If not, isn’t your denomination, right off the bat, admitting it could be wrong in its interpretation of Holy Scripture?
Yep they are admitting they could be wrong. We are fallible humans after all. It takes humility to admit one doesn’t know everything.
You can see how this affects the church if you just look. Protestant pastors include all the biblical references as they preach, with the people looking up the verses to read for themselves… the presumption is that the Pastor has his heart right, is well learned about such things, but need checks and balances because he is fallible. Catholics hear a few scriptures first and then listen to the homily without looking anything up… the presumption is that the priest is correct.
**2 Corinthians 1:13 13For we write nothing else to you than what you read and understand, and I hope you will understand (A)until the end; **
1 John 4:1; Matt. 7:15-16; Acts 17:11 Require us to test our teachers, not assume they are always correct.
I assume you have checked the bible for Sola Scriptura and found proof?
Proof that I’m falliable? Sure! “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”
Where is Mr. Ex Nihilo lately? He says I don’t believe in Sola Scriptura so I don’t suppose I ought to try and prove it’s right if I don’t think it is… You aren’t him though, so what is YOUR definition of Sola Scriptura? I’ll tell you if I qualify under your definition. Really, your topic seems to have changed quite a bit from first post to second… Whether someone admits they could be wrong is quite a different subject than sola scriptura.
You can see how this affects the church if you just look. Protestant pastors include all the biblical references as they preach, with the people looking up the verses to read for themselves…
So, I thought you must have checked for " bible alone" and found the bible to teach it.
Yep our church admits it could be wrong in some things. No one in my church is proud enough to say that they know it all or are 100% accurate. Me included.
As a matter of fact if my minister speaks of something in the bible that could have several intrepretations he says I believe you check it out for yourselves. I love him he always challenges us to study scripture for ourselves:thumbsup: We should never take what a man says at face value. You should always go to scripture and see if what he is saying lines up with the bible. If any of us disagree with him we should go to him and discuss it.
No one is infallible:thumbsup:
I would assume all of them would claim some sort of infallibility. If they didn’t, they wouldn’t be divided so. Well, maybe it’s pride that their interpretation is superior over another’s. :shrug: Either way, if they didn’t think in some fashion that their interpretation weren’t superior to another denomination, then it wouldn’t be a denomination.
In Pax Christi
Does claiming infallibility do the opposite? Is infallibility reserved for those who “claim” it? Is it a boast or an attribute?
Nobody is infallible in any regard regardless of claim even in the Catholic church. Peter was not infallible as is proven in scripture so therefore we all depend upon the holy spirit to help us digest and understand what is written in scripture.
Peter was not infallible
No, Peter was not impeccable (incapable of sin). People tend to mix these things up a lot. . . Actually Scripture does prove that St. Peter used the charism of infallibility when applied to matters of faith and morals when he pronounced (by the vision sent by the Spirit that made all ‘unclean’ foods clean, thereby proving to St. Peter that Gentiles could be saved as well as the Jews) that salvation was for Jew and Greek (Gentile) alike. Check Acts.
ahhh, thats alot of biblical gymnastics!
Biblical gymnastics? So where is your authority for your claim that the Bible ‘proves’ that Peter was not infallible?
Why is it ‘Biblical gymnastics’ when someone uses Scripture in support of their belief. . .but when you make an unsupported statement, “The Bible has proved thus-and-so”?
Come now, lets not become angry over this. I simply meant that Peter was not infallible as was several popes early in the Catholic church by your church’s own doctrine. Infallibility didn’t become dogma until the late 1800’s.
Nobody is angry. (the emoticon specifically is confused, not angry. Put your cursor over the emoticon to see what it ‘represents’ if you are not sure).
Infallibility didn’t become dogma until the late 1800’s.
As a ‘former’ Catholic, you should know better than this. Infallibility of the Pope did not ‘become’ dogma in the late 1800s; it had existed from the time of Peter. It was proclaimed to the people only because there had been ‘questions’ about it.
Think about it. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception (Mary being conceived without sin) was ‘proclaimed’ in 1854. Do you think that meant that Mary didn’t ‘come into existence’ until 1854? That until then she had been ‘conceived in sin’ and that poof! suddenly she wasn’t?
Why, Henry VIII himself believed in the sinlessness of the Virgin Mary, as did Martin Luther–300 years before it became ‘dogma’ as ‘proclaimed’.
Immaculate conception. If you believed in it before it was dogma, you were a heretic and if you didn’t believe in it after it was proclaimed as dogma, you would also be considered a heretic. Truth cannot change period. Not even for Catholics.
If you believed in it before it was dogma, you were a heretic and if you didn’t believe in it after it was proclaimed as dogma, you would also be considered a heretic. Truth cannot change period
Really? That should be fairly easy to prove, now. Let’s see the official church documents on all those heretics who believed in the Immaculate Conception before 1854 and were made ‘heretics’ by the church.
Let’s see all the official church documents that did not teach that Mary was immaculately conceived, before 1854.
I’m sorry; I don’t mean to be rude but when you make statements like this, you waste my time. You aren’t trying to find out what we believe, you are telling us that we do, or say, or believe stuff that we don’t, and telling us we lie when we deny your wrong statements. . .
I don’t intend to waste my time having to correct every piece of ‘misinformation’ that you post. God bless, but I have better things to do than cast pearls. May Christ and His Mother guide you back to truth.
The sad part of all of this is that you are plenty smart enough to know that you are being misled but too deep into it to admit it to yourself. You cannot change the truth. A pope cannot speak in excathedra and it changes something that was not truth into something that is. Purely illogical. I was Catholic for 34 years, believe me I have had plenty of time and opportunity to know fact from fantasy.
[quote="Syele] You can see how this affects the church if you just look. Protestant pastors include all the biblical references as they preach, with the people looking up the verses to read for themselves…
That’s a pretty huge jump, blessings! I said the Pastors preach from the Bible and Congregations read the Bible to be sure the Pastor read it correctly. Saying we read the Bible is not even close to saying we are sola scriptura. If it only takes reading scriptures then I know of some Catholics and Athiests who are sola scriptura too.
By your statement, it’s obvious that you’re ignorant of Catholicism. Being Catholic for so so many years does not necessarily mean you’re knowledgeable about Catholicism, and there are plenty of you around. What you think you know about Catholicism is not really what you thought you knew.
Well, either your opportunities were not that great or you didn’t take advantage of them. Because you don’t understand the issue at all. Defining a dogma does not change falsehood into truth–it brings greater clarity on what is and is not true. Did the First Council of Nicea change falsehood into truth when they defined that Jesus was “homoousios” with the Father, even though that term had been associated with heresy previously and many people opposed it for reasonable and orthodox reasons?
Ex cathedra papal infallibility is wrong because it places ultimate authority in one particular office within the Church rather than in the Church as a whole. It has nothing to do with your spuriously “logical” argument.