>>18160738>the structure of this our is plural as one not plural as one's necessarily.if you are referring to my spelling of corporate, those were spellcheck correct typos
>infallability that sounds really dangerous and like an artificial prop which would not be necessary if people can reason themselves.
even Christ had multiple prayer requests denied by God. He also questioned even being called "good", let alone "infallible. i know this statement would cause a bunch of problems with basically any corporate church doctrine. to be clear i'm not saying he spoke any lies or partial truths (it was the Father speaking through Him), i'm just saying trafficking in the "infallible" language is just asking for problems.
im saying this not having looked that much into catholic doctrine without much interest in doing so
i also think that the scriptural basis by which the catholic church derives its authority is very flimsy. "on this rock I will build my church" - if you look at the context of the verse, it makes much more sense to me on an identity level that Christ is referring to the confession which Peter just made, which was the Identity of Christ, which is in fact what church is actually founded upon (which is also the basis of romans 10:9 as the requisite for salvation).
you can't recognize Christ's identity unless He recognizes Himself in you first, this is how the harvest identity sorting works, how the wise are made blind (via identity derived by grace)
