How do we know infallibility gets passed down?

[inkaneer]

Continuing…

Quote:
Don’t you know that Paul made sure that his ministry to the gentiles was recognised by, Peter (Gal 1:I8)?

Response:
Yes,Peter was the leader,most prominent apostle .Paul would would go straight to the best most effective .But there is a difference between first amongst equals and head bishop/pope.

Yes, the ‘first among equals’ does bot have the power to bind on earth and in heaven. Maybe you should look at the Church in terms of the OT Davidic kingdom. For the church is the new Davidic kingdom under the last Davidic king who is, of course, Jesus Christ. After all Jesus does state that He will give the keys to the kingdom to Peter. In the OT Davidic kingdom the king had people who helped him in governing the kingdom. These people were called stewards and there were twelve of them. Of these one was chosen to be the chief steward and to this man was given the keys to the kingdom and he acted in the name of [the authority of] the king. Isaiah 22 tells us that whatever the chief steward would shut no one could open and whatever he would open no one could close. Sound familiar? In the NT the king Jesus picks twelve stewards [the Apostles] and makes one [Peter]the chief steward and gives to Peter the keys of the kingdom [the church on earth and in heaven] with the power to bind and loose both on earth as well as in heaven. The parallel is so obvious that you have to be totally blind not to see it.

Quote:
Peter often spoke for the rest of the Apostles (Mt 19:27; Mk 8:29; Lk 12:41; Jn 6:69). The Apostles are sometimes referred to as “Peter and his companions” (Lk 9:32; Mk 16:7; Acts 2:37). Peter’s name always heads the list of the Apostles (Mt 10:1-4; Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:14-16; Acts 1:13). Finally, Peter’s name is mentioned 191 times, which is more than all the rest of the Apostles combined (about 130 times).

Response:
This is not either or but both and .Yes, Peter was the leader,undeniably .But what does that entail ? Was he above them ? Do you have to be above them to be a leader ? By the way Paul is the most mentioned in the bible,not mattering ,but within a few . Thank-you for all your facts.I understand your position .Hopefully you will at least understand that with those same facts others say Peter was indeed “first amongst equals” .

Who said he was above the other Apostles. One of the titles of the Pope is “The servant of the servants of God”. Does that say he is above them? This idea that the pope is above the other bishops is a protestant allegation that devoid of any truth. In short it is a lie. Yes, Peter was the leader and occupied that office as the chief steward of the kingdom and the authority that is inherent in that office can be passed down to his successors. Otherwise, Jesus’ church is only a one generation phenomena and that inspiration that you attribute to the Bible is nothing more than wishful thinking.

 

[david_ruiz]

Actually we know pretty well who the Apostles chose as their own successors to their various sees.

I was speaking of the apostle Mattias .whom the apostles chose to replace Judas. The book of revelations says the 12 apostles are our foundation .Certainly Judas was not one of those ,

]Aren’t you familiar with Eusebius Pamphilius, the Church historian? It’s all there.

 

[david_ruiz]

If you read the passage you will see the promise of the keys is future tense. Jesus says, "I will

give you…" not “I am giving you…” That promise did not take effect until the Holy Spirit was poured out on the Apostles.
Quite right .thank-you

Paul rebuked Peter for the way he acted not for what he was teaching. Peter was not teaching anything.

 

[Trebor135]

Actually not sure we all know that ,but thanks ,can’t recall it being said so nicely and informatively .I would just add that my approach is not either /or but perhaps both /and .That is ,for sure some form of 'organization, for lack of a better term, is visible,There must be bishops,elders teachers, prophets and full range of giftings visible and active in the body , and of course there is excommunication ,assembling ,rites of baptism and communion.

OK, but is there a group of bishops, elders, and teachers professing certain doctrine with whom one must be in communion in order to be part of the Church?

Also perhaps what some might mean by invisible is the workings of the Holy Spirit ,as the Vicar of Christ, and Christ holding the keys to such things ,as He is shown to do in Revelations and the seven letters. Again, it may be like the old testament where God was their king at first ,but then they demanded to have an earthly, visible king. Not that a church can’t have a head bishop or president ,but it is altogether different to say there is a head bishop for all churches

I see. Who on earth holds the keys?

Well, I guess a Christian is like a log on fire for the Lord. By himself he can give fire light ,but together with others it is much stronger and will not fizzle out . I believe the Lord gives great credence to a brother’s ability to deal righteously with another man’s fault towards him, even with the spirit of reconciliation, which is from God. Hence, this is the first attempt in vs 15. If not add more brothers to the attempt. Finally before the entire congregation. At this stage the last grace is availed or denied and the congregation is exhorted to put him out if denied. I do not see church in one believer here, rather it is when two or more are gathered in His name do you have authority. As scripture says in this new dispensation ,“every man will teach his brother” and we are all priests, reconciling all things to God, through Christ who is alive and well, and in our midst.

So, you believe in a church not of one, but of a few?

If someone is excommunicated from a congregation, and persuades a few of his fellow members to take his side, what’s preventing them from legitimately forming a new church?

The Israelites were also called a nation of priests, so for Christians to have this designation is nothing new. In fact, a New Covenant priesthood is prophesied in Isaiah chapter sixty-six:

[18] "For I know their works and their thoughts, and I am coming to gather all nations and tongues; and they shall come and shall see my glory,
[19] and I will set a sign among them. And from them I will send survivors to the nations, to Tarshish, Put, and Lud, who draw the bow, to Tubal and Javan, to the coastlands afar off, that have not heard my fame or seen my glory; and they shall declare my glory among the nations.
[20] And they shall bring all your brethren from all the nations as an offering to the LORD, upon horses, and in chariots, and in litters, and upon mules, and upon dromedaries, to my holy mountain Jerusalem, says the LORD, just as the Israelites bring their cereal offering in a clean vessel to the house of the LORD.
[21] And some of them also I will take for priests and for Levites, says the LORD.
[22] “For as the new heavens and the new earth
which I will make
shall remain before me, says the LORD;
so shall your descendants and your name remain.
[23] From new moon to new moon,
and from sabbath to sabbath,
all flesh shall come to worship before me,
says the LORD.”

 

[Abu]

david ruiz, #137
Interestingly ,many scholars believe Paul was the “12th” apostle.I do not think we hear of whom the apostles chose ever again.

Don’t you know that Matthias was chosen by ballot on St Peter’s ruling to replace Judas? This was St Peter’s first ruling as Christ’s Supreme Vicar, and this was even before the Holy Spirit was sent as promised by Christ – take your time to ingest the full truth in Acts 1:15-26.

“Many scholars” are many times wrong – only Christ’s Catholic Church and Her Sacred Scriptures have the fullness of truth.

However Peter did not chair the council (James did) ,nor did he make the final decree (James again),nor did he speak first nor last and finally, the message to the rest of the churches was," from the apostles,elders and brethren…".(like a similar letter sent from the Roman church to the Corinthian church around 96 A.D. There is no authoratative mention of the chair of Peter or head bishop /apostle.

You do not pay sufficient attention to facts:
From post #96:
The third successor of St Peter, Clement, wrote to the Catholics of Corinth in A.D. 95: “If any man should be disobedient unto the words spoken by God through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger… Render obedience to the things written by us through the Holy Spirit.” (I Clem. ad Cor. 59,1). This Is The Faith, Francis J Ripley, Fowler Wright Books, 1971, p 151; 139-141].
This is the fullness of authority expressed here by a successor of St Peter.

On the Council of Jerusalem, the Council took place on the eve of the dispersion of the apostles on their mission to “all the world.” St. James seems to have been designated as the future Bishop of Jerusalem, but there is no indication that Jerusalem itself had been designated as the “chief See”. At the Council, St. Peter manifested his superior authority by speaking first, giving his decision and declaring that, by means of a vision, the course to be adopted had been indicated to him by God. His verdict did not need the approval of the assembly, and it left no room for discussion. “All held their peace” once Peter had spoken (Acts, 15:11).

The Anglican scholar, Dr. Trevor G. Jalland, in his book The Church and the Papacy, says of the subsequent speech of St. James: “It is the summing up of a chairman, not the verdict of an arbiter. If anything, the narrative suggests that it was the evidence of Peter which turned the scales of decision.” The same Dr. Jalland says of St. Paul’s visit to Jerusalem (Galatians, 1:18) that Paul “admits that he did encounter James . . . but makes it clear that this meeting was purely accidental. Why was it so important to introduce himself to St. Peter? Can we exclude the possibility that St. Paul had some problem of a pastoral or administrative nature, regarding which he had reason to think that St. Peter’s opinion would not only be valuable, but decisive?” At most it can be said, as regards the Council itself, that St. James acted as local host, not as supreme ruler of the whole Church.

The Anglican Dr. John Lowe, in his book Saint Peter, pp. 60-62, writes of St. Peter: "To try to level him down as merely one among others all on the same footing is not really fair to the evidence … no one can take from him his special distinction as the leading disciple of Jesus, the first witness of the resurrection, the first head of the Church, the rock in a special sense on which it was built. On this point the Roman Catholic exegetes have had right on their side, as is increasingly recognised….The real assumption, however, for which no sound reasons exist, is that the supreme spiritual authority conferred upon St. Peter was not meant to be transmitted to successors. Are we to hold that the Church had a visible head on earth only so long as St. Peter was alive, but that it had to continue in a decapitated state all days from St. Peter’s death until the end of the world?
[FROM DR RUMBLE “QUESTIONS PEOPLE ASK”, Chevalier Books, 1972]

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Jinc,

I do not know about Islam, so I honestly can not comment about that. I do, however, know something about Protestantism - and, “…they have been around…” for over 500 years. There have been major shifts in their doctrine - but each one claims to by the Way to Christ - even though with 30,000+ groups making the same claim, it is a bit difficult to go through all of them to see what is what (probably would not live long enough! )

Just length of time that some group has been proposing error is not a guarantee that they are telling the truth. Christ founded only One Church - and that was on Peter as recorded in Matt 16. Somehow, all 30,000+ Protestants claim that this is not true.

My argument is that Christ did not give a time limit to the Guidance of the Holy Spirit. He did give a time limit to the Apostles about how long He would be with them (In a little while you will see me no longer - John 16:16). Since no time frame is given (unless you count the Second Coming) then I think the only assumption that can be made would be that it is until it is no longer needed. Peter was given the Keys - and his Authority was passed down to his successor - and this succession was recognized and acknowledged by the Early Church Fathers (even the Greek Fathers). This, too, is without a time frame.

God bless

I am not sure I understand your response…Islam has been in existence for well over a thousand years and some branches are still basically the same as when they started…and they obviously do NOT have infallibility on their side. I am not saying the Church isn’t infallible by the way, I just want to know what the theological argument is that opposes the claim I mentioned in the original post. What does the Church say when a Protestant says to them, “Jesus was only talking to apostles, not to the Church”?

 

[david_ruiz]

Yes, Peter and the Apostles were first commisioned by Christ, to go First to the Jew and then to the Gentiles!

Where does it say anywhere they called themselves “Catholic” ?

Don’t see what, the Church in Jerusalem, Read acts 15

 

[david_ruiz]

Don’t you know that Matthias was chosen by ballot on St Peter’s ruling to replace Judas? This was St Peter’s first ruling as Christ’s Supreme Vicar, and this was even before the Holy Spirit was sent as promised by Christ – take your time to ingest the full truth in Acts 1:15-26.

It is not because I do not take time to ingest that i disagree with CC interpretation. Peter did not have a ruling he had excercised leadership yes ,but Peter prayed God would make the decision,by a coin toss so to speak.

From post #96:
The third successor of St Peter, Clement, wrote to the Catholics of Corinth in A.D. 95: “If any man should be disobedient unto the words spoken by God through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger… Render obedience to the things written by us through the Holy Spirit.” (I Clem. ad Cor. 59,1). This Is The Faith

Yes, that is CC interpretation.He did not speak first(after much disputing -can you dispute without speaking?),nor with superior authority -what is that ? He gave no decision ,but indeed left the question /suggestion. See the question mark after vs. 10 ? This was in deference to the authority resting in the whole council ,the church.

The Anglican scholar, Dr. Trevor G. Jalland, in his book The Church and the Papacy, says of the subsequent speech of St. James: “It is the summing up of a chairman, not the verdict of an arbiter. If anything, the narrative suggests that it was the evidence of Peter which turned the scales of decision.”

Absolutely. ]At most it can be said, as regards the Council itself, that St. James acted as local host, not as supreme ruler of the whole Church.
Agreed ,for Christ was supreme ruler and the Holy Spirit His Vicar.

The Anglican Dr. John Lowe,

Shall I find an ex-catholic scholar to write a rebuttal ?

 

[david_ruiz]

OK, but is there a group of bishops, elders, and teachers professing certain doctrine with whom one must be in communion in order to be part of the Church? I would hope we all have a pastor and been blessed with teachers and has a local body that has core doctrine

I see. Who on earth holds the keys?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, David Ruiz,

This took a little more space then I intended - so this is Part 1 of 2 …

I do not know about any one else - but, I honestly found your post difficult to follow. So, let me see if I can put it into ‘bite-size’ bits… as we can chew and digest a bit easier…

Infallibilty is something only God can achieve.

You seem to be saying that everyone has 'infallibility - and that is not what Christ either said or demonstrated. It is not what the ECF identified and acknowledged. And you have misapplied the, “…no respector of persons…” quote (here is a link to Acts Ch 10:24-35 veritasbible.com/drb/compare/haydock/Acts_of_the_Apostles_10 ) Peter was talking about Jew and Greek as the beginning comment to what Cornealius had said. This has nothing to do with infallibility. Now, when we reject God’s infallible Word - we are not excersizing our freedom - but rather acting as slaves to sin. Yes, we have free will - and yes, those who chose poorly will pay the price in the end.

That there is heirarchy ,of course,but it is not separated from the rest of us, as if the Holy Spirit will only use them for channeling truth and correction.

Why bother to acknowledge the hirearchy when in the same sentence you dismiss it? I fully realize that one of the heresies of Luther and Calvin was the “Priesthood of all believers” - but, we need to take a close look at this. Through Baptism, Confession, Eucharist, and Confirmation we become Children of God, strengthened by Christ and fortified by the Holy Spirit. God has reserved special Graces for those who receive Holy Orders and the fullness of the priesthood. If this sounds odd, let me put it in context: the Protestant view is that the Holy Spirit is working effectively and universally through each believer - but, this can not be the case with the presence of 30,000+ denominations all claiming that their interpretation of Scripture is accurate while the others are questionable.

The hirearchy exists because it was established by Christ - Who chose the Apostles and only one leader for the Apostles: Peter and treated them differently from those who followed Christ. God choses to reveal Himself to individuals as He will - but the issue is the Church teaching without error (infallibilty) and this is not scattered out to individuals - it resides with the Pope and Bishops united with him.

Continued …

 

[tqualey]

Hi, David Ruiz,

This took a little more space then I intended - so this is Part 2 of 2 …

That is the office of the pope was barely visible or consequential in the first few centuries, some would say non-existent .Even many Catholic historians admit that the office really had to develop.They will not deny the teaching of origin with Peter, but they may also admit that it was not till centuries later that we have the office fully established. And if the office had to develop, than did infallibilty ?QUOTE]

 

[Trebor135]

I would hope we all have a pastor and been blessed with teachers and has a local body that has core doctrine

Yes, but–as long as they aren’t instructing us to do anything sinful–do your pastor and teachers generally merit the flock’s obedience? If someone in your congregation thought artificial contraception was acceptable but the pastor and teachers opposed it strongly, what would you advise that person to do?

Well, the same One is on earth is He not .We are his finger , His hands with the keys, the Church , His body .the Bride

Sure, but in your scheme there’s no distinction between clergy and laity. What do you make of the Isaiah 66:18-23 passage I cited in my previous post?

I think I said ,or the Lord, that where two or more are…there is some authority.and He is there .Could two be a church, sure, but it would not be exclusive or separate from other believers

OK, but would they be in a state of sin if they formed their own church after one member of the congregation was excommunicated, refused to reconcile, and brought others of like mind along with him out of the flock of which they had been part?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, David,

You know, I have been reading a lot of posts - and it seems to me that when a Protestant has apparent difficulty with an argument, they leave the subject matter of the Thread and come up with a totally irrelevant question as if this is going to divert the issue. Now, maybe this was not your intent… but, it does seem to follow a pattern…

First let me answer your question:

“The word “Catholic”, meaning “universal”, was first applied the Church by St. Ignatius of Antioch in his letter to the Smyrnaeans in 110. It was repeatedly used to describe the “universal” congregation of the believers of the pure Word of Christ in theological works such as St. Augustine of Hippo in his books Confessions in 394 and City of God in 410.”

Where does it say anywhere they called themselves “Catholic” ?

 

[david_ruiz]

david_ruiz:
Ran out of time .As for Isaiah,this is endtime. Israel was to be a nation of priests,until they sinned in wilderness and then the levites were selected.Anyways not all jews in end time are sealed ,only 144,000.

 

[david_ruiz]

Hi,

First let me answer your question:

 

[Trebor135]

Ran out of time .As for Isaiah,this is endtime. Israel was to be a nation of priests,until they sinned in wilderness and then the levites were selected.Anyways not all jews in end time are sealed ,only 144,000.

Please slow down–you don’t have to reply to my posts straight away: take what time you need. And please use correct punctuation–it makes your writing difficult to follow, especially given that I use a special program, by the name of Jaws, to read and write on the computer.

What in the text points to these things? Isaiah seems to be talking about the New Covenant, not the end of the world. And he doesn’t mention that only 144,000 Jews will be saved–that number appears in the book of Revelation, and Jehovah’s Witnesses infamously interpret the passage in question as referring to the number of those who will go to heaven.

I find your post very confusing and to consist of an interpretation of Isaiah 66:18-23 that is quite a stretch.

 

[david_ruiz]

]Yes, but–as long as they aren’t instructing us to do anything sinful–do your pastor and teachers generally merit the flock’s obedience? If someone in your congregation thought artificial contraception was acceptable but the pastor and teachers opposed it strongly, what would you advise that person to do?

Listen ,there is variety in all churches ,sometimes in different ways .There are so many kinds of Catholics and so many kinds of protetstants .That they believe ,or are supposed to believe, the same thing or different things still doesn’t change that fact.

Sure, but in your scheme there’s no distinction between clergy and laity. What do you make of the Isaiah 66:18-23 passage I cited in my previous post?

Again your either /or thinking .So are you saying your experience outside your Church is that there are no pastors,teachers ,prophets and giftings, that is there own ?

OK, but would they be in a state of sin if they formed their own church after one member of the congregation was excommunicated, refused to reconcile, and brought others of like mind along with him out of the flock of which they had been part

? I do not hold to infallibilty for every local congregation ,for every matter .I hold that generally some are more closely to the truth,the Spirit’s infallible guidance, than others

 

[tqualey]

Hi, David,

You have missed the point…

If you have seen this before, why is it you are still asking? Is it because you do not believe the answer that has been provided?

This is NOT an inference - just process of elimination to arrive at this quite logical conclusion. There were only three groups from the 1st Century on when the name Catholic was first used: Jews, Greeks (short-hand for all Pagans) and Catholics. That is the whole group! We have already established that the Protestants came 1,500 years later - so they can not be included here. So, we are left with the Catholics.

Of course - you do not have to believe this! But, if you are going to continue to complain about the answers you get, then you have to identify what you think is the correct answer. And this will take some valid historical references.

Now, this is the same group that has given you the Creeds most Protestants claim to believe and the doctrinal Truths that Protestants accepted all came from the Catholics - and this would include the Canon of Scripture. Even in the Protestnt abridged form - there was no change to the New Testament. Now, either the Catholic Church got it right - or everyone has gotten it wrong!

Really, what is your honest question about the first Christians who were the first Catholics?

God bless

tqualey;9204828:

Hi,
Thank-you ,have seen this before .Just don’t infer that the Church at Antioch or Corinth was “Catholic” for they were not, except by CC interpretation. They were catholic as in universal. No other denomination does this. By the way it is up to 50,000,and rising. As they say ,there are mistruths and mistruths and statistics.

 

[Abu]

david ruiz #154
They were catholic as in universal.

Yes, as St Ignatius of Antioch wrote: “Where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” It was extended throughout the known world. By the end of the second century, “Catholic” meant also “orthodox” or faithful to the teachings of Christ – precisely what all of the aberrations to which david ruiz refers are not. [See *The Catholic Catechism, Fr John A Hardon, S.J., 1975, p 217]. That is how the contradictory sects arose to number scores of thousands.

 

[Trebor135]

Listen ,there is variety in all churches ,sometimes in different ways .There are so many kinds of Catholics and so many kinds of protetstants .That they believe ,or are supposed to believe, the same thing or different things still doesn’t change that fact.

I never disputed that different churches teach different things, even within the same denomination. But the Catholic, Orthodox, and even High-Church Protestant (Anglican, Lutheran, Reformed) communities have a set of doctrines which clergy must generally believe and teach, lest they be removed from their position.

You have completely avoided my questions. I will restate them for your convenience:

As long as they aren’t instructing us to do anything sinful, do your pastor and teachers generally merit the flock’s obedience? If someone in your congregation thought artificial contraception was acceptable but the pastor and teachers opposed it strongly, what would you advise that person to do?

Again your either /or thinking .So are you saying your experience outside your Church is that there are no pastors,teachers ,prophets and giftings, that is there own ?

That is not my experience. You are the party engaging in either/or thinking. In your scheme, for there to be a distinction between clergy and laity must mean that (1) laity have no role as teachers and prophets, while (2) clergy have unacceptably high, even absolute, power. But I do not believe that a clear distinction between clergy and laity necessarily means that the laity can do nothing and the clergy must do everything.

I do not hold to infallibilty for every local congregation ,for every matter .I hold that generally some are more closely to the truth,the Spirit’s infallible guidance, than others

I am not arguing that every congregation is or should be seen as infallible on every matter. I am asking if you believe that the pastor and elders in your local church have actual authority which should generally be followed.

PS: Once again I must beseech you, no disrespect intended, to employ punctuation in accordance with the standard rules of grammar. I must also ask you to be careful to quote other posts correctly: in order to reply to your comments here, I had to copy and paste your post into the text box from the thread, since only one of the paragraphs you had written was appearing.