SConn1 writes-----where there is wisdom in the bible, arguing infallibility on any level is ridiculous imho. -----------------and i am very familiar with the history you refer to, that's the catholic church's version. but it's hardly the only version.

I stand by what I said concerning the Bible, it's infallibility, and the Catholic Church. The CC zealously and fearlessly protected Sacred Scripture from corruption and preserved it thru the ages. Douay Rheims is as near the original texts as it gets. For this, the CC deserves praise and thanks. As a Catholic, I do not pretend to lean on the Bible alone as the sole rule of faith in matters of doctrine and morals. Along with it, we take the the great Word that was never written, Tradition and hold both as infallible.

I do not rely on fallible human varying judment in the interpretation of Scripture. I rely on the rock of divine authority who from St. Peter on submitted to Christ who gave Divine authority to teach when He said, "Go ye and teach all nations." Here, I have as a divine guide, not just the Bible, but also the Magisterium of the CC who has never failed, and never can, in teaching us our duty to God and to mankind.

SConn1 writes-----where there is wisdom in the bible, arguing infallibility on any level is ridiculous imho. -----------------and i am very familiar with the history you refer to, that's the catholic church's version. but it's hardly the only version.

I stand by what I said concerning the Bible, it's infallibility, and the Catholic Church. The CC zealously and fearlessly protected Sacred Scripture from corruption and preserved it thru the ages. Douay Rheims is as near the original texts as it gets. For this, the CC deserves praise and thanks. As a Catholic, I do not pretend to lean on the Bible alone as the sole rule of faith in matters of doctrine and morals. Along with it, we take the the great Word that was never written, Tradition and hold both as infallible.

I do not rely on fallible human varying judment in the interpretation of Scripture. I rely on the rock of divine authority who from St. Peter on submitted to Christ who gave Divine authority to teach when He said, "Go ye and teach all nations." Here, I have as a divine guide, not just the Bible, but also the Magisterium of the CC who has never failed, and never can, in teaching us our duty to God and to mankind.

blah, blah, blah. what a load of bullshit.

but also the Magisterium of the CC who has never failed, and never can

that's totally untrue.

there are 2 Magisteriums in the catholic church, and most of them are fallible. the only ones considered infallible is divine Magisterium. ordinary magisterium is considered fallible by the church.

and it's obvious you have been well brainwashed by the church. i was too when i was a child, but eventually outgrew the "faiths" of fallible men and found God on my own. but until you are ready to open your mind to greater and real truths instead of the dogma and bs that the church has spewed out since the middle ages to preserve it's power and wealth it's frankly, a little tough to talk to ya. you impress me as someone who believes that if they doubt the church they are one step closer to hell. i hope someday you outgrow that.

good luck to ya:)

Iconoclast----OK----you don't agree. But, just shooting down what I say gets you no where. Disprove what I say and you will make some headway.

SConn1----telling me there are 2 Magisteriums doesn't disprove what I say. Christ commanded to St. Peter and the apostles to proclaim His Gospel until the end of time. Christ also promised His Spirit who guides us "to all truth". That mandate and promise guarantee the Church will never fall away from Christ's teaching. This inability of the Church to stray, as a whole, into error regarding basic matters of CHrist's teaching in faith (doctrine, dogma) and morals is called infallibility. The teaching office (Magisterium) He gave them has by His will been handed on to St. Peter and the apostles successors, the pope and the bishops.

The pope and the bishops in union with him responsbility is to preserve and nourish the Church (that is, us-- the people). The teaching office is exercised in 2 ways, through the ordinary Magisterium and through the extraordinary Magisterium. The infallibility which the whole Church has belongs to the Pope. The Holy Spirit guarantees that when the Pope declares he is teaching infallibly (ex cathedra--"from the Chair") as Christ's representative and visible head of the Church on matters of faith and moral, he cannot lead the Church into error. This is a gift of the HOly SPirit promised by Jesus. "Whoever hears you, hears me." Certain conditions must be present when an infallible pronouncment is made.


Both are infallible when teaching matters of doctrine and morals. In this the Magisterium (teaching office) has never failed and never can. It cannot, because if the CHurch did fail and teach error in matters of faith and morals then that means Christ did not keep His promise to guide the Church to truth until the end of time.



Infallibility does not extend to individual bishops when they teach in a pastoral sense or preach the Gospel or giving catechatical instruction. But when they come together from all around the world in unity along with the Pope, and teach authentic matters in faith and morals, and they concur a single viewpoint, then that if infallible teaching and all Catholics must hold that conclusively. This is known as the infallibility of the CHurch.

Infallibility does not mean that the Pope and the bishops do not sin or that they know everything....and for certain they are not making new revelation. When the Pope or bishops speak as private theologians, expressing their views, their opinions could be mistaken.

Now, to put this all in context with this present discussion the infallibility which our Lord Jesus wished to endow His Church in defining doctrine pertaining to faith and morals, is co-extensive with written Revelation, which must be guarded and courageously propounded. Of that KFC does a fabulous job.

So, the Magisterium is infallible in her official teaching on faith and morals. Always has been and always will be. But she does not claim to be infallible in making people live up to those teachings. Her infallibility does not deprive us of our free will. You would admit, would you not, that God is infallible, yet you would not account for people who violate the commandments by denying God's infallibility. You would account for it by the evil dispositions of the people concerned. ANd as the infallibility of God does not take away free will from men, neither does the infallibility of the CC take it away from her adherants, we Catholics.

All people are the people of God and how they choose to know, love and serve Him is a matter of choice and free will. An important fact about Catholics is we have a sense of being a people united in a special sense by belonging in a world-wide
family all seeking the One that is to come. There may be lapsed Catholics, and non-practicing Catholics, and fallen away Catholics, but once baptized a Catholic, you are always Catholic. You are free to leave the Church and you are free to come back home and when you do, you will be welcomed.

The Church has its imperfections becasue the people who make up the CHurch, the Mystical Body of Christ, are human, and weak and err. God in His Infinite Mercy and forgiveness is always there present in the Tabernacle and in the Holy Eucharist. There is nothing more comforting in this life for me than to know this.....this is part of the strength of being a Catholic.

Of that KFC does a fabulous job.

Hey thanks Lulabelle....had to put that in cuz I'm not used to getting any type of high mark on this subject here on JU.....

And didn't you mention you were a Catholic? Well I hope LW is reading this. Cuz I've been branded a Catholic Bigot by her and by the looks of Baker's last comment he's bought into that as well.

As you probably know LB I'm an Evangelical that doesn't recognize the authority of the CC but agree with pretty much most of what you wrote above on the Holy Scriptures. I can see you and I have much in common outside the CC.

Reply By: Sean Conners, a.k.a. SConn1Posted: Friday, October 27, 2006i looked at this article and the responses.if i understand the debate right , kfc contends that the word of God is infallable in the 'orig texts" is that right?

Yes, you would be correct.

if so, i need to point out that the "orig" texts" are not , in many cases, origional at all. many of them are interpretations and word of mouth ones at that of stories passed down. so therefore, are subject to the same infallabilities as any modern day translations are.

The orig texts are not "original" as you assert but they are far from interpretations either. They are "original" copies tho. We have about 5,000 "original" copies floating around right now. If you have one original and make 5,000 copies from that original and can compare them all together years later, how accurate would they be? Even if there was a scribal error here and there (and there were) they could take all the copies for comparison and straighten it out...which they have done.

Our modern translations are coming from those original copies and the scoop is....they are very reliable. See the real truth is that if something is repeated often enough....people start believing it. Hitler liked to say that.....and he knew it worked.

for example, when you look outside the biblical texts, you find the "gospels" of mary magdeline, et al...and by many historical accounts, and by accounts contended in other books, not deemed "worthy" by the priest who designed the bible,

this is not true. No priest made a decision or designed the bible. The Jews took meticulous care of the OT scriptures and the early church copied and recopied Paul's letters which made up for most of the NT. These were gathered together and put thru rigorous testing before they could be be deemed worthy by the early church. There were many criteria for the NT inclusion into the cannon. One was that a gospel or letter had to be somehow connected to one of the 11 disciples. Another was that it could not contradict the OT scriptures or the eyewittness evidence the gospel presented. The early church, in the first century, already viewed the books we have today included in the cannon as inspired books. These books for the most part were overwhelmingly accepted and agreed upon for inclusion.

Now the "other gospels" you are talking about are full of contradictions, problems and were never accepted by the early church. Never. In fact if you read the book of Colosians you well see Paul warned against these other gospels. He told them not to listen to those clever sounding arguments as they would take them further away from Christ not closer as they had believed. Sound familiar? Think Satan, think Garden. Same old tricks. Get them away from the word of God and show them another version of it. Notice both conversations Satan had, one with Eve and the other with Jesus in the temptation. Both times, Satan misquotes scripture....gives it a bit of a twist.

The best lie has some truth in it. Satan is a clever devil.

According to the Gospel of Thomas (another lost gospel) Jesus told the disciples that women cannot enter heaven. The only way they are allowed in is if they grow a certain piece of the male anatomy. These books were not included for very good reason. They lie.

Hey, lulabelle, ask KFC who the whore of babylon is.

YOU, are a troublemaker!!!

Do you suppose that I am come to bring peace??!?!?!

Do you suppose that I am come to bring peace??!?!?!

well it's not the sword!!!

Whoa, Bakerstreet, you are an instigator! I don't want to get into what SConn1 says is a religious p------ contest! Concerning the Bible, we agree on many points including innerrancy and translations. Luther's idea of private interpretation is a completely different matter. I don't mean to rain on KFC's parade. I just wanted to set the CChurch and the Holy Bible in their proper order---Christ- founds Church--Church produces----Bible. Thank you Catholic Church for the Bible that has been debated so vigorously. KFC is a Bible, Yes; Church, No person. I get that.

Charity didn't mean love even in 1611.  I think that KFC refuses to even acknowledge that difference says it all.

From Measure for Measure, written by Shakespeare, Act II, Scene IV. Written 16th century.

ANGELO	Nay, I'll not warrant that; for I can speak	65
	Against the thing I say. Answer to this:
	I, now the voice of the recorded law,
	Pronounce a sentence on your brother's life:
	Might there not be a charity in sin
	To save this brother's life?	70
ISABELLA	Please you to do't,
	I'll take it as a peril to my soul,
	It is no sin at all, but charity.

ISABELLA	O, pardon me, my lord; it oft falls out,
	To have what we would have, we speak not what we mean:
	I something do excuse the thing I hate,
	For his advantage that I dearly love.

The meaning of charity and love are not the same. One might say charity is an act of love but they mean different things and did even before 1611.

So, which is inerrant? Is it "Faith, Hope and Love" or "Faith, Hope, and Charity"? There are TONS of differences between the word love and the word charity, yet many translations differ. I would challenge folks to look at 1 Corinthians 13 :13

Douay Rheims: 1Cor.13:13 " And now there remain faith, hope and charity, these three: but the greatest of these is charity."

Corinthians 13 is St. Paul's hymn to charity. Love, the charity of which he is speaking is a love which is to be found in the new order of things established by Christ. Its origin, purpose and content are radically new. It is born of the love of God for men, a love so intense He sacrificed His only begotten Son.

Charity is the theological virtue by which we love God above all things for His own sake, and our neighbor as ourselves for the love of God. In St.John 13:34, Jesus makes charity the new commandment. By loving his own "to the end", He makes manifest the Father's love which He receives. By loving one another the disciples imitate the love of Jesus which they themselves receive. "This is my commandment that you love one another as I have loved you.
St. Paul gives an incomparable depiction of charity. 1Cor. 13:4-7. From that we can understand and put into practice understanding that charity upholds our human ability to love and raises our love to the supernatural perfection of divine love.

This is not to be confused with physical passionate expression, mere philantrophy, or zeal to help others in order to convince ourselves of our superiority. It means living in peace with our neighbor seeing in them the image of God.
Charity is the most excellent of gifts recognizing that love lies at the source of Christian virtue. It isn't a utopia or an empty dream, it is a goal though difficult that is ours to achieve.

For the most part, the NT Biblical meaning and use of the words "love" and "charity" are bound together. In the secular meaning, there are tons of different ways love and charity are used.

Shakespeare's Angelo is trying to convince Isabella that if she loves her brother, it would be an act of charity by sinning. That is, she could obtain her brother's release and save him from death if she would give herself to his lustful desires.

I think Shakespeare knew full well the Biblical meaning of the words charity and love.

"This is not to be confused with physical passionate expression, mere philantrophy, or zeal to help others in order to convince ourselves of our superiority"

Then why use that word? If God had directed the creation of an inerrant book over the course of thousands of years, doesn't it seem strange that He wouldn't have directed clear language that anyone would understand without a concordance?

You guys come at this having been indoctrinated, with a host of materials at your disposal to help you understand. The Bible itself, though, wouldn't find itself in these circumstances in most of the world. What about the barely literate people around the world, reading translations of translations of translations?

Doesn't God want them to get the clear meaning? Brad shows an excellent example. I pointed out earlier that the Bible ITSELF has several places where the use the word charity and the word love in the same chapter.

If it were up to fallible men to make the decision where to use which, can the Bible be infallible? Do they know the mind of God that well? Does anyone? I doubt it.

Doesn't God want them to get the clear meaning? Brad shows an excellent example. I pointed out earlier that the Bible ITSELF has several places where the use the word charity and the word love in the same chapter.

Baker, I've explained this. There are diff words for love. The love in 1 Cor 13 is AGAPE. It's diff than brotherly love which is phileo. Back in 1611 they used that word for Love and that's the word they chose in their translation and Shakesphere is an example of this. Notice how Shakesphere used the word Charity. He used it as a sacrificial love. The same way that Paul did. That's the Godly Love "Agape." To differentiate the two, Charity is used as the Godly love and human love or brotherly love is translated "love." Now we just have love and love used. We'd have to go to the Gk to figure out which is Agape and which is phileo like in John 21.

That's one of the reasons we have so many translations over the years, our way of talking has changed somewhat and it's been modernized. You don't say anything about the 1611 translators picking thee and thou over you and your either.

I've shown you dictionaries, Gk Lexicons, gone back to the Gk...not much more can be said.

There's other words in the KJV that we don't use now and I stumble over them occasionaly and have to look at a modern translation or a dictionary to figure it out. It's just the word that they chose for that particular translation. Like I said before, some pick eagle, some vulture. Some choose carcase, some body. It's only going back to the original Latin that I saw it was "corpus" and the Gk word for "dead body." So I determined that it was not just a body used in my translation but a dead body to be better translated in modern writings.

You always go back to the source...always to get clarification.

One thing is clear. Charity in 1 Cor 13:13 is in the Gk, as I've shown you, "Agape" We know that means love. But it's no ordinary love either. It's a perfect love. It's a Godly love.

The modern bibles have replaced Charity with Love. They also replaced the thees, thous among many other words. End of story.

If you're just trying to show me that the KJV may have erred using Charity instead of love in its translation to show it's weakness I can show you better examples than that. The KJV is not perfect, it has it's flaws but you're barking up the wrong tree with this example.