How do we know infallibility gets passed down?

[joshua_b]

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

.

The problem is, when viewed through the lens of their tradition, they see those verses from a different perspective.

Having historically rejected the authority of the Church as was established by Jesus, their tradition holds by necessity the rejection of the notion of a visible authority. In rejecting established authority, they needed a new “authority”, and that authority became Scripture. So with Scripture as the ultimate authority, the "Atomic Church of ‘Me’ " is supposed to be guided to all Truth through understanding the Scriptures.

This is not insignificant because with that mindset, every passage in Scripture becomes directly applicable to everyone on an individual level. Thus, even when Jesus was speaking directly to, or Scripture speaks directly about the Apostles, their view is that those passages become relevant to them as well. Thus, according to their understanding, when Jesus gives Simon a new name, and the keys to the Kingdom, and tells him that whatever he binds on earth will be bound in heaven, and tells the Apostles that whoever’s sins they forgive are forgiven (etc. etc.), those who’s traditions reject Apostolic authority conclude that those Truths must apply directly to each individual Christian.

 

[highrigger1]

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.

joshua,

I understand you feel strongly about some of those things yet I have yet to see any reason why I am not as catholic as anyone. I agree with Ignaius on his religious ideas and find him very much like my own church.

As far as Peter historians say it was likely he was martyred in Rome but of course that does not make him a bishop by any means, since they were executing all the christians in Rome they could find claiming they started the fire that destroyed large portions of Rome. I have read many history books and they say that Peter was never a bishop of Rome and that in fact Rome did not have a monachical bishop (one over all the otheres) until mid second century. These are all Catholic historians and in some cases approved with the Imprimatur.

So if I am denying history there are lots of professionals doing it also. Here is an example of one who is writing with the Imprimatur, Raymond E. Brown.

^ Brown, Raymond E. and Meier, John P. (1983). Antioch and Rome: New
Testament Cradles of Christianity. Paulist Press. p. 98. “As for
Peter, we have no knowledge at all of when he came to Rome and what
he did there before he was martyred. Certainly he was not the
original missionary who brought Christianity to Rome (and
therefore not the founder of the church of Rome in that sense).
There is no serious proof that he was the bishop (or local
ecclesiastical officer) of the Roman church–a claim not made till
the third century. Most likely he did not spend any majortime at Rome
before 58 when Paul wrote to the Romans, and so it may have been
only in the 60s and relatively shortly before his martyrdom that
Peter came to the capital.”

This is from his book Antioc and Rome. It is approved with the
Imprimatur. Why do you think they would approve it if it were false?
Perhaps you should change your mind that it is a flat denial of history?

Peace, JohnR

 

[highrigger1]

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

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.

onemangang,

I read all your quotes and none of them support your view. In fact I see some problems with your translation. For example Acts 14:23 does not say “priests” nor “ordained.”
It actually says “In each of these churches they appointed elders…” I am quoting from the New Jerusalem Bible which corrected many of the errors of translation in the earlier Catholic bibles. Are you using the New Jerusalem translation or one very much earlier?
Neither in Titus does it mention priests. They are elders. Elders were not priests by any means. They were simply older wise men according to Jewish tradition, not christian clergy at all.

There were no priests in the NT nor was anyone ordained. Laying on of hands was signifying a special mission but not ordination at all. I can provide quotes from experts on this if you want me to.

I am happy to discuss these issues with you but perhaps you need an up to date bible with proper translation like the New Jerusalem Bible. I dont think you will find many priests or ordinations in it. This is the protestant viewpoint and I have yet to hear from scripture or history that they are wrong about it.

Peace, JohnR

 

[highrigger1]

The problem is, when viewed through the lens of their tradition, they see those verses from a different perspective.

Having historically rejected the authority of the Church as was established by Jesus, their tradition holds by necessity the rejection of the notion of a visible authority. In rejecting established authority, they needed a new “authority”, and that authority became Scripture. So with Scripture as the ultimate authority, the "Atomic Church of ‘Me’ " is supposed to be guided to all Truth through understanding the Scriptures.

This is not insignificant because with that mindset, every passage in Scripture becomes directly applicable to everyone on an individual level. Thus, even when Jesus was speaking directly to, or Scripture speaks directly about the Apostles, their view is that those passages become relevant to them as well. Thus, according to their understanding, when Jesus gives Simon a new name, and the keys to the Kingdom, and tells him that whatever he binds on earth will be bound in heaven, and tells the Apostles that whoever’s sins they forgive are forgiven (etc. etc.), those who’s traditions reject Apostolic authority conclude that those Truths must apply directly to each individual Christian.

Joshua,

I think the real problem is you are using an old bible with incorrect translation. If you use the latest Catholic New Jerusalem Bible you will find they have corrected the errors that translate an elder as a priest and to appoint someone as an ordination.

Elders were not priests and laying on of hands or appointing is not ordination.
There were no priests or christian clergy or ordinations in the NT or even in the earliest ECFs. However I can understand how Catholics think so since they have been using bibles which add those words to the translation. That would lead people astray.

I think your understanding of scripture will be better if you get an up to date translation that correctly translates those words and terms. Perhaps then you might appreciate better the protestant viewpoint?

Peace, JohnR

 

[mackbrislawn]

But why would he bother to give the apostles alone infallibility? As you point out, the Muslims haven’t needed it (though I wonder about “basically the same”). So why would the apostles need it for 30 or 40 or 50 years, but then nobody after that for the next 2000/3000/X000? Is that how you would have done it?

No, not the way I would have done it.

In regards to the Muslims, I would say they haven’t needed continued infallibility because their religion is of a different nature. Christianity is centered around the person of Jesus, and hence who Jesus is, what his nature is, is of utmost importance. Orthodox Christianity asks its adherents to believe some rather preposterous claims. First, that this crucified criminal Jesus died and then rose from the dead! Can you imagine such a ridiculous assertion? Furthermore, orthodox Christianity claims that he was also God!

These claims were made by apostles and disciples of Jesus who say they were sent by him. So, to believe them, we have to assume they are infallible, or to put it better, trustworthy and authoritative. That the Holy Spirit was behind them. That the Holy Spirit inspired their teachings.

So, the early Church was begun by infallibe, or authoritative apostles and disciples. But how about later? Does their authority reside somehow in the later Church? The debate continues about whether the New Testament says that or not. If the NT is amigous on that topic, why?
Is it because the NT writers were not writing for the future, because they did not think there would be a future, because the End was imminent? But the End did not come, so the Church had to settle in for the long haul with no original apostles around to consult. So by logic, some sort of authority, infallibility if you will, still had to be preserved to protect the truth in the face of so many differing claims made about the nature of Christ.

That’s why continued authority was needed. If the End had come, and if there were also not so many false teachings circulating around in the early days about the nature of Christ, ‘infallibility’ would not be needed. Otherwise, how were the faithful to know? Sure, there were the memoirs of the apostles written down, but they were the very battleground of discussion!

Therefore, infallibility was needed. Infallibility does not mean the same as inspired. Inspired means that revelation is given directly. Infallibility means that decisions about what the apostles really taught are made without error. That is, the councils of the church are not directly given the truth, but are simply prevented by the Holy Spirit from teaching falsely. Since the Church is the body of Christ, and Christ is its head, the Church is the continuation of Christ on earth, and hence it must be the Church that is collectively infallible.

Now, if it didn’t matter who Jesus was, if it didn’t matter if he rose from the dead or not, or if he is God or not, then I guess the question of infallibility would be moot!

Be a Unitarian!

 

[ivebeenshown]

I am happy to discuss these issues with you but perhaps you need an up to date bible with proper translation like the New Jerusalem Bible. I dont think you will find many priests or ordinations in it. This is the protestant viewpoint and I have yet to hear from scripture or history that they are wrong about it.

Peace, JohnR

Sounds like word games to me… whether you call it ‘priest’ or ‘elder’, ‘appointment’ or ‘ordination’, the same thing is happening.

The early writings of the Fathers attest to Apostolic succession.

Clement of Rome, who personally knew the Apostles:
Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry.

Irenaeus:
…if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to “the perfect” apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men…

 

[mackbrislawn]

onemangang,

It actually says “In each of these churches they appointed elders…”

There were no priests in the NT nor was anyone ordained. Laying on of hands was signifying a special mission but not ordination at all. I can provide quotes from experts on this if you want me to.

Do you know what the Greek word is in these instances that is translated “appointed”? What the Greek word means? In other words, how do we know how to translate it into English? Why appoint rather than ordain?

Now, a dictionary definition of “ordain” is “to establish or order by appointment, decree, or law.”
Therefore ordain isn’t necessarily an inappropriate translation.

Many denominations “ordain” their ministers. Where did this custom come from? Is it biblical?

What was the purpose or duties of those who were appointed elders and overseers?

 

[david_ruiz]

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!

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?

Please read thread # 175. In it I believe I have answered your question, for indeed, yes, faith cometh from hearing, and hearing by the word of God. For God so chose that by the foolishness of preaching should men be saved. One must be sent to preach, and blessed are his feet that bring the good news. I believe I gave honor and blessings to all those who contributed in planting the seeds (His Word-Gospel) in my dead heart. Please read it, for I was a respecter of no one and honored Catholics as well as Protestants .Alleluia !

 

[Abu]

highrigger1 #197
protestants… also do not see anything in scripture to justify any handing down of authority to any individual

How remarkable to deny Christ, and to ridicule the fact that the only reason you have Sacred Scripture is because His Church infallibly declared which books are the inspired Word of God and no others! But further to deny the facts in the Bible!

Jesus specifically entrusts Peter with His authority.
All four promises to Peter alone:
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19)

Sole authority to Peter:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

Firmly and irrevocably given to us by the Sacred Scripture written by His followers in His Church.

Christ Himself proclaimed: “I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you." (John 14:18). “The Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in My name, He will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you.” (John 14:26) “But when He comes, the Spirit of truth, He will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on His own, but He will speak what He hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. He will glorify Me, because He will take from what is mine and declare it to you. Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that He will take from what is mine and declare it to you.” (John 16:13-15)

Fancy equating some 40,000 different sects with different ideas about faith and morals, lacking most sacraments, and without the Sacrifice of the Mass, to Christ’s own and only Catholic Church!

 

[Abu]

highrigger1 #201
many history books and they say that Peter was never a bishop of Rome…Here is an example of one who is writing with the Imprimatur, Raymond E. Brown.

Fancy relying on the confused Raymond Brown and his ilk rather than the facts of Early Christian testimony!

To face reality, all you have to do is to get the facts from the reliable Catholic Answers:
catholic.com/tracts/was-peter-in-rome

“Early Christian Testimony
William A. Jurgens, in his three-volume set The Faith of the Early Fathers, a masterly compendium that cites at length everything from the Didache to John Damascene, includes thirty references to this question, divided, in the index, about evenly between the statements that “Peter came to Rome and died there” and that “Peter established his See at Rome and made the bishop of Rome his successor in the primacy.”

“Tertullian, in *The Demurrer Against the Heretics *(A.D. 200)…wrote that ‘this is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrnaeans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John; like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter.’ This Clement, known as Clement of Rome, later would be the fourth pope. (Note that Tertullian didn’t say Peter consecrated Clement as pope, which would have been impossible since a pope doesn’t consecrate his own successor; he merely ordained Clement as priest.) Clement wrote his Letter to the Corinthians perhaps before the year 70, just a few years after Peter and Paul were killed; in it he made reference to Peter ending his life where Paul ended his.

“In his *Letter to the Romans *(A.D. 110), Ignatius of Antioch remarked that he could not command the Roman Christians the way Peter and Paul once did, such a comment making sense only if Peter had been a leader, if not the leader, of the church in Rome.

“Irenaeus, in *Against Heresies *(A.D. 190), said that Matthew wrote his Gospel “while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church.” A few lines later he notes that Linus was named as Peter’s successor, that is, the second pope, and that next in line were Anacletus (also known as Cletus), and then Clement of Rome.

 

[david_ruiz]

Is ordination like sprinkling spiritual power where there would not have been in the first place ? Or is it like it is there (spiritual giftings) and it is recognized and chanelled into further service ? The eleven chose one Mattias .He may have done well ,don’t know .We also know Jesus chose one and he helped with the other eleven/twelve to turn the world upside down. His name was Paul . Isaiah 66 says God himself will pick out his own ministers in the NT and or end days, unlike the “methodical” method of OT, and I dare say like some of our seminaries/churches . Is one born again when the church baptizes you ? Can you only have true communion when the church /priest consecrates ? Can your sins only be forgiven when the church priest absolves you ? Can you only be a true successor, with authority, when the church gives it to you .So many rites of passage. I love rites but are are they recognition of God’s hand, His infallible hand ,and is it possible to think we channel Him more than He channels us ?

 

[david_ruiz]

“In his *Letter to the Romans *(A.D. 110), Ignatius of Antioch remarked that he could not command the Roman Christians the way Peter and Paul once did, such a comment making sense only if Peter had been a leader, if not the leader, of the church in Rome.

Ignatius -To The Romans : “I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments to you- they were apostles. I am a condemned man , they were free.”…newadvent.org/fathers/0107.htm. The qualification for issuing commands is not being in Rome but being an apostle .This was done by writing at least ,for Paul was NOT free while in Rome.He only mentions two apostles ,but certainly the two most famous .I would not use this text to prove Peter was or was not in Rome.

 

[david_ruiz]

The problem is, when viewed through the lens of their tradition, they see those verses from a different perspective.

Having historically rejected the authority of the Church as was established by Jesus, their tradition holds by necessity the rejection of the notion of a visible authority. In rejecting established authority, they needed a new “authority”, and that authority became Scripture. So with Scripture as the ultimate authority, the "Atomic Church of ‘Me’ " is supposed to be guided to all Truth through understanding the Scriptures.

Make disciples of all men/nations . What is a disciple ? Were the apostles “disciples” ? Did Jesus have two or three sets of disciples ,with differing authority and teachings ?

 

[inkaneer]

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

All very well but apparently Jesus did not agree with the decision of the apostles as HE chose His own replacement for Judas and that was Paul. Matthias was only elected to fill the office of bishop as Peter plainly states. Now until such time as the Church makes a formal doctrinal decision and eternally binds it then Matthias is not an apostle of Jesus Christ.

 

[highrigger1]

=ivebeenshown;9213956]Sounds like word games to me… whether you call it ‘priest’ or ‘elder’, ‘appointment’ or ‘ordination’, the same thing is happening.

ivebeen,

So you dont know the difference beween and old man and a priest?

=The early writings of the Fathers attest to Apostolic succession.

Clement of Rome, who personally knew the Apostles:
Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry.

Irenaeus:
…if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to “the perfect” apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men…

.

None of that proves your case. Frankly, once I see someone changing words around to help their argument I cannot trust them anymore. I get tired of checkng the documents and finding agaiin and again they have changed it.

There were no priests in the NT or the early ECFs. No ordination either. Peace, JohnR

 

[david_ruiz]

Thus, according to their understanding, when Jesus gives Simon a new name, and the keys to the Kingdom, and tells him that whatever he binds on earth will be bound in heaven, and tells the Apostles that whoever’s sins they forgive are forgiven (etc. etc.), those who’s traditions reject Apostolic authority conclude that those Truths must apply directly to each individual Christian.

Upon further reading Joshua I like the way you understand the other side . I found it good news that indeed Christ would have me do anything for Him ,much less entrust deep truths ,even keys and power. Yet where is the power , in that I am ordained or not ? Or is it the power of His Word, the Gospel, as Paul says, Christ crucified and risen ? Is not the Catholic church evangelical , from the top (pope) to the bottom (laity) proclaiming the good news, giving souls the opportunity to be loosed or bound for eternity ? You do not have keys at the tip of your tongue ,even when gathered with one or more in His name ?

 

[highrigger1]

Do you know what the Greek word is in these instances that is translated “appointed”? What the Greek word means? In other words, how do we know how to translate it into English? Why appoint rather than ordain?

Now, a dictionary definition of “ordain” is “to establish or order by appointment, decree, or law.”
Therefore ordain isn’t necessarily an inappropriate translation.

Many denominations “ordain” their ministers. Where did this custom come from? Is it biblical?

What was the purpose or duties of those who were appointed elders and overseers?

mack,
You know as well as I do that ordain carrys a different meaning than appoint. Ordain means make one an official clergy. Appoint simply means to give someone a job to do. Big difference and you should recognize it. There was no ordination in the NT or by the early ECFs. Probably many appointments however.

Protestants ordain their miniisters to have trained people who control the practices of the Church such as the sacraments and who have official recognition of their church for those duties. They might appoint a Sunday School teacher who does not have those same offical duties of a ordained pastor.

The early bishops and elders were not clergy. In those days there was no separation between clergy and laity. They were simply christian leaders. Here is a little from Paul Johnsons A History Of Christianity to explain.

Paul Johnson, History of Christianity

p 44.
“The church was an inversion of normal society. Its leaders exercised their
authority through gifts of the Spirit, not through office. The two noblest
gifts were prophecy and teaching. The apostles set the process in motion,
then the Spirit took over and worked through many people: ‘And God has
appointed in the Church first apostles, then prophets, third teachers, then
workers of miracles, then healers, helpers, administrators, speakers in the
various kinds of tongues.’ Worship was still completely unorganized and
subject to no special control. There was no specific organization to handle
funds. And there was no distinction between clerical class and the laity.
There were, indeed, presbyters in the Judaic Christian Church, but not in
Paul’s new convert congregaions. The atmosphere in short was that of a
loosely organized revivalist movement. Many from time to time ‘spoke with
tongues’; all expected the parousia soon. Clerical control seemed needless
and inappropriate. And the atmosphere in the Pauline churches was reproduced
elsewhere, in a rapidly spreading movement.”

p56
“The idea of a clergy seems to have been a marriage between Greek and Judiac
ideas. The Jerusalem elders of the Jewish-Christian Church possessed an
element of authority; they were ‘pillars’. The bishops and deacons of the
Gentile church originally had purely spiritually functions. They were
charismatics - not organizers, fund-raisers or legislators. This was the
situation portrayed in Paul’s genuine epistles and also in Luke’s Acts.”

p57
“The idea of succession, originally stressed to safeguard belief in the tradition,
was detached from its setting and used to create a doctrine of spiritual office.
Part of their property was that their authority was valid everywhere because
they became special people by virtue of their office. How did they become ‘heirs’?
The answer was shortly supplied by HIPPOLYTUS of Rome, writing early in the third
century, with the notion of a special sanctifying power in epescopal consecration.
This service, he argued, ws the means by which bishops, like the apostles before them,
were endowed with the threefold authority of the high priesthood, the teaching, and
the office of ‘watchman’. They could be ordained only by other bishops - thus for the
first time a sacral differentiation was made in consecration rites.”

p76

“The problem (control) really centers around the existence of a separate and
exclusive clerical class. As we have seen, such a phenomenon was virtually
unknown to the Church in its earliest stages, but became entrenched in the
third century.”

Get the idea? No priests. Peace, JohnR

 

[inkaneer]

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* Matthias replaced Judas only as a bishop. That is clear from Peter’s quote from the OT Psalm “…let another take his office (bishopric).” As such he is the first bishop consecrated by the church and thus established Apostolic Succession. Conversely, if Matthias is an Apostle, as some want to maintain, then the apostolic succession of bishops is destroyed because you have the precedent of one apostle succeeding another and then you have to come up with the apostle who succeeded Peter. Also you have the discrepancy of repeatedly saying there were twelve apostles but in reality counting fourteen. There were twelve apostles. Paul was the twelfth, Matthias was a bishop and Judas was a failure.

 

[inkaneer]

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

Yeah, and the operative part of your post is the word “now”. Back in 1968 the feast of St. Christopher was celebrated on July 25. No doubt about that one either. Then in 1969 July 25 came and went and there was no mention of St, Christopher. Today, there still isn’t. Yet for over 400 years he was a saint with a feastday. Someday May 14 will be celebrated as the feast of St. Matthias, bishop.

 

[ivebeenshown]

There were no priests in the NT or the early ECFs. No ordination either. Peace, JohnR

That’s great, but why should I believe you? I’m pretty sure you weren’t appointed to continue in the teaching ministry of the Apostles…