How do we know infallibility gets passed down?

[david_ruiz]

The actions of a specific individual are not an indictment of the group with which they are associated.

Totally understand. But at some point it might be an indictment. Some groups have structures that may lead to bad tendencies .I believe “absolute power corrupts absolutely” was first coined in regards to the Papacy. Plus are we extolling a group or a Messiah ? The fact is the Bride is judged by the world as good, bad and ugly .That is OK We do not extol “my Church” rather point to the Savoir ,this way all men have no excuse. Just look at our Jewish foundation , with Abraham and Jacob, the twelve sons .These men were the future hope of the world ? What a mess. Indeed it is all by grace certainly not by “my group”…yet Christ says salvation is of the Jews. Prevailing is not subject to any particular group ,office,for he is not a respecter of persons Prevailing can only be in the most universal sense, beyond Catholicism ,Orthodoxy etc. I would not say Protestantism is “infallible” so please do not be offended if I say Catholicism is not the infallible,prevailer that Christ talks about.

 

[david_ruiz]

Unfortunately that is incorrect, in a good post.

In fact, from Vatican I (Pastor Aeternus), for infallibility to be exercised the Pope must teach
(a) **ex cathedra **(from the Chair of Peter), that is as Shepherd and Teacher of all Christians,
(b) speaking with Peter’s apostolic authority to the whole Church,
(c) defining a doctrine of faith and morals.

So the Pope’s ‘ex cathedra’ definitions may be either of revealed dogma, to be believed with divine faith, or of other truths necessary for guarding and expounding revealed truth. Vatican Council II and the post-conciliar Magisterium have explicitly affirmed that both ecclesial and papal infallibility extend to the secondary doctrinal truths necessary for guarding and expounding revelation. Thus *Humanae Vitae *(Encyclical) and Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (Apostolic Epistle) contain infallible doctrinal definitions, to remove all doubt.

Vatican II (Lumen Gentium, 25) reaffirms this teaching: “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful – who confirms his brethren in the faith (cf. Lk 22:32) – he proclaims in an absolute decision a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.”

Thus, no dogma has to be affirmed, nor anyone Canon anathematized, nor the word “define” or “definition” be used for an infallible papal teaching – only that the Pope is handing down a certain, decisive judgment that a point of doctrine on faith or morals is true and its contrary false.

**From EWTN Q&A: Answer by David Gregson on Nov-22-2002: **
“You are correct in stating that the Pope exercises his charism of infallibility not only in dogmatic definitions issued, ex cathedra, as divinely revealed (of which there have been only two), but also in doctrines definitively proposed by him, also ex cathedra, which would include canonizations (that they are in fact Saints, enjoying the Beatific Vision in heaven), moral teachings (such as contained in Humanae vitae), and other doctrines he has taught as necessarily connected with truths divinely revealed, such as that priestly ordination is reserved to men.”

Sorry ,but was not infallibilty fully defined decreed first vatican where around 1870 ? How many times has he spoken ex-cathedra since ,where we are morally bound to believe?Sorry ,you are right, the Immaculate Conception was decreed 1854 (ex-cathedra) but before the infallibility decree .I guess the 1950 Assumption is the one afterwards.

 

[Abu]

The Church develops Christ’s teaching without any contradiction, as the need arises – such as wrong assumptions by those who don’t know or dissent. That’s why Christ gave Her His authority, and to no other person or group.

 

[david_ruiz]

I pulled this specifically because I felt it warranted further discussion. First, in regard to the two doctrines you reference, I am going to assume that you are referring to the immaculate conception, and the assumption of Mary. What is interesting, is that these are the only two ex-cathedra proclaimations ever made by the Church. And, even though they were officially declared at a much later verifiable date, there is concrete evidence as early as the thrid century that the Church believed this. It isn’t as if the pope just woke up one day and decided to make it up. Likewise, the immaculate conception was proclaimed ex-cathedra in 1854, but it was something that has always been taught as part of the deposit of faith. The Sacred Deposit of Faith is the teaching of the Church in its entirety as it has been handed down. No one, not even the pope, can change it. He can further define and clarify it, but he can not change it.

There have always been individual churches in error, and I will even concede that there still are. I know of more than one Catholic parish that teaches error, but those teachings are also not consistent with the official teachings of the Church. An individual or group being wrong “on other fronts” or “in matters of the heart”, does not automatically invalidate everything. If someone fails math, they are still correct when they tell you that 2 + 2 = 4.

Thank- you .Hope you understand that when I disagree that this is “something that always has been taught” In fact some taught against it.That some may have mentioned it,taugt it ok ,but it was much like some of those parishes you mention that teach error in that it was not mainstream at the beginning.

 

[onemangang]

Which deposit of faith? Pharisees,Saducees ? If all Jews at the time had the same deposit of faith ,why did they come up with so different views of whom Jesus was ?

If you would read my response again, I answered in two parts your first question was

Amen,but how is Jesus revealed to us?

My answer “Through the deposit of faith, given by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ!”

How was it revealed to Peter (mat 16) ?

My Answer “St. Peter was graced the realization that Jesus was indeed the Messiah!”

Some how in the deny the Church at all cost reasoning, that was overlooked!

Well, lets look at what Scripture says, wow I almost sound like a Sola Scriptura guy here!

Matthew 23:2 (Jesus was) Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses.

Your argument is with Jesus my friend, or do you interpret that text to mean something other than Prima Facie!

** No, the answer lies elsewhere ,to where the infallible illumination rests**.Deposits of faith are important and to be “drawn from” ,but again ,not enough.

Exactly, infallible illumination lies in the Chuch!

There are many scriptures that speak of “preaching” leading to salvation

Did these Scriptures fall out of the sky?

Paul wanted people to know one thing, Christ crucified (not my church my church, my church)"

Did St. Paul submit to the Church? Which one?
Did St. Paul give any teachings on Church?

God has revealed to US by his Spirit, the Spirit searcheth all things, the deep things, the things of God are are only known by the spirit of God ,which he has given us,that we may know…the Holy Ghost teacheth, we (all believers) have the mind of Christ".

Amen, and also ** the wisdom of God in a mystery, a wisdom which is hidden, which God ordained before the world**, unto our glory : ** to enlighten all men, that they may see what is the dispensation of the mystery which hath been hidden from eternity in God**, who created all things: **That the manifold wisdom of God may be made known **to the principalities and powers in heavenly places through the church, According to the eternal purpose, which he made, in Christ Jesus our Lord.

I would say any magisterium , bishop, teacher , church is “subject” to this wonderful gift given given to every believer. That is ,they are not above this mode of operendum. The better churches flow with this work of the Spirit

I agree with what you say here, but posit there is ONLY ONE CHURCH!

Eph3:5 States again the Spirit is the source of understanding the mystery for the apostles and prophets , to then go preach , unto the gentiles,that by the same Spirit ,they may know…Christ. My verse 10 is quite different , “To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known BY THE CHURCH the manifold wisdom of God”,that Christ be glorified in the church (vs21). Fascinating difference .We both believe in church, offices ,body of faith, Spirit ,just with different emphasis.I think Paul says know Jesus ,know Jesus, know Jesus.

Ok, so thats your translation.
Is there an Objective truth in Scripture or Truths’?

1 Corinthians 1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you; but that you be perfect in the same mind, and in the same judgment.

In Each denomination there is a Schism deriving from Schism!

Thank-you for the info.However ,they ALL FAILED. What was infallible ? Christ tells us that flesh and blood had no revelation, but it was the Father in heaven that revealed ,illumined Peter .Peter had scripture .parents, elders ,rabbis, magisterium, church /religion, tradition, yet they all failed to be perfect/infallible.In the end ,we all must take all this info and go one on one with the Spirit.The middle wall of separation is gone,we all may boldly go before the throne ,for we are all his priests.

Somehow you must think that the Spirit of God has been removed from the Church, because often your statements seem to separate the Church from the Holy Spirit When did the Holy Spirit stop guiding the Church?

To say all failed is missing the point of my entire post. The Old has been made complete in Christ, so If the Church has been made complete in Christ, you are therefore denying Him, who completes Her!

Yes, as in done away with. Why do you extol the old ?

I extol Christ and His completetion

Ephesians 1:22 And he hath subjected all things under his feet, and hath made him head over all the church, 23Which is his body, and the fulness of him who is filled all in all.

Incase you prefer another Translation

Ephesians 1:22 God has put all things under the authority of Christ and has made him head over all things for the benefit of the church 23And the church is his body; it is made full and complete by Christ, who fills all things everywhere with himself.

Hopefully we agree that the Church and the Bride are one in the same .I like bride better ,for it is more obvious that it is more universal ,made up of all believers in Christ. Denominationalism is more easily attached negatively to “church” rather than “bride”.

I let Christ define His Bride, and His bride tell me how Her Husband defines Her!
scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm

 

[onemangang]

Sorry ,I can’t help thinking the emphasis is too strongly in Church conferring/dispensing grace .

The Church conferring/dispensing grace was too strong an emphesis for your theology

If you mean churches , Catholic, Orthodox ,Protestant, O.K.

Oh, too strong only if your particular denomination/Non-denomination isn’t included in the mix of course

. Indeed, they body of Christ ,the bride is His finger and voice on the earth. Again the Vatican suggesttted against raising up walls of separation,as to where the bible comes from .I understand CC teaching that CC is the church,hence she compiled it etc .Much of the bride ,the Body sees it otherwise

The notion that many Separated bretheren see it differently doesn’t make it any less true!

.Hence we ALL agree for sure the Bible is indeed a gift from God, given to all mankind, thru faithful members of the Body (churches as in church at Corinth ,Ephesus ,Galatia etc) .

All Catholic by the way!

Give honor where it is due ,but if any denomination goes beyond what is truthful ,the Spirit is there to search it out deeply, infallibly.

I do give honor where it is due, to Christ for giving us a Church!

Yes indeed, the Spirit of God has infallibly pointed out, the Church Christ founded is infallible, and in doing so, all those who separate from Her are not!

Well ,properly catechized is not quite in the bible. That might allude to milk-something someone has eaten ,digested . Real food, meat, is beyond “catechism”

You sited the passage in 1st John Chapter 2

Here is a commentary on the passage YOU sited from

1 John 2 Ver. 19. They were not of us, true and profitable members; though it can scarce be doubted but that some of them, at least for some time, truly believed: and by their going off, God was pleased to make it manifest that they were not of his faithful members. Such were Simon Magus, Cerinthus, Ebion, Nicolas of Antioch, &c. (Witham) — They, &c. That is, they were not solid, steadfast, genuine Christians, otherwise they would have remained in the Church. (Challoner) — The true note or mark of heresy, is the going out of or leaving the Catholic Church. God permitteth some to go out, that the true and tried faithful may be known.

Ver. 24. Let that (faith) which you have heard from the beginning, abide in you: when you received the Christian faith, and were baptized in the name of the three divine Persons. The promise which was then made to you, was life everlasting. (Witham)

Ver. 27. You have no need, &c. You want not to be taught by any of these men, who, under pretence of imparting more knowledge to you, seek to seduce you, (ver. 26) since you are sufficiently taught already, and have all knowledge and grace in the Church, with the unction of the Holy Ghost, which these new teachers have no share in. (Challoner) — His unction teacheth you concerning all things. Unction here signifies the doctrine which they received together with the Holy Ghost or Spirit of God; in which he exhorts them to remain, as being sufficient for their instruction, and to make them avoid the new teachers of false doctrine. (Witham)

How do you exegete those passages?

 

[Trebor135]

Thank- you.Not sure if the church and the commission is a rite or a sacrament,but it may underlay our differences. Does a church save or does Jesus Christ.? What is the emphasis to the world , my “church” or my “savior”? How institutional is the work of the Holy Spirit ? Put the “wind” in a box and you have nothing but air. Is it not ironic that the “wind” (Holy Spirit) swept thru Europe, against all odds and heavy persecution, the church growing in leaps and bounds those first few centuries,with the least amount of institutionalizing, and simplest nature of universality (catholicity). Yes, amen ,it is the duty of the apostles successors AND the church to continue the spread of the gospel. I do not separate elders,bishops and laity here in that great commission, which your quote by itself seems to suggest…

The problem here is the definition of “church” one is using.

We both agree that (1) the church is the body of Christ; (2) Jesus is the head of the church; and (3) his community is the body of the church.

If Jesus is both spiritual and physical, and since he is the head, the community must be spiritual and physical, since it is the body. Moreover, since a very old heresy, Docetism, taught that Jesus, the head of the church, was purely spiritual, today the same heresy would teach that the community, the body of the church, is purely spiritual.

Conclusion: invisible-church ecclesiology is Docetic ecclesiology. Docetism is a grave error. Therefore, invisible-church ecclesiology is a teaching that Christians cannot accept.

 

[david_ruiz]

The problem here is the definition of “church” one is using.

We both agree that (1) the church is the body of Christ; (2) Jesus is the head of the church; and (3) his community is the body of the church.

If Jesus is both spiritual and physical, and since he is the head, the community must be spiritual and physical, since it is the body. Moreover, since a very old heresy, Docetism, taught that Jesus, the head of the church, was purely spiritual, today the same heresy would teach that the community, the body of the church, is purely spiritual.

Conclusion: invisible-church ecclesiology is Docetic ecclesiology. Docetism is a grave error. Therefore, invisible-church ecclesiology is a teaching that Christians cannot accept.

Thank-you The real question is what is physical then . Does that mean a monarchal physical body ? If so ,did the earliest church have a "monarchy ,or episcopal? not sure if that is the correct term. I am physical and spiritua,l and hopefully you are too.The body ,the bride, is both spiritual and physical .As it is said ,we are his finger on the earth.I think we are just talking about form of governance.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Thank-you The real question is what is physical then . Does that mean a monarchal physical body ? If so ,did the earliest church have a "monarchy ,or episcopal? not sure if that is the correct term. I am physical and spiritua,l and hopefully you are too.The body ,the bride, is both spiritual and physical .As it is said ,we are his finger on the earth.I think we are just talking about form of governance.

Well, we know that there were the Apostles, and we know that Peter, though he wrote much less Scripture than Paul, was the pre-eminent of the Apostles in all of the Gospels. Always mentioned first, always singled out Jesus for things, etc.

Would you have dare to disagree with the Apostles in those days? What about the men they appointed to the episcopate (episkopos, aka bishops)? Would you dare disagree with the communion of first generation bishops appointed by the Apostles?

 

[Trebor135]

Thank-you The real question is what is physical then . Does that mean a monarchal physical body ? If so ,did the earliest church have a "monarchy ,or episcopal? not sure if that is the correct term. I am physical and spiritua,l and hopefully you are too.The body ,the bride, is both spiritual and physical .As it is said ,we are his finger on the earth.I think we are just talking about form of governance.

We all agree that Christians–and the rest of humanity–are both physical and spiritual. When we discuss the church in terms of being “invisible” and “visible”, Catholics/Orthodox and Protestants all know what the terms mean: the former, that the church is solely made up of all believers on earth, known only to God; the latter, that the church is both made up of all believers on earth, known only to God, and able to be found in a particular group with authority to teach, provide the sacraments, conduct excommunications, and the like.

How does Matthew 18:15-19 fit into your Protestant ecclesiology, where each individual is effectively a church of one?

 

[inkaneer]

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!

Think of it as an office. The president of the United Strates wields tremendous power - while he is in office. Once his term expires that power goes to the next occupant of the office. In Acts 1 Peter calls for someone to take the office held by Judas. That office was not that of an Apostle as only those called by Christ to be Apostles and were sent by Christ were Apostles. But Judas, as all the Apostles held an office and that office was that of bishop. In fact the word that is translated as ‘office’ in Acts 1 is the Greek word episkope which is also translated as bishop. The KJV has the verse as “Let another take his bishopric.” So a pope occupies the office of chief steward only until his death and then another assumes the office but the authority remains with the office and does not go to the grave.

 

[david_ruiz]

We all agree that Christians–and the rest of humanity–are both physical and spiritual. When we discuss the church in terms of being “invisible” and “visible”, Catholics/Orthodox and Protestants all know what the terms mean: the former, that the church is solely made up of all believers on earth, known only to God; the latter, that the church is both made up of all believers on earth, known only to God, and able to be found in a particular group with authority to teach, provide the sacraments, conduct excommunications, and the like.

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. 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

How does Matthew 18:15-19 fit into your Protestant ecclesiology, where each individual is effectively a church of one

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.

 

[Kathryn_Ann]

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!

The protestant “churches” were not anywhere around for over 1500 years.

Jesus covered everything quite well in His statement.

“The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.”

The Divine continuity of the Church is a gift from God.

Embrace Her, our Holy Church, and be childlike in faith to enter into Heaven!
:heaven::harp::heaven:

 

[david_ruiz]

Well, we know that there were the Apostles, and we know that Peter, though he wrote much less Scripture than Paul, was the pre-eminent of the Apostles in all of the Gospels. Always mentioned first, always singled out Jesus for things, etc.

Yes ,Peter was first amongst equals

Would you have dare to disagree with the Apostles in those days?

Only if I was filled with the Holy Spirit would I have rebuked him for saying Christ would not suffer death ,or for being two-faced with the gentiles ,after God told him they were clean .Remember when Christ rebuked Peter or when Paul did ,face to face ?

Would you dare disagree with the communion of first generation bishops appointed by the Apostles?

I believe we should be in harmony with scripture ,the apostles and prophets and be as much like the first century churches.We don’t even come close to that first Jerusalem church in some ways. And in as much as their successors followed the apostles ,we should also.
[/quote]

 

[david_ruiz]

 

[Abu]

david ruiz #133
Remember when Christ rebuked Peter or when Paul did ,face to face ?

Don’t you know that that was BEFORE Christ gave Peter the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, and made him His Supreme Vicar?

Don’t you know that Paul rebuked Peter on a disciplinary matter on which Peter was at fault?

Don’t you know that already, Peter had exercised his supreme authority in the upper room before Pentecost to have Judas’ place filled. At the first Apostolic Council of Jerusalem Peter settled the heated discussion over circumcising the gentiles and “the whole assembly fell silent” (Acts 15:7-12)?

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

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).

After Peter, the most frequently mentioned Apostle is John, whose name appears 48 times. Peter is conspicuously involved in all the Church’s important “firsts.” Peter led the meeting which elected the first successor to an Apostle ( Acts 1:13-26). Peter preached the first sermon at Pentecost (Acts 2:14), and received the first converts (Acts 2:4 1). Peter performed the first miracle after Pentecost (Acts 3:6-7), inflicted the first punishment upon Ananias and Saphira (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic Simon the magician (Acts 8:2 1).

Peter is the first Apostle to raise a person from the dead (Acts 9:36-4 1). Peter first received the revelation to admit Gentiles into the Church (Acts 10:9-16), and commanded that the first Gentile converts be baptized (Acts 10:44-48).

It is high time to face the facts of reality and listen to Christ who founded His Church on St Peter – His Supreme Vicar with His authority to teach on faith and morals.

 

[onemangang]

So the first Jewish Christian church, in Jerusalem, was Catholic ?

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

Matthew 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. 6 Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel.

Then why were we so anti-jewish for so long ?

If you are trying to imply anti-jew as opposed to anti-jewish, then present your case in another thread. ** How do we know infallibility gets passed down?**

Don’t see it anywhere in the bible and not even in history for quite a while.

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

Don’t see anti-jewish statements is scripture? There are plenty of references to condemning Judaism, but not Jews read Philippians 3

What does this have to do with How do we know infallibility gets passed down?

Now if you mean universal ,which the term applies,and was first applied.OK (Edited)

How is it that my answers are fine only if I submit them to your FALLIBLE interpretation of the text?

The Church has an invisible element to it, but it clearly has a visible element in the scriptures as well, to say otherwise is kicking against the goads!

So I ask you, " Did Jesus found a visible Church in the N.T?"

I do not see Roman Catholic Church in the cited scripture . I see “us”, as in “they went out from us”, as in the body of Christ ,His bride.You statements conflicts with CC teaching for we are still counted as part of the Bride though separated, not in fullness John makes not such allusions .

The Church is Catholic, I belong to the Latin Rite!

The Body, which is visible, how one can read Acts 15 and not see a visible Church is beyond me

Acts 15:2 And when Paul and Barnabas had no small contest with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain others of the other side, should go up to the apostles and priests to Jerusalem about this question.

Not some invisible place, but Jerusalem, to visit an invisible body, but the Church

Acts 15:4 And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received by the church, and by the apostles and ancients, declaring how great things God had done with them.

Again, not received by some invisible body!

Acts 15:6 And the apostles and ancients assembled to consider of this matter.

Visibly assembled!

Acts 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, **Peter, rising up, said to them
**

An Ecclesial hierarchy, Peter stood up speaks volumes

The Scriptures attest to a VISIBLE Church, that had an Ecclesial Hierarchy!

What does any of your claims have to do with the topic of the thread?

If you want to start a thread on the visible and invisible Church be my guess, I’ll make it easy for you.

forums.catholic-questions.org/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14

The topic is How do we know infallibility gets passed down?

You either have the unction or you do not .You are saved or you are not .You are in the bride or you are not .You are part of the Body or you are not

You are off topic and ranting! I will not be part of your thread derailing Sorry!

This is not in my bible . “But the anointing which you have received of him abideth in you” From whence it came ? from the church ? It says it is from "him, the Holy One. The verse goes on , "You have need that no man teach you What ? But the magisterium ,the pillar of truth ,the visible church

Ridiculous!

.They have their place but my friend John here is talking of the teacher of all of us ,undisputably the Holy One", his unction has taught youYes ,the doctrine they received,“as ye have heard”, “from the beginning” is from **a visible church **as in an apostles /prophets,teachers. The Holy Spirit will only unction truth, anything else is wood hay ,stubble.

Yep, from the beginning it was Apostles and passed down by way of Apostolic Succession

Probably a whole lot of straw and hay being preached in this guys Christian community, judging by his rendering of this passage!

So what is our message ,that the Holy Spirit will honor ?Christ crucified and risen and coming again? Paul said that was his main message. Is the Gospel come join this particular church above meeting the Christ ?

Who is this guy preaching too?
Is he giving this message to people?
Why? They have bibles don’t they?
What do they need him for, they have the Holy Spirit to guide them don’t they?

Is it show me your church and I will see Christ or show you Christ and you will see His church ?** How much wood, hay and stubble have we added to the original body or faith ,of saving doctrine ?**

I would say, this guy has attempted to remove a bunch of Gold, and plant hay!

** His message is infallible by His unctioning , but as always ,wood ,hay and stubble He also discerns ,whether it come from a Protetstant** ,Orthodoxy or Catholicism .It entered the first churches and needed to be discerned, down to today’s.

Yes, the Holy Spirit has entered the first Church, guided Her and continues still today!

The great lengths people Go to deny the Church is never surprising to me!

I would love for you to stick on topic, incase you have forgotten

** How do we know infallibility gets passed down?**

I will no longer engage you in dialog, if you go off thread topic!

Peace be with you!

 

[david_ruiz]

Don’t you know that that was BEFORE Christ gave Peter the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, and made him His Supreme Vicar?

Haven’t checked but I thought it was immediately after he was given the keys that Jesus rebuked him and said , “Get behind me Satan” when Peter insinuated Christ would not suffer.

Don’t you know that Paul rebuked Peter on a disciplinary matter on which Peter was at fault?

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.

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).

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” .

[/QUOTE]

 

[AmbroseSJ]

david ruiz:

Peter was the "leader in this case again ,but we just differ on how far that goes .Interestingly ,many scholars believe Paul was the “12th” apostle.I do not think we hear of whom the apostles chose ever again.

Actually we know pretty well who the Apostles chose as their own successors to their various sees. Aren’t you familiar with Eusebius Pamphilius, the Church historian? It’s all there.

Scholars thinking something doesn’t make a shred of difference. The fact is, Scripture tells us that Paul was AN Apostle, but not the “12th” Apostle. There are many more Apostles recognized by the Church, depending on the region. St. Patrick was the Apostle of Ireland, St. Boniface, the Apostle of Germany etc. St. Paul’s apostleship is something different of course, since he was commissioned directly and personally by Our Lord.

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.

Very well, you have said it yourself.

If you were familiar with Eastern/Western Church history, you would know that the Eastern Church believed there SHOULD be a head bishop, but that some believed he should be the bishop of Constantinople, because the Bishop of Rome no longer had the prestige he once had. But the Church has always recognized the see and successor of St. Peter as the important criteria, not the geographical connection to the capital of the Roman Empire, where ever that might be. Even today, the schismatic Orthodox Church holds the see of St.Peter as the first in importance. Obviously they have a doctrine explaining away their rejection of the Roman Pontiff’s authority over the East. It’s always about authority isn’t it?

 

[inkaneer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abu
Don’t you know that that was BEFORE Christ gave Peter the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, and made him His Supreme Vicar?

Response:
Haven’t checked but I thought it was immediately after he was given the keys that Jesus rebuked him and said , “Get behind me Satan” when Peter insinuated Christ would not suffer.

If you read the passage you will see the promise of the keys is future tense. Jesus says, “I willgive you…” not “I am giving you…” That promise did not take effect until the Holy Spirit was poured out on the Apostles.

Quote:
Don’t you know that Paul rebuked Peter on a disciplinary matter on which Peter was at fault?

Paul was indeed the twelth Apostle as he was chosen and sent by Christ. In Acts 1 Peter calls for someone to take the office vacated by Judas. That office is not that of an Apostle. There is no such office in the church, never was either. If you look at the Greek word that is translated as ‘office’ you will see that it is the Greek word episkope. That word is translated in other NT writings as ‘bishop’. Indeed the KJV uses the word ‘bishopric’ instead of ‘office’.

Quote:
At the first Apostolic Council of Jerusalem Peter settled the heated discussion over circumcising the gentiles and “the whole assembly fell silent” (Acts 15:7-12)?

Response:
Yes ,he was a leader in that: #1- God gave him the vision proclaiming gentiles clean , #2- God gave him first experience in watching the Holy ghost fall on gentiles (besides Paul) .Indeed Peter had the best eyewitness testimony that others did not ,except for Paul, and should have silenced the others .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…".(Exactly 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.

Peter is the unquestioned leader of the church. All the Apostles were present when Jesus told Peter to lead His sheep. It is recorded in John 21:15-17. Three times Jesus asks Peter if he loved Him and three times Peter responds in the affirmative. However, Jesus’ response is not the same in all three. In verse 15 and 17 Jesus tells Peter to ‘FEED’ my sheep. The Greek word used there is bosko. But in verse 16 the word bosko is not used. Instead the Greek word poimaino

is used. Poimaino

means ‘to rule’ or ‘to govern’ and is usually translated as ‘tend’. Jesus, the Good Shepherd is telling Peter to be the shepherd of the flock. The Apostles knew who was boss here. At the council of Jerusalem James was the leader because James was the bishop of Jerusalem where the council was held. This has been the case in every council. Peter was present and concurred in the council’s decree. It matters not if Peter spoke first, last or anytime in the middle. In fact it does not matter if he spoke at all.

One more thing about this council. The sola scripturists lost. These were the Judiacizers who claimed the Gentiles had to obey the Law of Moses as written in scripture. HOWEVER, the apostles claimed a special revelation from the Holy Spirit to institute a change by statng, “…It has seemed good to us AND THE HOLY SPIRIT…”