How do we know infallibility gets passed down?

[tqualey]

Hi, Inkaneer,

This appears to be very important to you, but I do not understand why.

You have made several efforts to explain that one can only be an Apostle when one is sent forth. OK. If you want that for a definition. But, then you can come around and say that Christ did not send these men forth until Matt 28. For example: take a look at Luke 9:3 and again Luke 22:35. Here we have a specific reference to Christ sending His Disciples ‘forth’. There is nothing to indicate that Judas did not go out with the group. Then in Luke 22 Christ is reminding them of the experience they had when they were previously sent ‘forth’ and now he makes a change in what they are to bring in this next sending ‘forth’. While we may debate if this second time was in anticipation of the Great Commission given before Christ returned to the Father - there is no doubt that the first sending happen.

Maybe another example would be helpful. From Peter to Benedict XVI there are 266 listed popes. Here is the link: newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm Take a look at popes #16 and #21. These popes were opposed by antipopes - and are listed as being in order. Maybe that is not significant for anyone can oppose anyone else - but, as you know, there have been popes who have not set a saintly example - in fact, setting a less scandelous one would have been an improvement. Pope #215 and #217 probably fit into this category - but note: they are still listed as having been a successor of Peter.

Notwithstanding all of the bad things Judas did, He was still chosen by Christ - and this makes Judas one of the 12. Now, I would appreciate you telling me why you do not think this explanation I provided is correct - and, please, do not go and continue with your limited definition on what constitutes being ‘sent forth’. If this varies in any way - as I referenced - the entire premise falls apart.

God bless

QUOTE=inkaneer;9206268]

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.

 

[Abu]

inkaneer #178
Matthias was just a bishop.

Matthias was an Apostle.

As A Catholic Commentary On Holy Scripture, Ed. Dom Bernard Orchard, Nelson, 1953, affirms of Acts 1:24-26:
“The first recorded prayer of the community is addressed to Jesus, for ‘Lord’ must refer to Him, as in 21. He had chosen the Twelve, and must complete the number……Christ must choose the new Apostle, especially as His Spirit had not yet come, to give St Peter full authority…There is no mention of imposing hands on Matthias.”

Apostles and scripture
Answer by Fr. John Echert (EWTN) on 09-09-2007:
“The whole purpose of replacing Judas PRIOR to the descent of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost was so that the TWELVE representatives of the new Covenant were in place. A criterion for Apostleship is not how much is known about them, or what they may have “said or thought”, but Peter as the appointed Vicar of Christ had the authority of Christ Himself to appoint a replacement for Judas. St. Paul was appointed by Christ much later–many speculate about three years after the Ascension. Funny, if God intended us to understand that Matthias was really not an Apostle to be counted among the Twelve, then why allow us to be deceived by the account of Acts?”
tinyurl.com/6r9qaa2

 

[Vico]

For your apostle discussion.

1. Catholic liturgical calendar, 1962, a second class feast is: *

Feb. 24 or 25 – St. Matthias, Apostle: Missa ‘Mihi Autem’

rosarychurch.net/latin/feb24.html*

**2. Catholic Ordinary Form Calendar:

** May 14, 2012 Mon - Saint Matthias, Apostle red
feast
Acts 1:15-17, 20-26/Jn 15:9-17 (564) Pss Prop

usccb.org/about/divine-worship/liturgical-calendar/upload/2012cal.pdf

1. Orthodox and Eastern Catholic:

*Aug 9 - The Holy Apostle Matthias

Troparion (Tone 3)
O holy Apostle Matthias, Pray to the merciful God, That He may grant to our souls Remission of our transgressions!
Kontakion (Tone 4)
O wonder-worker and Apostle Matthias, Your words have gone out into all the world, Enlightening men as the sun, And giving grace to the Church Bringing faith to heathen lands!
ocafs.oca.org/FeastSaintsViewer.asp?FSID=102243

 

[tqualey]

Hi, David Ruiz,

Just how far do you want to stretch a poor idea until it snaps right back at you? To the best of my knowledge there were only these three major religious groups (Jews, Greeks and Christians) during the 1st Century. Very early in the 2nd Century we have the term Catholic being used - and this remains (to this very day, as a matter of fact). For whatever reason the term “The Way” apparently never caught on like “Christian” did.

What needs to be understood is that 2,000 years ago people were not writing history with an eye towards someone coming back and trying to prove some OTHER point of view. The early known historical writers - like Herodotus or Josephus - were recording what they saw, had heard, had been told and wrote it all down with their own particular slant. This was not in an effort to deceive anyone - rather, they were getting the word out as best they could. Today, the current sport is to find fault because something does not quite match up with the point we are trying to prove.

Somehow you decided not to respond to the fact that “Lutheran, Anglican, Methodist, Bapitst, etc” are not mentioned in Scripture either - yet there is no problem with that is there? We believe in the Trinity and free will although neither of these are mentioned in Scripture - yet there is no problem with that either, is there? And St John tells us twice in his Gospel that NOT everything has been written down in Scripture. What we do have are the writings of the ECF and secular history of the period that provides us with additional information.

Well, if you do not think Christ founded One Church, how many do you think He founded? And, while you are at it, please give your reference(s) to support such a claim. When Christ said He would send His Spirit and it would teach us all truth - this means that there can be no error in what His Church teaches (infallible) because if there was eek then He would be lying, would not be God and we all are to be truly pitied as the most foolish of all men.

As I see it, here’s the issue: Matt 16 lays down the frame work for Christ founding His Chruch on Peter, giving Peter the Keys and binding authority. Peter leads the Apostles as seen on Pentecost Sunday by his powerful sermon that enables thousands to believe in Christ and be baptized. Then we have the ECF and their writings which clearly identifies that the Successor of Peter is the Vicar of Christ on earth. We have the Church Councils which are called because Sacred Tradition is being challenged with heresy - and we have the development of doctrine - like the Trinity.

And, throughout all of this - Christ has enabled sinful men to be the leaders of His Church. Sometimes these men clearly demonstrate that they are trying to follow the Good Shepherd as they protect the Bride of Christ - and sometimes they not only fall short of the mark, but they give public scandal in the process! Now what? Do we criticize God because He chose to work with and through sinful humans on our road to salvation? Do we criticize God because He chose to found the Catholic Church - and no other?

I understand you have an agenda and that is fine. But if you are going to present your position it needs to both clear and consistent and responsive to the questions asked of you. In my opinion, you have been non responsive and evasive. I suggest that if you are asked something you don’t know, just say so and then go look it up and come back with your answer. Being dismissive is neither helpful or conducive to dialogue. I think you can do better - now is the time to demonstrate this.

God bless

always

receive perfect doctrine. The key term being always ?

God bless

 

[inkaneer]

]Hi, Inkaneer,

This appears to be very important to you, but I do not understand why.

You have made several efforts to explain that one can only be an Apostle when one is sent forth. OK. If you want that for a definition. But, then you can come around and say that Christ did not send these men forth until Matt 28. For example: take a look at Luke 9:3 and again Luke 22:35. Here we have a specific reference to Christ sending His Disciples ‘forth’. There is nothing to indicate that Judas did not go out with the group. Then in Luke 22 Christ is reminding them of the experience they had when they were previously sent ‘forth’ and now he makes a change in what they are to bring in this next sending ‘forth’. While we may debate if this second time was in anticipation of the Great Commission given before Christ returned to the Father - there is no doubt that the first sending happen.

…Notwithstanding all of the bad things Judas did, He was still chosen by Christ - and this makes Judas one of the 12. Now, I would appreciate you telling me why you do not think this explanation I provided is correct - and, please, do not go and continue with your limited definition on what constitutes being ‘sent forth’. If this varies in any way - as I referenced - the entire premise falls apart.

God bless

Consistency is the key here. You can’t say there were 12 apostles and then say there were 14. Catholicism is not the only christian community to do this. They all do it. But I take my cue from Peter’s discourse in Acts 1:15 onward. Look at what he says:

“15 In those days Peter rising up in the midst of the brethren, said (now the number of persons together was about an hundred and twenty): 16 Men, brethren, the scripture must needs be fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who was the leader of them that apprehended Jesus: 17 Who was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. 18 And he indeed hath possessed a field of the reward of iniquity, and being hanged, burst asunder in the midst: and all his bowels gushed out. 19 And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem: so that the same field was called in their tongue, Haceldama, that is to say, The field of blood. 20 For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let their habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein. And his bishopric let another take. 21 Wherefore of these men who have companied with us, all the time that the Lord Jesus came in and went out among us, 22 Beginning from the baptism of John, until the day wherein he was taken up from us, one of these must be made a witness with us of his resurrection. 23 And they appointed two, Joseph, called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. 24 And praying, they said: Thou, Lord, who knowest the heart of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, 25 To take the place of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas hath by transgression fallen, that he might go to his own place. 26 And they gave them lot, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.”
[Acts 1:15-26 DR]

Notice in verse 17 Peter says Judas was “numbered with us” and “obtained a part of this ministry”. He, having a part of the ministry,is no more an apostle than protestants today are Catholic because they have a part of the deposit of truth. Also Peter says Judas was numbered with them. He does not say, “Judas was one of us”. Furthermore he quotes parts of two OT Psalms and seemingly joins them together which every biblical scholar says is a definite NO-NO. He quotes [actually paraphrases] psalm 69 verse 8, “Let their habitation be desolate, and let none dwell in their tents” and Psalm 109 verse 25, “Let his days be few, and let another take his office”. There the DR as well as the KJV uses the term bishopric instead of office. The Vulgate uses the Latin word episcopatum from the Greek episkope which is translated in Paul’s epistles as bishop. BUT, is Peter actually joining the two verses together or is he speaking of two different things? I say the latter. In Psalm 69 Pete ris referring to a habitation which could be a tent if one is a nomad or a house if one is not. A house also denotes linneage. Remember that Joseph was of the house of David as was Christ. So when Peter says let Judas’ house be desolate that means no one will live in that inneage and true enough no bishop hasever claimed Apostolic Succession from Judas. His house is indeed desolate. In Psalm 109 Peter is calling for someone else to fill the office [bishopric] that Judas vacated because of his death.

Continued…

 

[inkaneer]

Continuing…

Now for the part that bears on your post. In verses 21 and 22 we see Peter saying:

“21 Wherefore of these men who have companied with us, all the time that the Lord Jesus came in and went out among us, 22 Beginning from the baptism of John, until the day wherein he was taken up from us, one of these must be made a witness with us of his resurrection.”

Why is this requirement there? Why must it be from the beginning of Jesus’ ministry to His Ascencion? I say because it was in that amount of time that Jesus taught the apostles. This was seminary for the apostles and part of that seminary time was practical experience of doing what they would be called on to do later, to go and teach the nations.

Notice also verse 25 which says, “25 To take the place of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas hath by transgression fallen, that he might go to his own place.”

Here notice what is said and also what is not said. It is not whoever is selected will take the place of Judas in Judas’ apostleship. Peter has already said Judas’ linneage is desolate. Matthias will take the office of bishop that Judas occupied. Matthias is a substitute, a successor to the office of bishop, nothing more. And by being such Matthias provides the scriptural basis for Apostolic Succession. Now consider the opposite. If Judas is an Apostle and Matthias, succeeding him is also an apostle, then you have one Apostle succeeding another. So then with that precedent in mind please tell me which apostle succeeded Peter.

Now getting back to what Peter said in verse 17 wherein he said that Judas obtained a part of this ministry. What did he mean? Well obviously if Judas only got a part of that ministry then there was a part he did not receive. What part was that? Consider that at the Last Supper Judas leaves to betray Christ before the institution of the Eucharist and also consider the fact Judas commits suicide before Jesus appears to the eleven in the Upper Room and gives them the power to forgive or retain sin. So if you want to call Judas an apostle then you have an apostle with none of the authority of a Catholic Bishop. That, my friend, is no apostle.

Now, what can we take from this? Here are my thoughts. The apostles occupy offices for which the Greek word episkope was used. From this word we get our word episcopacy meaning bishop or pertaining to a bishop. The Apostles had two kinds of authority. They had authority that rested in them personally as well as authority that rested in the office they occupied. When the Apostles died their personal authority ended but the authority of their office continued in that office and the successor to that office received that authority. So when Jesus proclaimed Peter as the rock that He would build His church on and to Peter He gave the keys of the kingdom He made Peter the chief steward of the church [See Isaiah 22:22] to which office had the authority to bind and loose. So Peter had that authority by virtue of his occupying that office of chief steward but upon his death that authority would remain with that office and his successor would then be so empowered. That is how we know the authority of infallibility gets passed down.

 

[inkaneer]

For your apostle discussion.

1. Catholic liturgical calendar, 1962, a second class feast is: *

Feb. 24 or 25 – St. Matthias, Apostle: Missa ‘Mihi Autem’

rosarychurch.net/latin/feb24.html*

**2. Catholic Ordinary Form Calendar:

** May 14, 2012 Mon - Saint Matthias, Apostle red
feast
Acts 1:15-17, 20-26/Jn 15:9-17 (564) Pss Prop

usccb.org/about/divine-worship/liturgical-calendar/upload/2012cal.pdf

1. Orthodox and Eastern Catholic:

*Aug 9 - The Holy Apostle Matthias

Troparion (Tone 3)
O holy Apostle Matthias, Pray to the merciful God, That He may grant to our souls Remission of our transgressions!
Kontakion (Tone 4)
O wonder-worker and Apostle Matthias, Your words have gone out into all the world, Enlightening men as the sun, And giving grace to the Church Bringing faith to heathen lands!
ocafs.oca.org/FeastSaintsViewer.asp?FSID=102243

I checked. Firstly, the Catholic church has never formally defined Matthias as an apostle of Jesus Christ. Therefore, until it does so one can believe he is or he isn’t. Secondly the Catholic Church had a feastday for St. Christopher as well as several other saints even had churches named after them before it was determined that these people never existed except in some pious mythology. So having a feast day or having parishes named after you means nothing doctrinally.

 

[Vico]

I checked. Firstly, the Catholic church has never formally defined Matthias as an apostle of Jesus Christ. Therefore, until it does so one can believe he is or he isn’t. Secondly the Catholic Church had a feastday for St. Christopher as well as several other saints even had churches named after them before it was determined that these people never existed except in some pious mythology. So having a feast day or having parishes named after you means nothing doctrinally.

Thank you. Since the teaching of the Catholic magisterium is that he is an apostle, but not certainly, it may be believed.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Inkaneer,

Wow… Is infallibility (via Christ’s designation of Peter as having binding authority and the Keys, and this comes with the office) what you are trying to prove?

I know you worked hard on this … but, honestly, your argument about Judas, as I see it, is simply speculation as a pious thought, but hardly the definitive matter you are trying to make it. Seriously, I would have personally just stopped with the 12 called by Christ as Disciples / Apostles. And, the reason for this is that is the way Scripture lists this - Peter always leads and Judas, the traitor, is always last.

Now, we get to Matthias - how do we count him? While the criteria was set (the repalcement had to have been in ‘seminary’ * the matter was replacing Judas. Well, you can not go back and change a historical fact: Judas had been chosen. Now, his position was open - and that position was that of Disciple / Apostle - and now Matthias is selected. But he can not go back and be number as one of the Original 12 - so he must take the next number… and that would be #13. Yes, thee are only 12 men at this time - but look ahead, at some point we see other men are consecrated as Bishops. Paul can not be counted as part of the Original 12 - being born out of time means just that. He claims to be an Apostle - and I am not going to argue with him… but, honstly, this is starting to become a bit difficult to balance. Now, Paul adds Timothy and Titus - so, at some point we are really counting bishops and not Disiples/Apostles.

The issue of infallibility can be more easily demonstrated from Christ’s words to Peter both in giving him the office and in promising the Holy Spirit to guide them to Truth. Counting these guys to see what number we really have seems like a strange exercise… especially when the answer is given in Scripture witht he identification of the Original 12.

Maybe I am just lacking in imagination … but, I can not see a prolonged discussion on how many Apostles there really were. I have no problem with you believing what you wrote, but I also see no problem in what I have presented. I honestly do not see this counting process as proving infallibility, when so many other better arugments are so readily available. What isn’t available, however, is the amount of time I can spend on this…

God bless

Tom*

Continuing…

Now for the part that bears on your post. In verses 21 and 22 we see Peter saying:

“21 Wherefore of these men who have companied with us, all the time that the Lord Jesus came in and went out among us, 22 Beginning from the baptism of John, until the day wherein he was taken up from us, one of these must be made a witness with us of his resurrection.”

Why is this requirement there? Why must it be from the beginning of Jesus’ ministry to His Ascencion? I say because it was in that amount of time that Jesus taught the apostles. This was seminary for the apostles and part of that seminary time was practical experience of doing what they would be called on to do later, to go and teach the nations.

Notice also verse 25 which says, “25 To take the place of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas hath by transgression fallen, that he might go to his own place.”

Here notice what is said and also what is not said. It is not whoever is selected will take the place of Judas in Judas’ apostleship. Peter has already said Judas’ linneage is desolate. Matthias will take the office of bishop that Judas occupied. Matthias is a substitute, a successor to the office of bishop, nothing more. And by being such Matthias provides the scriptural basis for Apostolic Succession. Now consider the opposite. If Judas is an Apostle and Matthias, succeeding him is also an apostle, then you have one Apostle succeeding another. So then with that precedent in mind please tell me which apostle succeeded Peter.

Now getting back to what Peter said in verse 17 wherein he said that Judas obtained a part of this ministry. What did he mean? Well obviously if Judas only got a part of that ministry then there was a part he did not receive. What part was that? Consider that at the Last Supper Judas leaves to betray Christ before the institution of the Eucharist and also consider the fact Judas commits suicide before Jesus appears to the eleven in the Upper Room and gives them the power to forgive or retain sin. So if you want to call Judas an apostle then you have an apostle with none of the authority of a Catholic Bishop. That, my friend, is no apostle.

Now, what can we take from this? Here are my thoughts. The apostles occupy offices for which the Greek word episkope

was used. From this word we get our word episcopacy meaning bishop or pertaining to a bishop. The Apostles had two kinds of authority. They had authority that rested in them personally as well as authority that rested in the office they occupied. When the Apostles died their personal authority ended but the authority of their office continued in that office and the successor to that office received that authority. So when Jesus proclaimed Peter as the rock that He would build His church on and to Peter He gave the keys of the kingdom He made Peter the chief steward of the church [See Isaiah 22:22] to which office had the authority to bind and loose. So Peter had that authority by virtue of his occupying that office of chief steward but upon his death that authority would remain with that office and his successor would then be so empowered. That is how we know the authority of infallibility gets passed down.

 

[david_ruiz]

Hi, David Ruiz,

Just how far do you want to stretch a poor idea until it snaps right back at you? To the best of my knowledge there were only these three major religious groups (Jews, Greeks and Christians) during the 1st Century. Very early in the 2nd Century we have the term Catholic being used - and this remains (to this very day, as a matter of fact). For whatever reason the term “The Way” apparently never caught on like “Christian” did.

What needs to be understood is that 2,000 years ago people were not writing history with an eye towards someone coming back and trying to prove some OTHER point of view. The early known historical writers - like Herodotus or Josephus - were recording what they saw, had heard, had been told and wrote it all down with their own particular slant. This was not in an effort to deceive anyone - rather, they were getting the word out as best they could. Today, the current sport is to find fault because something does not quite match up with the point we are trying to prove.

Somehow you decided not to respond to the fact that “Lutheran, Anglican, Methodist, Bapitst, etc” are not mentioned in Scripture either - yet there is no problem with that is there? We believe in the Trinity and free will although neither of these are mentioned in Scripture - yet there is no problem with that either, is there? And St John tells us twice in his Gospel that NOT everything has been written down in Scripture. What we do have are the writings of the ECF and secular history of the period that provides us with additional information.

Well, if you do not think Christ founded One Church, how many do you think He founded? And, while you are at it, please give your reference(s) to support such a claim. When Christ said He would send His Spirit and it would teach us all truth - this means that there can be no error in what His Church teaches (infallible) because if there was eek then He would be lying, would not be God and we all are to be truly pitied as the most foolish of all men.

As I see it, here’s the issue: Matt 16 lays down the frame work for Christ founding His Chruch on Peter, giving Peter the Keys and binding authority. Peter leads the Apostles as seen on Pentecost Sunday by his powerful sermon that enables thousands to believe in Christ and be baptized. Then we have the ECF and their writings which clearly identifies that the Successor of Peter is the Vicar of Christ on earth. We have the Church Councils which are called because Sacred Tradition is being challenged with heresy - and we have the development of doctrine - like the Trinity.

And, throughout all of this - Christ has enabled sinful men to be the leaders of His Church. Sometimes these men clearly demonstrate that they are trying to follow the Good Shepherd as they protect the Bride of Christ - and sometimes they not only fall short of the mark, but they give public scandal in the process! Now what? Do we criticize God because He chose to work with and through sinful humans on our road to salvation? Do we criticize God because He chose to found the Catholic Church - and no other?

I understand you have an agenda and that is fine. But if you are going to present your position it needs to both clear and consistent and responsive to the questions asked of you. In my opinion, you have been non responsive and evasive. I suggest that if you are asked something you don’t know, just say so and then go look it up and come back with your answer. Being dismissive is neither helpful or conducive to dialogue. I think you can do better - now is the time to demonstrate this.

God bless
david ruiz;9207491:
Sorry you feel this way .No I have not answered every thread ,every question , just too many . But I have answered many of yours . Thread 175 answers the threads question of infallibility for me. It gives honor to the visible and invisible church. It gives honor to the Catholic church, and really all of His churches that have had an influence on me.

 

[david_ruiz]

I checked. Firstly, the Catholic church has never formally defined Matthias as an apostle of Jesus Christ. Therefore, until it does so one can believe he is or he isn’t. Secondly the Catholic Church had a feastday for St. Christopher as well as several other saints even had churches named after them before it was determined that these people never existed except in some pious mythology. So having a feast day or having parishes named after you means nothing doctrinally.

Thank-you also.

 

[Abu]

Yes, the feast of “St Matthias, Apostle” is celebrated now, on May 14. No doubt here, just fact.

 

[Gophers]

Always trust the bible for essentials

 

[davidv]

Always trust the bible for essentials

Which of these essentials protect the the Church from error?

 

[onemangang]

. You elevate “social order”/ Church to be primary . Sorry ,I believe God chose to reveal himself infallibly thru His Son and the Holy Spirit.

OK, How?

I regards to the Church being “primary” I never said nor implied.

I see it like this, God is first in principle, the Church is principled in relation to God, and Scripture is a mode of the Church, to conferr God’s Grace, through Him, with Him, and In Him!

I also posted this already and you responded to it, I clearly don’t imply the infallibility of the Church is separate from Christ Authority!

**The Church actively participates in the Mediation of Christ Authority. **This continuity can be traced back to Christ Himself. Christ makes Himself Present through the Church daily, bearing witness to His Majesty, and also to Her being an active participent in the unfolding of divine wisdom. He is the Head, She is His Body. He is the Logos, the Actus Purus, but the Church, His Bride, an inseparable reality, that operates through Him, With Him, In Him, In unity, and in Conformity to Her Husband Jesus Christ, which is Her Head!
Peace and Love in Christ!

Yes, Indeed, faith is a gift, praise God for the graced realization, of the power and presence of the most Holy Trinity we received! One Question though, had you not heard about who Jesus is, would the Holy Spirit reveal Jesus to you? I don’t mean could somebody have their heart regenerated and moved towards love apart from Church teachings, but would you know Jesus as you do now apart from the Church and Scripture? 100%God 100% man, the second person of the Trinity etc,etc… Hypothetical question, if one was in the Amazon, without any Church presence, or Scripture, would the Unction of the Holy Spirit move them to all truth in a Natural Theology kind of way?

 

[onemangang]

So,** did God infallibly choose an Infallible mode to declare Who HE is infallibly?** If so, by His conferring, is that modus operandi infallible!

Is it His Word? Is it His Spirit? Is it His Church? Is it all Three? Are they separable from one another?

Are we as a fallen people capable us discerning His infallible unction?

Has His infallible unction been discerned before?

Let’s start with the common belief that **God is infallible and capable of declaring Who He is infallibly! **

Christianity is a revealed religion, I believe that God has revealed Who He is through the Person of Jesus Christ, who has condescended and manifested in the flesh to reach mankind, for our sake, because of His undying Love. The question is did He do so, Infallibly? I posit yes, so now the question is,** HOW was Christ infallibly revealed to Mankind? **

**Christ, infallibly revealed Himself to man, the mode that He infallibly chose is a visible social order (the Church). Christ intentionally, and infallibly chose a visible social order, to mediate His infallible authority to the world. **

That Social Order (the Church) by His grace has infallibly written, compiled, and discerned Holy Writ, to be profitable for teaching, correction and reproof!

Christ appointed **a Church **to infallibly preserve and communicate His revelation, why would that Church not be infallible, being that She is conferred by God Himself.

The Church actively participates in the Mediation of Christ Authority. This continuity can be traced back to Christ Himself. Christ makes Himself Present through the Church daily, bearing witness to His Majesty, and also to Her being an active participent in the unfolding of His divine wisdom. He is the Head, She is His Body. He is the Logos, the Actus Purus, but the Church, His Bride, an inseparable reality, that operates through Him, With Him, In Him, In unity, and in Conformity to Her Husband, Jesus Christ, which is Her Head!

Everything in all of creation has a function, we were made to love and serve God. That is our function as created beings, but we don’t see God, face to face. We live in a fallen world, but we still bear the mark of our Creator as created beings. Every fabric of our being has desires , but those God given imprints have been affected through sin, so we do not always follow them towards the good, which they were made to do initially. But, by the Grace of our Lord, we can partake in the divine Sonship of Jesus Christ and have our hearts of stone made flesh! We desire to honor and serve you, O Lord, just show us the way! We are imperfect people, serving a perfect God, so we do so at times, serve imperfectly. Is their a way provided that we may have our intellect and our wills moved towards the good, God Himself, that we were intended for? Yes, by grace, God will move us towards what is good, Himself, all we must do is surrender and follow the grace we receive. It seems like we either do not follow, or are unable to discern infallibly what He wants from us. Good for us, God provided a living voice of today to infallibly address the issues of discernment in this complex world!** He has declared His Manifold wisdom throughout the heavens and the earth, and His wisdom may be made known through the Church, but only by His grace**. So God, in His infinite wisdom, and divine authority, orders the entire universe towards Himself, and has revealed the Eternal Logos trough the Church.
**This very Church partakes in, “the One Divine infallible authority,” when testifying to the Christ, the logos of God. So the Church is both human and divine as an active participant in the Divine, while embodied in Flesh.**She truly is, His Bride!

Peace and Love in Christ

 

[Bernadette173]

I am not saying that at all…I don’t know, that’s why I asked. But to answer your question: Honestly, would it be so ridiculous if we were all just supposed to live the way Jesus said, the way the apostles said, and then when an issue arises that they didn’t address, the Church can address that issue but do it without saying their ruling is infallible? Why is it assumed the Church MUST have all the answers to every question that arises when they admit there are many questions they cannot answer…many mysteries of faith. If they have infallibility, there should be NO mysteries.

Infallability and mysteries are apples and oranges here. Infallable means free from error or residing in the truth when teaching the core concepts of the prophets who spoke of Christ coming, to Christ’s Revelation, and the Incarnation. God’s Word made flesh The mysteries of the CC the Trinity are just those, unexplainable truths. The CC never teaches it has EVERY answer for ALL things. And the mysteries of the faith until Christ’s return will remain just that, mysteries and matters of faith.I hope this clears things up a bit.

Peace be with you,

 

[highrigger1]

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:

Hi Kathryn,

Naturally protestants do no agree with you. Most consider themselves catholic in the full sense of the word as used by Ignatius. They do not see the Roman Catholic Church as the only catholics and in fact not mentioned or existing for centuries later. They see no church as having an exclusive ownership to the term “The Church.”

They also do not see anything in scripture to justify any handing down of authority to any individual and in fact cite historicall sources to the effect that Peter was never a bishop of Rome in the first place and not a dogma until the third century. They say that is mythology not supported by historical facts as we know it today.

Peace, JohnR

 

[joshua_b]

Hi Kathryn,

Naturally protestants do no agree with you. Most consider themselves catholic in the full sense of the word as used by Ignatius. They do not see the Roman Catholic Church as the only catholics and in fact not mentioned or existing for centuries later. They see no church as having an exclusive ownership to the term “The Church.”

They also do not see anything in scripture to justify any handing down of authority to any individual and in fact cite historicall sources to the effect that Peter was never a bishop of Rome in the first place and not a dogma until the third century. They say that is mythology not supported by historical facts as we know it today.

Peace, JohnR

Of course they don’t agree. If they did, they couldn’t justify their denominational preference and the traditions to which they subscribe. And as far as Ignatius goes, being the Bishop of Antioch, and Patriarch of the Maronite Church which has always been recognized as fully Catholic and in union with the Latin Church (and STILL in existence today), he was definitely using the word “in the full sense”, and it is the exact sense the visible Church uses it. Those who want to argue that “The Church” is not exclusive to Rome are correct, but not quite in the way they think. The Church also includes the eastern churches (Melkite, Byzantine, Maronize, etc.) that have historically always been fully Catholic, although they do not fall under the jursidiction of the western Church. I can assure you that these Churches are fully Catholic, and yet are markedly different from “Roman Catholicism”.

To not see the Scriptures supporting the primacy of Peter is to ignore some very signifigant passages, as well as the literal and cultural context in which they were written and would have been received. To say that Peter was never Bishop of Rome is just a flat denial of history, because it is a historical fact that Peter was crucified in Rome.

 

[onemangang]

Hi Kathryn,

Naturally protestants do no agree with you. Most consider themselves catholic in the full sense of the word as used by Ignatius. They do not see the Roman Catholic Church as the only catholics and in fact not mentioned or existing for centuries later. They see no church as having an exclusive ownership to the term “The Church.”

**They also do not see anything in scripture to justify any handing down of authority to any individual **and in fact cite historicall sources to the effect that Peter was never a bishop of Rome in the first place and not a dogma until the third century. **They say that is mythology not supported by historical facts as we know it today. **

Peace, JohnR

Now all they have to do is state their case instead of just making blanket statements.

In regards to handing down Authority in Scripture, really? It’s flooded with it, if you have eyes to see, perhaps many have become blinded by the traditions of men

John 3:17 17 For God did not** send** his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.

John 4:34 “My food,” said Jesus, “is to do the will of him **who sent me **and to finish his work

John 5:30 By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me.

John 6:38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me.

Matthew 11:27 All things are** delivered **to me by my Father. And no one knoweth the Son, but the Father: neither doth any one know the Father, but the Son, and he to whom it shall please the Son to reveal him.

Matthew 28:18 Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

Matthew 9:6 But I want you to know that** the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.**” So he said to the paralyzed man, “Get up, take your mat and go home.”

Matthew 9:8 But when the multitudes saw it, they were afraid, and glorified God, who had given such authority unto men.

Matthew 10:1 1 Jesus called his twelve disciples to him and **gave them authority **to drive out impure spirits and to heal every disease and sickness. 40 “Anyone who welcomes you welcomes me, and anyone who welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me.

John 20: 21 Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” 22 And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

Acts 9:15 But the Lord said to Ananias, “Go! This man is my chosen instrument to proclaim my name to the Gentiles and their kings and to the people of Israel. 16 I will show him how much he must suffer for my name.”17 Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord—Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here—has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” 18 Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul’s eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized,

Acts 13:1** Now in the church at Antioch** there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul.2 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 3 So after they had fasted and prayed,** they placed their hands on them and sent them off.4 The two of them, sent on their way by the Holy Spirit,** went down to Seleucia and sailed from there to Cyprus.

Acts 14:23 And when they had ordained to them priests in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, in whom they believed.

1 Timothy 3:1 A faithful saying: if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

1 Timothy 2:14 Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which was given thee by prophesy, with imposition of the hands of the priesthood.

1 Timothy 5:22 Impose not hands lightly upon any man, neither be partaker of other men’s sins. Keep thyself chaste.

2 Timothy 1:6For which cause I admonish thee, that thou stir up the grace of God which is in thee, by the imposition of my hands.

Titus 1:5 For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and shouldest** ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed thee:**

The problem is the hollow deceptive philosophies and the traditions of men are blinding people from seeing and hearing the Truth

2 Timothy 2:1I charge thee, before God and Jesus Christ, who shall judge the living and the dead, by his coming, and his kingdom: 2 Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine. 3** For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: 4 And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables.** 5 But be thou vigilant, labour in all things, do the work of an evangelist, fulfil thy ministry. Be sober. 6 For I am even now ready to be sacrificed: and the time of my dissolution is at hand.