While some apologists for the pope are trying to convince us of infallibility’s flabbergasting attributes and effects, Paul — the one who rebuked the first pope — had the temerity to suggest a foundation other than infallibility for the work and witness of the church:
According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and someone else is building upon it. Let each one take care how he builds upon it. For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw—each one’s work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work that anyone has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If anyone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire. (1 Cor 3:10-15)
Just before this, Paul expresses caution about belonging to church parties, which in chapter one included Paul, Apollos, and Peter.
But I, brothers, could not address you as spiritual people, but as people of the flesh, as infants in Christ. I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for it. And even now you are not yet ready, for you are still of the flesh. For while there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not of the flesh and behaving only in a human way? For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not being merely human? (1-4)
I wonder what he would have made of the high papalists. But perhaps without an infallible basis for wonder, I am forbidden to do so.
Old Life 
Yes. For:
LikeLike
But what of all those denominations of Protestantism, Luther’s, Calvin’s?
Henry VIII’s?
“For while there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not of the flesh and behaving only in a human way? For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not being merely human?”
This post is a helluvan argument for the other side.
LikeLike
Uhm..I ain’t joining your church anytime soon either, Tom
LikeLike
Darryl,
Yep Paul and Christ did not claim any divine authority. Nope. They were just on par with some random Jewish scribe teaching. The infallibility thing is tied to the authority thing. The authority thing is kind of a big deal for accepting Christ’s teachings/interpretations as articles of faith (i.e. infallible) to put the assent of faith in. Don’t put the cart before the horse. You do it here with infallibility, you do it with sola scriptura, you do it with your view of reason. Of course Christ is the foundation – don’t play the false dichotomy game.
LikeLike
No, Clete. Infallibility is a Word thing.
Try reading.
LikeLike
Not Bryan Cross says: the pope, being the “vicar” (stand-in) of Christ, for all practical purposes IS Christ, which is why we follow him.
LikeLike
Rube, Cross’ entire system relies on his having a website. I say we leave Cross and Algore to their happy little selves. One invented the internet. The other, a new kind of hat. For Pope of Called to Communion.
I’ll take Darryl’s baseball cap over Cross’. It’s better for keeping the sun out, while golfing.
We are at the end of all this. Finally. Good show, everyone. It’s closing time, you don’t have to go home, but you can’t..stay..here….
In other words, his epistemic crisis is not our problem. It’s between Bryan and God.
Peace.
LikeLike
It’s game over and we can get back to our lives. From that link (admittedly a Bryan Cross move, referencing me..this is fun!):
LikeLike
All is ended. The Pope has remained silent. Bryan and his website can go on as they always have. There is simply nothing to see here.
As for this:
Darryl:
1. I’ve read all of Joe’s works (Joe Ratzinger, Benedictus XVI). I’ve been reading Romanists diligently since the mid-90s. I genuinely love the poor Italian folks, but have no brook for Rome or St. Peter’s (the last time, I physically could not enter).
2. Most oddly, I recollect Joe noting the oddity–even the curiosity on his part–that Protestants (his sense, Germany) failed to note Paul’s sense of co-equality with Peter from Galatians 1 and 2. He wondered why that case had not been more vigorously prosecuted. Even more oddly to his odd reflection, I recollect saying to myself (it’s all about me), “Joe, c’mon, where have you been?”
Joe had a titanic mind, but…as with all great minds…there are blind-spots. That includes the great issue of Necromancy too.
BTW, the research on textual criticism and vernaculars continues apace. The Anglo-Italian policy, 1380s and onwards…thank God for Tyndale and the Holy Spirit.
Regards.
LikeLike
I call for a moment of triumphalism, in the snark of Martin.
Sing with me, you righteous ones. Yo yo yo……..
LikeLike
Cletus,
The infallibility thing is tied to the authority thing.
Yes it is. Which is why Rome’s claim isn’t worth taking seriously. The Apostles claimed all their teaching was infallible. Rome doesn’t.
If Rome wants to be the Apostles, it needs to be the Apostles. Go whole hog or go home. And if you won’t go whole hog and want to stay, then quit pretending that Rome’s divine authority is the same as the Apostles. Until every teaching of the pope is infallible, you aren’t even making that claim even though you think you are.
LikeLike
Tomvd, love our side.
LikeLike
Cletus van Damme, so you do accept that Paul is infallible. If that’s the case, then the foundation can’t be the one you’re proposing. All I hear from you is infallibility. I never hear Christ or God’s word.
As for the false dichotomy, you’re the one that claims we can’t have any knowledge only with Scripture. Psshaw.
Love Tom.
LikeLike
Given the 600-year blackout for English speakers (1380ish-1970ish), so ably rebutted by the English Reformers, aggravated by the Anglo-Italian policy of a Anglo-Hispanic Queen (Mary), repulsed in the English Channel (1588) by the Royal Navy, and upheld by Elizabethan and Jacobean Injunctions against Rome, “Rome shall have no jurisdiction in these realms.” A wonderful day for the West. Time to rediscover the 1599 Geneva Bible, a bulwark against the Great Necromancers with the bread-god or Christ-cakes.
Psalm 119. 130 “The entrance into thy words showeth light, and giveth understanding to the simple.”
The 1599 Geneva notes puts it more simply: “The simple idiots that submit themselves to God, have their eyes opened and their minds illuminated, so soon as they begin to read God’s word.”
What is it that the simple idiots don’t get? Even Joe (Ratzinger) got it.
Peter got whipped by Paul in Galatians 1 and 2. Whipped.
LikeLike
Darryl,
“we can’t have any knowledge only with Scripture. ”
Please don’t go down the Vincent Cheung road.
LikeLike
james cletus Van, I have no idea who VC is. It seems close to CVD and TVD.
You started the false dichotomy business. Just lovin’.
LikeLike
Cletus is a dream, not real.
Is anyone in blogdom?
emoticon..
LikeLike
Love what Luther said,
“The lowliest pig farmer with Scripture… is mightier that the mightiest Pope without it.”
LikeLike
Steve, good one. That man sure knew how to turn a phrase.
I, for one, stand with.
Auf Wiedersehen
LikeLike
Danke, Andrew.
Keep at it, my friend.
LikeLike
Darryl:
You said, “Cletus van Damme, so you do accept that Paul is infallible.”
Admit that, game over. Oh no!
Regards.
LikeLike
Donald Philip Veitch
Posted January 29, 2014 at 10:21 pm | Permalink
Darryl:
You said, “Cletus van Damme, so you do accept that Paul is infallible.”
Admit that, game over. Oh no!
Regards.
Easy on the victory dance just yet. If the pope admits Paul is infallible, the game’s still on.
LikeLike
Mr, Van Dyke:
Oh no, Trent said Paul was infallible. Oh no, it cannot be! Horrors, must we revisit Romans, Galatians and Ephesians too? Say it is not so!
Yet, Trent said what Trent said.
Crestfallen here.
Van Damme, what sayest thou? Including the 600-year blackout.
Regards.
LikeLike
Paul, infallible? Oh no! Trent just crashed.
LikeLike
Donald Philip Veitch
Posted January 29, 2014 at 11:10 pm | Permalink
Mr, Van Dyke:
Oh no, Trent said Paul was infallible. Oh no, it cannot be! Horrors, must we revisit Romans, Galatians and Ephesians too? Say it is not so!
Yet, Trent said what Trent said.
Crestfallen here.
Van Damme, what sayest thou? Including the 600-year blackout.
Regards.
Mr. [I won’t make a crude joke out of your name] Veitch, I believe we have refudiated your claim about the [Catholic] Bible not being in English for 600 years. Pls re-examine your charge and it’s boring anyway.
Again:
You actually brought clarity to an essential point, albeit accidentally. Let’s continue, if you must.
LikeLike
Viking, the (as usual) mops up OLTS like he owns it.
Is there another blog like this anywhere? Anyone? Bueller?
LikeLike
DPV,
Paul’s writings recognized as Scripture are inspired. The Pope agrees. That does not mean everything he did was infallible. Same with Peter’s writings and his actions. Same with the papacy’s writings and its actions. Not a shocker. And to the citation above, I’m not aware of RCs saying they were baptized in the name of Peter or he was crucified for them. Another non-shocker.
LikeLike
Cletus van TV boy belongs back here.
LikeLike
In other words, the RCC is nothing like the CTC paints it as. But you stick up for BC, since he’s in your tribe.
Yesterday’s news, yo.
LikeLike
Join in, all.
LikeLike
tomvd, “You actually brought clarity to an essential point, albeit accidentally.”
Feel the love.
LikeLike
dame van young, but now we have infallibility, (Mr. Preessiideeeennt). You lost.
LikeLike