Catholicity of the Early Church

[Radical]

The words of Jesus I cited earlier indicate that he saw speaking truth and living virtuously as two completely separate matters.

really?…I don’t see that spelt out in the passage. I guess that is your inference. Do you really think that God sees those two things as being unrelated? Seriously?

Jesus never mentioned that; you are engaging in eisegesis.

really? Was my use of “I don’t know” and “perhaps” the clue that enabled you to gain this keen insight?

Indeed. But the principle Jesus laid down remains, since he never abrogated it: to obey religious authorities in spite of their grave sins.

I think that you are overstating it (yet again), but again, the assertion was that the Popes were teaching error through (the example of) their grave sin.

No disagreements here. But where do Jesus, Paul, or anyone else in the New Testament command us to disobey religious leaders on the basis of their less than virtuous lives?

the whole idea that the Church would allow an unrighteous fellow to continue to occupy a leadership position (and thereby teach through their unrighteousness as did those Popes) is something that you won’t see in the NT. The unrighteous leader is to be publicly rebuked:

1Tim 5: 19 Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses. But those elders who are sinning you are to reprove before everyone, so that the others may take warning

How do you think it would work with the unrepentant, unrighteous overseer? He is rebuked, he refuses to repent, he insists on being obeyed b/c he is the overseer and the congregation simply submits and is led by an unrighteous man?

The high priest, despite his denial of Christ as Messiah and Lord, speaks under divine inspiration. Even if Ca’iaphas was leading a good Jewish life, he cannot have been speaking infallibly on this point–according to your principles–given that he would stubbornly refuse to enter the New Covenant.

You have gotten it entirely wrong yet again. I’ll spell it out in point form so that it is clearer:

1. the hierarchy of the CC went against scripture and appointed very sinful Popes
2. the CC went against scripture and allowed those sinful Popes to remain as overseers
3. those sinful Popes sinned gravely whilst in office
4. the actions listed at 1,2 and 3 served to teach sin/error
5. despite the error being taught (as described above) the Catholics still claim that the CC was preserved from teaching error.
6. the Catholic claim at #5 is enabled by Catholics picking and choosing which teaching will count….and only those teachings (that count) need to be free from error (this is the disingenuous part IMHO)
7. God can use the unrighteous to teach truth, but rarely does so

You seem to be trying to establish the first half of #7, which has nothing to do with my points at 1-6.

Pure sophistry. From a university textbook for a course I am taking (pages 44-45): “when a learned man (‘alim) commits a sin before the people, they imitate him; but while he might repent his action, they continue to follow his sinful way.” --Tamim Dari (d. 661), cited in “An Introduction to Islam”, David Waines: Cambridge University Press, 2nd edition, 2003

interesting quote….and the point is?

The popes involved in their scandal-causing public sin and the hierarches who said and did nothing have had to give an account before God for the choices they made….But none of this has anything to do with the question of church infallibility.

this is the sort of picking and choosing that I am talking about…the claim to inerrancy can only be made after one eliminates the actions and teachings that would negate the claim. It is a rigged deck.

 

[Radical]

But does having the Holy Spirit have anything to do with holding to certain doctrine?

a good question…things like the parable of the good Samaritan would suggest that it might not be determinative.

First of all, not being Catholic, I do not recognize popes as vicars of Christ (if they do hold that position, may God show me the error of my ways); second of all, I cannot judge the Christian status of those that caused scandal with finality. It suffices to say that lives which include persistent, willful conduct not in conformity with Matthew chapters five to seven or Galatians chapters five and six seem unlikely to have the Holy Spirit working in them.

a good answer.

 

[PRmerger]

well you are at it, please clarify your belief wrt those sinful Popes. Did those leaders of the Church possess the Holy Spirit throughout their tenure as the “Vicar of Christ”?

Yes, they did have the Holy Spirit, by virtue of their baptism.

But, they, like all of us, leak.

 

[Trebor135]

a good question…things like the parable of the good Samaritan would suggest that it might not be determinative.

Hmm. Would you consider devout Muslims who pray five times a day, fast during Ramadan and in other months, give to charity as much as they can, and perform sincere acts of kindness for their Christian neighbours as well as their Muslim ones to have the Holy Spirit in them? If you were the pastor at one of the three churches you attend, would you welcome such Muslims to receive the Lord’s Supper?

a good answer.

At last we’re agreed on something!

I hope to respond to your other post soon.

 

[Radical]

Hmm. Would you consider devout Muslims who pray five times a day, fast during Ramadan and in other months, give to charity as much as they can, and perform sincere acts of kindness for their Christian neighbours as well as their Muslim ones to have the Holy Spirit in them?

I would doubt it, but it is quite likely that the HS is at work in their lives…I agree with the CC that salvation is available for them (though I would categorize it as salvation outside of the Church)

If you were the pastor at one of the three churches you attend, would you welcome such Muslims to receive the Lord’s Supper?

no

 

[PRmerger]

1. the hierarchy of the CC went against scripture and appointed very sinful Popes

And in claiming this, Radical, you are indicting Jesus Christ himself,
for did he not appoint one man who denied him, thrice, and another who betrayed him for 50 pieces of silver, and yet another load of them who left him at his direst hour?

How “above reproach” were all those men, chosen by Our Lord and Savior?

 

[Radical]

And in claiming this, Radical, you are indicting Jesus Christ himself, for did he not appoint one man who denied him, thrice,…

You do realize that 1 Tim and Titus set out the necessary qualifications for an overseer (of the local church), right? None of the 12 were overseers before Pentecost.

… and another who betrayed him for 50 pieces of silver,

30 pieces…Judas was doomed to destruction so that scripture would be fulfilled. As such, Judas was not selected to serve as an overseer…he had another purpose.

How “above reproach” were all those men, chosen by Our Lord and Savior?

Do you think that they did not meet the qualifications after Pentecost? Were the author(s) of 1 Tim and Tutus just blowing smoke? The requirement for an overseer to be blameless isn’t to be taken seriously?..and the election of those sinful Popes was not contrary to scripture?

 

[PRmerger]

You do realize that 1 Tim and Titus set out the necessary qualifications for an overseer (of the local church), right? None of the 12 were overseers before Pentecost.

So the Apostles were immune to these Scriptural injunctions?

The Apostles could be sinners, but the overseers couldn’t sin?

Is that your position?

 

[PRmerger]

30 pieces…Judas was doomed to destruction so that scripture would be fulfilled. As such, Judas was not selected to serve as an overseer…he had another purpose.

Yes, my bad.

Do you believe that Judas was not an Apostle?

Do you think that they did not meet the qualifications after Pentecost? Were the author(s) of 1 Tim and Tutus just blowing smoke?

No, of course they were not blowing smoke.

The requirement for an overseer to be blameless isn’t to be taken seriously?..

Of course i it is to be taken seriously.

Just wondering how your church “overseer” fits this requirement, though.

Can you tell me if he fits those requirements?

and the election of those sinful Popes was not contrary to scripture?

No more than your overseer is contrary to Scripture.

 

[onemangang]

Again it looks like an old schism is being revisited. One that goes by the name of Donatism

**Donatism **was the error taught by Donatus, bishop of Casae Nigrae that **the effectiveness of the sacraments depends on the moral character of the minister. In other words, if a minister who was involved in a serious enough sin were to baptize a person, that baptism would be considered invalid. ** Donatists lived primarily in Roman Africa and reached their largest numbers in the 4th and 5th centuries. The claims of the sect were opposed by Pope Miltiades, 313; the Council of Arles, 314; the Emperor Constantine the Great, 316; and by Saint Augustine, 391-411, when a conference was held at Carthage in which the Donatists were confounded.