the true church. So either we're dealing with something amorphous and undefined, or we're discussing a specific view of the church.

As for your 4 points, it seems 3 is insufficient for the true church. It is not enough that "many"(whatever that means) are proven true and faithful, especially when the corruption exists at every conceivable level of authority. Holy does not mean "kind of holy" or even "mostly holy."

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

It's rather pointless to talk about the church's authority if we disagree as to what the church is, with the only thing to discuss being why claimants either are or fail to meet the standard. So unless we discuss a particular ecclesial position, there's nothing to talk about regarding "church authority." Especially since the disagreement is not over whether the church has authority, but precisely what(if any) identifiable church is the true church. So either we're dealing with something amorphous and undefined, or we're discussing a specific view of the church.

For me, as a matter of conviction, the Church is the Catholic Church. If you want to discuss Catholic Church polity and doctrine that's fine by me.

As for your 4 points, it seems 3 is insufficient for the true church. It is not enough that "many"(whatever that means) are proven true and faithful, especially when the corruption exists at every conceivable level of authority. Holy does not mean "kind of holy" or even "mostly holy."

It seems to me that your complaint is really with what Jesus had to say about the Kingdom of God being like a field which was sewn by its owner and which was laced with weeds by an enemy of the owner.

Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn. ​

(Matthew 13:24-30 KJV)
In the Church there are tares, people whose motive is not to produce fruit for the harvest but rather who are motivated by other things suiting them best as servants of the devil rather than as children of God. Corrupt members, priests, bishops, are like the tares in the parable, but there are many more who are good and faithful servants who are like the wheat sewn by the field's owner (God). These are the good seed who yield a crop some ten, some sixty, and some one hundred fold.

I do not know why you do not understand these things, they are in your New Testament just as they are in mine. And also in the New Testament is written that the Church is the city of God, the New Jerusalem, the bride of Christ, pure and adorned in white; she is spotless.

And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of great thunders, saying: Alleluia: for the Lord our God, the Almighty, hath reigned. Let us be glad and rejoice and give glory to him. For the marriage of the Lamb is come: and his wife hath prepared herself. And it is granted to her that she should clothe herself with fine linen, glittering and white. For the fine linen are the justifications of saints. And he said to me: Write: Blessed are they that are called to the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith to me: These words of God are true. And I fell down before his feet, to adore him. And he saith to me: See thou do it not. I am thy fellow servant and of thy brethren who have the testimony of Jesus. Adore God. For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. ​

(Revelation 19:6-10 DRB)

 

[Fervent]

For me, as a matter of conviction, the Church is the Catholic Church. If you want to discuss Catholic Church polity and doctrine that's fine by me.

And it seems to me the entire purpose of your thread is to peddle the Roman church.

It seems to me that your complaint is really with what Jesus had to say about the Kingdom of God being like a field which was sewn by its owner and which was laced with weeds by an enemy of the owner.

Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn. ​

(Matthew 13:24-30 KJV)
In the Church there are tares, people whose motive is not to produce fruit for the harvest but rather who are motivated by other things suiting them best as servants of the devil rather than as children of God. Corrupt members, priests, bishops, are like the tares in the parable, but there are many more who are good and faithful servants who are like the wheat sewn by the field's owner (God). These are the good seed who yield a crop some ten, some sixty, and some one hundred fold.

I do not know why you do not understand these things, they are in your New Testament just as they are in mine. And also in the New Testament is written that the Church is the city of God, the New Jerusalem, the bride of Christ, pure and adorned in white; she is spotless.

And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of great thunders, saying: Alleluia: for the Lord our God, the Almighty, hath reigned. Let us be glad and rejoice and give glory to him. For the marriage of the Lamb is come: and his wife hath prepared herself. And it is granted to her that she should clothe herself with fine linen, glittering and white. For the fine linen are the justifications of saints. And he said to me: Write: Blessed are they that are called to the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith to me: These words of God are true. And I fell down before his feet, to adore him. And he saith to me: See thou do it not. I am thy fellow servant and of thy brethren who have the testimony of Jesus. Adore God. For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. ​

(Revelation 19:6-10 DRB)

My complaint isn't with Jesus, it's with those who claim that wicked men have been in a position to make infallible and binding statements on the church. It's with an ecclesial tradition that developed centuries after the apostles that insists that they are the true heirs of the apostles. The church is the bride of Christ, and is without blemish or spot. To insist that it is an institution that has fallen prey to serious corruption at every conceivable level is nothing short of making void the word of God for the traditions of men.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

And it seems to me the entire purpose of your thread is to peddle the Roman church.

It seems to me that your posts exist only to ferment division.

 

[Fervent]

It seems to me that your posts exist only to ferment division.

My posts aren't the ones pushing a chauvenistic agenda.

 

[bbbbbbb]

It seems to me that your posts exist only to ferment division.

Is he fermenting division or fomenting division?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Is he fermenting division or fomenting division?

fermenting it.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

My posts aren't the ones pushing a chauvenistic agenda.

I am not French and do not support Napoleon.

 

[bbbbbbb]

fermenting it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The Church has authority from God to teach regarding faith and morals, and in her teaching she is preserved from error by the special guidance of the Holy Ghost.

The prerogative of infallibility is clearly deduced from the attributes of the Church: the Church is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. Preaching the same creed everywhere and at all times; teaching holiness and truth, she is, of course, essentially unerring in her doctrine; for what is one, holy or unchangeable must be infallibly true.

That the Church was infallible in the Apostolic age is denied by no Christian. We never question the truth of the Apostles' declarations;(See Gal. 4:14; 1Thess. 2: 13.) they were, in fact, the only authority in the Church for the first century. The New Testament was not completed till the close of the first century. There is no just ground for denying to the Apostolic teachers of the twenty-first century in which we live a prerogative clearly possessed by those of the first, especially as the Divine Word nowhere intimates that this unerring guidance was to die with the Apostles. On the contrary, as the Apostles transmitted to their successors their power to preach, to baptize, to ordain, to confirm, etc., they must also have handed down to them the no less essential gift of infallibility. [Cardinal Gibbons, The Faith of Our Fathers]

For me, the Supreme 'truth' isn't whether or not some Church Denomination somewhere at some time claims to have Final Authority and Infallibility over all others. Rather, I think it's whether or not Jesus really was who the New Testament writers described Him as being; this, and whether or not He actually rose again from the dead.

Personally, I don't see that we absolutely need either an infallible Church nor an inerrant Bible in order to exist in the world as Christians. To me, it's sort of like Israel "wanting a king" when, in actuality, and if God was indeed God and imminent among His people, an earthly ruler wasn't really needed.

No, all that's really needed is that we, as [Trinitarian] Christians, do our best to work and think together. Neither Catholics, nor Orthodox, nor Protestants, nor myself have the everlasting, final word about ... The Word of God. Why can't we just recognize this epistemological pretzel in our historical circumstance rather than battling it out left and right and, thereby, decide to refuse the temptation to "Lord it over one another"?

 

[Fervent]

For me, the Supreme 'truth' isn't whether or not some Church Denomination somewhere at some time claims to have Final Authority and Infallibility over all others. Rather, I think it's whether or not Jesus really was who the New Testament writers described Him as being; that, and whether or not He actually rose again from the dead.

Personally, I don't see that we absolutely need either an infallible Church nor an inerrant Bible in order to exist in the world as Christians. To me, it's sort of like Israel "wanting a king" when, in actually, and if God was indeed God and imminent among His people, an earthly ruler wasn't really needed.

No, all that's really needed is that we, as [Trinitarian] Christians, do our best to work and think together. Neither Catholics, nor Orthodox, nor Protestants, nor myself have the everlasting, final word about ... The Word of God. Why can't we just recognize this epistemological pretzel in our historical circumstance rather than battling it out left and right and thereby refuse to "Lord it over one another"?

There's always been a difficult relationship between Christianity and authority, though even if we set aside demands for infallible or inerrant authorities we are still hard-pressed to identify the legitimate and illegitimate authorities within Christianity. Though I believe you've hit on one marker, in that genuine Christian authorities will not exercise their authority in the same fashion that secular authority is exercised. In seminary there was a lot of talk about being a servant-leadership, which seems to me to be at the heart of legitimate Christian authority.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

There's always been a difficult relationship between Christianity and authority, though even if we set aside demands for infallible or inerrant authorities we are still hard-pressed to identify the legitimate and illegitimate authorities within Christianity. Though I believe you've hit on one marker, in that genuine Christian authorities will not exercise their authority in the same fashion that secular authority is exercised. In seminary there was a lot of talk about being a servant-leadership, which seems to me to be at the heart of legitimate Christian authority.

Yes, there always has been this difficulty. Some of it is merely the unfortunate typicality that so many of us earthly mortals contribute to, whether erringly or not. Some of the historical contentions regarding the proper recognition of "Who's Who?" among the Churches of Christ and who can be most trusted have been legitimate, of course and I think that complete lack of debate among Christians can't be expected.

But in my own historical retroflection upon the last nearly 2,000 years of Christian History, I've recognized so much that has been anything but legitimate, yet we see in history that claims to Infallible Authority have been supported and carried out with overripe confidence by those with overt political clout.

You're right that servant-leadership and integrity should be expected at the heart of legitimate Christian [ read: Prophetic ] authority.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

fermenting (present participle)

1. (of a substance) undergo fermentation:
   "the drink had fermented, turning some of the juice into alcohol"
   SIMILAR:
   cause the fermentation of (a substance).
   • SIMILAR:
     brew
     subject to fermentation
     cause to ferment
     cause to effervesce
2. incite or stir up (trouble or disorder):
   "the politicians and warlords who are fermenting this chaos"

 

[Fervent]

Yes, there always has been this difficulty. Some of it is merely the unfortunate typicality that so many of us earthly mortals contribute to, whether erringly or not. Some of the historical contentions regarding the proper recognition of "Who's Who?" among the Churches of Christ and who can be most trusted have been legitimate, of course and I think that complete lack of debate among Christians can't be expected.

Neither expected, nor in my mind preferable. Civil discourse and debate can be quite envigorating.

But in my own historical retroflection upon the last nearly 2,000 years of Christian History, I've recognized so much that has been anything but legitimate, yet we see in history that's claims to Infallible Authority have been supported and carried out with overripe confidence by those with overt political clout.

Definitely, a great deal of unfortunate business under the guise of religious zeal. Far more often it seems to my reading of history that the theological is little more than a coverup for political manuevering.

 

[bbbbbbb]

fermenting (present participle)

1. (of a substance) undergo fermentation:
   "the drink had fermented, turning some of the juice into alcohol"
   SIMILAR:
   cause the fermentation of (a substance).
   • SIMILAR:
     brew
     subject to fermentation
     cause to ferment
     cause to effervesce
2. incite or stir up (trouble or disorder):
   "the politicians and warlords who are fermenting this chaos"

Quite so. I suspect that ferment and foment may share the same etymology.

 

[JSRG]

Quite so. I suspect that ferment and foment may share the same etymology.

They do not appear to. From the New Oxford American Dictionary:

Foment:
late Middle English (in foment (sense 2)): from French fomenter, from late Latin fomentare, from Latin fomentum ‘poultice, lotion’, from fovere ‘to heat, cherish’.

Ferment:
late Middle English: from Old French ferment (noun), fermenter (verb), based on Latin fermentum ‘yeast’, from fervere ‘to boil’.

 

[Dan Perez]

The Church has authority from God to teach regarding faith and morals, and in her teaching she is preserved from error by the special guidance of the Holy Ghost.

The prerogative of infallibility is clearly deduced from the attributes of the Church: the Church is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. Preaching the same creed everywhere and at all times; teaching holiness and truth, she is, of course, essentially unerring in her doctrine; for what is one, holy or unchangeable must be infallibly true.

That the Church was infallible in the Apostolic age is denied by no Christian. We never question the truth of the Apostles' declarations;(See Gal. 4:14; 1Thess. 2: 13.) they were, in fact, the only authority in the Church for the first century. The New Testament was not completed till the close of the first century. There is no just ground for denying to the Apostolic teachers of the twenty-first century in which we live a prerogative clearly possessed by those of the first, especially as the Divine Word nowhere intimates that this unerring guidance was to die with the Apostles. On the contrary, as the Apostles transmitted to their successors their power to preach, to baptize, to ordain, to confirm, etc., they must also have handed down to them the no less essential gift of infallibility. [Cardinal Gibbons, The Faith of Our Fathers]

I have not seen a verse where the so-called church has INFALLIBITY .

#1 THERE IS NO Greek word for Church .

#2 The Greek word EKKLESIA , EK means out of and KLESIS means a BLYcalling and is an ASSEMBLY .

And Matt 16:18 says , I WILL BUILD // AIKODOMEO is in the Greek FUTURE TENSE , ACTIVE VOICE , and in the INDICATIVE MOOD and I WILL BUILD is in the Greek SINGULAR , in other words that ASSEMBLY of Israel has not yet been BUILT .

EKKLESIA // ASSEMBLY is in the Greek ACCUSATIVE CASE , in the SINGULAR as that ASSEMBLY has YET to be BUILT '

And the GATES OF HELL // ADES is also in the Greek FUTURE TENSE and that means it has not happen YET

And we know that the 12 APOSTLES will sit on thrones and JUDGE Israel and that has not happened YET !!

The MAIN reason Peter is NOT sitting on a throne judging Israel is BECAUSE was SET ASIDE and 2 Cor 3 13-15 and Acts 28:23-29 .

dan p

 

[bbbbbbb]

They do not appear to. From the New Oxford American Dictionary:

Foment:
late Middle English (in foment (sense 2)): from French fomenter, from late Latin fomentare, from Latin fomentum ‘poultice, lotion’, from fovere ‘to heat, cherish’.

Ferment:
late Middle English: from Old French ferment (noun), fermenter (verb), based on Latin fermentum ‘yeast’, from fervere ‘to boil’.

Thank you. That is quite interesting.

 

[Hawkins]

The physical churches can fall, in a similar way of how the Temple fell. Only the heavenly Tabernacle won't fall.
The Church built by Jesus in 3 days won't fall, as it's the body of Jesus Christ. On the other hand, Jesus is the Head of human Church which can be corrupt when they choose to be away from God. Human church can also be represented as the Church built on rock. It's not Jesus Himself. If it's truly built on Jesus as the Rock then it won't fall, however it will fall when the time comes that it's not built on Jesus our Christ.

That being said, today's human Church refers to churches governed or identifiable by the faith statements of the Apostles' Creed. They are mostly Protestant in nature. This may include the Roman Catholic Church though, as long as it upholds the faith stated in the Apostles' Creed.

Humans are sinners, whatever they built are subject to corruption.

2 Corinthians 12:9
But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.”

Only when things are built upon Christ may become infallable. When you choose to build things on sands they fall. Only when you choose to build on the Rock that they stay infalliable.