Infallible Authority Of The Church.

[prodromos]

Oh dear more tiresome partisan revisionism.

No, that's your forte.

 

[Philip_B]

Oh dear more tiresome partisan revisionism.

Or more big brother bullying

 

[dzheremi]

Oh dear more tiresome partisan revisionism.

You can call it that if it makes you feel better. To literally everyone else (including "widely-respected Ukrainian Catholic theologian and clergyman" Bilaniuk, who wrote the encyclopedia article I quoted and linked, in what is again the standard Academic reference work on the Coptic Orthodox Church), it's quite simply what happened.

 

[BNR32FAN]

And, of course, your claim was pulled out of what?

My claim was pulled out of Britannica. You may have heard of them, they’ve been making encyclopedias since 1768. They specialize in history and science and have been a credible source of information for over 250 years. I can’t believe you’ve never heard of encyclopedia Britannica they’ve literally been in every school library since way before either one of us were born.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

My claim was pulled out of Britannica. You may have heard of them, they’ve been making encyclopedias since 1768. They specialize in history and science and have been a credible source of information for over 250 years. I can’t believe you’ve never heard of encyclopedia Britannica they’ve literally been in every school library since way before either one of us were born.

It is good that you cannot believe what you surmised about me. It is, of course not true. I have heard of encyclopaedia Britannica. It used to be highly valued; printed encyclopedias are rare nowadays, and Britannica has become more or less irrelevant. Now, what lesson of history is it that you think Britannica is going to teach to me?

PS: As a little footnote I have a printed set of encyclopedias, they were cheap. They are Funk and Wagnalls. I bought them in the late 1970s from a news agency here in Australia. They were sold one volume per week and were fairly inexpensive. I was rather young at the time and they were a useful set of printed volumes for bits of information that I could use when writing essays. In later life, I obtained Microsoft's. Encarta encyclopaedia. Nowadays, I use what is available on-line, including Wikipedia, but when I need specialised historical information, I use the scholars search facility in Google, and use the research papers that are available there.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Primacy has a look-in here

Also, the souls of those who have incurred no stain of sin whatsoever after baptism, as well as souls who after incurring the stain of sin have been cleansed whether in their bodies or outside their bodies, as was stated above, are straightaway received into heaven and clearly behold the triune God as he is, yet one person more perfectly than another according to the difference of their merits. But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains. We also define that the holy apostolic see and the Roman pontiff holds the primacy over the whole world and the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter prince of the apostles, and that he is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole church and the father and teacher of all Christians, and to him was committed in blessed Peter the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole church, as is contained also in the acts of ecumenical councils and in the sacred canons.​

​

Also, renewing the order of the other patriarchs which has been handed down in the canons, the patriarch of Constantinople should be second after the most holy Roman pontiff, third should be the patriarch of Alexandria, fourth the patriarch of Antioch, and fifth the patriarch of Jerusalem, without prejudice to all their privileges and rights. [Council of Florence]​

When has this ever actually been recognized by all of the apostolic churches or even exercised on the apostolic churches? Rome has issued several demands on the eastern churches and they never budged in their practices and traditions. Rome told them to stop using leavened bread in the Eucharist, none of the eastern churches stopped, Rome told them that priests should be celibate, none of them listened, Rome added the filioque to the Nicene Creed, all of the other churches rebuked Rome for it and never incorporated it into their’s. The Bishop of Rome claims he has authority over all the churches but it has never been accepted by the other churches nor has it ever been exercised upon them. It’s like saying to your friends “I’m the boss” and everyone says “your crazy” and doesn’t do a thing you tell them to.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

When has this ever actually been recognized by all of the apostolic churches or even exercised on the apostolic churches? Rome has issued several demands on the eastern churches and they never budged in their practices and traditions. Rome told them to stop using leavened bread in the Eucharist, none of the eastern churches stopped, Rome told them that priests should be celibate, none of them listened, Rome added the filioque to the Nicene Creed, all of the other churches rebuked Rome for it and never incorporated it into their’s. The Bishop of Rome claims he has authority over all the churches but it has never been accepted by the other churches nor has it ever been exercised upon them. It’s like saying to your friends “I’m the boss” and everyone says “your crazy” and doesn’t do a thing you tell them to.

For me, because I am a Catholic, it is sufficient that the one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church recognises it. What others do is up to them, if they want to reject it, that's fine.

 

[JulieB67]

So who was it? It was the church. The church had the authority to choose the books. And having chosen them, Christians accepted what the church had chosen

Yes, but they do error in thinking the book of Judith is canon don't you think for the Catholic Bible? Which clearly with it's errors can not be so even though they brush off the errors as nothing. You said Christians accept the books they have chosen and that's not the case in that instance.
As for putting the books together, God will choose whomever he will but it's up to the individual to study for themselves, line up to see which books fit together and so on.

The Catholic Church does not have thousands of different theologies. Its teaching is unitary. Its members may hold differing views, that is expected in a population numbered in the billions.

I don't think a majority is always a good thing. Remember, Christ states that narrow is the way and few find it.....

We hope we are in the few that find it.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Yes, but they do error in thinking the book of Judith is canon don't you think for the Catholic Bible?

No. They did right to include Judith in the Canon of sacred scripture.

Which clearly with it's errors can not be so even though they brush off the errors as nothing.

I have heard many say that the books of Moses contain errors, and that St Luke's gospel contains errors. Some reject the letter of James because it says that we are justified by works and not by faith alone. Some reject the apocalypse of St John because of its strange images of beasts and Heavenly things. Shall I discount all those books? Because some say there are errors in them. I shall not discount them.

You said Christians accept the books they have chosen and that's not the case in that instance.

Those who reject books that are in the Holy Scriptures, for whatever reasons they may have for rejecting them, endanger their souls.

As for putting the books together, God will choose whomever he will but it's up to the individual to study for themselves, line up to see which books fit and so on.

If you want to write your own canon after you perform your own studies to decide which books are worthy of inclusion that's up to you. But I will not join you in that work.

I don't think a majority is always a good thing. Remember, Christ states that narrow is the path and few find it.....

We hope we are in the few that find it.

I pointed to the high numbers in the Catholic Church to explain why you should expect to find differences amongst the vast membership. It was not my purpose to say that because there are very many people, they must be right. I do not believe that a majority necessarily is right.

 

[JulieB67]

have heard many say that the books of Moses contain errors, and that St Luke's gospel contains errors. Some reject the letter of James because it says that we are justified by works and not by faith alone. Some reject the apocalypse of St John because of its strange images of beasts and Heavenly things. Shall I discount all those books? Because some say there are errors in them. I shall not discount them.

I'm talking about blatant errors, not imagery, different interpretations, etc, even wrong translations. I'm talking about claiming Nebuchadnezzar was an Assyrian king ruling in Nineveh. That's a totally false narrative and it that's false, it stands to reason, the rest of the book is as well.

endanger their souls.

Endangering their soul for not accepting a book that starts off with a false claim? I don't think so. To me it would be the other way around because someone is adding to the word of God.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I'm talking about claiming Nebuchadnezzar was an Assyrian king ruling in Nineveh.

Nebuchadnezzar conquered Assyria, and so he became its king. And then its capital became one of his cities. If he had a palace there and decided to go there in the summer or something, then he would be ruling from Nineveh. I think you need to stop and think before you accuse the Bible to being wrong.

Endangering their soul for not accepting a book that starts off with a false claim? I don't think so. To me it would be the other way around because someone is adding to the word of God.

They endanger their souls by pretending that they are the judges of what is Holy Scripture and what is not. It takes enormous pride to be judge of God's written word.

 

[B Griffin]

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.

1) That the Church was infallible in the Apostolic age is denied by no Christian. 2) We never question the truth of the Apostles' declarations;(See Gal. 4:14; 1Thess. 2: 13.) 3) 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 4) 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.

Define infalibility: "the inability to be wrong".

1) We all know that the Catholic Church claims supremacy within Christendom, but it is stretch to claim that every Christian agrees the Catholic Church was around in "the Apostolic age" and that it was "infalible" at that time, whatever that means.

2) We only have a minute sampling of the "Apostles' declarations". And while we do trust the Scriptures to be infalible, the Scriptures do not portray the Apostles (or any person other than Christ) as being infalible. There are many instances of them making errors. Quite notably was Paul's rebuke of Peter (and James by implication) in Galatians 2.

3) It is a grave error to not recognize the Lord Jesus Christ as always having authority over all things, especially over individual Christians and Christendom itself.

• And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence. (Col 1:18).
• 9 For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; 10 and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power. (Col 2:9–10)
• 18 Let no one cheat you of your reward, taking delight in false humility and worship of angels, intruding into those things which he has not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, 19 and not holding fast to the Head, from whom all the body, nourished and knit together by joints and ligaments, grows with the increase that is from God. (Col 2:18–19)

4) The "Divine Word" tells us of the One who is without defect leading, guiding, directing, teaching, correcting, and comforting us from the intimacy of our own hearts. This OP is an example of misplaced allegiance. Unfortunately, this is not uniquely a Catholic Church problem. See The Main Problem Faced By the Church Today.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

We all know that

No no you claim Know that.

 

[JulieB67]

They endanger their souls by pretending that they are the judges of what is Holy Scripture

We are to study to show ourselves approved. And everyone used to check the scriptures to see if what was being taught was true in biblical times. To say we are not to do the same thing would make no sense. That's the only we can know truth.

If he had a palace there and decided to go there in the summer or something, then he would be ruling from Nineveh. I

From Judith -"It was the twelfth year* of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, who ruled over the Assyrians in the great city of Nineveh."

This is completely false narrative. He never ruled over the Assyrians in Nineveh. Throughout the entire book he is called King of the Assyrians when at the time he was King of the Babylonians.

The entire city was conquered and destroyed by the Medes and Babylonians during Nabopolassar's rule- whatever Assyrians were left fled. But believe what you will.

. I think you need to stop and think before you accuse the Bible to being wrong.

It's not the word of God that I'm accusing of being wrong. Have you not read Nahum? If so then you would hopefully understand why you're thinking Nebuchadnezzar possibly having a summer palace in Nineveh after it was destroyed is kind of preposterous.

 

[PloverWing]

I'm talking about blatant errors, not imagery, different interpretations, etc, even wrong translations. I'm talking about claiming Nebuchadnezzar was an Assyrian king ruling in Nineveh. That's a totally false narrative and it that's false, it stands to reason, the rest of the book is as well.

For what it's worth, my study Bible has this to say in its commentary on Judith: "There are historical contradictions in the story interpreted by some scholars as intended by the author to indicate unmistakably the fictional nature of the work, and thereby to point up the timeless quality of its contents."

 

[JulieB67]

by some scholars as intended by the author to indicate unmistakably the fictional nature of the work,

But it seems strange to regard a work of fiction to be part of the word of God as canon. I can see it being a book but to be included with the rest with such blatant errors doesn't serve a purpose imo. I've even read that some of the names and cities are fiction as well. I just can't believe God would inspire fiction like that to be included. He's not the author of confusion and that would certainly do it.

 

[PloverWing]

But it seems strange to regard a work of fiction to be part of the word of God as canon. I can see it being a book but to be included with the rest with such blatant errors doesn't serve a purpose imo. I've even read that some of the names and cities are fiction as well. I just can't believe God would inspire fiction like that to be included. He's not the author of confusion and that would certainly do it.

If it's clear to the readers that the story is intended as fiction (so that there's no deception involved), I could see fiction being preserved in the canon. Consider Jesus' parables, for example. He tells stories of a farmer sowing seeds, of a woman looking for a lost coin, of a father welcoming a returning son, and so on. Those stories are still valuable to us, even though they're fictional stories that Jesus told to make a point.

 

[Philip_B]

If it's clear to the readers that the story is intended as fiction (so that there's no deception involved), I could see fiction being preserved in the canon. Consider Jesus' parables, for example. He tells stories of a farmer sowing seeds, of a woman looking for a lost coin, of a father welcoming a returning son, and so on. Those stories are still valuable to us, even though they're fictional stories that Jesus told to make a point.

History is not the only vehicle of truth, and indeed some of what we receive as history may carry less truth than a novel.

 

[JulieB67]

He tells stories of a farmer sowing seeds, of a woman looking for a lost coin, of a father welcoming a returning son, and so on. Those stories are still valuable to us, even though they're fictional stories that Jesus told to make a point.

I totally get imagery, and analogies brought out by parables dealing with husbandry, etc but to me it's not the same as changing facts. That might confuse new Christians and turn them off wondering what is truth and what is false. It might not be clear that it's meant to be fiction to some. But I guess people see it differently.