Church Authority: Is it really just a guy in a hat?

  • Thread starter Thread starter noma
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
noma said:
As I believe, the faithful of the Church cannot be in error when they make statements in accord with the Will of Christ. The Holy Spirit would prevent them.
Click to expand...
Noma, it seems as if you have to learn something else about the Early Church.😉

Read this:
St. Irenaeus of Lyons:
  1. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
  2. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate.** Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric.** This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spoke with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Sorer having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.
Click to expand...
newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm
 
As for infallibility and inerrancy, I do apologize for accidentally conflating the two in certain posts. It comes from writing things quickly.

By “infallible” I typically mean the common (and not the theological) definition: “exemption or immunity from liability to error or failure.”

By “inerrant” I typically mean “without error”. It will also typically be applied to texts, as opposed to statements.

Stating the Gospel (not necessarily reading word for word the text) is, by these definition, infallible.

Scripture, by these definitions, is both infallible and inerrant.
 
noma said:
And, as I believe, through the apostles, to all believers.
Click to expand...
But if it was meant for all believers why didn’t Jesus give it to all of his followers? He had many disciples (people who followed him and learned from him), but only 12 Apostles (those who received his authority and were sent out with it).
 
noma said:
What is it makes the speech without error? The church membership or faith of the speaker? Or the accord of the speech with Christ’s will?

What is necessary to guarantee that a statement is without error: Only that it is spoken as a statement in accord with Christ’s will.

That it.

Now, for someone to do this meaningfully, he would have to have faith in Christ and His True Church on Earth.
Click to expand...
Why?

tee
 
noma said:
Simply because people in the church did things a certain way would not make them right in doing so.

The Church Fathers are just as susceptable to error as the pope, or as you or me.
Click to expand...
Still, don’t you think that what the ECFs believed (especially the very early ones) is indicative of what they were taught by the Apostles? Wouldn’t they know better than we do, 2000 years later, the teachings of Jesus’ chosen representatives?
 
Verita said:
Still, don’t you think that what the ECFs believed (especially the very early ones) is indicative of what they were taught by the Apostles? Wouldn’t they know better than we do, 2000 years later, the teachings of Jesus’ chosen representatives?
Click to expand...
They may know better. But they may not do better, or teach better.
 
noma said:
Simply because people in the church did things a certain way would not make them right in doing so.

The Church Fathers are just as susceptable to error as the pope, or as you or me.
Click to expand...
The writings of the Church in early times give evidence to what the early Church taught. How would we know what we are doing today is right?
 
noma said:
They may know better. But they may not do better, or teach better.
Click to expand...
Pope Clement I was an apostle of Paul. Are you saying that he was in error and taught with flaw? If the apostles letters were without flaw, why can’t the letters of the Pope?
 
noma said:
Never did. But the Roman Church is not the Catholic Church, nor was it ever.

.
Click to expand...
So then what is the Catholic Church? Anyone who proclaims Christ is Lord? Do you really believe that is a Church?

If Christ established a Church, than shouldn’t we try to discover which Church he did establish?

The Church is guided by the Holy Spirit, not the Pope or any other man.

You do not want the Church to be right or infallible because then it would mean that ABC is sinful. Isn’t that what this is all about? It is much easier to be protestant, even easier to be an atheist, but the Christ told us which path was easy and which one was hard.
 
noma said:
He probably did at times. I think his statement about apostolic succession would be an example.
Click to expand...
Then the true Church does not exist today at all and nobody is saved, is that right?
 
noma said:
With all my heart.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you should study the definition of the word Church instead of defining it for yourself. What did Jesus mean when he used the word, did he say anyone who say’s I am lord is part of my Church and can never error?

Isn’t that what is going on here, your saying Jesus is Lord, and then believeing whatever you want to believe? If only it were that easy.
 
tee_eff_em said:
Why?

tee
Click to expand...
A very good question.

If someone were to speak in accord with the will of Christ, normally that person would have to know Christ’s will.

Most people, unless they are lying, speak what they believe, or at least attempt to.

So for one to teach from the Truth of the Scriptures with that will would imply both knowing it and submitting to it. Else the person is lying, or speaks something true by accident.

Speaking something true by accident, by definition of accident, means that the person has not been made infallible.

Speaking a lie about truth has the same problem.

So only one option remains: one must submit to God’s will in order to speak infallibly about God’s plan.

Faith is seen as man’s response to God. Submission to Christ involves faith in Christ. And so speaking infallibly requires this faith.

But that does not mean that such faith is sufficient for this infallibility.
 
BlazingBolt said:
Perhaps you should study the definition of the word Church instead of defining it for yourself. What did Jesus mean when he used the word, did he say anyone who say’s I am lord is part of my Church and can never error?
Click to expand...
Members of the Church can fall into error. But not if they are in accord with Christ’s will.

Most of the time, most people aren’t. So most of the time, people make errors in their speech and writing.

But this body of believers is what I believe Christ intends by the Church.

We could, of course later, have another post on that topic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top