Infallible vs Impeccable??

[kensington]

That is just the point Gary... Matthew 23 says a lot more than just that they had put themselves in the seat of Moses.

Jesus said much more than that.  And I still do not believe that they were teaching anything. If you went to the Temple in that day, they read what was already written, what God had already taught. They had religious authority... by being in that position. But, they were not teaching.  They were demanding and telling people what to do according to what had already been taught.

And they were twisting it to fit what they were doing.  They were corrupting the word.  And yet, at the same time, demanding that the people go by the letter of the LAW. The LAW was already written. 

They may have used the title teacher... but Jesus didn't consider them teachers, and He said so. He said they weren't teachers, and that He was the ONE teacher. 

They had put themselves in the "seat of Moses" ... which came with the authority to teach. But, they were not teachers, and He was clear about that. 

A Daisy can call it's self a Rose all day long, but at the end of the day, it's still a daisy.  Jesus said He was the ONE teacher. But, they had the religious authority and He taught the people to obey.

[Bon Voyage]

That is just the point Gary... Matthew 23 says a lot more than just that they had put themselves in the seat of Moses.

Jesus said much more than that.  And I still do not believe that they were teaching anything. If you went to the Temple in that day, they read what was already written, what God had already taught. They had religious authority... by being in that position. But, they were not teaching.  They were demanding and telling people what to do according to what had already been taught.

And they were twisting it to fit what they were doing.  They were corrupting the word.  And yet, at the same time, demanding that the people go by the letter of the LAW. The LAW was already written. 

They may have used the title teacher... but Jesus didn't consider them teachers, and He said so. He said they weren't teachers, and that He was the ONE teacher. 

They had put themselves in the "seat of Moses" ... which came with the authority to teach. But, they were not teachers, and He was clear about that. 

A Daisy can call it's self a Rose all day long, but at the end of the day, it's still a daisy.  Jesus said He was the ONE teacher. But, they had the religious authority and He taught the people to obey.

Matthew 23 says the scribes (teachers of the law, who TEACH) and the pharisees were in the seat of Moses.  Period.  You can disagree or agree, it doesn't change what God's Word says.

[Bon Voyage]

And that He is the ONLY infallible teacher.  Jesus alone.

And who said otherwise?

That would be the point of this topic Gary. The Catholic Church says the Pope is infallible.  And I said... give me a break. Jesus is the ONLY infallible teacher.

What topic did you think you were in? 

A thread where someone is advocating something that scripture doesn't say in order to prove their point.

I certainly agree that Jesus is the ONLY infallible teacher.  I don't agree with some of the things you have said to support that.

[Jimbob]

I am not advocating anything about the pope one way or the other, but making a point that is wrong to advocate the truth, is still a wrong point, and it does a disservice to the truth.

  Good point, manna.

[mllevaleur]

"The floor of Hell is paved with the skulls of Bishops."

And this is acceptable to your church?  This is "good nuff" gospel?  That your leaders were not men of God? 

Of course it's not acceptable! If it were acceptable we'd be saying these guys went to Heaven...instead we're saying they went to Hell.

I was simply trying to point out that, contrary to what you implied, we don't think someone is going to Heaven just because he was a pope or bishop. He has to Walk the Walk, and MANY, I'd even say MOST of them do! But being human, we'll never get rid of corrupt people altogether on this earth, and even priests and bishops are people, so it's bound to happen that there will be corrupt priests and bishops (and school teachers and lawyers and preachers and doctors and any other profession you can think of...it's a human problem in general.) But bishops are held to an even higher standard, they're pastors and shephards, so if they lead their flock astray they'll be held even more accountable than the rest of us. That was the point I was trying to make in agreement with your own statement.

The fact that we acknowledge there has been corruption among bishops (as there has among all humans everywhere) does not mean we are holding this up as the ideal. Of course not! It's quite a leap to get there...nor are we "ok" with it, acknowledging its existence does not mean being ok with it. I really can't seem to win here...if I ignored it, I'd be accused of trying to hide it. When I acknowledge it existed, I'm accused of being "ok" with it. 

I'm sorry, but if that is the bottom line for any church or religion, then we have only ourselves to blame when there is the monstrous acts that have played out in the History of the Catholic Church. 

I have to wonder...  Why?  Just Why?  Why would any church live out such mockery before the LORD and even be shocked when someone questioned the influences and doctrines decreed by the men who lead, and then go to Hell.

No one said they were a good example that we should strive to emulate. I'm talking about the minority of corrupt men who have been bishops, acknowledging they existed so I won't be accused of trying to hide such things, admitting that we believe they'll be punished for their wrongdoing. I'm not sure what's wrong with that?

That does not mean we TEACH that it's ok to be these things. Again, I'm saying that we believe God is so powerful as to spread his word and protect it DESPITE the minority of men who are corrupt. I'm focusing on corrupt men because we're talking about infallibility, and you seem to say God can't speak through a corrupt man, and I'm saying, well, we believe He can. Now, if we back up a bit and look at the Church as a whole, I believe that the great majority of priests and bishops and popes ARE Godly men who devoted their lives to Christ. The whole infallibility thing is really not about the men, it's about protecting the teachings even if corrupt men happen to be involved. As someone else mentioned, God doesn't have any perfect people to work through, all He has are imperfect humans, so we believe God, being All Knowing, put in this safeguard of infallibility to protect his teachings, even through imperfect men. 

Why? When Jesus who was perfect said that HE would lead you into all truth through His Holy Spirit.  Just as He led the Apostle's.

We believe He does lead us through the Holy Spirit, and most visibly through the Church and the successors of the apostles.

 

He never told us to submit to the authority of such.

Naturally, I disagree...I believe when Jesus said things to the apostles like "Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me," this is an admonition to listen to the teaching of the apostles and their successors and submit to it, because they are teaching the Way of Christ.

But we can agree to disagree.

He said to obey the Law that was already written.  You have Bibles, you have the truth. To excuse and explain how it is that most of your hierarchy is in Hell... just does not make Christian sense. But, whatever.

Whoa, Nelly! I think you greatly misunderstood...I never said "Most of the hierarchy is in Hell." Again, I believe most of the hierarchy is made up of good and Godly men who have devoted their lives to Christ. We were simply focusing on the corrupt ones because of the whole infallibility issue.

I have nothing else to say to anything you responded.

Well that's unfortunate, I was curious to hear what you thought.

This one statement is more than enough to speak to the bottom line of all of this. Sadly... it is the testament of the Catholic Church.

I'm afraid you've misunderstood what the purpose of the statement was, hopefully the above cleared that up.

[mllevaleur]

"Yet, he also explicitly tells the crowds to obey the Pharisees' teachings."

No, No He didn't. The Pharisees were teaching the LAW... the written law of God. It had already been inspired and written by GOD Himself and they were teaching it from scrolls in the temples.  GOD WORD.

He was telling them to obey the word they spoke, because it was His word that He had spoke into place.

Well...seeing as we believe the Church and Pope are primarily there as guardians of the Word already handed down, this is essentially what we see them doing...passing on God's Word that He already gave to us.  That's what we mean when we say "Church teaching," the deposit of Faith handed down once and for all to the apostles (Jude 1:3), and shared and protected by them and their successors. 

[kensington]

Matthew 23 says the scribes (teachers of the law, who TEACH) and the pharisees were in the seat of Moses.  Period.  You can disagree or agree, it doesn't change what God's Word says.

"Period"... just doesn't work for me Gary. I want to know why he said it, and to rightly divide the word and find out what He was getting out. Just speaking "Period" to me is the same thing as what He was describing. They demanded the letter of the LAW.

What gave them the authority to teach was "being seated in the seat of Moses"... to pass on the Law of Moses that he had taught.

But, Jesus Himself said they put themselves there. And if all that Matthew 23 said was 'They were teachers." Period... there would be no discussion. But there is more, and we are to rightly divide the word of God. And Jesus did go on to say that He was the only ONE teacher.

They may have been teachers by the tradition, but tradition changed when Jesus came on the scene.  These men He said, didn't want to teach even, they wanted the honor and the authority of the title. So in other words, it was a title... meaning very little once "THE TEACHER" came on the scene.

But, again... "Period" is just legalistic for me.

[kensington]

Mellavar... your quote said... that "Hell is paved with the skulls of Bishops"... that would take an awful lot of skulls. You play it down now, but the truth is...  the man himself who said it, left the impression that "MANY MANY" of the bishops would be in Hell.  For any religion that should not be acceptable.  It makes me wonder, you play off so much that the Bible says or that people say is wrong.

That is no small thing this man has claimed about the hierarchy of the Catholic church. It's appalling.

[kensington]

BTW.. Gary... Jesus did not use the word "teacher" when he spoke of them in Matthew 23;1-3 as KMV says.. He used the word Scribe.

A scribe was not at teacher.  Not in the hebrew or the english. It was someone who "wrote down the word" ... Secretaries... the word was dictated to them and they wrote it down. 

They had put themselves in the seat of Moses... Which meant "authority to teach Moses"... but Jesus did not call them teachers. He said, "Scribes (writers) and Pharisees (separated for a life of purity)

He did not call them teachers... He even said right off.... these scribes and Pharisees have set themselves in the seat of Moses.

But, it is the rest of the Chapter that brings the facts down, they were corrupt and God was going to judge them, even root them out. And Jesus again, was the teacher. 

[Bon Voyage]

Some translations use "scribe," some use "teacher of the law."  Same thing.