How do we know infallibility gets passed down?

[onemangang]

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

If you mean where in the bible does it say they called themselves Catholic, it is right next to where it says free will and Trinity!

Were the Apostles teachings the only teaching that had been made validly conferred by our Lord Jesus Christ?

All those opposed were in disunity and ergo NOT Catholic. If Catholic is to strictly mean universal, could teachings that oppose the doctrines taught by the Apostles be considered catholic (universal)?

Everyone wants to accept catholic, but are starkly opposed to Catholic, big C.
What are the Universal and essential (catholic) doctrines?

Besides you have Ignatius of Antioch, only a generation after the death of St.Peter and only a few years removed from St. John the Apostle speak of the Catholic Church in a past tense form, as the title it was already assumed to be known by the laity.

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans Chapter 8
]See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

Look at the relation of the word Presbyter and Priest… (priest is etymologically derived from the Greek presbyteros via the Latin presbyter)

Don’t see the “Catholic” Church in Jerusalem. It is like you wrote it , “the Church in Jerusalem”

One in the same the Church big C is Catholic, big C

Does it bother you to be subject ,one to another ? We are just blogging here.

Not at all, but you contradict yourself when you say the term of Conferring Grace is too strong when the conferring is done by a Church, but then you say, OK if I include other “churches”

Sorry ,I can’t help thinking the emphasis is too strongly in Church conferring/dispensing grace .If you mean churches , Catholic, Orthodox ,Protestant, O.K.

Whom is saying otherwise .I am not saying either /or.

OK, then are you saying both? Or neither?

Yes, but the fact remains that means different things/paradigm to different people/bishops teachers…

So Christ founded a Visible Church. Good now we can get somewhere

The Catholic Church was founded by Christ personally. Other than the Eastern Orthodox Churches, every other “church” traces its lineage back to a mere human person such as Martin Luther or John Wesley. The Catholic Church can trace its lineage back to Jesus Christ who appointed St. Peter as the first pope. This line of popes has continued unbroken for almost 2,000 years.

Did Christ give the Apostles Authority to appoint Bishops, Priest, Deacons?

So, how did the Episcopate continue?

The church is catholic (universal) .I’m in there somewhere also.

By virtue of your Baptism!

Ok, this is what I don’t understand. The Topic is How do we know infallibility gets passed down I will try to point out that Christianity is a revealed religion and that God has Manifested in the flesh and infallibly chose a Social Order (the Church big C) to infallibly make Himself Present to us! Your entire Apologetic seems to be " No Catholic Church" a rejection of the Catholic Church seems to be the presupposition you start with and spend the whole time trying to refute Her. You seem to have NO answers on How do we know infallibility gets passed down, only that it can not possibly be through the Catholic Church. In my mind, and I do not mean to be rude, you have been woefully inadequate at giving any insight on How do we know infallibility gets passed down?

Do you even believe that Infallibility can be Passed down? Maybe I only pressuposed that you have and in fact don’t?

 

[onemangang]

The one below you posit that infallibility exist, but offer no tenable explanation on How do we know infallibility gets passed down, other than the Spirit will guide to all truth, but offer no explanation on to how.
The Post below you seem to deny Infallibility is possible
More of the same, no answers just a BIG NO CATHOLIC CHURCH and BTW if God is all powerful and Absolute, then is God Absolutely Corrupt, being that you posit Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely?
The one you posit below you talk on the Holy Spirit will Honor Christ crucified and risen and coming again, then posit 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.

So appearently His Message hasn’t been discerned in years infallibly, but once was discerned in the Early Church, by the apostles.OK, too bad you still havent shown How one discerns infallibly or answered How do we know infallibility gets passed down?
Here you posit “Peter was the leader,undeniably .But what does that entail ?” And give no perspective afterwards
You have posted in this thread 30 times and have essentially said Nothing but, NO to the Catholic Church. That is it, it seems like the entirety of your belief system (and when I say that, I do not mean your faith, but the tradition that you are being taught) is a presupposed NO to Catholicism! You are truly a man in PROTEST

I would like to ask you a simple question " How do we know infallibility gets passed down?"

Now you lost me .There was no monarchal episcopacy ,yet. This has been thoroughly discussed in several other entries just prior There was and is heirarchy as much as in our bodies,Offices yes. Giftings yes Ordinations yes .Heirarchy is a bad word.The council said it’s pronouncements were from “the apostles and elders and brethren”

The Council of Trent has defined the Divine institution of the first three grades of the hierarchy of order, i.e. the episcopate, priesthood, and diaconate

It attests to apostles,elders ,bishops ,prophets teachers,healers, giftings .yes.

That were given authority, and through Apostolic Succession, it continues today in the college of Bishops in union with the Pope!

Again, after 30 post I would like to see you provide an answer to this question if you could please "How do we know infallibility gets passed down?"
Instead of the same old saying NO CATHOLICISM, or “first among equals”
Sorry don’t mean to be rude, I just don’t see any reason to engage in conversations that are just somebody saying, Nope thats not it! Over and over again!

When you enter something other than No Catholicism that is pertinent to the thread on How do we know infallibility gets passed down? I may reply, but until then

Peace be with you!

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Onemangang,

Wow! This post took you quite a bit of time to write - thanks for taking the time, it certainly puts DR’s post in clear focus.

Yes, from providing responses to his one line arguments (“No Catholic”) and then waiting to hear something that even vaguely resembeled a logical argument - I have been very disappointed.

Ah… by the way…are you sure it was only 30?

God bless

The one below you posit that infallibility exist, but offer no tenable explanation on How do we know infallibility gets passed down, other than the Spirit will guide to all truth, but offer no explanation on to how.

The Post below you seem to deny Infallibility is possible

More of the same, no answers just a BIG NO CATHOLIC CHURCH and BTW if God is all powerful and Absolute, then is God Absolutely Corrupt, being that you posit Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely?

The one you posit below you talk on the Holy Spirit will Honor Christ crucified and risen and coming again, then posit 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.

So appearently His Message hasn’t been discerned in years infallibly, but once was discerned in the Early Church, by the apostles.OK, too bad you still havent shown How one discerns infallibly or answered How do we know infallibility gets passed down?

Here you posit “Peter was the leader,undeniably .But what does that entail ?” And give no perspective afterwards

You have posted in this thread 30 times and have essentially said Nothing but, NO to the Catholic Church. That is it, it seems like the entirety of your belief system (and when I say that, I do not mean your faith, but the tradition that you are being taught) is a presupposed NO to Catholicism! You are truly a man in PROTEST

I would like to ask you a simple question " How do we know infallibility gets passed down?"

The Council of Trent has defined the Divine institution of the first three grades of the hierarchy of order, i.e. the episcopate, priesthood, and diaconate

That were given authority, and through Apostolic Succession, it continues today in the college of Bishops in union with the Pope!

Again, after 30 post I would like to see you provide an answer to this question if you could please "How do we know infallibility gets passed down?"
Instead of the same old saying NO CATHOLICISM, or “first among equals”
Sorry don’t mean to be rude, I just don’t see any reason to engage in conversations that are just somebody saying, Nope thats not it! Over and over again!

When you enter something other than No Catholicism that is pertinent to the thread on How do we know infallibility gets passed down? I may reply, but until then

Peace be with you!

 

[inkaneer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by AmbroseSJ
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 , Yes ,he compiled 50 bibles for Constsnatine.Do not know if he lisst successors of apostles ,certainly may have of several.

On the contrary the concept of a universal bishop was very much rooted in the first century. The local church in Corinth appealled to the bishop of Rome [Pope Clement I] to settle their crisis despite the fact that the Apostle John was alive and living in Ephesus which was a lot easier to communicate with than Rome. The year is about 80 AD before John is banished to Patmos. In addition there is testimony from very early in the second century [Ignatius of Antioch circa 107-110]. As well as Polycarp [about 155 AD]. These are very significant because both Ignatius and Polycarp were disciples of the Apostle John. The idea of a chief steward is also rooted in the OT church. God always had a human head for His church on earth whether it was Abraham or Moses or the Prophets or the Judges. Was there not many priests in the Temple? And wasn’t there one Chief Priest???

 

[david_ruiz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by AmbroseSJ
'm sorry but Matthias was not an apostle

 

[onemangang]

Still more of the same david, NO CATHOLICISM!

How about giving us some insight onto “How do we know infallibility gets passed down?”

Or do you not believe infallibility gets passed down?

 

[david_ruiz]

When you enter something other than No Catholicism that is pertinent to the thread on How do we know infallibility gets passed down? I may reply, but until then

The author of the thread I believe later qualified to me that the original question of how do we know infallibility gets passed down presupposes in the chair of Peter etc., or something to that effect (thread 13 of mine) I did answer .No, if you believe it is thru succession of popes,chair of Peter etc. I answered also infallibility rests with God. Others said it is thru the Holy Spirit that the church is protected ,to which I concur. I will end it there if you like, by defining church as both visible and invisible, yet neither totally catholic or protestant or orthodoxy and any other label under the Bride ,the Body , for in scripture and in heaven ,we do not go by those names.

 

[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?

Yes

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?

I believe in teachers /pastors, a sort of magisterium ,with core set of doctrine. I believe the Holy Spirit helps with every one of those functions .I also believe the Holy Spirit ministers to the individual , pretty much saying the same thing , as He does to the pastors /teachers etc. Since the individual and the other elements are human, I would say the only perfect link is the Holy Spirit .Hence .I suppose the individual should be admonished to seek of the key holder ,the Holy Spirit for his unction/ guidance. It presupposes that I have done the same .If a brother is in error .then he should strongly be exhorted to repent .Is contraception one of those doctrines that should separate the brethren is the next question . I do not think it is.
It is always a sin if you balk at the Holy Spirit

If it is present day rendering of Isaiah ,then every believer is called forth for the priesthood,gentile and jew alike.“Shall I bring forth the man child ,bring to birth and not cause to bring forth? saith the Lord: shall I cause to bring forth ,and shut the womb? saith God” Vs 66: 9. I guess that is some Jews and many gentiles that have entered in.
However, vs 20 says, " I will set all your brethren out of all the nations to my holy mountain of Jerusalem,as the children of israel bring an offering in a clean vessel into the house of the Lord" . This seems last days ,and we do hear of 144,000 being sealed,12,000 from every tribe. That certainly is not all the jews ,but certainly those that are saved. In 21 we have , “I will take of them for priests and Levites.” I can see how from this you think it means the 2,3 levels of priesthood taught by CC. I do not see it contradicting other scripture where there is only one layer of priesthood in all believers. Pastors,teachers, elders, bishops are not priests. A presbyter ,root for your priest, is not a priest .That is why the other root words for priest that are old testament are not used to refer to us in the NT-hence a brand new word for a brand new function.

 

[david_ruiz]

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.

First you admit the term Catholic" was not used till after the first century,then you say Catholics were the first christians in the first century .Do you agree that they were first called "christians "in Antioch .Were they not also called people of “The Way” People did not associate Ctaholic with the church as you say till at least 110 ,and that by one person .It took at least several centuries for the term to mean what it does today.

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!

That is why this thread is pertinent .Behind lies the belief that the only Church He founded is the Roman Catholic Church ,and she can not be wrong .It is a bit like how some believe “once saved always saved” is now “once right , always right”. Granted ,in areas of doctrine only. But at some point ,how far will the Holy Spirit abide with a bad pope(s),etc and still give perfect wisdom in doctrine ? It is like another thread that says God being holy can not mix with sinful flesh,hence Mary had to be "immaculate ". But the pope could be real sinful and still always receive perfect doctrine. The key term being always ?

God bless

 

[david_ruiz]

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.Thank-you for data suggesting a devlopement of the usage of “Catholic” Again ,this Ignatius intimated no knowledge of a head bishop in his Catholic Church.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Inkaneer,

I really do not count the number of Apostles as you have done.

For example, Luke 6:12-19 clearly identifies Judas as one of the 12 and the one who was the traitor

13 And when day was come, he called unto him his disciples; and he chose twelve of them (whom also he named apostles).

Judas was a Disciple (Apostle) who turned his back on Christ and dishonored his personal calling by Our Savior. Matthias is not mentioned before he is selected as the replacement to Judas (but, none of the 72 who were sent were named - so, maybe he was one of these individuals?) In any event, he was selected and that would make him #13 as we progress forward.

It does get a bit speculative here - I think Paul would be counted as #14 and maybe Timothy and Titus as #15 & #16 respectively… and then I’m lost to identify who would be considered for #17. But, in your post, you identify Paul as #12, and I think this is in error, based on how I identified how I counted. All were bishops - no argument there. But, is the numbering that important?

God bless.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AmbroseSJ
Actually we know pretty well who the Apostles chose as their own successors to their various sees.
david ruiz;9202592:

I’m sorry but Matthias was not an apostle. Neither was Judas although Judas was called to be an apostle he never became one. The word Apostle means one who is sent forth. To be an apostle of Jesus is one who is sent by Jesus. The scriptures record that Jesus sent forth only eleven apostles. That sending forth occurred at the great commission. Judas was already dead and Matthias had not been selected. When Peter calls for the replacement of Judas it is only for the office which Judas vacated and that was that of bishop. Matthias was a bishop, the first one of many to follow in succession to the apostles. Now if you do not agree with that then consider this. Every christian denomination makes the same claim that there were twelve apostles. But if we count Judas and Matthias then we have thirteen. And what about Paul? The New Testament calls Paul an Apostle of Jesus Christ no less than ten times. So that is fourteen apostles. So which is it? Twelve or fourteen??? Judas was called by Christ but never sent forth. Matthias was neither called by Christ nor sent forth by Christ. But scripture states that Paul was both called by Christ and sent forth by Christ. Paul is the twelfth apostle.
david ruiz;9202592:

On the contrary the concept of a universal bishop was very much rooted in the first century. The local church in Corinth appealled to the bishop of Rome [Pope Clement I] to settle their crisis despite the fact that the Apostle John was alive and living in Ephesus which was a lot easier to communicate with than Rome. The year is about 80 AD before John is banished to Patmos. In addition there is testimony from very early in the second century [Ignatius of Antioch circa 107-110]. As well as Polycarp [about 155 AD]. These are very significant because both Ignatius and Polycarp were disciples of the Apostle John. The idea of a chief steward is also rooted in the OT church. God always had a human head for His church on earth whether it was Abraham or Moses or the Prophets or the Judges. Was there not many priests in the Temple? And wasn’t there one Chief Priest???

 

[Church_Militant]

That’s pretty funny. N-Cs will quote the ECFs like Ignatius of Antioch in their hope to support their position yet ignore the many other points that Ignatius and other ECFs make that are so very clearly Catholic.

For instance:
CHAP. VII.–LET US STAND ALOOF FROM SUCH HERETICS.

They  abstain from the Eucharist     and from prayer,(7) because they confess  not the Eucharist to be the flesh     of     our Saviour Jesus Christ,  which suffered for   our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness,  raised up again. Those, therefore,   who speak against this gift of God,  incur death(11) in the midst of their disputes.   But it were better  for them to treat it with respect,(13) that they also might   rise  again. It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such  persons,   and not to speak of(15) them either in private or in public,  but to give heed   to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in  which the passion[of Christ]   has been revealed to us, and the  resurrection has been fully proved.(16) But   avoid all divisions, as  the beginning of evils.

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans

 

[Church_Militant]

Thank-you for data suggesting a devlopement of the usage of “Catholic” Again ,this Ignatius intimated no knowledge of a head bishop in his Catholic Church.

This has no relevance to this topic. It’s also irrelevant because it wasn’t for a good century or so that Rome’s Bishop came to be the primary one.

You, of course, seem to ignore that until 313 the Church was under such persecution that any such organization was pretty much impossible and in fact even after that time, the Emperor Julian persecuted the Church in an attempt to restore paganism.

THE PAGANIZATION OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH UNDER CONSTANTINE

 

[inkaneer]

Thank-you for data suggesting a devlopement of the usage of “Catholic” Again ,this Ignatius intimated no knowledge of a head bishop in his Catholic Church.

You are quite wrong on that. Ignatius addressed his letter to the Church at Rome saying that church held the presidency. What does that mean? A president presides over others. Here is Ignatius’ own words:

"“Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father” (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).

So why does the Roman Church preside over the other churches as Ignatius states? Why does the church at Corinth go to Rome and not to Antioch, Alexandria or Jerusalem? Why, in 170 AD, does Dionysius, the bishop of Corinth, write to the Bishop of Rome and say:

"“Today we have observed the Lord’s holy day, in which we have read your letter [Pope Soter]. Whenever we do read it [in church], we shall be able to profit thereby, as also we do when we read the earlier letter written to us by Clement” (Letter to Pope Soter in Eusebius, Church History 4:23:11 [A.D. 170]).

And why do they value the letter written by Clement so much that almost 100 years later they are still reading it? The early church was well aware of Rome’s prominenceover the other churches and they all attributed it to Peter being the rock on which the church was established.

 

[david_ruiz]

]

ok just like some believe in soul sleep ,and other falsities that are indirectly claimed to be in the bible.

Were the Apostles teachings the only teaching that had been made validly conferred by our Lord Jesus Christ?

He that is for Him is not against Him.During His 3 years there were “others” who ministered also and the apostles got “jealous”, remember ?

All those opposed were in disunity and ergo NOT Catholic. If Catholic is to strictly mean universal, could teachings that oppose the doctrines taught by the Apostles be considered catholic (universal)?

no

Everyone wants to accept catholic, but are starkly opposed to Catholic, big C.

Right ,Am am not opposed to it if it was only a “catholic” thing ,but when you say she rules over all christendom ,that is the stark opposition .It is like Lutherans saying they are the only true “protestants”, (which they don’t)

What are the Universal and essential (catholic) doctrines?

That has had some interesting threads.Good.

Besides you have Ignatius of Antioch, only a generation after the death of St.Peter and only a few years removed from St. John the Apostle speak of the Catholic Church in a past tense form, as the title it was already assumed to be known by the laity.

Well, he uses the tense “is” ,which is present .I get your point that one could assume it goes backward a bit.

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans Chapter 8
]See that you all follow the bishop,

even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

Look at the relation of the word Presbyter and Priest… (priest is etymologically derived from the Greek presbyteros via the Latin presbyter)

yes,but don’t see what you mean by priest .Understand its roots . Other fathers said bishop and presbyter were one in the same,seemingly contradicting Ignatius.
Did you not find it interesting he mentions bishops of other cities but zero mention of any bishop or headbishop in Rome, of this Catholic church ?

Not at all, but you contradict yourself when you say the term of Conferring Grace is too strong when the conferring is done by a Church, but then you say, OK if I include other “churches”

Validating ,qualifying a statement is not necessarily contradictory.

OK, then are you saying both? Or neither?

As stated earlier both /and .The church is visible and invisible. You suggested I was kicking the goads ,against belief in a visible church.

The Catholic Church was founded by Christ personally. Other than the Eastern Orthodox Churches, every other “church” traces its lineage back to a mere human person such as Martin Luther or John Wesley. The Catholic Church can trace its lineage back to Jesus Christ who appointed St. Peter as the first pope. This line of popes has continued unbroken for almost 2,000 years.

Yes ,this is well said ,and I understand .Just disagree

Did Christ give the Apostles Authority to appoint Bishops, Priest, Deacons?

With a qualification ,yes (not priests though- did not have those ). Really God choses we confer ordain enable. As Isaiah 66:21, “I (the Lord) will take of them for priests and levites…” God calls and gifts .As in the beginning of Acts ,those first chosen ,prayed for, were already filled with the Spirit and doing spiritual things.(eg Stephen.)

By virtue of your Baptism!

Just like circumcision in the old ? Which baptism ,of fire ? Of water ? Of the Spirit ? You do recall how faulty a religious rite can be don’t you ? .Is the OT for nothing ? Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks ,and some love ritual ,visibility ,formulas, and religiosity ,their tradition , their forefathers religion /church.

 

[david_ruiz]

How do we know infallibility gets passed down

I will try to point out that Christianity is a revealed religion and that God has Manifested in the flesh and infallibly chose a Social Order (the Church big C) to infallibly make Himself Present to us!

I have read some threads here , by Catholics, that were wonderful , and by themselves universal and acceptable to all believers .They mention the primary reason for infallibility rests soley with God , and the Holy Spirit.(of course they might apply that to visible church but that was not the infallible part). You elevate “social order”/ Church to be primary . Sorry ,I believe God chose to reveal himself infallibly thru His Son and the Holy Spirit .Period . Directly .Here is Jesus.There must come a point when the seed is planted and life begins and we sup with Him. He might be in you church,and maybe she even introduced me to Him , but I sup with him perfectly ,gloriously , even in the churches imperfection ,we find perfection:Him ! I am not refuting any church ,maybe parts of her . Honor where it id due ,the Catholic Church planted the seed of the gospel in my bosom. Everything ,the tradition ,scripture, parents, teachers , nuns priests, the catechism I am indebted too for their part in finding “perfection” -Him. It did not however "birth " me. Billy Graham helped also with seeding (when I was 10) ,but I still was not birthed… I tell you the Lord brought to remembrance 3rd grade with Sister Techla and the Baltimore Catechism, question16 something or other - "What is faith ? in bold black as the questions were put .The answer -"Faith is a gift from God. " In my darkest moment this came to me , when I wanted to believe in Christ as a twenty year old but sincerely could not ,not to even save me from hell. I was free from trying to be what i was not,a saved Christian .The burden was now on Him to give me this faith for I was not born with it. Guess what he granted me faith in Jesus Christ, and he transformed me, rebirthed me. This is what He did for Nicodemus, a priest. Even Peter, where flesh and blood failed, (myself, my parents teachers, nuns, billy graham etc. etc.- they sure tried) the Father illumined / revealed to me also whom Jesus really is .How do I know this kind of infallibility is indeed alive and well on planet earth ? Cause thru out the world people are still meeting the real Jesus Christ , and being transformed, from all walks of life, from every tongue and nation, from the Catholic church to the Orthodox church to Jews to Protestants and many, many others. His truth, the Bride, the church ,the Body is growing and marching on. Alleluia! ,

 

[david_ruiz]

You are quite wrong on that. Ignatius addressed his letter to the Church at Rome saying that church held the presidency. What does that mean? A president presides over others. Here is Ignatius’ own words:

"“Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father” (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).

"Chapter 1. As a prisoner, I hope to see you

Through prayer to God I have obtained the privilege of seeing your most worthy faces, and have even been granted more than I requested; for I hope as a prisoner in Christ Jesus to salute you, if indeed it be the will of God that I be thought worthy of attaining unto the end. For the beginning has been well ordered, if I may obtain grace to cling to my lot without hindrance unto the end. For I am afraid of your love, lest it should do me an injury. For it is easy for you to accomplish what you please; but it is difficult for me to attain to God, if you spare me ."
Where did you get your quote from ? From the CC library, here is all of first chapter.There are spuroius versions. As for Clement I wrote that it was future generations that attested Clements letter ,not the letter itself. Thank-you for providing it.

 

[david_ruiz]

This has no relevance to this topic. It’s also irrelevant because it wasn’t for a good century or so that Rome’s Bishop came to be the primary one.

Understand ,but you are saying the pope was not primary for a century .I agree and concur with many that the office "evolved, at least in practice…Thank-you

You, of course, seem to ignore that until 313 the Church was under such persecution that any such organization was pretty much impossible and in fact even after that time, the Emperor Julian persecuted the Church in an attempt to restore paganism.

 

[inkaneer]

QUOTE=inkaneer;9206268]Quote:
I’m sorry but Matthias was not an apostle. Neither was Judas although Judas was called to be an apostle he never became one. The word Apostle means one who is sent forth. To be an apostle of Jesus is one who is sent by Jesus. The scriptures record that Jesus sent forth only eleven apostles. That sending forth occurred at the great commission. Judas was already dead and Matthias had not been selected. When Peter calls for the replacement of Judas it is only for the office which Judas vacated and that was that of bishop. Matthias was a bishop, the first one of many to follow in succession to the apostles. Now if you do not agree with that then consider this. Every christian denomination makes the same claim that there were twelve apostles. But if we count Judas and Matthias then we have thirteen. And what about Paul? The New Testament calls Paul an Apostle of Jesus Christ no less than ten times. So that is fourteen apostles. So which is it? Twelve or fourteen??? Judas was called by Christ but never sent forth. Matthias was neither called by Christ nor sent forth by Christ. But scripture states that Paul was both called by Christ and sent forth by Christ. Paul is the twelfth apostle."

Hi, Inkaneer,

I really do not count the number of Apostles as you have done.

For example, Luke 6:12-19 clearly identifies Judas as one of the 12 and the one who was the traitor

13 And when day was come, he called unto him his disciples; and he chose twelve of them (whom also he named apostles).

Judas was a Disciple (Apostle) who turned his back on Christ and dishonored his personal calling by Our Savior. Matthias is not mentioned before he is selected as the replacement to Judas (but, none of the 72 who were sent were named - so, maybe he was one of these individuals?) In any event, he was selected and that would make him #13 as we progress forward.

It does get a bit speculative here - I think Paul would be counted as #14 and maybe Timothy and Titus as #15 & #16 respectively… and then I’m lost to identify who would be considered for #17. But, in your post, you identify Paul as #12, and I think this is in error, based on how I identified how I counted. All were bishops - no argument there. But, is the numbering that important?

God bless

I am well aware of Mt 10 wherein the term apostle is used with the original twelve. However, That is the only time Matthew uses the word Apostle. After that he refers to the twelve as disciples. Luke says Jesus picked the Apostles from his disciples so there were more disciples than just twelve. I think Matthew, in Mt 10:2-3, is saying these are the men who were called to be apostles. Remember to be an apostle you must be sent forth and to be an apostle of Jesus you must be sent forth by Jesus. In Mt 10:2-3 no one was sent forth yet. That does not occur until Mt 28:19 when Jesus tells them to go and teach the nations. But Judas is already dead and he isn’t going anywhere. So twelve were called but only eleven were sent. The twelfth apostle to be sent by Christ is Paul and you will find the reference to his sending in Acts 9:15. Ten times scripture equates Paul being not just an apostle but an apostle of Jesus Christ. Judas failed apostleship school and Matthias was just a bishop.

 

[david_ruiz]

That’s pretty funny. N-Cs will quote the ECFs like Ignatius of Antioch in their hope to support their position yet ignore the many other points that Ignatius and other ECFs make that are so very clearly Catholic.

For instance:
CHAP. VII.–LET US STAND ALOOF FROM SUCH HERETICS.

They  abstain from the Eucharist     and from prayer,(7) because they confess  not the Eucharist to be the flesh     of     our Saviour Jesus Christ,  which suffered for   our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness,  raised up again. Those, therefore,   who speak against this gift of God,  incur death(11) in the midst of their disputes.   But it were better  for them to treat it with respect,(13) that they also might   rise  again. It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such  persons,   and not to speak of(15) them either in private or in public,  but to give heed   to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in  which the passion[of Christ]   has been revealed to us, and the  resurrection has been fully proved.(16) But   avoid all divisions, as  the beginning of evils.

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans

Well, nice try (would have said it myself,in your shoes). By Catholic do you mean universal ? This letter was NOT a discussoin on real presence as much as you would like to think so .Indeed there was the beginning of forms of gnosticism and those who thought Christ came not in the flesh,nor died in the flesh nor resurrected in the flesh .It is in the letter .This can not be applied to consubstantiation and other views on communion ,who believe fully in His flesh ,death and resurrection. He calls communion ,one loaf ,one cup, and come together to give thanks to God (not to offer sacrifice). Most 99% of father writings after 100 years of church are very universal ,beautifully edifying to the entire Bride ,from all denominations.