Why water into wine?

[epostle1]

Keras,

I have no intention of trying to turn you away from the Catholic Church. I understand you have your faith and conviction and I am fine with that. I think we both are brothers in Christ, though we disagree on a number of issues.
Allow me just to conclude with a few thoughts. First, I just want to be clear that the text does not actually make the implications you are giving. It never says "passed on" or mentions offices or magisterium. It never even implies it. I understand your background teaches these things are implied in these verses, but that is presupposition you have going into the text. Those passages say no such thing about ongoing offices, etc. They just dont. It is fine with me if you think that is what Jesus meant, maybe you are right. But that is not what the passages overtly state.

Second, I think history is my friend. The letter of Athanasius in 367 shows a consensus view of the churches regarding the books of the NT. Even prior to this, we see that even earlier, around 200 AD other writings may indicate the same concepts. However, it was not until much later that the "official" canon was decreed upon by Church councils. Yet my point is that the council was merely affirming what the Church had believed, and was not "creating" a canon. It was merely solidifying what orthodox believers already accepted in the face of heretical groups and teachings.

Yes, Paul was subject to the Church, but he also declared that he did not need approval from those who "seemed influential." (Gal 2:6). Yet, I agree that Paul was not a Lone Ranger and he did seek to work within the guidance of the Church. Yet, he mentions he was not afraid to confront Peter when he was in error. To suggest that this is only because Peter was not in some special seat of teaching authority seems nonsensical to me. Clearly Peter was a leader and his leadership was leading people astray because of hypocrisy. Yet because Peter loved the truth and did not see himself as incapable of error because of position, he was humbled and repented of his misrepresentation of the Gospel. Paul himself declares that "even if an angel" declares a false gospel, they should be condemned. It is not position, but message that matters. The message always usurps position..at least that is how I read those texts.

Again, I know you will not change your mind and I am not trying to. Just trying to clarify my position.

Apostolic succession
Magisterium
Athanasius
The Canon of Scripture
Paul confronts Peter
the primacy of Peter
I can't reply to this list in one brief post, so I will briefly summarize each of your points.

Apostolic succession
I respectfully submit that your position is full of holes.
The testimony of the early Church is deafening in its unanimous (yes, unanimous) assertion of apostolic succession. What is the biblical support for apostolic succession? | Catholic Answers

Magisterium
By the Magisterium we mean the teaching office of the Church. It didn't just disappear. In Bible times it consisted of Peter and the Apostles. Today it consists of the Pope (who is a bishop, not an apostle) and all the bishops, whose office can be traced back to the Apostles they succeeded. Tradition and Living Magisterium | Catholic Answers

Athanasius
Since 95% of Christians could not read in 367 AD, you will have to clarify what you mean by "consensus".

From Athanasius' 39th Festal Letter in the year 367:

Since, however, we have spoken of the heretics as dead but of ourselves as possessors of the divine writings unto salvation,... the rest of his letter is here. Notice he writes "of ourselves" so he is not acting independently.

The Canon of Scripture The whole Bible was canonized in 397 AD at the Council of Carthage, not by a vote of all believers. The Church did not "create" the canon but discerned false books from inspired books. It was a long complicated process.

Paul confronts Peter

Paul confronted Peter for his behavior, not his teaching. There isn't a shred of evidence they had theological differences. Popes have been rebuked throughout history (e.g., by St. Catherine of Siena, St. Dominic, St. Francis). It doesn’t follow that they have no authority. Jesus rebuked and excoriated the Pharisees, but He told His followers to follow their teaching, even though they acted like hypocrites ((Matt 23:2 ff.).. Paul confronting Peter had nothing to do with infallible teaching because Peter made no teaching while he was hiding. But Peter wrote 2 infallible encyclicals (1 & 2nd Peter).

the primacy of Peter
Where did Peter misrepresent the Gospel? Chapter and verse please.

Paul himself declares that "even if an angel" declares a false gospel, they should be condemned. It is not position, but message that matters. The message always usurps position..at least that is how I read those texts

You’re trying to set the Bible against the Church, which is typical Protestant methodology, and ultra-unbiblical. The Bible never does that. I’ve already given the example of the Jerusalem Council, which plainly shows the infallibility of the Church.

The Bible repeatedly teaches that the Church is indefectible; therefore, the hypothetical of rejecting the (one true, historic) Church, as supposedly going against the Bible, is impossible according to the Bible. It is not a situation that would ever come up, because of God’s promised protection.

What the Bible says is to reject those who cause divisions, which is the very essence of the onset of Protestantism: schism, sectarianism, and division. It is Protestantism that departed from the historic Church, which is indefectible and infallible (see also 1 Tim 3:15).

The one true Church is and always will be in harmony with God’s inspired revelation, the Bible. Thus, we reject any form of Protestantism, because they fail this test. It’s not a matter of one thing being “under” the other. All of that is the invention of the 16th century and the biblically bankrupt and meaningless notion of sola Scriptura. The Bible presents Scripture-Tradition-Church as a “three-legged stool”: the rule of faith. All are in harmony; all work together.

And is any church and any teacher to be rejected who strays from God’s words, as Paul commands?
Sure; this is why we reject any form of Protestantism, because all fail the test of allegiance to God’s Word in Holy Scripture, and the historical pedigree that the fathers always taught was necessary. Every heretic in the history of the world thumbed their nose at the institutional Church and went by Scripture alone. It is the heretical worldview to do so, precisely because they know they can’t prove that their views were passed down through history in an unbroken succession.

Therefore, heresies and Protestantism either had to play games with history in order to pretend that it fits with their views, or ignore it altogether.

It is the pitting of the ultimate source against the secondary, human source (the Church) which is the problem in your approach and that of Protestantism in general. You guys don’t like human, institutional authority and don’t have enough faith to believe that God can and does preserve it, so you try to undermine it by fallacious arguments, as presently.

No doubt you aren’t even aware that you are doing it. To do this is automatic in Protestantism; it’s like breathing. It’s like the fish that doesn’t know it’s in water. It all comes from the rejection of the infallibility of the Church (which is one thing that sola Scriptura always entails).

In Galatians 1-2 Paul is referring to his initial conversion. But even then God made sure there was someone else around, to urge him to get baptized (Ananias: Acts 22:12-16). He received the revelation initially and then sought to have it confirmed by Church authority (Gal 2:1-2); then his authority was accepted or verified by James, Peter, and John (Gal 2:9). So we see that the Bible doesn’t pit the divine call directly from God, against Church authority, as you do. You do it because it is Protestant man-made tradition to do so; period, and because the Protestant has to always undermine the authority of the Church, in order to bolster his own anti-system, that was set up against the historic Church in the first place.

We believe in faith that the Church is infallible and indefectible, based on many biblical indications. It is theoretically possible (speaking in terms of philosophy or epistemology) that the Church could stray and have to be rejected, but the Bible rules that out. We believe in faith that it has not and will not.

Protestants don’t have enough faith to believe that God could preserve an infallible Church, even though they can muster up even more faith than that, which is required to believe in an infallible Bible written by a bunch of sinners and hypocrites.

We simply have more faith than you guys do. It’s a supernatural gift. We believe that the authoritative Church is also a key part of God’s plan to save the souls of men. We follow the model of the Jerusalem Council, whereas you guys reject that or ignore it, because it doesn’t fit in with the man-made tradition of Protestantism and a supposedly non-infallible Church.

Dialogue with a Calvinist: Was Paul a "Lone Ranger"?

 

[Wormwood]

Keras,

Thank your for your reply. I will just offer a brief response since my time is limited.

The point you were originally making was that the Bible proved your points about apolstolic succession, magisterium, etc. My point was the Bible did not overtly teach any such thing. If you are changing your position to discuss the early church as validation of church offices, etc, then that is a different position than the one we were originally discussing. Seems you are changing the goals half way through the game.

Again, I recognize your view is based on the tradition of the early church. My point originally was simply that the Bible itself taught no such thing.

I will deal with the letter later.

As for Peter and Paul...
I strongly disagree with the notion that a person chan be accurate in a "teaching position" but live hypocritically. I dont think the Bible teaches any such thing. Paul told Timothy to "watch your life and doctrine closely...". It's not just what we teach but how we live. The context of Galatians is that Paul is challenging them on this false Gospel they embraced. The whole illustration about his Apostolic call and confrontation of Peter is to show how serious the message he has received is! It is so serious that even if "he" (Paul, himself) or an "angel from heaven" taught a different gospel, they should be condemned. His illustration shows that he was even willing to confront Peter about hypocrisy on this issue. What good is it to teach something if your life is a lie? I think it is a huge error to suggest that Peter was infallible in teaching, even if he was a hypocrite at times. I think this kind of view is fraught with problems and has led to issues for the Church as a whole throughout its history. Our trust should be in the truth of the Gospel, not the perceived infallibility of any person. Just to be clear, I am not saying Peter was teaching a false Gospel. I am simply saying that even Peter made mistakes...post Pentecost. The thing that brought him (and others) back to the truth was the unchanging Gospel...not an infallible positioning that is nowhere mentioned in the Scripture (which seems odd if this was to be the foundation of all truth).

 

[epostle1]

Keras,

Thank your for your reply. I will just offer a brief response since my time is limited.

The point you were originally making was that the Bible proved your points about apolstolic succession, magisterium, etc. My point was the Bible did not overtly teach any such thing. If you are changing your position to discuss the early church as validation of church offices, etc, then that is a different position than the one we were originally discussing. Seems you are changing the goals half way through the game.

I explicitly defined the Magisterium in Bible times as Peter and the Apostles, they had teaching authority. That teaching authority did not die off, or we would have no Bible. Athanasius was bishop of Alexandria, who do you think ordained him?, and who ordained that bishop?

Again, I recognize your view is based on the tradition of the early church. My point originally was simply that the Bible itself taught no such thing.

Separating Tradition from the Bible is like ripping a wing off of a bird. The Bible doesn't do that. That's why you have to alter the meaning of Tradition.

I will deal with the letter later.

As for Peter and Paul...
I strongly disagree with the notion that a person chan be accurate in a "teaching position" but live hypocritically. I dont think the Bible teaches any such thing. Paul told Timothy to "watch your life and doctrine closely...".

Paul also told Timothy, "What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession—
1) his own generation,
2) Timothy’s generation, and
3) the generation Timothy will teach...
And you can't find apostolic succession in the Bible.

It's not just what we teach but how we live. The context of Galatians is that Paul is challenging them on this false Gospel they embraced. The whole illustration about his Apostolic call and confrontation of Peter is to show how serious the message he has received is!

First, Paul went to Peter to verify his gospel, not the other way around. You are confusing infallibility with impeccability. Infallibility is a gift from God and has nothing to do with the holiness of those operating under this gift.

It is so serious that even if "he" (Paul, himself) or an "angel from heaven" taught a different gospel, they should be condemned.

Do I need to go over that again as well?

His illustration shows that he was even willing to confront Peter about hypocrisy on this issue.

Peter didn't teach a different gospel, and for the 2nd time, Paul confronted Peter over his behavior,
NOT HIS TEACHING.

What good is it to teach something if your life is a lie?

Peter's life was a lie?

I think it is a huge error to suggest that Peter was infallible in teaching, even if he was a hypocrite at times.

For the second time, where did Peter misrepresent the Gospel? Give a false teaching?? Chapter and verse please.

I think this kind of view is fraught with problems and has led to issues for the Church as a whole throughout its history.

I'll discuss corrupt popes but I will include the amoral hypocrisies of the reformers.

Our trust should be in the truth of the Gospel, not the perceived infallibility of any person.

Straw man. That has nothing to with infallibility.

Just to be clear, I am not saying Peter was teaching a false Gospel. I am simply saying that even Peter made mistakes...post Pentecost. The thing that brought him (and others) back to the truth was the unchanging Gospel...not an infallible positioning that is nowhere mentioned in the Scripture (which seems odd if this was to be the foundation of all truth).

The infallibility of Peter has nothing to do with his mistakes, because it doesn't come from Peter, infallibility comes from God to PREVENT TEACHING ERRORS
on matters of faith and morals. There is no such thing as "infallible positioning". Whatever Peter binds on earth is bound in heaven. Heaven can't bind errors but you insist it can. and it has nothing to do with sinful leaders. Besides, no corrupt church leaders taught anything anyway.

The basic assumptions the typical Evangelical has about the papacy are part of the wallpaper in the Evangelical world. Being brought up in an independent Bible Church, I was taught that our little fellowship of Christians meeting to study the Bible, pray and sing gospel songs was like the ‘early Christians’ meeting in their house churches. I had a mental picture of ‘Catholic Pope’ which I had pieced together from a whole range of biased sources. When I heard the word ‘pope’ I pictured a corpulent Italian with the juicy name “Borgia” who drank a lot of wine, was supposed to be celibate, but who not only had mistresses, but sons who he called ‘nephews’. This ‘pope’ had big banquets in one of his many palaces, was very rich, rode out to war when he felt like it and liked to tell Michelangelo how to paint. That this ‘pope’ was a later invention of the corrupt Catholic Church was simply part of the whole colorful story.

But of course, the idea that the florid Renaissance pope is typical of all popes is not a Catholic invention, but a Protestant one. Protestantism has been compelled to rewrite all history according to it’s own necessities. As French historian Augustin Thierry has written, “To live, Protestantism found itself forced to build up a history of its own.”​

Authority of the First Popes - Standing on my Head

 

[epostle1]

What Is Infallibility?
Infallibility is commonly understood to mean exemption from error. So it is. But what does this mean?

It means that a person, or persons, who are infallible not only, do not err; they cannot err. Clearly it is one thing to not make a mistake, and something else, and much more, not to be able to make a mistake.

Is that all? No, infallibility is not only something negative. It is eminently positive. It implies that the one or ones who are infallible not only do not hold what is false. It also says that they hold or declare the truth.

We might explain it this way. A person who is infallible is protected or prevented from doing something wrong, in this case being in error. Yet, as we know, a stone or a tree cannot be in error either; but neither can they (in any intelligible sense) be said to hold or profess the truth.

Infallibility makes sense only among rational beings who can be fallible. When and if they are infallible it means that they possess or proclaim the truth.

The real purpose of infallibility is not just to be infallible—but to have and declare the truth.

We might then redefine infallibility as the capacity for the truth. There is no special value in being infallible except to be assured of having and communicating what is true. To use a homely comparison, immortality is to be incapable of dying, which sounds negative but is very positive, because it means being capable of living.
In more elaborate language this means that when God became man and called Himself the Truth and the Life, He meant these two titles to be interdependent. He is the Life of grace for us, provided we believe in Him as the Truth.

This was dramatically explained by the Savior when He foretold the Eucharist and told His followers they were to believe in Him to have eternal life. Yes, they would have this life and he saved, provided they accepted the truth of His Real Presence.

So it is with every mystery of Christian revelation which, if believed, gives the believer possession of the truth. Then, believing the truth, the Christian has access to the sources of grace that his faith tells him are available and productive of salvation and sanctification.

Thus, if I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God in human form, which is the truth, I shall invoke His divine assistance in prayer, and thus receive grace.

If I believe that Christ’s commandment to love others as He has loved me, which is the truth, I shall put this commandment into practice and merit divine grace for myself and for those whom I love.

Why Must the Church Be Infallible?
We now come closer to our subject when we ask, “Why must the Church founded by Christ be infallible?”

In one brisk sentence: the Church must be infallible because she is the mediator of divine grace, and the mediation of grace depends on the possession of truth.

Grace and truth are correlatives, they depend on one another as cause depends on effect, where truth is the divinely established cause and grace is the divinely conferred effect. So much so that we can affirm: “No truth, no grace,” or “Where there is truth there is the availability of grace.”

In more elaborate language this means that when God became man and called Himself the Truth and the Life, He meant these two titles to be interdependent. He is the Life of grace for us, provided we believe in Him as the Truth.

This was dramatically explained by the Savior when He foretold the Eucharist and told His followers they were to believe in Him to have eternal life. Yes, they would have this life and he saved, provided they accepted the truth of His Real Presence.

So it is with every mystery of Christian revelation which, if believed, gives the believer possession of the truth. Then, believing the truth, the Christian has access to the sources of grace that his faith tells him are available and productive of salvation and sanctification.

Thus, if I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God in human form, which is the truth, I shall invoke His divine assistance in prayer, and thus receive grace.

If I believe that Christ’s commandment to love others as He has loved me, which is the truth, I shall put this commandment into practice and merit divine grace for myself and for those whom I love.

Truth is the condition of grace; it is the source of grace; it is the channel of grace; it is the divinely ordained requirement for grace.

We therefore return to our first statement in reply to why the Church must be infallible. She must be infallible because, being infallible she has the truth, and only because she has the truth can she be the mediator of grace to a sinful and desperately needy human race.

Take what happened in the 16th century, when whole nations broke with Catholic unity and, as a result, were deprived of many of the treasures of infallibility. That is a strange expression, “treasures of infallibility.” But they are treasures, treasures of grace, locked up in the Catholic Church’s assurance that she has the truth.

By the year 1600 over 200 different interpretations were being circulated among the heirs of the Reformation of Christ’s words of institution at the Last Supper “This is My Body. This is My Blood.” And none of them said precisely what the Catholic Church, trusting in her infallible Possession of the truth, held and insisted on: that these words mean that Christ is literally, physically and substantially on the altar after the words of consecration; that therefore those who worship Him here present and receive Him into their bodies are receiving grace, no, better, they are receiving the Author of grace. But they are beneficiaries of the grace because they are believers in the revealed truth of the Holy Eucharist, and behind it is the truth of the Holy Priesthood.

Everyone else if he does not believe this truth is deprived of access to this grace.

Who Within the Church Is Infallible?

First let us give the answer, not of theologians but of the Church herself. It comes in two parts:

1. Part One says, “The whole Church as a community of believers in divine revelation is in possession of infallible truth. We may call this the infallibility of possession, or, as we used to say, "passive infallibility.”
   
2. Part Two says, “Among the community of believers only the hierarchy, under the Pope, is divinely authorized to determine infallible truth. And between the hierarchy and Pope: he is normative for them, not they for him. They are infallible if they agree with him; he can teach infallibly without, in the same way, depending on them.”

Anything I have to say in this post will be only as useful as these two grounds of confusion are cleared up. read more here Fr. Hardon Archives - How Infallible is the Teaching Church?

The Divinity or Godhood of Christ was only finalized in 325 at the Council of Nicaea, and the full doctrine of the Trinity in 381 at the Council of Constantinople. The dogma of the Two Natures of Christ (God and Man) was proclaimed in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon. These decisions of General Councils of the Church were in response to challenging heresies...
...Do you think these councils taught errors??? If not, why not?

 

[bbyrd009]

the wolves were completely in control of the est'd church at that point, and none of those doctrines stand up to Scripture

 

[Wormwood]

Keras,

I am on my phone so I cannot respond as I would like.
First, as for the teaching of the Bible....
Again, I just want to point out that Jesus was talking to his Apostles in the texts you mention. He never said, "And also with those who take on the offices you hold from this point forward..." Jesus never even mentioned them as holding offices. IMO, the Apostles and their teaching itself was the foundation of the Church. We do not need ongoing infallible offices as every believer can receive the Holy Spirit. There is one intercessor in the new covenant.

Second, I never said the roles of clergy or church leaders were meaningless. Certainly the early church had local leaders and the NT itself speaks of appointing such leaders (as you mentioned). However, we do NOT read that those leaders were invalid unless given approval from higher offices nor do we read of a pyramid heirachry Jesus intended to establish with the Church. I dont want to debate church history with you, but suffice it to say that the papal see and the overarching structure of the Catholic Church was not something that started in 90AD.

Please do not misunderstand my comments about Peter. I clearly thing he was a godly man who was an Apostle and author of inspired Scripture. However, he was a human and he made mistakes. The concept of someone being infallible when in a particular teaching function is also not found in Scripture. My point with the Galatians passage is simply to say that Paul challenged "the rock" because his actions were contrary to the message of the Gospel which is why Paul said to him, "If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force Gentiles to live like Jews?" He then goes on to say, "by works of the law, no one will be justified." Peter's actions betrayed the fact that he was relying on law and tradition as a means of alienating Gentiles and Paul called him on it because his "conduct was not in step with the truth." So, to me it makes very little difference whether or not Peter was in an official teaching position...he was clearly teaching the wrong thing with his actions and was corrected by the truth of the Gospel. It is the message that shapes the church and its leaders, not the other way around.

In sum, I know this is not going to change your mind. I am not trying to. I just wanted to point out early on that the NT doesn't explicitly teach apostolic succession, office infallibility when in a teaching position on faith and morals, or that the magesterium would be the sole discerners of truth and interpretation of the Gospel. I understand you see some passages that you think point that direction, but the text does not explicitly say such things and they are being imported into the text by you. Those texts are speaking of the Apostles themselves and not those who would follow after them. Again, I am not anti-Catholic. I think there are some very good things about the Catholic Church. I just have my own convictions based on the Bible and church history that leads me to some different conclusions on issues of discerning truth and establishing authority. Perhaps I am wrong. I do believe we are both loved by Jesus and trust in his sacrifice for us. Ultimately we both are needy for grace and I believe God will be gracious to us both.

 

[Peanut]

Wine was a staple in Jewish weddings. And during Jesus ministry he always taught using parables. Many of which the people to whom he spoke, the Jewish people, were aware of as he repeated those that they knew in scripture. And here he was those scriptures prophesied messiah as promised.
Also, Jesus' mother Mary may have been related in some way to wedding at Cana. And that is why she brought to her Son's attention that the wine had run out. Otherwise, if she and her Son were mere guests, why would she concern herself with such a thing? The first miracle being performed before people who knew there was no more wine. And also would have known there were plenty of casks of water would impact many who witnessed the transformation of that water into wine. And they would likely recall the prophesies concerning such a thing.Especially when there would be a Rabbi present at the wedding feast.

Jeremiah 31 (KJV)
1 At the same time, saith the Lord, will I be the God of all the families of Israel, and they shall be my people.

2 Thus saith the Lord, The people which were left of the sword found grace in the wilderness; even Israel, when I went to cause him to rest.

3 The Lord hath appeared of old unto me, saying, Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee.

4 Again I will build thee, and thou shalt be built, O virgin of Israel: thou shalt again be adorned with thy tabrets, and shalt go forth in the dances of them that make merry.

5 Thou shalt yet plant vines upon the mountains of Samaria: the planters shall plant, and shall eat them as common things.

6 For there shall be a day, that the watchmen upon the mount Ephraim shall cry, Arise ye, and let us go up to Zion unto the Lord our God.

7 For thus saith the Lord; Sing with gladness for Jacob, and shout among the chief of the nations: publish ye, praise ye, and say, O Lord, save thy people, the remnant of Israel.

8 Behold, I will bring them from the north country, and gather them from the coasts of the earth, and with them the blind and the lame, the woman with child and her that travaileth with child together: a great company shall return thither.

9 They shall come with weeping, and with supplications will I lead them: I will cause them to walk by the rivers of waters in a straight way, wherein they shall not stumble: for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn.

10 Hear the word of the Lord, O ye nations, and declare it in the isles afar off, and say, He that scattered Israel will gather him, and keep him, as a shepherd doth his flock.

11 For the Lord hath redeemed Jacob, and ransomed him from the hand of him that was stronger than he.

12 Therefore they shall come and sing in the height of Zion, and shall flow together to the goodness of the Lord, for wheat, and for wine, and for oil, and for the young of the flock and of the herd: and their soul shall be as a watered garden; and they shall not sorrow any more at all.

13 Then shall the virgin rejoice in the dance, both young men and old together: for I will turn their mourning into joy, and will comfort them, and make them rejoice from their sorrow.

14 And I will satiate the soul of the priests with fatness, and my people shall be satisfied with my goodness, saith the Lord.

15 Thus saith the Lord; A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation, and bitter weeping; Rahel weeping for her children refused to be comforted for her children, because they were not.

16 Thus saith the Lord; Refrain thy voice from weeping, and thine eyes from tears: for thy work shall be rewarded, saith the Lord; and they shall come again from the land of the enemy.

17 And there is hope in thine end, saith the Lord, that thy children shall come again to their own border.

18 I have surely heard Ephraim bemoaning himself thus; Thou hast chastised me, and I was chastised, as a bullock unaccustomed to the yoke: turn thou me, and I shall be turned; for thou art the Lord my God.

19 Surely after that I was turned, I repented; and after that I was instructed, I smote upon my thigh: I was ashamed, yea, even confounded, because I did bear the reproach of my youth.

20 Is Ephraim my dear son? is he a pleasant child? for since I spake against him, I do earnestly remember him still: therefore my bowels are troubled for him; I will surely have mercy upon him, saith the Lord.

21 Set thee up waymarks, make thee high heaps: set thine heart toward the highway, even the way which thou wentest: turn again, O virgin of Israel, turn again to these thy cities.

22 How long wilt thou go about, O thou backsliding daughter? for the Lord hath created a new thing in the earth, A woman shall compass a man.

23 Thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel; As yet they shall use this speech in the land of Judah and in the cities thereof, when I shall bring again their captivity; The Lord bless thee, O habitation of justice, and mountain of holiness.

24 And there shall dwell in Judah itself, and in all the cities thereof together, husbandmen, and they that go forth with flocks.

25 For I have satiated the weary soul, and I have replenished every sorrowful soul.

26 Upon this I awaked, and beheld; and my sleep was sweet unto me.

27 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the seed of man, and with the seed of beast.

28 And it shall come to pass, that like as I have watched over them, to pluck up, and to break down, and to throw down, and to destroy, and to afflict; so will I watch over them, to build, and to plant, saith the Lord.

29 In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge.

30 But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge.

31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord:

33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

35 Thus saith the Lord, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The Lord of hosts is his name:

36 If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the Lord, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.

37 Thus saith the Lord; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the Lord.

38 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that the city shall be built to the Lord from the tower of Hananeel unto the gate of the corner.

39 And the measuring line shall yet go forth over against it upon the hill Gareb, and shall compass about to Goath.

40 And the whole valley of the dead bodies, and of the ashes, and all the fields unto the brook of Kidron, unto the corner of the horse gate toward the east, shall be holy unto the Lord; it shall not be plucked up, nor thrown down any more for ever.

King James Version (KJV)
Public Domain

And.....Amos 9 (Below)​

 

[Peanut]

Amos 9 (KJV)
9 I saw the Lord standing upon the altar: and he said, Smite the lintel of the door, that the posts may shake: and cut them in the head, all of them; and I will slay the last of them with the sword: he that fleeth of them shall not flee away, and he that escapeth of them shall not be delivered.

2 Though they dig into hell, thence shall mine hand take them; though they climb up to heaven, thence will I bring them down:

3 And though they hide themselves in the top of Carmel, I will search and take them out thence; and though they be hid from my sight in the bottom of the sea, thence will I command the serpent, and he shall bite them:

4 And though they go into captivity before their enemies, thence will I command the sword, and it shall slay them: and I will set mine eyes upon them for evil, and not for good.

5 And the Lord God of hosts is he that toucheth the land, and it shall melt, and all that dwell therein shall mourn: and it shall rise up wholly like a flood; and shall be drowned, as by the flood of Egypt.

6 It is he that buildeth his stories in the heaven, and hath founded his troop in the earth; he that calleth for the waters of the sea, and poureth them out upon the face of the earth: The Lord is his name.

7 Are ye not as children of the Ethiopians unto me, O children of Israel? saith the Lord. Have not I brought up Israel out of the land of Egypt? and the Philistines from Caphtor, and the Syrians from Kir?

8 Behold, the eyes of the Lord God are upon the sinful kingdom, and I will destroy it from off the face of the earth; saving that I will not utterly destroy the house of Jacob, saith the Lord.

9 For, lo, I will command, and I will sift the house of Israel among all nations, like as corn is sifted in a sieve, yet shall not the least grain fall upon the earth.

10 All the sinners of my people shall die by the sword, which say, The evil shall not overtake nor prevent us.

11 In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old:

12 That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my name, saith the Lordthat doeth this.

13 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that the plowman shall overtake the reaper, and the treader of grapes him that soweth seed; and the mountains shall drop sweet wine, and all the hills shall melt.

14 And I will bring again the captivity of my people of Israel, and they shall build the waste cities, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof; they shall also make gardens, and eat the fruit of them.

15 And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them, saith the Lord thy God.

King James Version (KJV)
Public Domain

 

[perrero]

Infallibility is a gift from God and has nothing to do with the holiness of those operating under this gift.

You sure know how to spin a doctrine of infallibility, too bad there is no where in scripture to support it. Your rhetoric is meaningless if not supported by the Word. Come to think of it, that's what we call false doctrine.

 

[epostle1]

Keras,

I am on my phone so I cannot respond as I would like.
First, as for the teaching of the Bible....
Again, I just want to point out that Jesus was talking to his Apostles in the texts you mention. He never said, "And also with those who take on the offices you hold from this point forward..." Jesus never even mentioned them as holding offices. IMO, the Apostles and their teaching itself was the foundation of the Church. We do not need ongoing infallible offices as every believer can receive the Holy Spirit. There is one intercessor in the new covenant.

If an office doesn't have successors, it's not an office. It has nothing to do with the one intercessor as you incorrectly put it.
1 Timothy 3:1 The saying is sure: If any one aspires to the office of bishop, he desires a noble task.
Acts 1:20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, ‘Let his habitation become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it’; and ‘His office let another take.’
Colossians 1:25 of which I became a minister according to the divine office which was given to me for you, to make the word of God fully known,

Second, I never said the roles of clergy or church leaders were meaningless. Certainly the early church had local leaders and the NT itself speaks of appointing such leaders (as you mentioned). However, we do NOT read that those leaders were invalid unless given approval from higher offices nor do we read of a pyramid heirachry Jesus intended to establish with the Church. I dont want to debate church history with you, but suffice it to say that the papal see and the overarching structure of the Catholic Church was not something that started in 90AD.

It started with Peter around 33 AD. No one can be ordained bishop without the laying on of hands.
Matthew 19:28
Jesus said to them, “Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of man shall sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
It looks like a hierarchy to me, unless you want to argue that each individual believer sits on one of 12 thrones. BTW, another word for "throne" is "chair". Without successors, it's not a chair. Pope Francis sits on the "Chair" of Peter.

Please do not misunderstand my comments about Peter. I clearly thing he was a godly man who was an Apostle and author of inspired Scripture. However, he was a human and he made mistakes. The concept of someone being infallible when in a particular teaching function is also not found in Scripture.

Peter is fallible without the protection of the Holy Spirit. Infallibility is inferred in many places, and I already gave them. You are repeating yourself. (again)

My point with the Galatians passage is simply to say that Paul challenged "the rock" because his actions were contrary to the message of the Gospel which is why Paul said to him, "If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force Gentiles to live like Jews?"

For the 3rd time, Paul confronted Peter for his behavior, NOT HS TEACHING.

He then goes on to say, "by works of the law, no one will be justified." Peter's actions betrayed the fact that he was relying on law and tradition as a means of alienating Gentiles and Paul called him on it because his "conduct was not in step with the truth." So, to me it makes very little difference whether or not Peter was in an official teaching position...he was clearly teaching the wrong thing with his actions and was corrected by the truth of the Gospel. It is the message that shapes the church and its leaders, not the other way around.

Galations 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
"...he withdrew and separated himself..." so how could he be teaching???
Gal. 2:11-14 - non-Catholics sometimes use this verse to diminish Peter's evident authority over the Church. This is misguided. In this verse, Paul does not oppose Peter's teaching, but his failure to live by it. Infallibility (teaching without error) does not mean impeccability (living without sinning). Peter was the one who taught infallibly on the Gentile's salvation in Acts 10,11. Either you accept Peter's teaching as infallible or you stubbornly insist there is no such thing, contrary to Scripture.

With this rebuke, Paul is really saying "Peter, you are our leader, you teach infallibly, and yet your conduct is inconsistent with these facts. You of all people!" The verse really underscores, and not diminishes the importance of Peter's leadership in the Church.

In sum, I know this is not going to change your mind. I am not trying to. I just wanted to point out early on that the NT doesn't explicitly teach apostolic succession, office infallibility when in a teaching position on faith and morals, or that the magesterium would be the sole discerners of truth and interpretation of the Gospel. I understand you see some passages that you think point that direction, but the text does not explicitly say such things and they are being imported into the text by you. Those texts are speaking of the Apostles themselves and not those who would follow after them. Again, I am not anti-Catholic. I think there are some very good things about the Catholic Church. I just have my own convictions based on the Bible and church history that leads me to some different conclusions on issues of discerning truth and establishing authority. Perhaps I am wrong. I do believe we are both loved by Jesus and trust in his sacrifice for us. Ultimately we both are needy for grace and I believe God will be gracious to us both.

The NT explicitly teaches apostolic succession in 2 Timothy 2:1-2. It does not mean "more apostles", it means more bishops. I broke it down into 3 generations of bishops in a previous post but you just repeat the same argument. So I will repeat the same answer.
1) his own generation,
2) Timothy’s generation, and
3) the generation Timothy will teach...
You either accept 2 Timothy 2:1-2 for the plain meaning of the text or you reject it. Let's look at it backwards:
3) Timothy will teach the 3rd generation of bishops
2) Timothy himself, 2nd generation from Paul
1) Paul, 1st generation.
Do we need a dictionary definition of succession?

When Jesus tells His disciples to preach the gospel or to baptize, virtually all Christians today think that this applies to all Christians in perpetuity. Yet when Jesus tells the same disciples to “bind and loose” (Matt 18:18; Jn 20:23; also to St. Peter individually in Matt 16:19), somehow that is not seen as a thing that is perpetually relevant through history, and is relegated to their time only.

This makes no sense. For one to take such a position, you have to establish a solid reason why you regard one instance as perpetual and the other as temporary. I contend that it can’t be done; that any such criterion would be completely arbitrary. Often, sadly, it comes down to merely a contra-Catholic mentality and rationale: “Catholics believe thus-and-so, and so we must oppose it, no matter what the Bible may state on the subject.”
Biblical Arguments and Evidences for Apostolic Succession
The INFALLIBLE Council of Jerusalem is viewed by Catholics as ecclesiastically perpetual, whereas Protestants view it as temporary because infallibility doesn't fit the man made tradition of a supposedly non-infallible Church.

 

[epostle1]

You sure know how to spin a doctrine of infallibility, too bad there is no where in scripture to support it. Your rhetoric is meaningless if not support by the Word. Come to think of it, that's what we call false doctrine.

I've listed supporting scripture, you just don't like them. If you believe heaven can bind errors, it's not me with the false doctrines.

 

[BreadOfLife]

the wolves were completely in control of the est'd church at that point, and none of those doctrines stand up to Scripture

If the wolves were EVER in "complete control" of the Church - then you are calling Jesus a liar.

Jesus promised that the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church. For the wolves to be ion "complete control" - this would mean that Hell DID prevail and Jesus lied.

 

[perrero]

I've listed supporting scripture, you just don't like them. If you believe heaven can bind errors, it's not me with the false doctrines.

Actually, since you are not one of the infallible ones you purport exist, we shouldn't lay too much weight in your dissertation.
We are now on the same playing field.
The inspired Word of God, in writing or in the Person of Jesus, has no need of any for your traditions or religious doctrine that seek to enslave. Jesus did not look towards anyone to help Him in His ministry, His teaching or His revelation of the Father. This goes for the written Word also. He left us with the Holy Spirit to guide us in all truth and if you think that He singles out only the C church with that truth you are highly deceived.
Anyone who calls upon the name of the Lord can be saved and with the help of the Spirit will be kept in truth and in the Father's hand regardless of any religion out there.
The sooner you realize that, the sooner you will stop wasting your time defending a religion and instead introduce people to the real one that saves, Jesus Christ and Him alone.

 

[perrero]

Jesus promised that the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church.

Yes except your definition of the church is "the C church".
When really the Church is the Body of Christ which includes all those who believe in Jesus Christ, repent of there sins and confess Him as their Lord and Saviour. These are brethren are found everywhere in the world. Do you think that the Muslim who receive a vision of Jesus Christ, whether in their sleep or in plain daylight, and convert to Christianity, just like Paul on the road to Damascus, are not saved? Do you think that Jesus in their vision told them to join the C church? No, most of them just begin to share their encounter with God, their sins forgiven and their new resurrected life and most lose their life for it. That is the Church that prevails even though the cost may be great.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Yes except your definition of the church is "the C church".
When really the Church is the Body of Christ which includes all those who believe in Jesus Christ, repent of there sins and confess Him as their Lord and Saviour. These are brethren are found everywhere in the world. Do you think that the Muslim who receive a vision of Jesus Christ, whether in their sleep or in plain daylight, and convert to Christianity, just like Paul on the road to Damascus, are not saved? Do you think that Jesus in their vision told them to join the C church? No, most of them just begin to share their encounter with God, their sins forgiven and their new resurrected life and most lose their life for it. That is the Church that prevails even though the cost may be great.

First of all - I never said that people outside of the Church wouldn't be saved.
That's not up to me or YOU - it's up to GOD.

Secondly - there is only ONE Church - not thousands of disjointed and perpetually splintering sects all teaching different doctrines yet all claiming to have the truth. YOU claim that it is made up of a "ALL" who believe - but that's not what the Bible says.

The Bible says that the Church is a VISIBLE authority (Matt. 5:14-16, Matt. 18:15-18).
There is NO such thing as a "Lone Ranger" Christian as you profess . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Actually, since you are not one of the infallible ones you purport exist, we shouldn't lay too much weight in your dissertation.
We are now on the same playing field.
The inspired Word of God, in writing or in the Person of Jesus, has no need of any for your traditions or religious doctrine that seek to enslave. Jesus did not look towards anyone to help Him in His ministry, His teaching or His revelation of the Father. This goes for the written Word also. He left us with the Holy Spirit to guide us in all truth and if you think that He singles out only the C church with that truth you are highly deceived.
Anyone who calls upon the name of the Lord can be saved and with the help of the Spirit will be kept in truth and in the Father's hand regardless of any religion out there.
The sooner you realize that, the sooner you will stop wasting your time defending a religion and instead introduce people to the real one that saves, Jesus Christ and Him alone.

Jesus did NOT look to anyone to help Him in His Ministry??
What do you call the Twelve Apostles??
What do you call the Great Commission??
WHY did His disciples receive power from the Holy Spirit at Pentecost?? To sit in a dark room and never evangelize??

Jesus does NOT single out His Church to be the custodian and the pillar and foundation (1 Tim. 3:15) of His truth??
What Bible are YOU reading??

Finally - the sooner YOU realize that there is NO such thing as a Lone Ranger Christian - then you might have a chance.
As long as you resist and reject His Church - you are resisting and rejecting HIM (Luke 10:16) . . .

 

[perrero]

First of all - I never said that people outside of the Church wouldn't be saved.
That's not up to me or YOU - it's up to GOD.

Then if you believe that, it is therefore up to you and me to go out and reach the lost.

Secondly - there is only ONE Church - not thousands of disjointed and perpetually splintering sects (as if there were never any C sects and splinter groups) all teaching different doctrines yet all claiming to have the truth. YOU claim that it is made up of a "ALL" who believe - but that's not what the Bible says.

Matthew 7:24 "Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: (The Rock being Christ, not Peter as the C church mistakenly interprets that)
Matthew 10:32 "Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven."
Matthew 18:4 "Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven."
Mark 8:34-35 "And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it."
John 3:15 "That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life."
John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
John 4:14 "But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life."
John 11:26 "And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die."
Acts 2:21 "And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved."
Romans 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."
1 John 4:15 "Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God."

You wouldn't deny JOHN 3:16 would you? Seems to me that "whosoever" believes in Him shall be saved and it is those who are saved they are the ones baptized into the Body of Christ by the Spirit and therefore form the church He was talking. Now we do understand that belief involves repentance, if not we will have a situation of a wineskin that breaks.

The Bible says that the Church is a VISIBLE authority (Matt. 5:14-16, Matt. 18:15-18).
There is NO such thing as a "Lone Ranger" Christian as you profess . . .

Hmm! The Etheopian eunuch, once saved, was a lone ranger on his way home and was thus until he himself evangelized others. I don't think they started any denomination except being followers of Christ.
You may not think so, but I can guarantee you that the Holy Spirit is more than capable of sustaining a believing Christian while leading him in the way towards a body of believers.

Jesus does NOT single out His Church to be the custodian and the pillar and foundation (1 Tim. 3:15) of His truth??

You are very Myopic in your view of the word Church.
adjective
1.
Ophthalmology. pertaining to or having myopia; nearsighted.
2.
unable or unwilling to act prudently; shortsighted.
3.
lacking tolerance or understanding; narrow-minded.

The word church comes from the Greek "Ekklesia" Strong's G1577
Def:

1. in a Christian sense
   1. an assembly of Christians gathered for worship in a religious meeting
   2. a company of Christian, or of those who, hoping for eternal salvation through Jesus Christ, observe their own religious rites, hold their own religious meetings, and manage their own affairs, according to regulations prescribed for the body for order's sake
   3. those who anywhere, in a city, village, constitute such a company and are united into one body
   4. the whole body of Christians scattered throughout the earth
   5. the assembly of faithful Christians already dead and received into heaven
      

This should teach you (if you're teachable) that the Body of Christ is more than the C church.
So yes the Body of Christ is found all over the world, in different nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues (Rev. 7:9) even in different denomination. Whosoever as you might say.

 

[perrero]

What Is Infallibility?
Infallibility is commonly understood to mean exemption from error. So it is. But what does this mean?

It means that a person, or persons, who are infallible not only, do not err; they cannot err. Clearly it is one thing to not make a mistake, and something else, and much more, not to be able to make a mistake.

Is that all? No, infallibility is not only something negative. It is eminently positive. It implies that the one or ones who are infallible not only do not hold what is false. It also says that they hold or declare the truth.

We might explain it this way. A person who is infallible is protected or prevented from doing something wrong, in this case being in error. Yet, as we know, a stone or a tree cannot be in error either; but neither can they (in any intelligible sense) be said to hold or profess the truth.

Infallibility makes sense only among rational beings who can be fallible. When and if they are infallible it means that they possess or proclaim the truth.

The real purpose of infallibility is not just to be infallible—but to have and declare the truth.

We might then redefine infallibility as the capacity for the truth. There is no special value in being infallible except to be assured of having and communicating what is true. To use a homely comparison, immortality is to be incapable of dying, which sounds negative but is very positive, because it means being capable of living.
In more elaborate language this means that when God became man and called Himself the Truth and the Life, He meant these two titles to be interdependent. He is the Life of grace for us, provided we believe in Him as the Truth.

This was dramatically explained by the Savior when He foretold the Eucharist and told His followers they were to believe in Him to have eternal life. Yes, they would have this life and he saved, provided they accepted the truth of His Real Presence.

So it is with every mystery of Christian revelation which, if believed, gives the believer possession of the truth. Then, believing the truth, the Christian has access to the sources of grace that his faith tells him are available and productive of salvation and sanctification.

Thus, if I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God in human form, which is the truth, I shall invoke His divine assistance in prayer, and thus receive grace.

If I believe that Christ’s commandment to love others as He has loved me, which is the truth, I shall put this commandment into practice and merit divine grace for myself and for those whom I love.

Why Must the Church Be Infallible?
We now come closer to our subject when we ask, “Why must the Church founded by Christ be infallible?”

In one brisk sentence: the Church must be infallible because she is the mediator of divine grace, and the mediation of grace depends on the possession of truth.

Grace and truth are correlatives, they depend on one another as cause depends on effect, where truth is the divinely established cause and grace is the divinely conferred effect. So much so that we can affirm: “No truth, no grace,” or “Where there is truth there is the availability of grace.”

In more elaborate language this means that when God became man and called Himself the Truth and the Life, He meant these two titles to be interdependent. He is the Life of grace for us, provided we believe in Him as the Truth.

This was dramatically explained by the Savior when He foretold the Eucharist and told His followers they were to believe in Him to have eternal life. Yes, they would have this life and he saved, provided they accepted the truth of His Real Presence.

So it is with every mystery of Christian revelation which, if believed, gives the believer possession of the truth. Then, believing the truth, the Christian has access to the sources of grace that his faith tells him are available and productive of salvation and sanctification.

Thus, if I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God in human form, which is the truth, I shall invoke His divine assistance in prayer, and thus receive grace.

If I believe that Christ’s commandment to love others as He has loved me, which is the truth, I shall put this commandment into practice and merit divine grace for myself and for those whom I love.

Truth is the condition of grace; it is the source of grace; it is the channel of grace; it is the divinely ordained requirement for grace.

We therefore return to our first statement in reply to why the Church must be infallible. She must be infallible because, being infallible she has the truth, and only because she has the truth can she be the mediator of grace to a sinful and desperately needy human race.

Take what happened in the 16th century, when whole nations broke with Catholic unity and, as a result, were deprived of many of the treasures of infallibility. That is a strange expression, “treasures of infallibility.” But they are treasures, treasures of grace, locked up in the Catholic Church’s assurance that she has the truth.

By the year 1600 over 200 different interpretations were being circulated among the heirs of the Reformation of Christ’s words of institution at the Last Supper “This is My Body. This is My Blood.” And none of them said precisely what the Catholic Church, trusting in her infallible Possession of the truth, held and insisted on: that these words mean that Christ is literally, physically and substantially on the altar after the words of consecration; that therefore those who worship Him here present and receive Him into their bodies are receiving grace, no, better, they are receiving the Author of grace. But they are beneficiaries of the grace because they are believers in the revealed truth of the Holy Eucharist, and behind it is the truth of the Holy Priesthood.

Everyone else if he does not believe this truth is deprived of access to this grace.

Who Within the Church Is Infallible?

First let us give the answer, not of theologians but of the Church herself. It comes in two parts:

1. Part One says, “The whole Church as a community of believers in divine revelation is in possession of infallible truth. We may call this the infallibility of possession, or, as we used to say, "passive infallibility.”
2. Part Two says, “Among the community of believers only the hierarchy, under the Pope, is divinely authorized to determine infallible truth. And between the hierarchy and Pope: he is normative for them, not they for him. They are infallible if they agree with him; he can teach infallibly without, in the same way, depending on them.”

Anything I have to say in this post will be only as useful as these two grounds of confusion are cleared up. read more here Fr. Hardon Archives - How Infallible is the Teaching Church?

The Divinity or Godhood of Christ was only finalized in 325 at the Council of Nicaea, and the full doctrine of the Trinity in 381 at the Council of Constantinople. The dogma of the Two Natures of Christ (God and Man) was proclaimed in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon. These decisions of General Councils of the Church were in response to challenging heresies...
...Do you think these councils taught errors??? If not, why not?

Find me one verse of Scripture in this total nonsensical diatribe.

 

[epostle1]

Actually, since you are not one of the infallible ones you purport exist, we shouldn't lay too much weight in your dissertation.
We are now on the same playing field.
The inspired Word of God, in writing or in the Person of Jesus, has no need of any for your traditions or religious doctrine that seek to enslave. Jesus did not look towards anyone to help Him in His ministry, His teaching or His revelation of the Father. This goes for the written Word also. He left us with the Holy Spirit to guide us in all truth and if you think that He singles out only the C church with that truth you are highly deceived.
Anyone who calls upon the name of the Lord can be saved and with the help of the Spirit will be kept in truth and in the Father's hand regardless of any religion out there.
The sooner you realize that, the sooner you will stop wasting your time defending a religion and instead introduce people to the real one that saves, Jesus Christ and Him alone.

Many Protestants (especially anti-Catholic ones) hold, by and large, the view that Scripture and sacred, apostolic tradition are somehow unalterably opposed to each other and, for all practical purposes, mutually exclusive. This is yet another example of a false dichotomy which Protestantism often (unfortunately) tends to create (e.g., faith vs. works, matter vs. spirit). The Bible, however, presupposes tradition as an entity prior to and larger than itself, from which it is derived, not as some sort of “dirty word.”

It is one thing to wrongly assert that Catholic tradition (the beliefs and dogmas which the Church claims to have preserved intact passed down from Christ and the apostles) is corrupt, excessive and unbiblical. It is quite another to think that the very concept of tradition is contrary to the outlook of the Bible and pure, essential Christianity. This is, broadly speaking, a popular and widespread variant of the distinctive Protestant viewpoint of sola Scriptura, or “Scripture Alone,” which was one of the rallying cries of the Protestant Revolt in the 16th century. It remains the supreme principle of authority, or “rule of faith” for evangelical Protestants today. Sola Scriptura by its very nature tends to pit tradition against the Bible.

First of all, one might also loosely define tradition as the authoritative and authentic Christian history of theological doctrines and devotional practices. Christianity, like Judaism before it, is fundamentally grounded in history: in the earth-shattering historical events in the life of Jesus Christ (the incarnation, miracles, crucifixion, resurrection, ascension, etc.). Eyewitnesses (Lk 1:1-2, Acts 1:1-3, 2 Pet 1:16-18) communicated these true stories to the first Christians, who in turn passed them on to other Christians (under the guidance of the Church’s authority) down through the ages. Therefore, Christian tradition, defined as authentic Church history, is unavoidable.

Many Protestants read the accounts of Jesus’ conflicts with the Pharisees and get the idea that He was utterly opposed to all tradition whatsoever. This is false.

The New Testament explicitly teaches that traditions can be either good (from God) or bad (from men, when against God’s true traditions). Corrupt pharisaic teachings were a bad tradition (but many of their legitimate teachings were recognized by Jesus; see, e.g., Matthew 23:3). The spoken gospel and the apostolic writings which eventually were formulated as Holy Scripture (authoritatively recognized by the Church in 397 A. D. at the council of Carthage) were altogether good: the authentic Christian tradition as revealed by the incarnate God to the apostles.

The Greek word for “tradition” in the New Testament is paradosis. It occurs in Colossians 2:8, and in the following three passages:
1 Corinthians 11:2
2 Thessalonians 2:15
2 Thessalonians 3:6

Note that St. Paul draws no qualitative distinction between written and oral tradition. He doesn’t regard oral Christian tradition as bad and undesirable. Rather, this false belief is, ironically, itself an unbiblical “tradition of men.”

When the first Christians went out and preached the Good News of Jesus Christ after Pentecost, this was an oral tradition proclaimed by “word of mouth.” Some of it got recorded in the Bible (e.g., in Acts 2) but most did not, and could not (see John 20:30; 21:25). It was primarily this oral Christian tradition that turned the world upside down, not the text of the New Testament (many if not most people couldn’t read then anyway). Accordingly, when the phrases “word of God” or “word of the Lord” occur in Acts and the epistles, they almost always refer to oral preaching, not to the written word of the Bible. A perusal of the context in each case will make this abundantly clear.

Furthermore, the related Greek words paradidomi and paralambano are usually rendered “delivered” and “received” respectively. St. Paul in particular repeatedly refers to this handing over of the Christian tradition:

1 Corinthians 15:1-3
1 Thessalonians 2:13
Jude 3

Far from distinguishing tradition from the gospel, as evangelicals often contend, the Bible equates tradition with the gospel and other terms such as “word of God,” “doctrine,” “holy commandment,” “faith,” and “things believed among us.” All are “delivered” and “received”:

1) Traditions “delivered” (1 Cor 11:2), “taught . . . by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thes 2:15), and “received” (2 Thes 3:6).

2) The Gospel “preached” and “received” (1 Cor 15:1-2; Gal 1:9, 12; 1 Thes 2:9).

3) Word of God “heard” and “received” (Acts 8:14; 1 Thes 2:13).

4) Doctrine “delivered” (Rom 6:17; cf. Acts 2:42).

5) Holy Commandment “delivered” (2 Pet 2:21; cf. Mt 15:3-9; Mk 7:8-13).

6) The Faith “delivered” (Jude 3).

7) “. . . things which have been accomplished among us were “delivered” (Lk 1:1-2).

Clearly, all these concepts are synonymous in Scripture, and all are predominantly oral. In St. Paul’s writing alone we find four of these expressions used interchangeably. And in just the two Thessalonian epistles, “gospel,” “word of God,” and “tradition” are regarded as referring to the same thing. Thus, we must unavoidably conclude that “tradition” is not a dirty word in the Bible. Or, if one insists on maintaining that it is, then “gospel” and “word of God” are also bad words! Scripture allows no other conclusion: the exegetical evidence is simply too plain.

2 Timothy 1:13-14
2 Timothy 2:2

St. Paul is here urging Timothy not only to “follow the pattern” of his oral teaching “heard from me,” but to also pass it on to others. Thus we find a clear picture of some sort of authentic historical continuity of Christian doctrine. This is precisely what the Catholic Church calls tradition, or, when emphasizing the teaching authority of bishops in the Church, “apostolic succession.” The phrase “deposit of faith” is also used when describing the original gospel teaching as handed over or delivered to the apostles (see, e.g., Acts 2:42; Jude 3).

The Catholic Church considers itself merely the custodian or guardian of this revelation from God. The New Testament itself is a written encapsulation of primitive, apostolic Christianity: the authoritative and inspired written revelation of God’s new covenant. It is a development, so to speak, of both the Old Testament and early oral Christian preaching and teaching (i.e., tradition). The process of canonization of the New Testament took over 300 years and involved taking into account human opinions and traditions as to which books were believed to be Scripture.

Thus, the Bible cannot be separated and isolated from tradition and a developmental process. Christianity does not take the view of Islam, whose written revelation, the Q’uran, simply came down from heaven from Allah to Mohammad, without involving human participation in the least. Some extreme, fundamentalist forms of sola Scriptura have a very similar outlook, but these fail the test of Scripture itself, like all the other manifestations of the “Bible Alone” mentality. As we have seen, Scripture does not nullify or anathematize Christian tradition, which is larger and more all-encompassing than itself; quite the contrary.

In Catholicism, Scripture and tradition are intrinsically interwoven. They have been described as “twin fonts of the one divine well-spring” (i.e., revelation), and cannot be separated, any more than can two wings of a bird.
"Tradition" Isn't a Dirty Word

 

[epostle1]

Actually, since you are not one of the infallible ones you purport exist, we shouldn't lay too much weight in your dissertation.
We are now on the same playing field.
The inspired Word of God, in writing or in the Person of Jesus, has no need of any for your traditions or religious doctrine that seek to enslave. Jesus did not look towards anyone to help Him in His ministry, His teaching or His revelation of the Father. This goes for the written Word also. He left us with the Holy Spirit to guide us in all truth and if you think that He singles out only the C church with that truth you are highly deceived.
Anyone who calls upon the name of the Lord can be saved and with the help of the Spirit will be kept in truth and in the Father's hand regardless of any religion out there.
The sooner you realize that, the sooner you will stop wasting your time defending a religion and instead introduce people to the real one that saves, Jesus Christ and Him alone.

Many Protestants (especially anti-Catholic ones) hold, by and large, the view that Scripture and sacred, apostolic tradition are somehow unalterably opposed to each other and, for all practical purposes, mutually exclusive. This is yet another example of a false dichotomy which Protestantism often (unfortunately) tends to create (e.g., faith vs. works, matter vs. spirit). The Bible, however, presupposes tradition as an entity prior to and larger than itself, from which it is derived, not as some sort of “dirty word.”

It is one thing to wrongly assert that Catholic tradition (the beliefs and dogmas which the Church claims to have preserved intact passed down from Christ and the apostles) is corrupt, excessive and unbiblical. It is quite another to think that the very concept of tradition is contrary to the outlook of the Bible and pure, essential Christianity. This is, broadly speaking, a popular and widespread variant of the distinctive Protestant viewpoint of sola Scriptura, or “Scripture Alone,” which was one of the rallying cries of the Protestant Revolt in the 16th century. It remains the supreme principle of authority, or “rule of faith” for evangelical Protestants today. Sola Scriptura by its very nature tends to pit tradition against the Bible.

First of all, one might also loosely define tradition as the authoritative and authentic Christian history of theological doctrines and devotional practices. Christianity, like Judaism before it, is fundamentally grounded in history: in the earth-shattering historical events in the life of Jesus Christ (the incarnation, miracles, crucifixion, resurrection, ascension, etc.). Eyewitnesses (Lk 1:1-2, Acts 1:1-3, 2 Pet 1:16-18) communicated these true stories to the first Christians, who in turn passed them on to other Christians (under the guidance of the Church’s authority) down through the ages. Therefore, Christian tradition, defined as authentic Church history, is unavoidable.

Many Protestants read the accounts of Jesus’ conflicts with the Pharisees and get the idea that He was utterly opposed to all tradition whatsoever. This is false.

The New Testament explicitly teaches that traditions can be either good (from God) or bad (from men, when against God’s true traditions). Corrupt pharisaic teachings were a bad tradition (but many of their legitimate teachings were recognized by Jesus; see, e.g., Matthew 23:3). The spoken gospel and the apostolic writings which eventually were formulated as Holy Scripture (authoritatively recognized by the Church in 397 A. D. at the council of Carthage) were altogether good: the authentic Christian tradition as revealed by the incarnate God to the apostles.

The Greek word for “tradition” in the New Testament is paradosis. It occurs in Colossians 2:8, and in the following three passages:
1 Corinthians 11:2
2 Thessalonians 2:15
2 Thessalonians 3:6

Note that St. Paul draws no qualitative distinction between written and oral tradition. He doesn’t regard oral Christian tradition as bad and undesirable. Rather, this false belief is, ironically, itself an unbiblical “tradition of men.”

When the first Christians went out and preached the Good News of Jesus Christ after Pentecost, this was an oral tradition proclaimed by “word of mouth.” Some of it got recorded in the Bible (e.g., in Acts 2) but most did not, and could not (see John 20:30; 21:25). It was primarily this oral Christian tradition that turned the world upside down, not the text of the New Testament (many if not most people couldn’t read then anyway). Accordingly, when the phrases “word of God” or “word of the Lord” occur in Acts and the epistles, they almost always refer to oral preaching, not to the written word of the Bible. A perusal of the context in each case will make this abundantly clear.

Furthermore, the related Greek words paradidomi and paralambano are usually rendered “delivered” and “received” respectively. St. Paul in particular repeatedly refers to this handing over of the Christian tradition:

1 Corinthians 15:1-3
1 Thessalonians 2:13
Jude 3

Far from distinguishing tradition from the gospel, as evangelicals often contend, the Bible equates tradition with the gospel and other terms such as “word of God,” “doctrine,” “holy commandment,” “faith,” and “things believed among us.” All are “delivered” and “received”:

1) Traditions “delivered” (1 Cor 11:2), “taught . . . by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thes 2:15), and “received” (2 Thes 3:6).

2) The Gospel “preached” and “received” (1 Cor 15:1-2; Gal 1:9, 12; 1 Thes 2:9).

3) Word of God “heard” and “received” (Acts 8:14; 1 Thes 2:13).

4) Doctrine “delivered” (Rom 6:17; cf. Acts 2:42).

5) Holy Commandment “delivered” (2 Pet 2:21; cf. Mt 15:3-9; Mk 7:8-13).

6) The Faith “delivered” (Jude 3).

7) “. . . things which have been accomplished among us were “delivered” (Lk 1:1-2).

Clearly, all these concepts are synonymous in Scripture, and all are predominantly oral. In St. Paul’s writing alone we find four of these expressions used interchangeably. And in just the two Thessalonian epistles, “gospel,” “word of God,” and “tradition” are regarded as referring to the same thing. Thus, we must unavoidably conclude that “tradition” is not a dirty word in the Bible. Or, if one insists on maintaining that it is, then “gospel” and “word of God” are also bad words! Scripture allows no other conclusion: the exegetical evidence is simply too plain.

2 Timothy 1:13-14
2 Timothy 2:2

St. Paul is here urging Timothy not only to “follow the pattern” of his oral teaching “heard from me,” but to also pass it on to others. Thus we find a clear picture of some sort of authentic historical continuity of Christian doctrine. This is precisely what the Catholic Church calls tradition, or, when emphasizing the teaching authority of bishops in the Church, “apostolic succession.” The phrase “deposit of faith” is also used when describing the original gospel teaching as handed over or delivered from the apostles (see, e.g., Acts 2:42; Jude 3).

The Catholic Church considers itself merely the custodian or guardian of this revelation from God. The New Testament itself is a written encapsulation of primitive, apostolic Christianity: the authoritative and inspired written revelation of God’s new covenant. It is a development, so to speak, of both the Old Testament and early oral Christian preaching and teaching (i.e., tradition). The process of canonization of the New Testament took over 300 years and involved taking into account human opinions and traditions as to which books were believed to be Scripture.

Thus, the Bible cannot be separated and isolated from tradition and a developmental process. Christianity does not take the view of Islam, whose written revelation, the Q’uran, simply came down from heaven from Allah to Mohammad, without involving human participation in the least. Some extreme, fundamentalist forms of sola Scriptura have a very similar outlook, but these fail the test of Scripture itself, like all the other manifestations of the “Bible Alone” mentality. As we have seen, Scripture does not nullify or anathematize Christian tradition, which is larger and more all-encompassing than itself; quite the contrary.

In Catholicism, Scripture and tradition are intrinsically interwoven. They have been described as “twin fonts of the one divine well-spring” (i.e., revelation), and cannot be separated, any more than can two wings of a bird.
"Tradition" Isn't a Dirty Word