How do we know infallibility gets passed down?

[inkaneer]

…
inkaneer,

Johson is internally known and he has written many find books on history. His book is said to be the best one volume history of christianity.

I could care less if he were internationally known and written a thousand books. What I want to know is if he is a true historian presenting the facts without bias. The fact that he is a journalist and aims to be controversial tells me he is not above including some bias in his writintg. And WOW!!! he got the entire history of christianity into one volume while Dr. Carroll [who is a true historian] needed six volumes. But then journalists of Johnson’s type are not known for their indepth investigation of facts. Being controversal doesn’t require it.

The fact is that the presbyters were indeed priests ordained by bishops to carry out the sacramental needs of the believers. Check with a good secular source like the Merriam & Websters dictionary which gives the etymology of a word and look up the word priest. There you will find this:

“Origin of PRIEST
Middle English preist, from Old English prēost, ultimately from Late Latin presbyter — more at presbyter
First Known Use: before 12th century”

Going to ‘prebyter’ you will find this:

“Origin of PRESBYTER
Late Latin, elder, priest, from Greek presbyteros, comparative of presbys old man, elder; akin to Greek pro before and Greek bainein to go”

As for definition of presbyter the Merriam & Webster dictionary has:

“Definition of PRESBYTER
1: a member of the governing body of an early Christian church
2: a member of the order of priests in churches having episcopal hierarchies that include bishops, priests, and deacons
3: elder”

The Britannica encyclopedia has this for presbyter:

"presbyter, (from Greek presbyteros, “elder”), an officer or minister in the early Christian Church intermediate between bishop and deacon or, in modern Presbyterianism, an alternative name for elder. The word presbyter is etymologically the original form of “priest.”

Now the Merriam & Wenster’s dictionary as well as the Evcyclopedia Britannica are hardly ‘Catholic’ sources. But they both say the same thing and that is you and your Mr Johnson are all wet. Presbyteros and priest are one in the same.

James 5:14 says:

“Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:”

The word for ‘elder’ there is presbyteroi Now if we go along with you and say this means an old man then we have to ask this question, Why on earth would anyone want an old man slopping oil on them if they were sick? And why an old man? Why not an old woman or a young man or woman? It makes no sense. But if presbyteroi was indeed a priest then annointing a sick person with oil makes a lot of sense. It is still done today- but not in protestant denominations.

 

[joshua_b]

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 ?

 

[joshua_b]

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 ?

I DO understand not only the non-Catholic position, but also the individual perspective that brings with it.

Unfortunately, i simply do not agree with it. I thought I agreed with it, or at least parts of it, for quite a few years. Unfortunately, in full and proper context, handing the Keys of the Kingdom, binding and loosing, and the renaming of Simon all hold very specific significance, and speak specifically to the role that Peter would have. Jesus did not breathe on the crowds (how many times does that happen in Scripture?), Jesus did not make it a habit to arbitrarily rename people (again, how many times is someone given a different name in Scripture?), and when Jesus said “As the Father has sent me, so I send you. Whosoever’s sins you forgive are forgiven; whosoever’s sins you retain are retained”, He did not say it at the sermon on the mount.

We could devote a whole thread to each of these specific passages, and many threads already have been devoted to each, so I won’t even attempt to dissect each of them here.

Ultimately there are two things that brought me back to what I know to be the Church that Jesus established. One of them is the established authority of a visible Church. To reject the premise that Jesus gave us a visible Church and entrusted His Church with real authority just does not make any sense to me. It does not make any sense to me from a Jewish historical context, nor from Scripture, nor from recorded history.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Hi,

highrigger1;9217293 QUOTE=mackbrislawn;9216110

Eusibius discusses it. They knew more than we realize but pseudo authorship was not repugnant to them. They understood it. I am not embarrassed. It is just history to me. I think we owe them credit for putting together a great document for our use in doctrine and practice. Exactly what they intended.

This is interesting. And it’s all new to me. You mean all down through the centuries we were taught that Paul and Peter had written those letters, when all the time it was known that they hadn’t? Amazing. And all this time I thought the churches believed 1&2Timothy, Titus, 1&2Peter were infallible and inspired because they were actually from the hand of an apostle.

Hmm…it doesn’t bother you then that the above letters are probably not inspired? That bothers me. Why should I look to them for my use in doctrine and practice if they aren’t from the apostles?

‘Exactly what they intended’ I have difficulty understanding why I should go by the document “they” put together, especially if “they” are fallible.

Pseudo-authorship was not repugnant to them. Well, I wasn’t around then, so I don’t know if it was repugnant to them or not. Although you seem to know. However, Bart Ehrmann claims that forgery, or “pseudo-authorship”, was just as repugnant to them as it is to us today. Anyway, I find it repugnant.

Incidentally, pseudo-Paul warns about writings circulating about purporting to be by Paul! What an irony!

Anyway, could you point me to the parts of Eusebius where he discusses it?

No mistake. Those books are important and they met the requirements because of the rule of faith. Anyway the only canonizinig was at Trent. Nothiing was canonized earlier. They were simply accepted by consensus informally.

I’m trying to put all this together. Above you say “they” put the books together as they intended, which implies a formal purpose. Then you say they were simply accepted by consensus informally. These statements don’t seem to fit together.

Anyway the statement that the scriptures were accepted by consensus informally, I don’t think is quite true. There were local councils in the 300’s as you know that spoke on the matter, and even though were not ecumenical, they nevertheless carried weight with the churches. And, bishops such as Athanasius made lists. This doesn’t sound informal to me. Which is good, because I don’t want to base my scriptures upon some informal consensus.

Trent’s canonization came about because the question of the canon came about from the Reformation.

Not a formal succession as the term means today. There is no apostolic succession taught in the NT regardless

.

An assertion of opinion.

But maybe you’re right. And if not, why wasn’t it taught in the NT? Because the writers of the NT believed the second coming was imminent and there was no need for anything to follow. The NT simply didn’t make provisions for subsequent generations because there wasn’t to be any subsequent generations. Then the apostles all quickly died and the end hadn’t come and the remaining church was in a quandary. The apostles were infallible, but they were gone. What to do now? An answer was to latch onto the apostles’ writings. But what are the apostles’s writings? And where are they? Is it all right if we make up new writings said to be by an apostle to answer questions that we now have? Or do we decide that authority to decide matters inheres in the church somehow?

John was dead too. He died before Polycarp was born. Ireneaus only heard from Polycarp as a boy. He had a bad memory. Polycarp never confirms it and scholars dont believe that story is literally true. He got John the apostle mixed up with some presbyter John. He said the same thing about Papius but Papius denies it in his writings. Thats in Eusebius.

Fair enough, if it matters. But maybe it does matter, because that means the church was left on its own pretty quick. No wonder it immediately went into apostasy.

A question. You said elders, overseers and such were taken over from Jewish custom. That does seem natural, seeing that the church came from Judaism. It would continue many practices of the Jews. But, you further maintain that they were not official, and that there was no substantial difference between them and everyone else, in spite of 1Peter of the strong distinction made there.

But to get to my question. Did overseers, elders and deacons evolve into later clergy, or did overseers, elders, and deacons go out of existence fairly early on, and the later clergy was invented, with no genetic relationship at all between the two?

Mack

 

[david_ruiz]

I DO understand not only the non-Catholic position, but also the individual perspective that brings with it.

Unfortunately, i simply do not agree with it. I thought I agreed with it, or at least parts of it, for quite a few years. Unfortunately, in full and proper context, handing the Keys of the Kingdom, binding and loosing, and the renaming of Simon all hold very specific significance, and speak specifically to the role that Peter would have. Jesus did not breathe on the crowds (how many times does that happen in Scripture?), Jesus did not make it a habit to arbitrarily rename people (again, how many times is someone given a different name in Scripture?), and when Jesus said “As the Father has sent me, so I send you. Whosoever’s sins you forgive are forgiven; whosoever’s sins you retain are retained”, He did not say it at the sermon on the mount.

We could devote a whole thread to each of these specific passages, and many threads already have been devoted to each, so I won’t even attempt to dissect each of them here.

Ultimately there are two things that brought me back to what I know to be the Church that Jesus established. One of them is the established authority of a visible Church. To reject the premise that Jesus gave us a visible Church and entrusted His Church with real authority just does not make any sense to me. It does not make any sense to me from a Jewish historical context, nor from Scripture, nor from recorded history.

Thank-you. actually ,we can not bind anything that is not bound in heaven first anyways ,under proper understanding of Greek writing . Of course He Has come down from heaven and does the binding . Peter does no binding except thru the Spirit in Him, nor could any Christian (that is why Jesus breathed on them first the Holy Ghost then gave the commission and it did not begin till after Pentecost and the baptism of fire by the Holy Ghost) .Peter at the Jerusalem council said the Spirit filled the gentiles identical to the apostles. A disciple does/imitates the discipler. You are not a disciple of anyone ? …But thanks for your personal thoughts .Many people are attracted to this visible Church and love it’s structure/authority/traditions/sacraments . I can only say I have not rejected the visible church nor any authority /giftings by being catholic and not Catholic. Like you I am encouraged by Scripture ,history, and Jewish perspective. Usually where one is spiritually "birthed " is where they remain.

 

[mackbrislawn]

highrigger1 mackbrislawn;9216911 Yes, you are right, that is the technical, or specialized meaning ‘ordain’ has come to have for us. But it also has the root meaning of to establish by appointment, so by that standard the Greek word (whatever it is) can still legitimately be translated ‘ordain’ in English. (What it is in other languages I do not know.) However, I see why you object to the use of the word ‘ordain,’ because it does have that specialized meaning you want to avoid.

Mack,

The word “ordain” implies clergy or priests. The word “appoint” is more proper and describes the circumstance better. That is why I object. Appoint descibes. Ordain misdescribes.

I understand your position and your objections. Translating that Greek word (whatever it is) as ‘ordain’ carries connotations contrary to your theology, so no wonder you object.

I wonder how that Greek word is translated into other languages, since English isn’t the only language there is.

I would include to second century as early church, sometimes referred to as post apostolic.

Okay. Now, did the late 1st century and 2nd century post-apostolic church have the ability to write inspired scripture? Even though there were no living apostles after 70AD?

Of course they are scripture.

Okay. But is it all right if I decide they are not scripture since they weren’t written by whom I thought they were? Plus, because the church I thought infallibly chose the scriptures isn’t infallible after all?

Bishops were not priests or clergy in the modern way of thinking. Neither were elders. About the third century they began to include priests in the church since the idea of sacrificiing Christ in the eucharist had been develped by then and so priests were needed for a sacrifice.

Both. Elders was a Jewish tradition transferred to the christian gatherings.

Are there elders or overseers in the above sense in any of the churches today?

I think the Gibbons description is quite good for the Ignatius church. Why not? He was early 2nd century

I am not an expert but I read a lot on these subjects and will try to anwer any question as best I can.

Yeah. It’s just that I myself don’t feel that Gibbon’s description fits Ignatius’ churches, nor that of 1Peter. But you do, and that’s good enough for you.

But yes, regarding Eusebius and the canon, I’d like to explore the idea of known pseudo-authorship some more. How does Eusebius describe it. No hurry. I see you have a lot of threads to answer!

Thanks,

Mack

 

[david_ruiz]

All of the Apostles were disciples, but not all of Jesus’ disciples were Apostles.

It is very strange that someone would need a priest when they have just met with and actually are friends with Jesus . So I was thinking of the apostles setting out on the great commission, watching all these people get saved and filled with the Holy Ghost, yet it not being enough. It is like Peter seeing someone walking by with Jesus and saying to the brother to remember that when he needs absolution or a special grace to come and see him (Peter). Doesn’t make sense . Is not Christ still with us ? Aren’t half the epistles reminders of just that, to remember who we are in Christ ? The Holy of Holies is now open to us all, not just for the priestly class. Why would not that cunning adversary want to resew that rent veil ,stitch by stitch. Each stitch soaked in piety and reasoning, ,familiarity/comfort with the old, even scripture. Before you know it , well the more things change, the more they stay the same. Indeed , are we not right back to the Garden of Eden with , "What hath God really said ? Lord help us.

 

[david_ruiz]

I don’t mean has the Holy Spirit’s unction revealed infallibly Christ to you, but have you also been imparted infallible knowledge of Who Christ is in Essence and Being, or rather have infallibly discerned that?

Two natures, 100% God 100% Man, Most Holy Trinity, etc.,etc…

I would detract the part , “have infallibly discerned” cause it may be taken that it is of me. The first part, " been imparted by the Holy Spirit" ,yes. One says we know all things.Another says we have the mind of Christ .Another says we see thru a glass dimly,but then we will see him face to face .Our desire is to apprehend Him Paul says. A child knows he lives by the very breath of air the Lord has given him . Is such a pure and infallible and graced thought wrong cause the child doesn’t know it is really 21% oxygen and so much CO2 etc . ? Remember the blind man before the elders/magisterium of Jerusalem ? That blind man had more wisdom and truth.He is not a respecter of persons. At best, elders or any magisterium are on the same level as any blind man when it comes to receiving illumination from God.

 

[Abu]

So the fantasies from Raymond Brown that Peter was never bishop of Rome have been quietly dropped – where ignorance is bliss ‘tis folly to be wise.

highrigger1 #214
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.
There were no priests in the NT or the early ECFs. No ordination either.

Pure fantasy. Paul Johnson cannot be relied upon for a history of the Catholic Church and his sources are equally ignorant

Having made Peter His Supreme Vicar, Christ gave His Apostles special power to bind and loose, offer the Eucharistic Sacrifice, forgive sins, teaching the Faith – all priestly duties. The appointment of elders with rites of prayer and fasting was the ordaining of priests. Timothy and Titus are bishops since they ordain. (1 Tim 5:19-22).

#224
Of course God is infallible. But no man or woman is infallible.

As the infallible God in His Son Christ irrefutably gave His authority to St Peter to teach in His Church (post #208), more hype.

 

[onemangang]

I would detract the part , “have infallibly discerned” cause it may be taken that it is of me. The first part, " been imparted by the Holy Spirit" ,yes. One says we know all things.Another says we have the mind of Christ .Another says we see thru a glass dimly,but then we will see him face to face .Our desire is to apprehend Him Paul says. A child knows he lives by the very breath of air the Lord has given him . Is such a pure and infallible and graced thought wrong cause the child doesn’t know it is really 21% oxygen and so much CO2 etc . ? Remember the blind man before the elders/magisterium of Jerusalem ? That blind man had more wisdom and truth.He is not a respecter of persons. At best, elders or any magisterium are on the same level as any blind man when it comes to receiving illumination from God.

So, it sounds like you are effectively saying that the Holy Spirit will impart all knowledge, yet man is incapable of infallibly discerning the Holy Spirit’s decree? Correct me if I’m wrong please!

 

[highrigger1]

Hi,

Hmm…it doesn’t bother you then that the above letters are probably not inspired? That bothers me. Why should I look to them for my use in doctrine and practice if they aren’t from the apostles?

 

[highrigger1]

OK, enlighten me, why? Just because you make a stern statement doesn’t make it true, when someone says that doesn’t support your view in a debate, usually the other person will point out why and offer an alternative perspective. You neglected to do that, you just done as david ruiz has been doing the entire thread, effectively said NOPE, THATS NOT IT!]

oneman,

I think none of those quotes had anything to do with christian priests or ordination in the NT. Pick the best one and I will go into it in more detail.

Wise men in a position of religious authority like the Sanhedrin, which many were priest BTW.

Yes Jewish priests are mentioned in the NT as well as nation of priests and priesthood of all believers but not christian clergy priests.

Yes there were priest, and, ordinations, in the same way you like to discuss things I’ll just let that statement stand alone without any codifier to substantiate my claim

No mention of them. Historians support this.

I’ve seen you try to say appoint and ordain are separate altogether , good luck with that

One might appoint a president of ones sunday school class. One does not ordain him however. From a religious standpoint those are not the same.

The word priest (Germ. Priester; Fr. prêtre; Ital. prete) is derived from the Greek presbyteros To apply the word priest to the magicians, prophets, and medicine-men of the religions of primitive peoples is a misuse of the term. The essential correlative of priesthood is sacrifice, consequently, mere leaders in the public prayers or guardians of shrines have no claim to the title priest.

That may be correct. Presbyters were called priests in the third century but the term presbyter in the NT was not a clergy type priest. Presbyter is Greek for Elder and an Elder comes from the Jewish tradition of an older wiser leader of a gathering not religously distinct from the others. No layman/clergy difference.

B]Christ is the sole high-priest of the New Testament, just as His bloody death on the Cross is the sole sacrifice of Christianity.

OK

B]If it is true that “the reception of the idea of sacrifice led to the idea of the ecclesiastical priesthood”

Yes that happened in the third century when the theory of the sacrifice of Christ in the eucharist was introduced. Such dogma not taught in the NT or by the early ECFs.

(loc. cit., p. 48), and that priesthood and sacrifice are reciprocal terms, then the proof of the Divine origin of the Catholic priesthood must be regarded as established,

No. Invented in the 3rd century.

it must also be admitted that in the Church there is a new, visible and external priesthood into which the older priesthood has been changed

Yes. A nation of priests, but not clergy type priests. There were none in the nt or among the early ECFs.

Clement of Rome (Ep. ad Cor., xliv, 4), the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (Didache, xiv), and Tertullian (On Baptism 17; “De præsc. hær.”, xli; “De exhort. cast.”, vii) recognize an official priesthood with the objective Sacrifice of the Mass.

Neither 1 Clement or Didache mentions clergy type priests. In fact the Didache says the bishop is elected by the congregation and a prophet handles the eucharist ceremony.

Conclusion: No clergy type priests in the nt or mentioned by the early ECFs until around the beginning of the 3rd century.

Peace, JohnR

Peace, JohnR

 

[inkaneer]

Thank-you. actually ,we can not bind anything that is not bound in heaven first anyways ,under proper understanding of Greek writing . Of course He Has come down from heaven and does the binding . Peter does no binding except thru the Spirit in Him, nor could any Christian (that is why Jesus breathed on them first the Holy Ghost then gave the commission and it did not begin till after Pentecost and the baptism of fire by the Holy Ghost) .Peter at the Jerusalem council said the Spirit filled the gentiles identical to the apostles. A disciple does/imitates the discipler. You are not a disciple of anyone ? …But thanks for your personal thoughts .Many people are attracted to this visible Church and love it’s structure/authority/traditions/sacraments . I can only say I have not rejected the visible church nor any authority /giftings by being catholic and not Catholic. Like you I am encouraged by Scripture ,history, and Jewish perspective. Usually where one is spiritually "birthed " is where they remain.

Interesting. So tell me something. If, as you say, nothing can be bound that is not first bound in heaven then how can Peter or his successors for that matter, teach error as protestants claim happened and was the reason for their reform/revolt? If you read Mt 16 18-19 and its Old Testament prefigurement [Isaiah 22:22], it is obvious that Peter is selected to occupy the office of the chief steward of the kingdom and is entrusted with the authority [the keys] of that office.

 

[david_ruiz]

Interesting. So tell me something. If, as you say, nothing can be bound that is not first bound in heaven then how can Peter or his successors for that matter, teach error as protestants claim happened and was the reason for their reform/revolt? If you read Mt 16 18-19 and its Old Testament prefigurement [Isaiah 22:22], it is obvious that Peter is selected to occupy the office of the chief steward of the kingdom and is entrusted with the authority [the keys] of that office.

Thanks.but quickly(I’m on break).The stretch ,the catch is Peter and or his successors. One thing is Peter ,another is a 2000 years of successors , most of whom were Italians, and some real bad ones .That is the thread , as to where indeed is infallibility promised. Shall I be like Tertullian ,and say you assume to all successors that which was meant for Peter only ? No one is saying Peter taught error .

 

[highrigger1]

I could care less if he were internationally known and written a thousand books. What I want to know is if he is a true historian presenting the facts without bias. The fact that he is a journalist and aims to be controversial tells me he is not above including some bias in his writintg. And WOW!!! he got the entire history of christianity into one volume while Dr. Carroll [who is a true historian] needed six volumes. But then journalists of Johnson’s type are not known for their indepth investigation of facts. Being controversal doesn’t require it…

ink,

I think he is not biased. He is Catholic and seems to me to bend over to the Catholic way of thinking. Here is part of the introduction to his book.

Taken from Prologue
History of Christianity
Paul Johnson

"It is then a work of history. You may ask; is it possible to write of
Christianity with the requisite degree of historical detachment?
In 1913 Ernst troeltsch argued perusasively that sceptical and
critical methods of historical research were incompatible with
Christian belief; many historians and most religous sociologists
would agree with him. There is, to be sure, an apparent conflict.
Christianity is essentially a historical religion. It bases its
claims on the historical facts it asserts. If these are demolished
it is nothing. Can a Christian, then, examine the truth of these facts
with the same objectivity he would display towards any other phenomenon?
Can he be expected to dig the grave of his own faith if that is the way
his investigations seem to point? In the past, very few Christian
scholars have had the courage or the confidence to place the unhampered
pursuit of truth before any other consideration. Almost all have drawn
the line somewhere. Yet how futile their defensive efforts have proved!

For Chrisianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach - and
properly understood, does teach - that any interference with the truth
is immoral. A christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts;
a christian historian who draws the line limiting the field of enquiry
at any point whatsoever, is admitting the liimits of his faith. And
he is also destroying the nature of his religion, which is a progressive
revelation of the truth. So the Christian, according to my understanding,
should not be inhibited in the smallest degree from following the line of
truth; indeed he is positively bound to follow it. He should be in fact,
freer than the non-Christian, who is precommitted by his own rejection.
At all events, I have sought to present the facts of Christian history
as truthfully and nakedly as I am able, and to leave the rest to the
reader."

The fact is that the presbyters were indeed priests ordained by bishops to carry out the sacramental needs of the believers. Check with a good secular source like the Merriam & Websters dictionary which gives the etymology of a word and look up the word priest. There you will find this:

Cannot disagree. Presbyters became priests in the third century. Before that they were no priests,

James 5:14 says:

“Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:”

The word for ‘elder’ there is presbyteroi Now if we go along with you and say this means an old man then we have to ask this question, Why on earth would anyone want an old man slopping oil on them if they were sick? And why an old man? Why not an old woman or a young man or woman? It makes no sense. But if presbyteroi was indeed a priest then annointing a sick person with oil makes a lot of sense. It is still done today- but not in protestant denominations

We dont use oil but otherwise repentance is always encouraged. This James 5 verse though reflects only Jewish tradition where they prayed over the sick and for their sins. There is nothing distinctly christian about it. Has nothing to do with clergy priests.

Peace, JohnR

 

[Luvtosew]

Jesus has the Keys to his kingdom

Revelation 3:7-13

King James Version (KJV)

7And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth;

When he gave the keys to the disciples the keys signified “knowledge” of what is needed for one to enter the kingdom of Heaven.

The Rock is Jesus Christ and it is his Church.

 

[david_ruiz]

Jesus has the Keys to his kingdom

Revelation 3:7-13

King James Version (KJV)

7And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth;

When he gave the keys to the disciples the keys signified “knowledge” of what is needed for one to enter the kingdom of Heaven.

The Rock is Jesus Christ and it is his Church.

Howdy Luv.Thanks Amen .Be prepared for the question that yes , Jesus has the keys in heaven, but who has them on earth (as was put to me). Hey, thread #246 has something about sewing ! PS on further thought ,you have already answered that next question .Thanks again

 

[inkaneer]

Thanks.but quickly(I’m on break).The stretch ,the catch is Peter and or his successors. One thing is Peter ,another is a 2000 years of successors , most of whom were Italians, and some real bad ones .That is the thread , as to where indeed is infallibility promised. Shall I be like Tertullian ,and say you assume to all successors that which was meant for Peter only ? No one is saying Peter taught error .

Don’t tell me you want to use the old impeccability ruse. Come on now. Are you telling me that it is impossible for the Holy Spirit to guide a sinner into teaching truth. Let’s be serious here as well as practical. For 500 years now mainline protestants have been trying to find one case, just one measely little case, where a Pope taught error. They have found none, nada, zilch zero, big goose egg. Do you know the best that they can come up with? It is Pope Honorius. They claim that he specifically taught Monothelitism, a heresy that held that Christ had only one will (a divine one), not two wills (a divine one and a human one) as all orthodox Christians hold. But that’s not at all what Honorius did. What Honorius did do was nothing. Any review of the records shows that when he was presented with an opportunity to make a formal definition he left the matter undefined. That hardly is teaching error because Honorius was not teaching anything.

As for the successors of Peter having the same infallibility to bind and loose as Peter did. Does it occur to you that it would be awfully short sighted, not to mention stupid, of this infinitely intelligent God to only have His church guided into truth for one generation? Furthermore how can protestants claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit if that guidance died with the apostles? And if Peter’s successors were not infallible then how can anyone say that those writings contained in that book called the Bible are inspired by God. Those men who decided which writings were inspired were bishops of the Catholic Church so you better hope they got it right because if they didn’t then you and a lot of other people are wasting your time. One more thing. Mt 16:18-19 has to be read as the NT fulfillment of Isaiah 22:22 in the OT. Peter occupises an office the symbol of which as in the OT, are the keys. Those keys belong to that office and not to the man. When Peter dies his successor will have the keys. And thus God’s church is assured of teaching truth down through the centuries to the present day. Today Benedicxt XVI holds those keys.

 

[david_ruiz]

Don’t tell me you want to use the old impeccability ruse. Come on now. Are you telling me that it is impossible for the Holy Spirit to guide a sinner into teaching truth. Let’s be serious here as well as practical. For 500 years now mainline protestants have been trying to find one case, just one measely little case, where a Pope taught error. They have found none, nada, zilch zero, big goose egg. Do you know the best that they can come up with? It is Pope Honorius. They claim that he specifically taught Monothelitism, a heresy that held that Christ had only one will (a divine one), not two wills (a divine one and a human one) as all orthodox Christians hold. But that’s not at all what Honorius did. What Honorius did do was nothing. Any review of the records shows that when he was presented with an opportunity to make a formal definition he left the matter undefined. That hardly is teaching error because Honorius was not teaching anything.

Yes ,there was a thread a year and a half ago where the question was posed to present any teaching errors and Honorius came up but it did not “stick”. I don’t recall contributing anything ,other than Pope Stephen (3-4th C ?) allowing/validating other church baptisms, based on his premise that baptism did not confer , impute the Spirit (not “effectual” - did not in itself regenerate the spirit, that baptism was only for remission of sins). But his decree was correct and still stands today ,though based on different theology, that CC would later decree (regeneration at baptism). I believe I also mentioned three relatively new doctrines: the Immaculate Conception -1854 ,infallibility 1870 ,and the Assumption 1950 as examples of contested error…I understand what you are saying ,that even the worst of Popes introduced no doctrinal error. However, did they ( bad popes) introduce any new doctrine anyways ? Should there be any new doctrine 1000 years after Christ ascended ? I can see doctrine that deals with future/end times, but I thought most basic stuff was ironed out by third/ fourth century. It would be interesting to see the doctrinal decrees thru the ages ,you know, that are considered infallible and required belief for all.

As for the successors of Peter having the same infallibility to bind and loose as Peter did. Does it occur to you that it would be awfully short sighted, not to mention stupid, of this infinitely intelligent God to only have His church guided into truth for one generation? Furthermore how can protestants claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit if that guidance died with the apostles? And if Peter’s successors were not infallible then how can anyone say that those writings contained in that book called the Bible are inspired by God. Those men who decided which writings were inspired were bishops of the Catholic Church so you better hope they got it right because if they didn’t then you and a lot of other people are wasting your time.

Again ,I explained where infallibility lies earlier and that the Lord has indeed kept His promises. I am not suggesting it was to Peter and none after. The infallibility I described yes was for the apostles ,and successors ,as well as the whole body of Peter’s time ,and all successors ,down to today.

One more thing. Mt 16:18-19 has to be read as the NT fulfillment of Isaiah 22:22 in the OT.

Has to be ? I like study ,and not sure ,but could not this also be prophetic of Christ ? Indeed Revelations specifically recalls this to Christ , the opening and shutting of doors, here on earth. Does government rest on Peter or the pope ? It did for awhile to successors ,that is civil gov., and indeed with a glorious throne.

Those keys belong to that office and not to the man

.I would not deny that Peter had keys ,and indeed he opened doors(well the Lord in Him) .I would also not deny so did all the other apostles . And disciples .And all the Body. I can not separate Peter from his office any more than anyone from his place in the body , nor from his giftings .I sure would hope an apostle a teacher/ prophet, of yesterday ,tomorrow etc. would have keys/authority. As Luvtosew pointed out , keys can be at least knowledge, illumined mysteries of the kingdom. What else was Peter learning for three years ?

When Peter dies his successor will have the keys And thus God’s church is assured of teaching truth down through the centuries to the present day.

Agreed, if keys is knowledge, that the entire body is privy to, this unction from the Holy One.

 

[david_ruiz]

Don’t tell me you want to use the old impeccability ruse. Come on now. Are you telling me that it is impossible for the Holy Spirit to guide a sinner into teaching truth. Let’s be serious here as well as practical. For 500 years now mainline protestants have been trying to find one case, just one measely little case, where a Pope taught error. They have found none, nada, zilch zero, big goose egg. Do you know the best that they can come up with? It is Pope Honorius. They claim that he specifically taught Monothelitism, a heresy that held that Christ had only one will (a divine one), not two wills (a divine one and a human one) as all orthodox Christians hold. But that’s not at all what Honorius did. What Honorius did do was nothing. Any review of the records shows that when he was presented with an opportunity to make a formal definition he left the matter undefined. That hardly is teaching error because Honorius was not teaching anything.

Yes ,there was a thread a year and a half ago where the question was posed to present any teaching errors and Honorius came up but it did not “stick”. I don’t recall contributing anything ,other than Pope Stephen (3-4th C ?) allowing/validating other church baptisms, based on his premise that baptism did not confer , impute the Spirit (not “effectual” - did not in itself regenerate the spirit, that baptism was only for remission of sins). But his decree was correct and still stands today ,though based on different theology, that CC would later decree (regeneration at baptism). I believe I also mentioned three relatively new doctrines: the Immaculate Conception -1854 ,infallibility 1870 ,and the Assumption 1950 as examples of contested error…I understand what you are saying ,that even the worst of Popes introduced no doctrinal error. However, did they ( bad popes) introduce any new doctrine anyways ? Should there be any new doctrine 1000 years after Christ ascended ? I can see doctrine that deals with future/end times, but I thought most basic stuff was ironed out by third/ fourth century. It would be interesting to see the doctrinal decrees thru the ages ,you know, that are considered infallible and required belief for all.

As for the successors of Peter having the same infallibility to bind and loose as Peter did. Does it occur to you that it would be awfully short sighted, not to mention stupid, of this infinitely intelligent God to only have His church guided into truth for one generation? Furthermore how can protestants claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit if that guidance died with the apostles? And if Peter’s successors were not infallible then how can anyone say that those writings contained in that book called the Bible are inspired by God. Those men who decided which writings were inspired were bishops of the Catholic Church so you better hope they got it right because if they didn’t then you and a lot of other people are wasting your time.

Again ,I explained where infallibility lies earlier and that the Lord has indeed kept His promises. I am not suggesting it was to Peter and none after. The infallibility I described yes was for the apostles ,and successors ,as well as the whole body of Peter’s time ,and all successors ,down to today.

One more thing. Mt 16:18-19 has to be read as the NT fulfillment of Isaiah 22:22 in the OT.

Has to be ? I like study ,and not sure ,but could not this also be prophetic of Christ ? Indeed Revelations specifically recalls this to Christ , the opening and shutting of doors, here on earth. Does government rest on Peter or the pope ? It did for awhile to successors ,that is civil gov., and indeed with a glorious throne.

Those keys belong to that office and not to the man

.I would not deny that Peter had keys ,and indeed he opened doors(well the Lord in Him) .I would also not deny so did all the other apostles . And disciples .And all the Body. I can not separate Peter from his office any more than anyone from his place in the body , nor from his giftings .I sure would hope an apostle a teacher/ prophet, of yesterday ,tomorrow etc. would have keys/authority. As Luvtosew pointed out , keys can be at least knowledge, illumined mysteries of the kingdom. What else was Peter learning for three years ?

When Peter dies his successor will have the keys And thus God’s church is assured of teaching truth down through the centuries to the present day.

Agreed, if keys is knowledge, that the entire body is privy to, this unction from the Holy One.