Did the Apostles Teach Infallibly?

[JonNC]

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

Sorry.

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?

I didn’t say it doesn’t. The other patriarchs disagreed with the one who claimed surpremacy.
And there is the problem. The Church is divided on the issue.

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?

Truly ecumenical councils require agreement. If the EO held a council, it wouldn’t be ecumenical without the pope, either.
It has been a thousand years. Solve the Schism.

 

[MT1926]

I didn’t say it doesn’t. The other patriarchs disagreed with the one who claimed surpremacy.
And there is the problem. The Church is divided on the issue.

I still don’t see how division on an issue proves a problem. If anything I would think it would prove the need for a Pope. Basically, someone to cast the deciding vote.

The patriarchs also disagreed with the Pope on divorce and remarriage as well. Does this automatically mean the ones creating the division are correct by default and it’s OK for us to divorce and remarry?

Truly ecumenical councils require agreement. If the EO held a council, it wouldn’t be ecumenical without the pope, either.
It has been a thousand years. Solve the Schism.

From my understanding I thought the EO are not able to hold their own council because they have no way of defining or calling a council. I thought this had to do with the fact that their isn’t technically one EO Church and they have disagreements with each other as well? I might be wrong on this but I can swear that’s the way I’ve heard it on Catholic Answers.

As for the 1000 years I also find it interesting that they accepted the Pope the first thousand years. Kinda makes you wonder.

God Bless

 

[JonNC]

I still don’t see how division on an issue proves a problem. If anything I would think it would prove the need for a Pope. Basically, someone to cast the deciding vote.

The division was caused , in large measure of the claim of supremacy, which was not part of the early Church.

The patriarchs also disagreed with the Pope on divorce and remarriage as well. Does this automatically mean the ones creating the division are correct by default and it’s OK for us to divorce and remarry?

It depends on who came of with the innovation. Supremacy is an innovation

As for the 1000 years I also find it interesting that they accepted the Pope the first thousand years. Kinda makes you wonder.

And they still accept the pope in the same way they did in the first thousand years: primacy, not supremacy, not universal jurisdiction, and certainly not infallibility ex cathedra

 

[PrisonerOfChrist]

MT1926:

I still don’t see how division on an issue proves a problem. If anything I would think it would prove the need for a Pope. Basically, someone to cast the deciding vote.

The division was caused , in large measure of the claim of supremacy, which was not part of the early Church.

That still does not answer the question…

 

[mrsdizzyd]

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?

I mean we can rattle off a few verses such as Deut 4:35 which says that there is only one God. Everything else builds from this principle. Then of course God the father as creator of all in Genisis 1:1 or God as love itself in 1 John 4:8. There are many many more references here.

And of course there is John 10:30 where Christ declares that “I and the Father are one”. And with it John 1:1.

Then with regard to the Holy Spirit you have the scriptures that deal with his relationship to the Father and Son such as John 15:26 and Rev 22:1-2

So, all the elements are there to understand that we are really referring to one diety. I suspect that you are actually looking for something else though?

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

MT1926:

I still don’t see how division on an issue proves a problem. If anything I would think it would prove the need for a Pope. Basically, someone to cast the deciding vote.

The division was caused , in large measure of the claim of supremacy, which was not part of the early Church.

That still does not answer the question…

You might be right. The pope was relied upon for centuries to suppress live problems and disputes within the Church. That was an important part of his role, primacy.
Unfortunately, his ability to act in that role is significantly diminished by the Schism and later divisions. That role could be restored, at least in some measure, were the early Church’s understanding of primacy of the pope restored

 

[poche]

When the apostles taught they were infallible on matters of Faith and morals. What they taught is a matter of public revelation. This public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle.
The non apostolic writers of the New Testament also taught infallibly. That is also an important part of the public revelation.
The Successors of the apostles also teach infallibly in as much as they teach in accord with and in communion with the Pope in Rome.

 

[PrisonerOfChrist]

You might be right. The pope was relied upon for centuries to suppress live problems and disputes within the Church. That was an important part of his role, primacy.
Unfortunately, his ability to act in that role is significantly diminished by the Schism and later divisions. That role could be restored, at least in some measure, were the early Church’s understanding of primacy of the pope restored

You might be right too - having over 40,000 divisional churches that do not agree with each may be the answer. St Paul would definitely favour division in the Church…

 

[JonNC]

You might be right too - having over 40,000 divisional churches that do not agree with each may be the answer. St Paul would definitely favour division in the Church…

All of those “40,000” are the result of division in the western Church, including the Catholic Church. I don’t know how your comment applies to the conversation, however, since neither you nor I approve of the divisions within His Church.

In fact, that kind of sarcasm only adds to the divisiveness

 

[MT1926]

The division was caused , in large measure of the claim of supremacy, which was not part of the early Church.

Once again I still don’t see how one person not willing to submit to the authority of the other all of the sudden proves that that person does not have authority.

Everyday people in this country cause division over the powers of our government. Should we all of the sudden say well that proves the government never had any authority in the first place?

You might also want to do a little more research on this, I am pretty sure the division started long before this. The claim to supremacy was just the final straw and the only one people seem to remember.

It depends on who came of with the innovation. Supremacy is an innovation

Supremacy is a word that means being superior in authority, power and status. It’s pretty easy to see that St. Peter was superior in authority, power and status to all of the other Apostles. It’s easy to see that Jesus set it up this way. It’s easy to see that the Holy Spirit Inspired the authors to write it this way. It’s pretty easy to understand that with everything in life when you have two opposing sides someone needs to have the authority to step in and make the deciding vote. It’s the only way any organization in this world can stay unified and survive. How hard is it to believe that Jesus would have known this and wanted St. Peter’s supremacy to continue to the end of the age.

And they still accept the pope in the same way they did in the first thousand years: primacy, not supremacy, not universal jurisdiction, and certainly not infallibility ex cathedra

Did St. Peter have any of these qualities as Pope?

Primacy and supremacy are synonyms so not sure how you can prefer one over the other?

Universal jurisdiction - someone always has to be in charge.

Infallibility - Not sure why people have such a hang up with this word. From the beginning of time God used human beings to speak fro Him and bring us His Word. Did the Prophets speak infallible when God told them what to tell the people? If I am willing to believe God spoke to and guided His people for thousands of years before the coming of Christ. Why would I believe He decided to leave us on our own after the coming of Christ?

Do you believe God revealed to us 2000 years ago everything we need, to deal with the current times and the next 2000 years?

Finally, not sure why this is always the big hangup. Ex Cathedra teachings occurred what like twice in 2000 years. Both about Mary which if you really think about it aren’t that hard to believe and believing in them takes nothing away from the faithful and only really adds to it if you ask me.

Anyway, why the hang up on something that has happen 2 times in 2000 years? Not to mention 800 years after the schism, so why would we even think this would be the central issue?

Thanks for the continued dialogue Jon. You are making me dig deep and contemplate what you say which helps strengthen my faith.

God Bless

 

[JonNC]

Once again I still don’t see how one person not willing to submit to the authority of the other all of the sudden proves that that person does not have authority.

The responsibility for a change in teaching falls on the one making the change. There is no scriptural or Tradition precedent in the early Church for papal supremacy, much less infallibility.
The Bishop of Rome has authority. It is stated in Nicaea canon 6.

Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.

His is like the see in Alexandria, and in Antioch, etc. It is in his jurisdiction, and any bishop that wishes to attach to him.

You might also want to do a little more research on this, I am pretty sure the division started long before this. The claim to supremacy was just the final straw and the only one people seem to remember.

I know this, but the issue was related to this, specifically.

 

[MT1926]

So, all the elements are there to understand that we are really referring to one diety. I suspect that you are actually looking for something else though?

You are correct. Because the Dogma of the Trinity is more than simply referring to one deity.

The main point I am was trying to get at is the Trinity isn’t as clear as people like to say it is. People refuse to admit that we can’t fully understand the Trinity without the Church because once they do that opens them up to having to admit that there might be other things we can’t understand without the Church. Like the Pope for instance.

I appreciate the time you took to list some verses, but in the end all they really give us is the elements. Someone still has to put together the clear picture.

I’m no where close to fully understanding the Trinity but from my readings in order to understand we need to know the difference between being (what is God) and person (who is God). I don’t know of anything in Scripture which would lead us to ask these questions.

Not asking these questions could steer us towards modalism, which is defended against if one was to dig deep into Scripture, however I would argue these verses aren’t clear, in fact they are hard to see unless someone was to point those verses out and explain why.

Anyway, I could go on but I won’t.

I do agree the elements of the Trinity are scriptural, I just believe the people that claim it is clearly seen are only able to do so because the Catholic Church already showed them where to look.

Finding all the words in a million letter word jumble is pretty easy when you have the answer key sitting in front of you.

God Bless

 

[MT1926]

His is like the see in Alexandria, and in Antioch, etc. It is in his jurisdiction, and any bishop that wishes to attach to him.

I think you might be reading this back into the text. What you posted here is speaking of a Metropolitan. We still have Bishops in charge of their metropolitan areas today. Yes the Bishop of Rome is the Bishop of the Metropolitan of Rome. Canon Six doesn’t seem to be with addressing the jurisdiction of the Pope, just the jurisdiction of Bishops. If anything the fact that the context of this canon, being Alexandria, even mentioning the Bishop of Rome as the model speaks something way more important than you seem to be willing to admit.

Seems to me Canon 6 is telling Alexandria to follow the primary model over those in his Metropolitan. To say this canon makes Rome equal to all others is drawing something from the text that is not there.

God Bless

 

[mrsdizzyd]

I do agree the elements of the Trinity are scriptural, I just believe the people that claim it is clearly seen are only able to do so because the Catholic Church already showed them where to look.

Why is an appeal to an authority a bad thing? Christ set it up this way. Would God intentionally set up a bad or flawed system?

 

[MT1926]

Why is an appeal to an authority a bad thing?

It’s not. Sorry if what I said confused you into thinking the appeal for the understanding of the Trinity was a bad think.

The point I am making is what you say here…

Christ set it up this way.

Agreed Christ set the Authority, He didn’t give us the authority to pick and choose which ones of those authoritative decisions we are willing to accept (the Trinity) and which ones we aren’t (the Papacy, Confession, Baptism, Eucharist, etc.)

Would God intentionally set up a bad or flawed system?

No way no how. I’m just a mere human being, my intellect is no where close to God’s. If my puny brain can come to the realization that a business/institution needs a visibly present authoritative leader. Especially since it is in human nature to reject authority and do what we want when we want. I’m pretty sure God would have figured that out as well.

Unless I’m miss reading your response, I’m pretty sure we are on the same page.

God Bless

 

[mrsdizzyd]

Yes, I believe we are!

 

[JonNC]

Seems to me Canon 6 is telling Alexandria to follow the primary model over those in his Metropolitan. To say this canon makes Rome equal to all others is drawing something from the text that is not there.

And that metropolitan model does not include any universal jurisdiction, as evidenced by:

And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.

“The Great Synod has declared…”. Not the Bishop of Rome.

The fact is that’s only one patriarch recognizes supremacy/ universal jurisdiction / infallibility ex cathedra.

But in the end, there are significant portions of the western Church not in communion with the pope who I believe would consider reconciliation were the issue resolved.

 

[MT1926]

Sorry Jon I don’t see the point you are trying to make?

I agree with what this says…

And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.

This is speaking of the separate metropolitan areas. Not the Church as a whole?

The Great Synod has declared…”. Not the Bishop of Rome

I’m sorry is there another paragraph you didn’t post that says “Not the Bishop of Rome”. Why does it have to be either or why can’t it be both and?

Like I said the Pope has only made 2 ex-cathedral declarations. The fact that he didn’t make this declaration doesn’t prove he isn’t allowed to make a declaration. Why would we expect Canon 6 to state the Bishop of Rome here when he wasn’t the one who made this particular deceleration?

The fact is that’s only one patriarch recognizes supremacy/ universal jurisdiction / infallibility ex cathedra

Sorry I’m not following this statement. It almost seems like you are saying the authority of the Pope does not come from Jesus it comes from man and if these men were to agree then you would agree also?

I don’t believe the authority of the Pope comes from man and that is why I am having a hard time seeing why some men not agreeing with his authority could take his authority away?

God Bless

 

[JonNC]

Sorry Jon I don’t see the point you are trying to make?

Sorry I’m not following this statement.

I’m sorry you are struggling to follow this. Clearly we are talking past each other, and since neither one of us want to argue about it, there seems no sense in pursuing when you can’t follow it

But thanks for the conversation

Jon

 

[MT1926]

No problem.

I just want you to know I am not struggling with the document itself. I understand what the document is saying. I’m just struggling to see why you believe a document that is clearly addressing the hierarchy of a Metropolitan area should be read to apply to the hierarchy of the entire Church and the Pope?

Thanks,

God Bless