[B]Was the Church ever infalliable?[/B]


Protestants do you believe that the Apostles had authority from Christ to speak infalliably on matters of faith and morals? If so do you likewise believe that the Church Christ founded once had this divine assurity to speak authoritatively on matters of faith and morals but lost it…so much for 1 Tim 3:16

If the Apostle said there successors had ther authority would you follow the Catholic Church?

Does Scripture support or reject this?

Why should I believe in the Bible? Who said it was the word of God? Another falliable man right?

That means there could be books in the Bible that are not the word of God oor books outside the Bible that are God-Breathed…
So much for sola scriptura

Wow these are alot of questions.:shrug:
Just pick a few and go with them.


How do we know that the Catholic Church is infallible? The gates of Hell shall not prevail against it? But wait that is from the Bible which we can’t use without an infallible church. If we can’t have the Bible without the Church, how can we know the Church is infallible except that it says so?


If the Church is not infallible we are all damned for all time.



Just one comment on this paragraph.

There is a logical difference between (1) speaking authoritatively on matters of faith and morals (2) being unable to be erroneous when speaking on matters of faith and morals.


If you’re wrong, it doesn’t make everyone else wrong as well.


First off, for me, it stands to reason that the Church Jesus founded would know that it was the Church Jesus founded and thus would claim to speak infalliably on issues of faith and morals just as Jesus Christ would have taught them.

How do we know that the Church is infalliable? How do we know our savior was’nt some derranged man, a liar, or an alien?:eek: Faith, history and logic. The Catholic Church was the only church around. If you believe the Bible is the word of GOD the you must follow the Church.

Existance has an order to it. The sun will always rise and what goes up will always come down come down. If God wants that kind of assurity to exist in nature why not in matters that pertain to our eternal salvation.

It is lunacy to me that anyone can come up to me and tell me that this is what The Bible says or what Christ taught on matters pertaining to faith and morals without some authority backing them up.

Honestly, what would you think would happen if any State in America (no make it any city, town or community) could arbitrarily take the U.S. Constitution and decide for themselves what it said, how it should be applied to new circumstances, and what laws the laws should be? Seriously, just think about it!

I hope the possibility of what would happen terrifies you. If you would not tolerate that kind of disunity in your government why would you or our God tolerate it in his Church.


But what about **1 Timothy 3:15 ** ( I missed quoted the verse I wanted in my first post).

-but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

And let us not forget** “whateverso you bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven”**, or "I will send the Spirit of Truth upon you… and he will lead you into all truth". God would not allow his Church to bind anything in Heaven that is immoral or erroneous or allow his Church to ever teach anything contrary to his will.

Do you disagree with this?

If the Church has authority then it also must be infalliable. The Church has lasted 300 years without the Bible but it stayed united (for the most part). And She did it all on the authority and faith in The Bisops, Popes and the deposit in faith found in Sacred Tradition left to her by Christ our saving king.


No, infallability is not necessarily a result of authority. In every other sphere of life we trust authorities that are capable of error.

For example last fall I trusted my life to a surgeon who was capable of error. I did so because I recognized his authority in his profession.

Everything else you cite (1 Timothy 3:15, Matthew 16) could just as easily refer to authority that is capable of error.


On the Sola Scriptura thread started by Protestant poster Timmy Z, I demanded that sola scripturists prove first that the books in the Bible are inspired of God, using the Bible alone, of course. This is not possible without resorting to circular logic.

Now Catholics make the claim that the Bible is inspired because the Church says so, and the Church is infallible. But where does it say the Church is infallible? The Bible. So the Bible is authoritative because the Church says so and the Church has authority because the Bible says so.

that’s two-way circular logic, and is just as bad as Sola Scriptura.


Not everything said by Catholics is endorced by the Church.

Not everything said by his Holiness is said or intended as authoritative. Some times he teaches, sometimes he defines the law and somethimes he gives his opinions.

Rarely does the Church enact ‘infallibility’ when she speaks but when she does, I believe 100% we hear the will of the Holy Spirit. :slight_smile:


Either the Church knows the way or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t we are damned.



We aren’t talking about surviving a surgery. We are talking about eternal life. If the Church is not infallible we are damned, not just sick, not just physically dead, we are damned.



The option is…? Why not join the Elks. They are probably cheaper and they wouldn’t take us to heaven either.



First of all it is essential to know what infallibility is. The “church” is not infallible because that would imply that all the members are infallible. A validly elected pope is infallible when he is teaching on matters of faith and morals.

He is prevented from teaching error by the Holy Spirit.

Infallibility is not the preserve of a college of Cardinals. We all know that a camel is a horse designed by a committee and of course Jesus Christ the Incarnate Wisdom knows this too.

For this reason He picked one person and if we read the bible we find that Saint Peter is being groomed for this role from the time he was first called by Jesus Himself.

“Who do men say I am”? Who gave the correct answer?

Our Lord then confirmed that it was not flesh and blood that revealed this to him but the Father in Heaven.

In handing on the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven this protection from teaching error is also passed on to a legitimate successor.


The option is to logically and correctly show that the Church indeed possesses infallibility instead of issuing snide remarks.


It wasn’t snide. It was a straightforward option that I’ve considered myself. It is as good an option at going to heaven or of finding truth or for worshipping God as any other, if the Church is not infallible. There is no reason to waste time with any religious group if none can deliver the goods.



Portho11 posted:

The option is to logically and correctly show that the Church indeed possesses infallibility instead of issuing snide remarks.

I am inclined to agree.

Being fectious and negative achieves nothing other than ‘winding people up’, thereby re-affirming their old prejudices and giving reasons to embrace new one’s. :frowning:

A lot of good apologetics can be undermined by just one flippant comment.


If the Church doesn’t know the way and it turns out the Zoroastrians are right, we’re all saved. On the other hand, if Lovecraft was right, we’ll all be eaten.



—Quote (Originally by GregoryPalamas)—
Either the Church knows the way or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t we are damned.
—End Quote—
If the Church doesn’t know the way and it turns out the Zoroastrians are right, we’re all saved. On the other hand, if Lovecraft was right, we’ll all be eaten.




Amazing shot and I didn’t even aim.

Anyway, care to explain where I’m wrong about the nature of salvation if a universalist or universally-devouring religion happens to be correct?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.