Russell's words in blue.
You said:
Catholic Claim – We can’t go by “the Bible Alone,” because the Bible itself, in I Timothy 3:15, calls the Church (and not the Bible) the “Pillar and Ground of the Truth.” So, we need the Church also.
But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. (I Tim. 3:15)
Catholics seem to believe that this verse somehow suggests infallibility for the church, making the church equal with Scripture, and thus disproving the concept of Sola Scriptura. But this is simply wishful thinking on their part. Now, I am not saying that we don’t need the church. The church is established by God and it certainly has its place. But if you look at the context of I Timothy 3, Paul is describing the RESPONSIBILITIES and OBLIGATIONS of church leaders. He is speaking of the EXPECTATIONS of the church (…that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself). He is not speaking of privileges and special powers. He is not saying, “Hey Timothy, just kick back and relax, and bask in your infallibility, since we never have to worry about teaching false doctrine.” No, there is absolutely nothing in this context to suggest infallibility, nor is there any guarantee of being exempt from error. But again, he IS speaking of the duty and responsibility of those in the church (especially leaders) to preach, proclaim, and share the Truth.
St. Paul was telling his disciples that he would instruct them how to behave in the Institution which the the Holy Spirit inspired him to describe as the Pillar and Foundation of Truth. Thus confirming that the Catholic Church is infallible.
Yes, the church is a “pillar,” but remember, a pillar is a support which holds something ELSE up. If a person sees the pillars / supports on your porch or balcony, and he says, “Hey, these are a nice roof.” You would think he is pretty naive and would tell him that these are not the roof, itself, but rather, they are SUPPORTS which hold up the roof. In the same way, the responsibility / obligation of the church is to “hold up,” “proclaim,” and “support” the truth. The church itself is not the Truth, but is called to be the support (pillar) of it. Scripture is that standard, that Truth, which the church is obligated to hold up (John 17:17).
Hm? How does that help you exactly? You seem to have proved the Catholic Teaching that the Catholic Church is infallible because it always teaches the truth. The Catholic Church does not teath that It is the truth, but that Christ is the Truth.
Another problem with this Catholic argument is that if this verse is indeed saying that the “church” is infallible, it is proving too much. A “house” / “household” is not just composed of leaders, but of subordinates, as well. If the church is the household of God, and the church is infallible, then the whole household is infallible. But I don’t think that Catholics would want to say that. And neither would I. So, for more than one reason, this is another Catholic argument that doesn’t wash, and it certainly does not disprove Sola Scriptura.
You are mixing metaphors. The reference is to the Church as a whole. It is not about the individuals who compose the Church. The Church as a whole is represented by the Magisterium, the Pope and the Bishops united with him. The Church, as a whole, is infallible.
In His Name,
Russell
Sincerely,
De Maria
Ah, De Maria, bless your heart! Your knack for metaphor is nothing short of dazzling—who wouldn’t want to liken the Church to a sturdy porch? “Look at these pillars!” you exclaim, “supporting a roof that totally isn’t the truth itself!” How beautifully creative! I mean, who doesn’t love a bit of architectural whimsy when discussing doctrines and eternal truths? Next, you’ll be comparing the Church to a house of cards and claiming victory for structural integrity!
ReplyDeleteAnd really, your insistence that the Church, as a whole, is represented by the Magisterium is a delightful twist. It’s almost like claiming that a fraternity house is defined solely by its president, who may or may not have taken a few wrong turns during initiation! Perhaps you imagine that a singular voice emerging from a room full of suits somehow encapsulates everyone’s beliefs perfectly. What a charmingly rosy picture you paint of unity! One can only hope the spirits of dissenting opinions have taken a vacation on a beach somewhere far away.
Now, the leap from Paul speaking of responsibilities to claiming infallibility is truly a captivating endeavor! The juxtaposition is impressive— “Support the truth” transforms into “We’re infallible!” in your next breath. It’s almost like saying that the waiter holds up the menu, therefore he must also be the chef. By that logic, every time I prop up a book, I’m magically endowed with the skills of a Nobel Prize-winning author. How wonderfully convenient!
And let’s not overlook your conclusion, with that charming caveat that if the Church as a whole were infallible, it means everyone in it is infallible—oh, but heaven forbid! Ah yes, the uncomfortable reality that the good, the bad, and the extraordinarily misguided can all share the same institution really puts a cramp in the infallibility party. Apparently, embracing the concept of being part of the "infallible family" has limits—who could have predicted that? Probably not Timothy as he sat there trying to decipher the expectations of church leadership amid all the holy confusion.
So, to wrap this delightful exchange in a neat little bow: your arguments, while certainly entertaining, are akin to an elaborate Rube Goldberg machine—intricate, impressive, but ultimately unconvincing when it comes to delivering the actual point. Please, keep the theatrical metaphors coming; they provide such a splendid backdrop to the conversation! But remember, metaphorical pillars won't hold up a faulty roof for long. Cheers!