Ecclesial infallibility in the Early Church

[Shiranui117]

Let’s assume, as you imply, that Peter was not always right in matters of faith and morals. Now if Peter was not always right, that means that the other apostles weren’t necessarily always right either. And if that is so, we are in doubt about when the apostles were right or wrong and in doubt about their teaching of the gospel and the whole Christian message.

We do have records of the Apostles disagreeing with each other, and we also have records on how their dispute was resolved and the truth established. That resolution came via the Council of Jerusalem.

For instance, Peter at the very least pandered to the Judaizers on occasion. At the Council of Jerusalem, however, he sided with the decision of the Council in admitting Gentiles into the Church without Judaizing preconditions. Councils can be guided by the Holy Spirit.

Just because we know that one man or several out of a group fell into error, does not cast doubt on the whole group. For instance, if a heresy arose today, It’s almost always clear when it arose and how it’s a heresy. Now, if one group of people fell into this heresy, does it cast doubt on the Orthodox teaching of the rest? Plus, if we compare the teachings of those around during the time of the heresy, and compare them to the traditions and faith received by others, as well as to the teaching of the Church throughout history, it’s easy to sort out what the true teaching is and is not.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Shiranui117:
Some comments on your comments. There some interesting points made.

We do have records of the Apostles disagreeing with each other, and we also have records on how their dispute was resolved and the truth established. That resolution came via the Council of Jerusalem.

For instance, Peter at the very least pandered to the Judaizers on occasion. At the Council of Jerusalem, however, he sided with the decision of the Council in admitting Gentiles into the Church without Judaizing preconditions. Councils can be guided by the Holy Spirit.

About apostles disagreeing–how can that be? Since the apostles were individually guided by the Holy Spirit how could they possibly disagree? If they did truly disagree, then that does indeed cast doubt on their whole teaching because that means the Holy Spirit is not reliable or that the Holy Spirit was not inspiring the apostles to begin with.

In the instance you mean, I do not think it was an example of apostles disagreeing. Peter and Paul were not in disagreement on the matter of the gentiles. The disagreement was with the Judaizers from Jerusalem. Paul was right, but it took the whole church to make an judgement to show to all what was right. The truth was established by the Church as a whole.

Just because we know that one man or several out of a group fell into error, does not cast doubt on the whole group. For instance, if a heresy arose today, It’s almost always clear when it arose and how it’s a heresy. Now, if one group of people fell into this heresy, does it cast doubt on the Orthodox teaching of the rest? Plus, if we compare the teachings of those around during the time of the heresy, and compare them to the traditions and faith received by others, as well as to the teaching of the Church throughout history, it’s easy to sort out what the true teaching is and is not

Well, I agree. Just because there have been heretical bishops does not cast doubt on the whole Church. That’s why councils need to be called to settle issues that various heretics bring up. And to make sure the councils have settled the matter correctly, we assume they are infallible because they Holy Spirit has ensured they will not err.

The infallibility of the Pope? I’m not sure about that–but in my view it is a short-cut way of coming to a decision without the expense and time delay of an ecumenical council.

But it also seems there are those who do not agree. The heretics themselves at least. And it’s not so sure for those who reject the idea of Church they way you and I think of it. For them there is no Church to appeal to like was done at the Council of Jerusalem. There was a visible Church in those days, but to many people today the Church is invisible and can’t be identified. This lack of an authoritative church makes them vulnerable to anyone who comes along and preaches a persuasive message. Hence the multiple denominations because for them there is nowhere to look for a corrective to error.

 

[Cavaradossi]

About apostles disagreeing–how can that be? Since the apostles were individually guided by the Holy Spirit how could they possibly disagree? If they did truly disagree, then that does indeed cast doubt on their whole teaching because that means the Holy Spirit is not reliable or that the Holy Spirit was not inspiring the apostles to begin with.

I’m not sure how exactly we, in this thread, got from the accepted idea that the letters and gospels written by the apostles were inspired by the Holy Spirit, to advocating that the individual apostles were inspired in everything they did, possessing some form of infallibility. The former absolutely does not imply the latter.

 

[mackbrislawn]

I’m not sure how exactly we, in this thread, got from the accepted idea that the letters and gospels written by the apostles were inspired by the Holy Spirit, to advocating that the individual apostles were inspired in everything they did, possessing some form of infallibility. The former absolutely does not imply the latter.

Because no one has advocated that the apostles were inspired in everything they did. Obviously, they remained sinners, so were not inspired in that. Peter behaved inappropriately when pandering to the Judaizers. He was not inspired in that. However, when the apostles taught, they were infallible simply because they had the Holy Spirit behind them when they taught and wrote. Hence, they could not disagree, that is, teach contradictorily.

Yep, written words alone can be misconstrued to conclusions alien to the writer’s intent. In this case, my intent…

That is my beef with the sola scriptura crowd. We don’t have the original apostles around to ask what they meant in their writings, so it is possible to twist their writings around. You and I have the Church to ask, but they don’t.

 

[pneuma07]

I understand the Catholic Church teaches that all public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle and am not claiming that it officially holds the Mormon view. Rather, I’m saying that, because of the lack of evidence from the early Church for papal infallibility (a notion which emerged only in the Middle Ages, according to Brian Tierney and other scholars–who as of yet have not really been taken on by Robert Sungenis et al), the Catholic Church effectively believes in continuing public revelation.
Well, you concede that evidence for papal infallibility before the Great Schism is primarily or exclusively “implicit”; I find no reason to accept evidence of this sort; where can we go now?

The way out of our impasse would be for Catholics to demonstrate that the Eastern Orthodox Church teaches as necessary for salvation one or more doctrines for which evidence from the early Church is primarily or exclusively “implicit”. The dormition of the Theotokos does not meet this criterion because the Orthodox Church has not deemed it necessary to dogmatize the teaching.

)

Dear Trebor,

you are touching some fundamental issues here. While I’d prefer to stick with conciliar infallibility, allow some remarks on your present statements.
How could we come to the conclusion that the Catholic Church "effectively believes in continuing public revelation "? Because ( you say, if I more or less get it) the notion of papal infalliblity emerged in the XIII century.

I guess you do not attribute to the CC the implicit belief that some theologians of that century were the locus of public ( sic ) revelation. So one could rather propose it was in Vatican I: in other words the CC implicitly believes that she recieved a new part of Revelation in 1870. Because there was a definition on a notion that was not explicit in Sciptures or in witnesses to Sacred Tradition.

So the question comes: are Councils called to define what has always been explicit in the previous life of the Church ? Had what was decided in Nicea in 325 or in Jerusalem around 50 been previosly explicit ? Were the two wills of Christ described so explicitly in Scriptures and in the fathers of the first six centuries ?
According to the above argument it looks like my alternative, had I been in Nicea in 325 eg, would have been either affirming that any teaching of the Council had always been explicit , or condeming the Council.

What really does matter, IMHO, is the examination of the real weight of witnesses about what was believed in the earlier Church, whether we classify it as implicit or else.

I’d be happy to consider together with you Trebor whether Bishop Gasser’s evidence in his Relatio ( or any other to that effect ) is just lack of evidence.

If we have to believe dogmas chiefly or solely because a Christian communion which claims (along with two other important rivals) to be the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church teaches them, how can we hope to check for doctrinal innovation on the part of this body?

Then the conclusions of the Sixth and Seventh Ecumenical Councils too have not any particular relevance, IMHO, because ( at least ) another Apostolic Church was already there. Have they ?

Therefore, given the deplorable situation of lack of communion among the Apostolic Churches, what should we do ? Am I to ponder any single doctrine against my own private interpretation of Scriptures and of the witnesses to Tradition ?
In this case how am I essentially different from our Protestant brothers ?

I am not meaning you are practicing and proposing that. I rather understand you have been discerning for a while where the most solid locus of apostolicity is nowadays, which Apostolic Church deserves your particular allegiance

And you are coming to conclude that is not the one whose center in the first millennium was consistenly referred to as “The Apostolic See”.

I hope something can help here.
In Christ
P7

 

[LionHeart777]

Thanks

You’re welcome.

Sure. But where has it been made with the greatest success, in your view?

I haven’t read a ton about it. First, I’m not sure it it’s accurate to say (as I may have implied) that the Church “made the case” for Papal Infallibility. However, in the document “Pastor Aeternus” one can see from the footnotes that Scripture and Tradition are cited. I would love to read Bishop Gasser’s official Relatio as well but I have not. I would reccoemnd reading these documents (but again, I’m not sure if they can accurately be described as “making the case” – not that they aren’t persuasive.)

Now as far as making the case, I have Dr. Ludwig Ott’s “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” which does a good job as does the “Catholic Encyclopedia” I believe. I don’t know if I could tell you who has had the greatest success in making the case, I would recommend these as well as works by other notable Catholic apologists.

In his book “The Gift of Infallibility”, James T. O’Connor provides the text of the Relatio of Vatican I, which was presented verbally by Bishop Vincent Ferrer Gasser. The evidence the good hierarch proffered from Sacred Tradition comprises a handful of patristic and conciliar proof-texts, many of which are recycled in Catholic apologetics even now.

The Catholic Church, represented by Bishop Gasser, indeed made arguments from Sacred Tradition, but all on the basis of “implicit” data–hardly a solid foundation for a dogma which has caused such controversy and bars reunion with the Orthodox Church.

I would like to get that book. Well, I don’t want to get hung up on explicit vs. implicit evidence as I believe I erred (If I’m not mistaken) by stating that the Patristic evidence was merely implicit (same goes for the Assumption of Mary.) I believe that Papal Infallibility is explicit in Sacred Scripture. I disagree with your last statement by the way.

Right.

Please see above.

Sorry for the delay Trebor, I am personally trying to kind of ease off of my posting here (at least for a while) but would still answer questions you may have. I’m going to get to your other post…

 

[LionHeart777]

I understand the Catholic Church teaches that all public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle and am not claiming that it officially holds the Mormon view. Rather, I’m saying that, because of the lack of evidence from the early Church for papal infallibility (a notion which emerged only in the Middle Ages, according to Brian Tierney and other scholars–who as of yet have not really been taken on by Robert Sungenis et al), the Catholic Church effectively believes in continuing public revelation.

No, it is not true that “the Catholic Church effectively believes in continuing public revelation.” I believe that there is at least sufficient evidence for Papal Infallibility in the early Church. I reject your notion (as well as that of “Brian Tierney and other scholars”) that Papal Infallibility is “a notion which emerged only in the Middle Ages”. On an Amazon.com review of Tierney’s book about Papal Infallibility, “A Customer” writes:

“The other on-line reviewer seems unaware of scholarly rebuttals to Tierney’s book. Tierney’s book is indeed a scholarly work and has many merits. However, his central thesis about Pope John XXII has been refuted in James Heft’s “John XXII and Papal Teaching Authority” (1986). I strongly recommend that all readers of Tierney’s book also read the critical reviews of it by A.M. Stickler (and the exchange between Stickler and Tierney) in the Catholic Historical Review (Oct.,1974 and April, 1975) along with J.A. Watt’s insightful comments in the Journal of Ecclesiastical History (Jan., 1974). Both Stickler and Watt are renowned scholars. As you will see Tierney is hardly the last word on this issue…”

Source: amazon.com/Origins-Papal-Infallibility-1150-1350-Sovereignty/dp/9004088849

Well, you concede that evidence for papal infallibility before the Great Schism is primarily or exclusively “implicit”; I find no reason to accept evidence of this sort; where can we go now?

See my last post. We will have to agree to disagree then.

The way out of our impasse would be for Catholics to demonstrate that the Eastern Orthodox Church teaches as necessary for salvation one or more doctrines for which evidence from the early Church is primarily or exclusively “implicit”. The dormition of the Theotokos does not meet this criterion because the Orthodox Church has not deemed it necessary to dogmatize the teaching.

See my last post. As far as reconciliation between Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, I’ll leave that to the Catholic Church.

Point taken. It is certainly conceivable that infallible statements could help to make a teaching better understood and more theologically precise, something which would help the average Fr. Joe to explain the doctrine well.

No problem.

If we have to believe dogmas chiefly or solely because a Christian communion which claims (along with two other important rivals) to be the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church teaches them, how can we hope to check for doctrinal innovation on the part of this body?

I never said that “we have to believe dogmas chiefly or solely because a Christian communion which claims…to be the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church teaches them” .

I think the bigger question is this: Is the Catholic Church the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church? As you know I answer in the affirmative.

Whether or not non-Catholics have to believe Catholic Dogmas I defer that question to the teaching of the Catholic Church.

You’re welcome.

 

[steve_b]

If you don’t do your job, that’s your fault, not mine. Seriously, this stuff isn’t hard. You should have learned how to communicate a point to someone in high school.

The problem is usually over authority, and particularly a person’s obligation to obedience to authority.

For example, the term “rule”
Jesus answers Peter in Luke 12:39-44

“But know this, that if the householder had known at what hour the thief was coming, he would have been awake and * would not have left his house to be broken into. You also must be ready; for the Son of man is coming at an unexpected hour.” Peter said, “Lord, are you telling this parable for us or for all?” And the Lord said, “Who then is the faithful and wise steward οἰκονόμος oikonomos*]* whom his master will set καθίστημι *kathistēmi make ruler] *over his household, to give them their portion of food at the proper time? Blessed is that servant whom his master when he comes will find so doing. Truly, I say to you, he will set him over all his possessions”.

Definitions
καθίστημι kathistēmi] = make ruler
οἰκονόμος *oikonomos] = *steward, manager, superintendent (whether free-born or as was usually the case, a freed-man or a slave) to whom the head of the house or proprietor has entrusted the management of his affairs

simply said, Jesus is going to make Peter the “ruler over His household”, “over all His possessions” when He changed Simon’s name to Rock, & gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of Heaven, and told him to feed, tend and rule his flock.

Therefore, in this example, who is Peter to guard the household of Jesus (His Church) against? Thieves. People who break into the house, steal souls, and cause damage to Our Lord’s possessions. Since Jesus rules with a rod of iron, and He places Peter in charge of His household, what kind of authority is behind Peter? All the power of Jesus and all His promises.
S:

Here’s the problem, and I’m going to say this as simply and bluntly as it can: I do not understand how it substantiates your point, or even what your point seems to be.

Remember the scenario when Jesus said “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: so do whatever they say but don’t do what they do " (Matthew 23:1-3). This is interesting for 2 reasons

1. 
   *]“moses seat” doesn’t appear anywhere in the OT scripture. The seat and those who currently sat on it, was purely an oral tradition passed on from Moses, but Jesus validates that is true and binding.
   *]Even though Jesus considered them (scribes and Pharisees) hypocrits, so don’t do as they do, Jesus still said they should be obeyed for what they say. Here Jesus is referring to them as an institution not individuals, there is succession to an office, and He makes the point that unrighteousness of church members in authority at any given time, is no excuse for disobedience or schism.
   
   Is that clear enough?
   S:
   

   Then explain to me why it doesn’t mean as I characterize.

   It’s hypothecizing he can make Irrevocable decisions on a whim, on whatever he wants, with no one to stop him.
   
   That’s a complete contradiction to the Church dogma defining papal infallibility which I’ve already stated earlier in this thread.
   S:
   

   I’m not understanding what you’re getting at here. Both “ruling with a rod of iron” and “ruling with an iron fist” sound quite authoritarian, or, as you put it, “imply strength.” Explain to me how Peter’s “poimaino” is any different from ruling with a rod of iron/iron fist.

   A rod of iron indicates something strong to me. A position of strength. Iron fist otoh, suggests to me something altogether different.
   S:
   

   It begs no question. You’re missing my point entirely. Just because it is theoretically possible does not mean it has actually happened. It’s like God being theoretically able to give humans the ability to fly. Did He actually? No. But CAN He, if He wanted to? Yes.

   I prefer not to get into hypotheticals. Especially since we have 2000 years of history to examine.
   S:
   

   So, based on your very own arguments, CAN the Pope nullify or overturn decisions of his brother bishops on a whim? Yes. Do we have examples of him doing it? I don’t know, and likely not.

   therefore, why the hypotheticals? We have 2000 years of history to look at. We don’t have to hypothecize on “whims”
   S:
   

   If you think I’m misrepresenting your argument, then explain to me how I am wrong and what you actually mean.

   When Jesus gave the bread of life discourse, and most of His followers left Him over it, did Jesus pound them into the ground as a result of them walking away? No. When the East broke from the chair of Peter, did the pope pound the East into the ground for their actions? No. When the Protestants broke from the chair of Peter, did the pope pound them into the ground? No. Does any of that change the dynamic of rule in either case of Jesus or Peter, Or his successors? No. But it ultimately changes the dynamic for all those who disobey Our Lord’s authority and disobey those who Our Lord commits to rule His household. Someday, i.e. everyone’s death, on that day, will be the day of reconing, for every soul based on what they’ve done.
   S:
   

   What’s the difference between ruling as a dictator and ruling as a father, in terms of their authority and how that authority is utilized?

   You really don’t know? I can see the root of the problem
   S:
   

   You distorted and misinterpreted MY words.

   I quoted directly. And on the next post (continued) I’ve included all my previous posts to you so no one is in the dark on what I’ve said
   
   (Cont)

 

[steve_b]

(cont)

Offense #1, you repeatedly shuffled my words around and took them out of the contexts of the ***very sentences ***in which they were said, making them lose ALL of their original meaning.
Offense #2, you conveniently made it look like those were my actual views of the Pope, when in reality, I was simply taking your own arguments, taking them to their logical conclusions, and spitting them back at you so you could see what your arguments looked like to me.

Are you refering to post 85? I included all my posts down the page
s:

Oh, give me a break. You didn’t copy it, you ripped it out of its context. That snippet-blob of what I said didn’t even come close to what I was originally saying. All of that was talking about your view, not mine. You were not even close to accurate in what you quoted.

I’ve included all our conversations below so there is no confusion with what I’ve said .
S:

Here’s what I actually said. I’ll make sure to emphasize the parts you left out.
***Jesus JUST got done saying that the Apostles are not to lord power over one another, ***yet your view of Peter and the Pope makes both heavy-handed rulers who rule over their fellow Apostles and bishops–and over the rest of the faithful–with an iron fist.
Get it now? I was talking about your view, not mine. I feel like I’m talking to a brick wall here.

Absolutely I get it.
I quoted what’s in red….right? I didn’t misquote you….right? I quoted what’s in red because it’s what you say, that I’m saying. See the part where you say “your view”? Where have I EVER said Peter and the pope, are heavy handed rulers and rule the bishops and faithful with an iron fist? I want the quote.
S:

No one would mistake the hatchet job you’ve done of my posts for what I actually said.
I’ve looked at your evidence, and I’ve either countered it, or haven’t been able to make heads or tails of it because you won’t tell me how you’re using it to support your argument.

I’ve included all my posts that follows.
S:

I have asked for clarification from you over and over again about what your sources mean and how you’re using and interpreting them, and I’ve asked you repeatedly to explain yourself in instances where you claim I’m misunderstanding or misrepresenting your argument. You have not done either.

Here’s my 8 responses to you. I think I’ve been clear in my answers. .
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9573590&postcount=55
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9576624&postcount=61
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9577747&postcount=63
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9584320&postcount=74
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9584358&postcount=75
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9585006&postcount=79
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9588371&postcount=85 ***
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9596578&postcount=105 ***
S:

I have no argument with the sources, because as far as I can tell, you haven’t even made a tangible argument using them.
Oh, and I see you never commented on my response in post 76. Does this mean that you’ve been pursuing this tangent of “I said, you said” because you can’t refute my post?

As you can see, post 76 wasn’t to me forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9584440&postcount=76
S:

That does not answer my question. All that said was is that Catholics have to submit to the Pope and the Roman dogmas. It did not say a word on what those dogmas actually said.

What the Church teaches is very easy to access
S:

My confusion is about what your sources mean and how you’re using them. Explain to me what your argument is and how your sources support your argument and how you’re interpreting those sources. If you do not, then I see no reason why I should keep talking to you.

If the head supervisor of a company, reporting to the CEO of the company, says and it is put as a directive over the entire company, that there will be no smoking within the walls of this company at any time, or that person will be fired. Do you think that law is not clear? Does it require any discussion? What if a person says, the boss is a bully, and heavy handed, and not only continues to gripe to his fellow workers about the law, but also lights up in the lunch room or the bathroom, and an employee reports him, what do you suppose will happen to him? He gets fired.

 

[Shiranui117]

The problem is usually over authority, and particularly a person’s obligation to obedience to authority.

For example, the term “rule”
Jesus answers Peter in Luke 12:39-44

Definitions
καθίστημι kathistēmi=make ruler

Actually no, kathistemi doesn’t mean “make ruler.” The closest definition to what you try to pawn off is “appoint someone to administer an office” which does not necessarily mean “rule.” It more commonly means just “set.” See the definitions from greekbible.com below:

1. to set, place, put 1a) to set one over a thing (in charge of it) 1b) to appoint one to administer an office 1c) to set down as, constitute, to declare, show to be 1d) to constitute, to render, make, cause to be 1e) to conduct or bring to a certain place 1f) to show or exhibit one’s self 1f1) come forward as

οἰκονόμος oikonomos =steward, manager, superintendent (whether free-born or as was usually the case, a freed-man or a slave) to whom the head of the house or proprietor has entrusted the management of his affairs

Interestingly, you left this definition of oikonomos out: 2) metaph. the apostles and other Christian teachers and bishops and overseers

Therefore, in this example, who is Peter to guard the household of Jesus (His Church) against? Thieves. People who break into the house, steal souls, and cause damage to Our Lord’s possessions. Since Jesus rules with a rod of iron, and He places Peter in charge of His household, what kind of authority is behind Peter? All the power of Jesus and all His promises.

So what does that leave everyone else? Where do the other bishops and Patriarchs and everyone else fit into this picture? Are they all subject to the Pope? Were the other Apostles subject to Peter?

Remember the scenario when Jesus said “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: so do whatever they say but don’t do what they do " (Matthew 23:1-3). This is interesting for 2 reasons

1. 
   *]“moses seat” doesn’t appear anywhere in the OT scripture. The seat and those who currently sat on it, was purely an oral tradition passed on from Moses, but Jesus validates that is true and binding.
   *]Even though Jesus considered them (scribes and Pharisees) hypocrits, so don’t do as they do, Jesus still said they should be obeyed for what they say. Here Jesus is referring to them as an institution not individuals, there is succession to an office, and He makes the point that unrighteousness of church members in authority at any given time, is no excuse for disobedience or schism.

1. 
   Is that clear enough?
   
   So, multiple people sit in Moses’s seat at once. What makes us think that multiple people don’t sit in Peter’s seat at once?
   

   It’s hypothecizing he can make Irrevocable decisions on a whim, on whatever he wants, with no one to stop him.
   
   That’s a complete contradiction to the Church dogma defining papal infallibility which I’ve already stated earlier in this thread.

   How is it a contradiction? Where is the contradiction? How is what I said different from what the Church dogma said? Show me, please. Make it a clear, simple explanation for a simple man seeking clarity.
   

   A rod of iron indicates something strong to me. A position of strength. Iron fist otoh, suggests to me something altogether different.

   Both are something strong and in a position of strength. How are they different beyond that?
   

   I prefer not to get into hypotheticals. Especially since we have 2000 years of history to examine.
   
   therefore, why the hypotheticals? We have 2000 years of history to look at. We don’t have to hypothecize on “whims”

   Hypotheticals are easier in this instance. Do YOU want to scour through 2000 years of history? I sure as heck don’t.
   
   Also, just because it’s a hypothetical does not mean it is an invalid method of argumentation. If my evaluation of what you have said is correct, then the Pope is certainly hypothetical of ruling on a whim, overturning others’ decisions and being immune from any correction short of God coming down and smiting the Pope.
   

   When Jesus gave the bread of life discourse, and most of His followers left Him over it, did Jesus pound them into the ground as a result of them walking away? No. When the East broke from the chair of Peter, did the pope pound the East into the ground for their actions? No. When the Protestants broke from the chair of Peter, did the pope pound them into the ground? No. Does any of that change the dynamic of rule in either case of Jesus or Peter, Or his successors? No. But it ultimately changes the dynamic for all those who disobey Our Lord’s authority and disobey those who Our Lord commits to rule His household. Someday, i.e. everyone’s death, on that day, will be the day of reconing, for every soul based on what they’ve done.

   This point is completely null for the same reason that the Emancipation Proclamation had no effect on the Confederate States during the Civil War. If they reject the authority of the Pope and leave his authority, then how can the Pope punish those who are no longer subject to him?
   

   You really don’t know? I can see the root of the problem

   Enlighten me, please. How is the authority of a father different from the authority of a dictator? Does the loving rule of a father have any less authority than the tyrannical rule of a dictator?
   

   I quoted directly. And on the next post (continued) I’ve included all my previous posts to you so no one is in the dark on what I’ve said

   Yep, as directly as the people who use the Bible to say “There is no God.”
   
   And as directly as the people who use the Bible to show Jesus saying “But bring here those enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, and slay them before me.”
   
   In other words, out-of-context rubbish.

 

[Shiranui117]

Are you refering to post 85? I included all my posts down the page

Yep, that’s the one.

Absolutely I get it.
I quoted what’s in red….right? I didn’t misquote you….right? I quoted what’s in red because it’s what you say, that I’m saying. See the part where you say “your view”? Where have I EVER said Peter and the pope, are heavy handed rulers and rule the bishops and faithful with an iron fist? I want the quote.

This is a lost cause. This marks the third or fourth time that you have asked this, and I’m tired of beating this dead horse and wasting my time dealing with you while you plug your ears and shout “LALALALA MISREPRESENTATION”. So, I’ll just quote all the times I’ve dealt with it:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9588975&postcount=87
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9578822&postcount=64
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9581964&postcount=67
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9584585&postcount=77
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9597226&postcount=107

Here’s my 8 responses to you. I think I’ve been clear in my answers.

Yeah, no. You’re still dancing around the point to me, and I still don’t know what the specifics of your argument are, and I still don’t know the specifics of the idea you’re trying to put forward. Rhetoric 101: If your audience doesn’t clearly and entirely understand what your argument is or what ideas you’re trying to present, you’re doing it wrong.

So, here is my request for you: Lay down the specifics of what your argument for the Pope is, and lay down the specifics of what Papal infallibility and Papal power mean to you. Tell me in your own words about Papal authority, point-by-point, and be sure to include details and definitions where necessary.

I made it big so you can hopefully get the idea.

As you can see, post 76 wasn’t to me

Whoops, post 78 is what I meant. Linked to it below. Can you address it, please?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9584669&postcount=78

What the Church teaches is very easy to access

Yes, but I’m asking YOU how you understand it.

If the head supervisor of a company, reporting to the CEO of the company, says and it is put as a directive over the entire company, that there will be no smoking within the walls of this company at any time, or that person will be fired. Do you think that law is not clear? Does it require any discussion? What if a person says, the boss is a bully, and heavy handed, and not only continues to gripe to his fellow workers about the law, but also lights up in the lunch room or the bathroom, and an employee reports him, what do you suppose will happen to him? He gets fired.

But here’s the thing: As clear as you make it sound, there is no clear agreement in the Catholic Church about how the Papal dogmas are to be understood. Therefore, I’m asking you how you understand the Papal dogmas, so I can know what you’re arguing.

Also, I’m not working for that company anymore, so I have no worries about the CEO.

 

[steve_b]

Actually no, kathistemi doesn’t mean “make ruler.”

Actually, It’s also used as make a ruler greek-dictionary.net/kathist%C4%93mi
S:

Interestingly, you left this definition of oikonomos out: 2) metaph. the apostles and other Christian teachers and bishops and overseers

Since Jesus was talking directly to Peter, in front of the apostles, on what He was going to do for Peter, we know which parts of the definition apply most.
S:

So what does that leave everyone else? Where do the other bishops and Patriarchs and everyone else fit into this picture? Are they all subject to the Pope? Were the other Apostles subject to Peter?

Lk 22:
24 a dispute arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. 25 Jesus said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. 26But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the onewho rules (hegeomai) like the one who serves.

• Jesus confirmed one of them would be considered greatest
• Jesus confirmed one would (hegiomai) be the one to lead/have authority over/ rule.

But just in case there are a few hold outs among them that need further proof it is Peter,

Lk22:31

And the Lord said Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you ὑμᾶς hymas, plural ] like wheat. But I have prayed for you σοῦ sou, singular ] Simon that your σοῦ sou, singular ] faith will not fail. And when you σύ sy, singular ] have turned, strengthen στηρίζω stērizō ] your brothers

That pretty much ended their argument. Peter is the Father’s choice, Peter is the one to lead them. .
S:

So, multiple people sit in Moses’s seat at once. What makes us think that multiple people don’t sit in Peter’s seat* at once*?

many “at once” is apparently what the argument was about in the upper room. Satan was messing with them over the issue of authority. Jesus settled that argument. It’s Peter
S:

How is it a contradiction? Where is the contradiction? How is what I said different from what the Church dogma said? Show me, please. Make it a clear, simple explanation for a simple man seeking clarity.

The doctrine is defined as follows

1. 
   *
   • we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that
   • when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
   • that is, when,
     1. in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
     2. in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
     3. he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
     4. he possesses,
     5. by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
     6. that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
     7. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable
     The key points of the definition: The pope must
     · Teach and define a dogma
     · Subject must be on faith and morals.
     · It must be held by the entire Church
     · Then he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals
     
     Iow, to answer your hypothetical, the pope can’t make Irrevocable decisions on a whim, on whatever he wants, with no one to stop him. it’s contrary to the definition
     
     Do you see that?
     S:
     

     Both are something strong and in a position of strength. How are they different beyond that?

     I see rod of iron as strength, vs iron fist as strength through brutality.
     S:
     

     Hypotheticals are easier in this instance. Do YOU want to scour through 2000 years of history? I sure as heck don’t.

     The purpose of 2000 years of history, is to see and show realities, not hypotheticals.
     S:
     

     This point is completely null for the same reason that the Emancipation Proclamation had no effect on the Confederate States during the Civil War.

     The South lost the war, and the realities are, the Emancipation Proclamation did effect the South.
     S:
     

     If they reject the authority of the Pope and leave his authority, then how can the Pope punish those who are no longer subject to him?

     Look past the here and now. Consider the unseen which is far more powerful than the seen. The realities are, we will give an account at the end of our lives for what we’ve done. Realities in the next life are forever. And those realities start here in this life. I would suggest the unseen realities of one’s acts, have the possibility of much more disastrous effects on the soul when we are judged, than any temporal punishment that might happen in this life as a result of sin. Besides scripture already warned us that those who cause or live in schism/sedition/division and remain that way, won’t inherit heaven. [Gal 5:19-21]
     
     The authority to bind and loose here what will be bound and loosed in heaven, is huge authority.
     S:
     

     Enlighten me, please. How is the authority of a father different from the authority of a dictator? Does the loving rule of a father have any less authority than the tyrannical rule of a dictator?

     Love vs brutality, is not about more or less authority. It’s a contrast in quality of authority. Why do you authomatically gravitate towards the negative with respect to authority?

 

[Cavaradossi]

Since Jesus was talking directly to Peter, in front of the apostles, on what He was going to do for Peter, we know which parts of the definition apply most.

A quick glance at the Greek text there shows Jesus speaking to all of the apostles. In verse 44, he uses the second person plural when he says ‘I say to you.’

 

[fames]

A quick glance at the Greek text there shows Jesus speaking to all of the apostles. In verse 44, he uses the second person plural when he says ‘I say to you.’

You are right !

 

[LionHeart777]

Which Text is everyone talking about?

 

[Shiranui117]

Which Text is everyone talking about?

What, you don’t know Matthew 16:18 by heart by now?

 

[Shiranui117]

BTW steve b, I hope you understand that the default color and text for posts are black and arial. You don’t need to keep putting black and arial tags in, when that’s the default. >_>

Actually, It’s also used as make a ruler greek-dictionary.net/kathist%C4%93mi

Nowhere on that page does it say “make ruler.” This is all I’m seeing:

Gloss:
to put in charge, appoint; to escort, bring, take; (pass.) to be made, become, be appointed

also formed as kaqistavnw, to place, set, Jas. 3:6; to set, constitute, appoint, Mt. 24:45, 47; Lk. 12:14; to set down in a place, conduct, Acts 17:15; to make, render, or cause to be, 2 Pet. 1:8; pass. to be rendered, Rom. 5:19

You can MAKE someone SOMETHING, but this is not always a ruler.

Since Jesus was talking directly to Peter, in front of the apostles, on what He was going to do for Peter, we know which parts of the definition apply most.

Well shoot, looks like Cavaradossi has a good counter to this one

Lk 22:
24 a dispute arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. 25 Jesus said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. 26But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the onewho rules (hegeomai) like the one who serves.

• Jesus confirmed one of them would be considered greatest
• Jesus confirmed one would (hegiomai) be the one to lead/have authority over/ rule.

But just in case there are a few hold outs among them that need further proof it is Peter,

Lk22:31

And the Lord said Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you ὑμᾶς hymas, plural ] like wheat. But I have prayed for you σοῦ sou, singular ] Simon that your σοῦ sou, singular ] faith will not fail. And when you σύ sy, singular ] have turned, strengthen στηρίζω stērizō ] your brothers

That pretty much ended their argument. Peter is the Father’s choice, Peter is the one to lead them. .

But HOW does Peter “lead?” What is the nature of this “leading?” Is he over and above the rest of the Apostles, or is he still equal with them, but acting more as a spokesperson when they are in agreement, and a mediator when they disagree with each other?

many “at once” is apparently what the argument was about in the upper room. Satan was messing with them over the issue of authority. Jesus settled that argument. It’s Peter

That wasn’t my question. Let’s say that Peter’s chair really is the foremost of the Apostles. What makes us believe that there is only one occupant of Peter’s chair? Why can Peter’s chair not be shared by several, or even all, of the bishops? If the Pharisees all shared the seat of Moses, then why can’t the bishops all share the chair of Peter?

The doctrine is defined as follows

1. 
   *
   • we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that
   • when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
   • [that is, when,
     1. in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
     2. in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
     3. he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,

1. • 
     

     • he possesses,
     • by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,

     • that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
     • Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable

     The key points of the definition: The pope must
     

     *Teach and define a dogma
     *Subject must be on faith and morals.
     *It must be held by the entire Church
     *Then he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals
     
     Iow, to answer your hypothetical, the pope can’t make Irrevocable decisions on a whim, on whatever he wants, with no one to stop him. it’s contrary to the definition
     
     Do you see that?

     However, he can indeed make decisions that are irrevocable, with no one to stop him, because “such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.” Right?
     

     The South lost the war, and the realities are, the Emancipation Proclamation did effect the South.

     Only after they lost the war. During the war, they were not under the jurisdiction of the US, therefore the Emancipation Proclamation had no effect on the Southern states. That’s what I was getting at. Authority and punishment have no impact on those who are not under your authority.
     
     I was trying to show you that the Pope COULDN’T beat down the Orthodox and Protestants, precisely BECAUSE they were not under his authority.
     

     Look past the here and now. Consider the unseen which is far more powerful than the seen. The realities are, we will give an account at the end of our lives for what we’ve done. Realities in the next life are forever. And those realities start here in this life. I would suggest the unseen realities of one’s acts, have the possibility of much more disastrous effects on the soul when we are judged, than any temporal punishment that might happen in this life as a result of sin. Besides scripture already warned us that those who cause or live in schism/sedition/division and remain that way, won’t inherit heaven. [Gal 5:19-21]

     The authority to bind and loose here what will be bound and loosed in heaven, is huge authority.

     So you’re saying that anyone outside the Roman Catholic Church and its communion is damned to Hell?
     
     Love vs brutality, is not about more or less authority. It’s a contrast in quality of authority. Why do you authomatically gravitate towards the negative with respect to authority?
     So, you’re admitting that a father and a dictator have the same kind of authority, do I have that right?
     
     In that case, what’s to stop a father from behaving like a dictator? We see it happen all the time. I “gravitate towards the negative with respect to authority” because I know it’s human nature to abuse authority.

 

[steve_b]

A quick glance at the Greek text there shows Jesus speaking to all of the apostles. In verse 44, he uses the second person plural when he says ‘I say to you.’

Lk 12:44 Of a truth I say to you,[plural] that he will make him ruler over all that he hath.

iow, He (Jesus) will make him (Peter) ruler over all that He(Jesus) has. And Jesus is saying this to Peter in the company of all the apostles.

 

[steve_b]

Nowhere on that page does it say “make ruler.” This is all I’m seeing:

Gloss:
to put in charge, appoint; to escort, bring, take; (pass.) to be made, become, be appointed

also formed as kaqistavnw, to place, set, Jas. 3:6; to set, constitute, appoint, Mt. 24:45, 47; Lk. 12:14; to set down in a place, conduct, Acts 17:15; to make, render, or cause to be, 2 Pet. 1:8; pass. to be rendered, Rom. 5:19

You can MAKE someone SOMETHING, but this is not always a ruler.

• Keep scrolling down the page. It shows how translators treat the word greek-dictionary.net/kathist%C4%93mi Acts 7:10, 7:27, 7:35
• also blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=G2525 “make a ruler” is used 8 times in that translation for that word

S:

Well shoot, looks like Cavaradossi has a good counter to this one

And I countered that
S:

steve b responded
Lk 22:
24 a dispute arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. 25 Jesus said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. 26But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the onewho rules (hegeomai) like the one who serves.

• Jesus confirmed one of them would be considered greatest
• Jesus confirmed one would (hegiomai) be the one to lead/have authority over/ rule.

But just in case there are a few hold outs among them that need further proof it is Peter,

Lk22:31

And the Lord said Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you ὑμᾶς hymas, plural ] like wheat. But I have prayed for you σοῦ sou, singular ] Simon that your σοῦ sou, singular ] faith will not fail. And when you σύ sy, singular ] have turned, strengthen στηρίζω stērizō ] your brothers

That pretty much ended their argument. Peter is the Father’s choice, Peter is the one to lead them.

Shiranui responds
But HOW does Peter “lead?” What is the nature of this “leading?” Is he over and above the rest of the Apostles, or* is he still equal with them, but acting more as a spokesperson when they are in agreement, and a mediator when they disagree with each other?*

Peter is an apostle as they all are. But Jesus elevated Peter to a position over the others. He’s not just a referee or mediator.

• Jesus renames Simon to Rock. Gives him the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever Peter binds and looses on earth is bound and loosed in heaven
• Jesus said Satan will sift all of you like wheat. Peter, strengthen your brothers through the sifting of Satan. Because I have prayed especially for you.
• Peter, Feed Tend Rule my sheep

S:

That wasn’t my question. Let’s say that Peter’s chair really is the foremost of the Apostles. What makes us believe that there is only one occupant of Peter’s chair? Why can Peter’s chair not be shared by several, or even all, of the bishops? If the Pharisees all shared the seat of Moses, then why can’t the bishops all share the chair of Peter?

Jesus didn’t change everybodies name. He didn’t make everybody Peter. Jesus established a unique office in Peter.
S:

However, he can indeed make decisions that are irrevocable, with no one to stop him, because “such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.” Right?

True. And you know why that is…right?
S:

Only after they lost the war. During the war, they were not under the jurisdiction of the US, therefore the Emancipation Proclamation had no effect on the Southern states. That’s what I was getting at. Authority and punishment have no impact on those who are not under your authority.

Okay, I see what you’re saying. Secession is like schism or sedition. If the split is made permanent, then yes, in a secular sense, there is also an ending to one’s authority over another. As it turned out, the division wasn’t permanent.

In the spiritual relm however, there is grave consequences to one’s soul for such division in Our Lord’s Church. Humans, knowing they must be one as Jesus and the Father are one, yet divide or remain divided, or refuse reunite, are in effect saying to God, my will be done not your will be done.
S:

I was trying to show you that the Pope COULDN’T beat down the Orthodox and Protestants, precisely BECAUSE they were not under his authority.

When Jesus said to Peter feed, tend, rule my sheep, who was Jesus leaving out of “my sheep”? If some are not under Peter’s authority, then what’s being implied is, they are not Jesus sheep. I would suggest, It’s real easy to get caught up in the realities of what’s seen and dismiss the unseen realities and the consequences of dismissing the unseen realities that Jesus also put in place.
S:

So you’re saying that anyone outside the Roman Catholic Church and its communion is damned to Hell?

Just to clarify an often seen misconception. While the Roman/Latin Rite is ~98% of the Catholic Church worldwide, all the other rites united to the pope, are 100% Catholic with equal dignity. Those not in union with the pope aren’t Catholic.

To your question. That’s not my call. Nor would I personally wade into that one with my opinion. I’m just joe six pak.

Scripture is perfectly clear on division. There is to be NONE. Personally, I don’t know how people who knowing they are seperated from the chair of Peter, grapple with that knowledge. Just being transparent, I couldn’t do it.
S:
Love vs brutality, is not about more or less authority. It’s a contrast in quality of authority. Why do you authomatically gravitate towards the negative with respect to authority?
So, you’re admitting that a father and a dictator have the same kind of authority, do I have that right?

I didn’t say “same kind”. If you just say authority, I agree.
S:

In that case, what’s to stop a father from behaving like a dictator?

I suppose everyone abandoning him. Then there’s no one to dictate
S:

We see it happen all the time. I “gravitate towards the negative with respect to authority” because I know it’s human nature to abuse authority.

All I can say, as I’m reading that, in 2000 years, out of 266 popes of Rome since Peter, there’s been very few bad popes. I’d say, Jesus prayers for Peter’s successors are very effective

 

[Cavaradossi]

Lk 12:44 Of a truth I say to you,[plural] that he will make him ruler over all that he hath.

iow, He (Jesus) will make him (Peter) ruler over all that He(Jesus) has. And Jesus is saying this to Peter in the company of all the apostles.

You are ripping that small passage entirely out of context. In that chapter, Jesus is first addressing the multitudes:[bibledrb]Luke 12:13-21[/bibledrb]
Then to his apostles, he begins to expound upon what he said to the multitudes:[bibledrb]Luke 12:22-40[/bibledrb]
Peter then asks if Jesus is speaking this parable for the apostles or for all. Jesus responds by continuing the parable:[bibledrb]Luke 12:41-48[/bibledrb]
It should be apparent that the switch from the plural ‘servants’ to the singular ‘servant’ in verse 42 is not for the purpose of singling Peter out (something which the text never suggests that Jesus is doing), but it is for the purpose of presenting two hypothetical cases: one where the servant put into a position of leadership behaves according to his master’s will, in which case he is rewarded (verses 42-44), and one where the servant is disobedient (verses 45-46), in which case he is punished according to what he was given (verses 47-48). None of this is in any way indicative that this position of leadership applies especially to St. Peter. St. Cyril of Alexandria, for example, in his commentaries on the Gospel of Luke interprets this passage as applying to all of the apostles, writing:

And what is our Lord’s reply? He makes use of a clear and very evident example, to show that the commandment especially belongs to those who occupy a more dignified position, and have been admitted into the rank of teachers. “For who, He says, is the faithful and wise servant, whom his lord will set over his household, to give the allowance of food at its season,” ‘Let us suppose, He says, a householder; who being about to go upon a journey, has entrusted to one of his faithful slaves the charge of all his house, to give his household, that is, his servants, their allowance of corn at its due season. When therefore, He says, he shall return, if on coming to his house he shall find him so doing as he commanded, very blessed shall that servant be. For he will set him, He says, over all that he has. But if he be neglectful and indolent, and take pleasure in oppressing his fellow-servants, eating and drinking, and given up to self-indulgent voluptuousness, he will be cut asunder, that is, will have to bear the severest punishment, when his lord shall come to him in a day that he expects not, and at an hour of which he is not aware.’

tertullian.org/fathers/cyril_on_luke_09_sermons_89_98.htm#SERMON%20XCIII.