How do we know infallibility gets passed down?

[TimothyH]

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?

I know little about the Eastern Catholic Churches and less about the Orthodox. I won’t pretend to have an answer here.

I do know that the EC Churches are in union with Rome and we don’t disagree on dogma.

Take purgatory for example. We don’t disagree. Some claim that the EC Churches have no such belief as Purgatory, that they don’t believe in purgatory, but if we look at what the Church actually teaches about purgatory, they have the same believe but express it in a different way. I won’t pretend to be an expert here and will probably incur the wrath of some EC’;s, but they believe in theosis, and perfection of the faithful believer before entering heaven. We call it purification. They call it theosis.

Even things like the filioque are not disagreements but different ways of expressing faithin the same things.

It is an interesting question and I really don’t know how to answer exactly, except my own opinion is that it is best to stay firmly seated in the barque of Peter.

My best friend is a Methodist Pastor. The Methodists broke off from the Anglicans, and the Anglicans broke off from the Catholics. My friend gets mad when he comes to my house because he has to pass a “Wesleyan Fellowship” Church, which is a breakoff from the Methodists! Now I see that the Church has removed the words “Wesleyan Fellowship” from their sign. I guess they broke off and formed a new Church.

Peter tried to get out of the boat. He walked on water for a few steps but eventually started sinking. That’s what these other churches are doing, getting out of the boat. They may be able to walk on water for a little while but…

I’ll encourage you to continue to ask questions. Some get uptight with this and see it as disobedience, but I see it as a deep need to know God, and so you ask. It is a desire to know God, and that is good. I have felt is myself, and left the Church for a while to go find God, and he brought me right back to the Church where I found Jesus saying, “Don’t you know that I must be in my father’s house?” to my Mother Mary.

Your questions are definitely God leading you somewhere, probably to a very deep faith and trust in God. My experience is that you might just need that trust some day.

-Tim-

 

[ivebeenshown]

Then how do you explain Mathew 18:19, where Jesus does NOT mention Peter at all and says only 2 are needed for infallibility?

Peter is not mentioned explicitly, but read the following:

18Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
19Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.
20For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

What Jesus is promising them is the ability to bind and loose, but notice that Jesus does not promise them the very keys, which he gave to Peter alone. The communion of bishops shares in that power only as much as they are in communion with the holder of the keys.

Furthermore, it should be clear that if two Apostles asked God to permit fornication, such would not be granted – the saying should not be taken literally.

 

[TimothyH]

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.

I like this!

-Tim-

 

[jinc1019]

I know little about the Eastern Catholic Churches and less about the Orthodox. I won’t pretend to have an answer here.

I do know that the EC Churches are in union with Rome and we don’t disagree on dogma.

Take purgatory for example. We don’t disagree. Some claim that the EC Churches have no such belief as Purgatory, that they don’t believe in purgatory, but if we look at what the Church actually teaches about purgatory, they have the same believe but express it in a different way. I won’t pretend to be an expert here and will probably incur the wrath of some EC’;s, but they believe in theosis, and perfection of the faithful believer before entering heaven. We call it purification. They call it theosis.

Even things like the filioque are not disagreements but different ways of expressing faithin the same things.

It is an interesting question and I really don’t know how to answer exactly, except my own opinion is that it is best to stay firmly seated in the barque of Peter.

My best friend is a Methodist Pastor. The Methodists broke off from the Anglicans, and the Anglicans broke off from the Catholics. My friend gets mad when he comes to my house because he has to pass a “Wesleyan Fellowship” Church, which is a breakoff from the Methodists! Now I see that the Church has removed the words “Wesleyan Fellowship” from their sign. I guess they broke off and formed a new Church.

Peter tried to get out of the boat. He walked on water for a few steps but eventually started sinking. That’s what these other churches are doing, getting out of the boat. They may be able to walk on water for a little while but…

I’ll encourage you to continue to ask questions. Some get uptight with this and see it as disobedience, but I see it as a deep need to know God, and so you ask. It is a desire to know God, and that is good. I have felt is myself, and left the Church for a while to go find God, and he brought me right back to the Church where I found Jesus saying, “Don’t you know that I must be in my father’s house?” to my Mother Mary.

Your questions are definitely God leading you somewhere, probably to a very deep faith and trust in God. My experience is that you might just need that trust some day.

-Tim-

Thank you very much for the insights, the dialogue, and the excellent information. I am exactly as you describe me, very much in need of God.

Thank you again for your comments.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

Then how do you explain Mathew 18:19, where Jesus does NOT mention Peter at all and says only 2 are needed for infallibility?

[15]
But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother.

[16] And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. [17] And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican. [18] Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven. [19] Again I say to you, that if two of you shall consent upon earth, concerning any thing whatsoever they shall ask, it shall be done to them by my Father who is in heaven. [20] For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

I did not understand this passage to be referring to infallibility with respect to doctrine, but rather to the authority to make decisions related to church matters and discipline, and the forgiveness of sin.

The first part is describing how to handle disagreements, verse 18 (said to everyone), taken as a continuation of Christ’s speech on how to deal with those who are not behaving, says that if the apostles forgive sins, they are forgiven, and if not then not. This does not require the group as a whole.

Likewise, verse 19 says that if two “consent upon earth, concerning any thing whatsoever they shall ask, it shall be done to them by my Father who is in heaven” seems to be referring to requests (relating to the early part of the passage), since “it shall be done to them” by God. For example, it makes little sense to say "they asked if Mary was assumed into heaven, the bishops said yes, and so God made it so that this was true (either just for the people who asked in some quasi-relativistic way, or as a whole truth).

That is, this seems to be a conferral of authority, and individual bishops certainly have quiet a bit of authority, rather than speaking about the ability to infallibly discern the truth of doctrinal questions.

Verse 20 says that Christ dwells among even a small handful that gather in His name, but it does not say that He does so in a way that necessarily grants infallibility.

 

[jinc1019]

Peter is not mentioned explicitly, but read the following:

18Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
19Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.
20For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

What Jesus is promising them is the ability to bind and loose, but notice that Jesus does not promise them the very keys, which he gave to Peter alone. The communion of bishops shares in that power only as much as they are in communion with the holder of the keys.

Furthermore, it should be clear that if two Apostles asked God to permit fornication, such would not be granted – the saying should not be taken literally.

First, you may be right about the primacy of Peter. But what I am talking about is infallibility…and regardless of whether Peter was promised the keys and the rest were not, the point is that the others were promised infallibility, and based on the Church’s teachings of apostolic succession, their successors have it also. Thus, the EC cannot ever disagree on official doctrine with the Church, and they do…at least on the issue of papal infallibility!

 

[jinc1019]

Additionally, I think it is very dangerous for you to say it shouldn’t be taken literally, when really, there is no reason not to believe that. After all, you believe that Peter took it literally when the same words were commanded to him!

 

[ivebeenshown]

First, you may be right about the primacy of Peter. But what I am talking about is infallibility…and regardless of whether Peter was promised the keys and the rest were not, the point is that the others were promised infallibility, and based on the Church’s teachings of apostolic succession, their successors have it also. Thus, the EC cannot ever disagree on official doctrine with the Church, and they do…at least on the issue of papal infallibility!

My point is that they were promised infallibillity inasmuch as they were in communion with the one who holds the keys, from which the infallibility stems – in Matthew 18, Jesus spoke to Peter and the disciples. See Matthew 17:26, Peter is speaking to Jesus, and Matthew 18:1, ‘at the same time the disciples came to Jesus’. Then Jesus says what he says.

The Eastern Church in schism is not in communion with the successor of Peter and thus they do not share in that charism of infallibility.

Additionally, I think it is very dangerous for you to say it shouldn’t be taken literally, when really, there is no reason not to believe that. After all, you believe that Peter took it literally when the same words were commanded to him!

I have demonstrated to you why it should not be taken literally – would you agree that according to Jesus’s words, Paul and James could have asked for permission to fornicate and been granted that permission by God? If not, then you agree that the verse cannot be taken purely at face value.

Thus we must also consider: What if there were five different groups of three bishops that had internal agreement, but lacked agreement between the groups? Would God grant their contradictory requests?

 

[jinc1019]

My point is that they were promised infallibillity inasmuch as they were in communion with the one who holds the keys, from which the infallibility stems – in Matthew 18, Jesus spoke to Peter and the disciples. See Matthew 17:26, Peter is speaking to Jesus, and Matthew 18:1, ‘at the same time the disciples came to Jesus’. Then Jesus says what he says.

The Eastern Church in schism is not in communion with the successor of Peter and thus they do not share in that charism of infallibility.

I have demonstrated to you why it should not be taken literally – would you agree that according to Jesus’s words, Paul and James could have asked for permission to fornicate and been granted that permission by God? If not, then you agree that the verse cannot be taken purely at face value.

No, I believe if fornication is wrong, Paul and James would have been UNABLE to ask…because if they did make that determination, based on the above passage, then yes…it would be valid. But again, I don’t think God would let that happen. Under your own belief, Peter could ask God for fornication to be allowed and it would be…so you can’t possibly be saying that such a thing promised to the other apostles is automatically invalid.

I can appreciate your argument, and honestly, it is the best one I have heard supporting your view from anyone thus far…but it still does not make sense to me. In order to believe what you are saying, an awful lot would have to be inferred and assumed where there is little evidence, in my humble opinon, to do such a thing. I think we are going to have to just disagree on it.

Again, I am not saying the Church is not infallible, I am just saying these arguments don’t hold much water under scrutiny based on the comment I made before about Mathew 18. If the other apostles have infallible rights, along with apostolic succession, their successors do too…and if that is all true, I don’t know how they can disagree on anything with Rome. I suppose if what you say is true, then all of this may make more sense…but honestly, there isn’t much evidence to suggest Jesus was qualifying all of what He said in Mathew 18 to the other 11 apostles with…“So long as you are in communion with Peter…” He never says that and really doesn’t imply it either…there is no Biblical evidence that it occurred that way.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

Again, I am not saying the Church is not infallible, I am just saying these arguments don’t hold much water under scrutiny based on the comment I made before about Mathew 18. If the other apostles have infallible rights, along with apostolic succession, their successors do too…and if that is all true, I don’t know how they can disagree on anything with Rome. I suppose if what you say is true, then all of this may make more sense…but honestly, there isn’t much evidence to suggest Jesus was qualifying all of what He said in Mathew 18 to the other 11 apostles with…“So long as you are in communion with Peter…” He never says that and really doesn’t imply it either…there is no Biblical evidence that it occurred that way.

Not to try hog attention or anything, but I think my last post got lost by a page change.

I’m fairly certain that the passage you are referring to is not addressing infallibility at all, but rather the authority of bishops to make certain decisions, which is different - a sin that is forgiven is simply forgiven, there is no need to say that it is forgiven “infallibly”. In any case, my argument is on the previous page if you care to see it.

 

[ivebeenshown]

No, I believe if fornication is wrong, Paul and James would have been UNABLE to ask…because if they did make that determination, based on the above passage, then yes…it would be valid. But again, I don’t think God would let that happen. Under your own belief, Peter could ask God for fornication to be allowed and it would be…so you can’t possibly be saying that such a thing promised to the other apostles is automatically invalid.

Touche, good point with Peter.

… there isn’t much evidence to suggest Jesus was qualifying all of what He said in Mathew 18 to the other 11 apostles with…“So long as you are in communion with Peter…” He never says that and really doesn’t imply it either…there is no Biblical evidence that it occurred that way.

It is implicit by virtue of the fact that Jesus does not promise the keys to any but Peter. When speaking to Peter only, Jesus promises the keys, and the power of binding and loosing (which is the power of the keys.) When speaking to Peter and the rest, Jesus promises the power of binding and loosing, but not the keys themselves. Those bishops not in communion with Peter have no access to the keys and thus cannot bind or loose with them.

 

[CMatt25]

Touche, good point with Peter.

It is implicit by virtue of the fact that Jesus does not promise the keys to any but Peter. When speaking to Peter only, Jesus promises the keys, and the power of binding and loosing (which is the power of the keys.) When speaking to Peter and the rest, Jesus promises the power of binding and loosing, but not the keys themselves. Those bishops not in communion with Peter have no access to the keys and thus cannot bind or loose with them.

Except it could be argued the rest had access to keys since its keys that have the power to bind and loosen locks.

 

[Vico]

I understand the promises made to Peter in Mathew 16 and to the apostles as a whole in Mathew 18, but what I would like someone to explain is the Church teaching behind this concept: When Jesus tells the apostles he will send the Holy Spirit down to them and prevent them from saying untruths and essentially make them unfallible, how do we know He intended that to be passed down through apostolic succession? Protestants argue He was just talking to the apostles alone and not to the Church itself…So how does the Church react to this? I know Jesus says the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church, but that doesn’t promise infallibility necessarily. There has to be a better argument than just that. Help on this would be much appreciated!

1. Keys as a token of authority, given to one who that rules over a household or a kingdom. (Isaiah 22:20-24)
2. Simon’s name Cephas means “Rock” and Jesus said, “You are ‘Rock’, and on this rock I will build My Church.”

Cephas = Greek rendering of Aramaic Kepha = Rock
Petros = masculine form of Greek feminine word for rock, petra

John 1:
41 He findeth first his brother Simon, and saith to him: We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.
42 And he brought him to Jesus. And Jesus looking upon him, said: Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter.

Matthew 16:
18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter (Petros); and upon this rock (petra) I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

From Pope Leo XIII, 1898:God has provided for these needs most wisely and effectively through His Only-begotten Son Jesus Christ, Who placed the true sense of the Scriptures in safety, when He laid upon His Apostles as His primary and most momentous injunction, not to devote themselves to writing, nor to spreading the volumes of the Old Testament indiscriminately and unguardedly among the multitude, but to teach all nations with the living voice, and to lead them by speech to the knowledge and profession of His Heavenly doctrine: “Going into the whole world preach the Gospel to every creature.” (Mark xvi. 15.) But the supreme teaching authority was committed to one, on whom, as on its foundation, the Church must rest. For Christ when He gave the keys to Peter, gave him at the same time the power to govern those who were charged with the “ministry of the word:” “Confirm thy Brethren” (Luke xxii. 32). And since the faithful must learn from the “magisterium” of the Church whatever pertains to the salvation of their souls, it follows that they must also learn from it the true meaning of Scripture.
vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_25071898_caritatis-studium_en.html

 

[ivebeenshown]

Except it could be argued the rest had access to keys since its keys that have the power to bind and loosen locks.

They did have access… they were in communion with the one holding them.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

I’m a latecomer to this thread, and haven’t scanned everything to the beginning, so forgive me if I’m repeating someone else.

The IMPORTANT thing to remember, WHENEVER discussing papal infallibility is that the charism of Infallibility is something that belongs to the CHURCH. Church infallibility is the root of ALL infallibility, including papal infallibility. The Faithful are also infallible in their witness to the truth of what the Magisterium teaches. Of course the Magisterium itself is also infallible. The Pope’s infallibility is special in that he shares in Church Infallibility as an individual, being the vicar of Christ. We also keep in mind that infallibility is just a legal term which defines our belief in the everlasting guidance of the Holy Spirit in the Church of Christ.

Too many people erroneously believe infallibility flows from the pope, which it doesn’t.

 

[jinc1019]

Touche, good point with Peter.

It is implicit by virtue of the fact that Jesus does not promise the keys to any but Peter. When speaking to Peter only, Jesus promises the keys, and the power of binding and loosing (which is the power of the keys.) When speaking to Peter and the rest, Jesus promises the power of binding and loosing, but not the keys themselves. Those bishops not in communion with Peter have no access to the keys and thus cannot bind or loose with them.

Good points, but as I said before, the “binding and loosing” was promised to the other apostles as well. The keys to the kingdom could be about authority, but to say it is a statement of infallibility and then to say binding and loosing is not when applied to the other apostles is getting into dangerous waters. If “binding and loosing” applies to Peter, then it should apply to the rest as well.

 

[jinc1019]

I’m a latecomer to this thread, and haven’t scanned everything to the beginning, so forgive me if I’m repeating someone else.

The IMPORTANT thing to remember, WHENEVER discussing papal infallibility is that the charism of Infallibility is something that belongs to the CHURCH. Church infallibility is the root of ALL infallibility, including papal infallibility. The Faithful are also infallible in their witness to the truth of what the Magisterium teaches. Of course the Magisterium itself is also infallible. The Pope’s infallibility is special in that he shares in Church Infallibility as an individual, being the vicar of Christ. We also keep in mind that infallibility is just a legal term which defines our belief in the everlasting guidance of the Holy Spirit in the Church of Christ.

Too many people erroneously believe infallibility flows from the pope, which it doesn’t.

I agree…but my point still remains. If the Catholic Church has infallibility because of the passages in Mat. 16, then the other apostles also have infallibility, and their successors as well, because of Mat. 18.

 

[jinc1019]

1. Keys as a token of authority, given to one who that rules over a household or a kingdom. (Isaiah 22:20-24)
2. Simon’s name Cephas means “Rock” and Jesus said, “You are ‘Rock’, and on this rock I will build My Church.”

Cephas = Greek rendering of Aramaic Kepha = Rock
Petros = masculine form of Greek feminine word for rock, petra

John 1:
41 He findeth first his brother Simon, and saith to him: We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.
42 And he brought him to Jesus. And Jesus looking upon him, said: Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter.

Matthew 16:
18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter (Petros); and upon this rock (petra) I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

From Pope Leo XIII, 1898:God has provided for these needs most wisely and effectively through His Only-begotten Son Jesus Christ, Who placed the true sense of the Scriptures in safety, when He laid upon His Apostles as His primary and most momentous injunction, not to devote themselves to writing, nor to spreading the volumes of the Old Testament indiscriminately and unguardedly among the multitude, but to teach all nations with the living voice, and to lead them by speech to the knowledge and profession of His Heavenly doctrine: “Going into the whole world preach the Gospel to every creature.” (Mark xvi. 15.) But the supreme teaching authority was committed to one, on whom, as on its foundation, the Church must rest. For Christ when He gave the keys to Peter, gave him at the same time the power to govern those who were charged with the “ministry of the word:” “Confirm thy Brethren” (Luke xxii. 32). And since the faithful must learn from the “magisterium” of the Church whatever pertains to the salvation of their souls, it follows that they must also learn from it the true meaning of Scripture.
vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_25071898_caritatis-studium_en.html

Good quotes, but honestly, I don’t think the “keys” argument is any more about infallibility than the many passages in Mathew 18 said to the other apostles. In fact, infallibility is laid out even more expressly in Mathew 18.

 

[MarcoPolo]

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?

I think Tim’s post was very good. It also helps to delve into the Greek of Luke 22. *Luke 22:31-32 “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you (plural), that he might sift you (plural) like wheat, but I have prayed for you (singular) that your (singular) faith may not fail; and when you (singular) have turned again, strengthen your (singular) brethren.”*Where the Apostles corporately have infallibility (as Orthodoxy stresses in their own words, and as Catholics also teach of the Magisterium), Peter has this special guidance on matters of faith from Christ. This is not unique to God’s plan. Even the high priest of the Old Covenant received a similar special charism by virtue of his office. John 11:49-51 But one of them, Ca’iaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all; you do not understand that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not perish.” He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nationNow if the high priest of the Old Covenant should have such a charism as part of his office, how much more should the highest minister of the New Covenant? NT types are always superior to their OT antitypes. If Peter doesn’t have such a special charism of the Spirit, then he’d be inferior to the OT high priest and we would violate the basic principle of typology in Scripture.

 

[Bballer32]

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.

Here this may help…

21-I will put your official robe and belt on him and give him all the authority you have had. He will be be like a father to the people of Jerusalem and Judah (here, Jerusalem and Judah are two separate nations. They could both be described as the world or the Church, which Jesus came from Judah and started the Church with Peter.)

22-I will give him complete authority under the king, the descendant of David. He will have the keys of office; what he opens, no one will shut, and what he shuts, no one will open.

Now, at the end of this chapter in verse 25 it says, “The Lord has spoken.” This means that the authority is God-given and no one can change it.

Hope this helped a bit… God Bless