Did the Apostles Teach Infallibly?

[PrisonerOfChrist]

Where does it end for Protestants?

1. Did the apostles orally teach infallibly? Yes/No
2. Did the non-apostle writers of the New Testament orally teach infallibly? Yes/No
3. Did the successors of the apostles orally teach infallibly? Yes/No

It will be interesting to see the difference between questions 2 and 3…

 

[PrisonerOfChrist]

Anybody?

All comments are welcome

 

[JonNC]

Where does it end for Protestants?

1. Did the apostles orally teach infallibly? Yes/No
2. Did the non-apostle writers of the New Testament orally teach infallibly? Yes/No
3. Did the successors of the apostles orally teach infallibly? Yes/No

It will be interesting to see the difference between questions 2 and 3…

For all three, no, though that doesn’t mean that the early councils were not authoritative, or that there is not a recognizable primacy of the Bishop of Rome.
If I am not mistaken, the challenge to the claim of papal is not limited to the various western communions and groups loosely described as “Protestant “.

 

[Maximilian75]

1)No, they couldnt do that. Only Peter could. And, IMO, he did, when he allowed for the eating of ritually unclean animals.

2, 3. Again, no. AFAIK, even in the Apostolic Age, infallibility was confined to the See of Peter.

 

[PrisonerOfChrist]

So some of the oral teachings from the apostles themselves could have been wrong? That doesn’t sound right…

 

[concretecamper1]

1. The oral teachings that were made part of the NT can certainly be considered infallible.
2. Same as 1
3. When in agreement with Sacred Tradition.

 

[PrisonerOfChrist]

So some of the oral teachings from the apostles themselves could have been wrong? That doesn’t sound right…

Can someone please explain??

 

[MT1926]

Did the apostles orally teach infallibly? Yes/No

I would say yes and no.

Yes, Jesus gave them the all authority to bind and loose. So as a group they could teach a binding infallible doctrine. See Acts 15.

Also, Jesus gave St. Peter the keys which signifies his role as the Chief Steward/Vicar to the King. The job of the Vicar is to make authoritative decisions, binding on the kingdom, in the absence of the King. See Matthew 16. Jesus also designated St. Peter as the Visible Shepherd (not the Chief Shepherd that is Jesus) of the entire flock. See John 21. Jesus commands St. Peter to feed and tend MY sheep. The shepherd, the one in charge, is the one who feeds and tends the sheep. When Jesus gave this command to St. Peter and no other it is here that Jesus made St. Peter the visible head of the Sheep, which would include the other Apostles.

Did the non-apostle writers of the New Testament orally teach infallibly? Yes/No

No. They would have handed on a teaching that would have already been infallibly taught by the Apostles.

Did the successors of the apostles orally teach infallibly? Yes/No

No difference, Same as #2

Let me know if this helps,

God Bless

 

[MT1926]

So some of the oral teachings from the apostles themselves could have been wrong? That doesn’t sound right…

It depends on what you mean by oral teachings.

Every word out of the Apostles mouths would not have been infallible. Just like every word out of the Popes mouth is not infallible.

To me it is common sense that the Apostles would not have been able to teach everything to the people. Just look at Jesus’ ministry. The Apostles followed Him for three years. It would not have been possible for the Apostles to spend 3 years in every town making sure everyone knew everything that was needed to be known and understood.

Where I’m going with this is development of doctrine.

So the teachings from the Apostles wouldn’t be wrong, a better way to think of it is they wouldn’t have been complete.

The Apostles would have taught the exact same way Jesus taught them. Start with the basics and get deeper and deeper as time goes on. They wouldn’t have been talking to non-Christians the way we dialogue on this website. That would be way to deep for someone who is new to the faith. They would have given them the basics. Jesus is the Son of God, Jesus died for our sins, Repent and be Baptized, Love God and Love neighbor, etc…

The deeper theology would have been taught to their disciples while they followed them from town to town. Then my thought is when the Apostles felt one of them were ready, like we see in the letters to Timothy, the Apostles would have left them in charge of other men.

For someone to believe the Apostles taught everything that needed to be known and understood in every town they came to is not thinking logically.

God Bless

 

[Dca2018]

These sort of gotcha questions do Catholic Answers a disservice. The handful of non Roman Catholics on this forum arent going to go Roman based on a single post.

 

[MichaelP3]

To me it is common sense that the Apostles would not have been able to teach everything to the people. Just look at Jesus’ ministry. The Apostles followed Him for three years. It would not have been possible for the Apostles to spend 3 years in every town making sure everyone knew everything that was needed to be known and understood.

Although I agree with this, it also assumes there are “this huge amount of things” needed to be known in the first place as is today explained as the “development of doctrine”?

 

[adf417]

MT1926:

To me it is common sense that the Apostles would not have been able to teach everything to the people. Just look at Jesus’ ministry. The Apostles followed Him for three years. It would not have been possible for the Apostles to spend 3 years in every town making sure everyone knew everything that was needed to be known and understood.

Although I agree with this, it also assumes there are “this huge amount of things” needed to be known in the first place as is today explained as the “development of doctrine”?

Greetings Michael, do you not consider the doctrine of the Trinity to be “a huge amount of things needed” or are you one of those that believes there was never a need for the doctrine of the Trinity?

Peace!!!

 

[JonNC]

Greetings Michael, do you not consider the doctrine of the Trinity to be “a huge amount of things needed” or are you one of those that believes there was never a need for the doctrine of the Trinity?

The Trinity:

1. can be clearly discerned from scripture.
2. was approved by a truly ecumenical council

Papal infallibility ex cathedra has neither of these

 

[adf417]

adf417:

Greetings Michael, do you not consider the doctrine of the Trinity to be “a huge amount of things needed” or are you one of those that believes there was never a need for the doctrine of the Trinity?

The Trinity:

1. can be clearly discerned from scripture.
2. was approved by a truly ecumenical council

Papal infallibility ex cathedra has neither of these

I never said it was…but you did confirm it was not fully understood from the beginning and needed further clarification which was my point. Thank you for that Jon.

Peace!!!

 

[JonNC]

I never said it was…but you did confirm it was not fully understood from the beginning and needed further clarification which was my point. Thank you for that Jon.

And you’re right. The Trinity needed to be clarified.

 

[MT1926]

Although I agree with this, it also assumes there are “this huge amount of things” needed to be known in the first place as is today explained as the “development of doctrine”?

Thank you for agreeing with me.

However, I’m not sure why you are stating I am making an assumption as compared to a logical observation.

We know that Jesus taught the Apostles for 3 years. We know that Jesus commanded them to teach everything He taught them. The only assumption would be to assume the Apostles are better teachers than Jesus.

We also know from the book of Acts that even though they were trained by our Lord they still didn’t understand everything and doctrine still needed developed.

Not sure why people treat development of doctrine like it’s a bad thing? The Apostles primary goal was to preach and teach that Jesus was the Messiah in order to convert the world to Christianity. Doctrine would have been secondary and most likely taught to the men that followed them on their journeys from town to town.

To me this is how you run a successful business. You don’t waste time and resources training your minimum wage employees on the ins and outs of the managers job and operations.

God Bless

 

[MT1926]

The Trinity:

1. can be clearly discerned from scripture.
2. was approved by a truly ecumenical council

Papal infallibility ex cathedra has neither of these

Hi John,

I’m not here to argue with you I just wanted to ask a few questions. I was hoping you could elaborate on your answers for me.

I’m just making an observation here that if I was an outsider looking in I would be scratching my head asking what are they talking about.

Anyway I find it interesting that people often make the defensive claim that the Trinity can be CLEARLY discerned from scripture, yet never sight the Biblical text to do so. I mean if it is so clear as the statement says how hard would it be to rattle off a few verses? When people defend the Authority of Peter they can site verse after verse after verse, sure you might not agree with them but I’m just pointing to the fact that there are a bunch of verses that often accompany the claim of the Papacy, yet there are never any verses that accompany the claim of a clearly discerned Trinity?

Like I said I am not trying to be argumentative I am honestly coming from the position of a person who can CLEARLY see the Papacy in scripture, and the logical reasoning why Jesus would leave us a visible authority here on earth. However, at the same time I can’t clearly see what we believe about the Trinity, unless someone was to specifically point it out in the scriptures. I also see no way one can logically come to the conclusion of the Trinity.

Any help would be appreciated.

Also, how does one know what defines a “TRULY” ecumenical council?

Thanks,

God Bless

 

[semper_catholicus]

1. I’ve heard some say yes. I would think that it would be the case that they tiaght infallibly, because they sort of needed to start a church.

2: Certainly what they wrote was infallible.

3: Not necessarily. What they taught had to be interpreted in the light of what the Apostles taught.

 

[JonNC]

I’m just making an observation here that if I was an outsider looking in I would be scratching my head asking what are they talking about.

I’ll certainly try.

I find it interesting that people often make the defensive claim that the Trinity can be CLEARLY discerned from scripture, yet never sight the Biblical text to do so.

I did earlier, mentioning Christ’s baptism. One could also reference the Great Commission, and numerous others.
I also don’t see doing so as defensive.

When people defend the Authority of Peter they can site verse after verse after verse,

Perhaps, but that wasn’t the question. The question is infallibility ex cathedra.
St Peter clearly has an authority, imposed by Christ Himself, but again, no one can point to that and say it means he or his successors in Rome (or Antioch) has infallibility, or even universal jurisdiction as defined and declared by Rome.

However, at the same time I can’t clearly see what we believe about the Trinity, unless someone was to specifically point it out in the scriptures. I also see no way one can logically come to the conclusion of the Trinity.

This question is about teaching, and the universal teaching of the Church Catholic is the Trinity as we understand it from the councils and creeds. The role of the Church is, in part, teaching.

Also, how does one know what defines a “TRULY” ecumenical council?

The seven ecumenical councils of the Church, agreed upon by both the East and West prior to the Great Schism.

 

[MT1926]

I did earlier, mentioning Christ’s baptism. One could also reference the Great Commission, and numerous others.
I also don’t see doing so as defensive.

Thanks, but that doesn’t really make the Trinity a “CLEAR” discernment from scripture for me.

I honestly don’t see how we can get to the Trinity without the Church. Like you say here…

The role of the Church is, in part, teaching.

So why is the role of the Church part of the teaching in regards to the Trinity but when it comes to the Pope the Church is not allowed to have any (name removed by moderator)ut?

The seven ecumenical councils of the Church, agreed upon by both the East and West prior to the Great Schism.

How can a schism invalidate future ecumenical councils? Just because some people refuse to attend future meetings doesn’t mean you can’t have a meeting and make decisions anymore?

God Bless