- Status
J
jinc1019
Guest
I am not sure then, given what you said, how this passage relates to the question of infallibility? Perhaps you could explain further.
B
Bballer32
Guest
Try Isaiah 22:22-24… this explains how the Keys of the Kingdom of David are passed down. 
I
ivebeenshown
Guest
The bishops adhere to the Pope because he is the successor of Peter – the same Peter that Jesus said he would found the Church open, and the same Peter to whom Jesus gave the keys of the kingdom of heaven. What would the communion of bishops become without that foundation, or what authority would they have if they did not share in the power of the keys?
Indeed, just as there were many Apostles: yet Jesus promised the keys to Peter alone. Jesus asked Peter if he loved Jesus more than the other Apostles, and then charged Peter to feed Christ’s sheep. Peter is mentioned first of all Apostles and speaks on their behalf consistently throughout the New Testament.
J
jinc1019
Guest
Excellent, thank you very much. Although, one thing that still troubles me here is that Jesus says in Mathew 18 that all the apostles will share in infallibility, and if that is passed down through apostolic succession, how can any of those respective churches disagree with Rome about anything if they are all infallible?
J
jinc1019
Guest
Another poster actually mentioned this passage as well, can you, or anyone for that matter, explain it a little better. I mean I see the obvious parallels, but I don’t see how “Eliakim son of Hilkiah” relates to the Church.Try Isaiah 22:22-24… this explains how the Keys of the Kingdom of David are passed down.
I
Iron_Donkey
Guest
The Orthodox do, however, recognize that bishops are successors of the apostles, even if they do not think that Peter had the same power that we think he had. So far as I understand, they do not deny that the Pope is the successor of Peter, but simply deny that Peter’s chair has the authority we say it has. This is a separate (though highly related) issue though, so I’d just as soon leave it for now. After all, it makes no sense to talk about a pope if we don’t have bishops.
Going back to the other issue, I’ll admit that there’s a little bit of trust involved here. Not an awful lot - Acts clearly shows the apostles choosing successors and the mere word “successor” implies continuation of the same function - but some.
The best I can say on short notice without digging through sources (which I just don’t have time to do right now) is that, despite what protestants tend to say, the early Church Fathers clearly have the same opinion of bishops as we do today, and these people would only have been a few “generations” of bishops removed from the Apostles themselves.
So the only way this could be wrong is if the apostles ordained successors and did not tell them that the infallibility given to the apostles as a whole (and to Peter in a special way, but that’s a different, though related, story) was passed on along, and those successors ordained successors and did not tell them that they had, as a group, the charism of infallibility, and so on, but within the first several “generations” the entire collected body of bishops (or enough that it might as well have been the entire collected body) claimed to have this power for no apparent reason WITHOUT CAUSING A BLOODY ROW.
Now, the closer in time you are to the original apostles, the harder it would be to mess with doctrine because you’d have people saying “I remember Peter or Paul saying that you’re wrong.” But the farther you are from the apostles, the harder it would be to convince all the bishops at once that they had some sort of power that they had no reason to think they had, simply because there’d be more of them.
So for this doctrine to have spontaneously generated would have required either a vast conspiracy or a vast stupidity among all those people who the Church thought were the best suited to lead them, and it would have required this to happen without anyone noticing. This is extremely unlikely.
It would also amount to vast heresy by all the Church leaders. This is where the gates of hell argument comes in. You may not accept that that argument directly implies that the Church would be infallible, but you have to admit that the entire church falling into heresy for at least 1000 years, and more likely 1400 or so years, would be an awful lot like the gates of hell prevailing for a little bit.
Several people have already given several good arguments about why Christ would have given the Church infallibility (after all, if a good shepherd never abandons a sheep, then clearly the Good Shepherd wouldn’t abandon His flock to figure out such things like the how to attain (or receive or whatever) salvation by taking their best guess at what a book means). But this is the best (on short notice) that I can do to demonstrate that Christ actually did, without recourse to the “it’d be best and Christ does what’s best” argument (though I like and accept that argument as well).
D
david_ruiz
Guest
It seems like good theology .Thank- you .Just got off a thread dealing with JW’s .It was said they have an answer for everything and they practice their responses. I guess that is true for all of us .Good answers may reflect centuries of formulation.I do not see the correlation of Joseph (prime minister) mixing with the high priest office .It has been suggested that at first when coming out of Egypt they were ALL supposed to be a kingdom of priests .There was no “us” and “them”. Then sin and rebellion entered and now you had a select priesthood ,a whole tribe with it’s offices (including high priest. This is very much how later Israel wanted a “king”, and did not want just God as their king .Bad idea .I believ ethere is enough scripture on the other side of the argument to show the Church is not old testament as you say but indeed something new and idea l(uncorrupted with with old ways, the ways of men, -top -down governance, lording over etc,but we would all be “priests”, and"every neighbor would teach his neighbor") .Anyways ,pretty sure the High priest was not a civil ruler or prime minister, not even sure if he could spiritually dictate say "doctrine’ .Shepherd, yes. Authority, yes ,to perform the sacrifice and duties of the "mediator"for his people .Alas,you (the CC) has great arguments, but so are the counter arguments, which are just as old.
J
jinc1019
Guest
You make several great points here…but what I would like to say regarding the first point you made is that, I don’t deny the Orthodox support the notion that apostolic succession is valid. What I am saying is that if the Church claims infallibility based on apostolic succession, then that means all of the other seats of the 11 other apostles are also apostolic seats with apostolic succession and infallibility, because Jesus promises infallibility to all the apostles, not just Peter. So if that is true, none of the apostolic seats can ever disagree on official doctrine, because that would mean they are not infallible. I am not sure how to reconcile this as a Catholic. If the Church has infallibility, and so do the other churches, they can never disagree on anthing, and they have and do to this day.
T
TimothyH
Guest
It does not, not directly.
It shows how the office is passed down and with it, as Catholics believe, infalliblity as a virtue and attribute of that office. You are correct in that it does not relate to infallibility in and of itself.
Infallibility as a virtue of that office was conferred directly onto Peter in Luke 22, right after the institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper which was celebrated with the 12 Apostles. Jesus tells the twelve explicitly that he is confering his Father’s kingdom on them, and then addresses Peter directly…
***It is you who have stood by me in my trials; and I confer a kingdom on you, just as my Father has conferred one on me, that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom; and you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers. *(Luke 22:28-32)
Notice that the 12 Apostles at the Last Supper will be “Judges” who sit on thrones. This is a very Jewish statment. We have to understand this statement in the way the Jews listening to Jesus would have.
Prior to recieving a king, the nation of Israel went through a period know as the period of the Judges. During this time, God raised up twelve Judges who sat on thrones and judged Israel. The kings of Israel who came later were the supreme judge. The judges and the kings after them had both the authority and (hopefully) wisdom to intepret God’s covenant law and dispense justice based on their interpetation of that law. King Solomon was one such judge, as were the Judges like Sampson and Jeptha in the Book of Judges. No one would ever question the judgement of a Judge in the book of Judges nor would they question the judgement of the king. It’s worth reading some of the book of Judges to get the context of what Jesus is talking about when he tells the 12 that they will sit on thrones and be judges.
Jesus goes on to state clearly that although Satan demands to sift all 12 Apostles, it is up to Peter alone to strengthen his brothers.
This and various other passages such as “Because knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven has been granted to you, but to them it has not been granted.” (Matthew 13:11) and similar point to a special gift of the Holy Spirit which protects the leadership of the Church from teaching error in matters of faith and morals.
Consider Paul, who never met Jesus in the flesh, yet calls himself an Apostle many times.
*But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glorification. (2 Corinthains 2:7)
And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who possess the Spirit. (2 Corinthians 2:13)*
Paul believe he and his fellow leaders of the Church - Apostles, those whom we know as bishops - have a special gift of the Holy Spirit to “Interpret spiritual truths.”
Taken in its entirety, scripture speak to a special protection by the Holy Spirit, and guidance by the Holy Spirit, of the Apostles and the successors to their office the Bishops. Peter as the Prime Minister is protected in a very special way by Jesus’ specific prayer and is able to “strengthen his brethren”, so that the Church’s teaching office - what we call the Magisterium - cannot teach error in matters of faith and morals.
-Tim-
J
jinc1019
Guest
Also, on the issue of the early Church fathers claiming infallibility, I am not sure this is even true. Did they ever actually say that? They clearly believed in Church authority to make decisions, but that is different than infallibility. The Church can have the authority to rule without the gift of infallibility.
J
jinc1019
Guest
Great post Tim, but again, it doesn’t answer the conflict between the seats of the other 11 apostles and Rome…The other apostles were promised infallibility in Mathew 18, and through apostolic succession, the Orthodox churches that can trace back to the apostles should also be able to claim it. But, if this is true, how can both Rome and the others be infallile when they do disagree on various aspects of the faith?
D
david_ruiz
Guest
Sorry .i meant it’s “planting” in the new world, how both churches spread it message to the new world around the same time .I was not inferring the origins of the churches themselves ,only comparing their history in the new world.Sorry…anyways so whom did Jesus have to speak in parables to ,who were not given the “mysteries” ?..As far as abortion ,be careful ,too many Catholic legislators and governors who are pro-abortion also.
J
jinc1019
Guest
David, thanks for clarifying! It did help me a lot.
I
Iron_Donkey
Guest
The difference is that He promised infallibility to the apostles as a whole, in union with their leader, Peter, not to each individually. You’ll notice that the apostles did debate things - they did not always immediately agree - it is the decision of the group which was accepted as infallible.
So it is not necessary that that the successor of each Apostle have infallibility individually. (Again, Peter is a special case.)
It is then possible to see that the disagreements between Catholics and the Orthodox (which are remarkably few, by the way, especially if we look beyond superficial ways of expressing things and into what is actually meant) would be akin to the apostles meeting in union with Peter and deciding something, then some of the other apostles refusing to accept the decision despite the fact that it is the decision of the group and hence certainly true (doubtless the Orthodox would have their own reasoning that doesn’t make them sound like this, but I of course can only reason from a Catholic point of view since I do not fully understand the Orthodox point of view).
As for sources on what the early church fathers thought and wrote, I recommend The Fathers Know Best by Jimmy Akin. (This also shows support among the fathers for the Catholic view of the Pope).
J
jinc1019
Guest
This is not accurate. In Matthew 18, it very clearly says that where 2 or 3 of them speak in the name of Jesus, they will be unable to err. It is very clear. It does not require all of the apostles to have infallibility.
I
ivebeenshown
Guest
In Matthew 16, Jesus spoke to Peter alone (ex cathedra.) In Matthew 18, Jesus spoke to the whole group with Peter (magisterium.)
So one or a few bishops may cause a schism, because it is only within the context of the entire communion of bishops in communion with the successor of Peter (just as in Matthew 18) that they are infallible.
J
jinc1019
Guest
Mathew 18:19: “Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.”
J
jinc1019
Guest
Then how do you explain Mathew 18:19, where Jesus does NOT mention Peter at all and says only 2 are needed for infallibility?
- Status