How do we know infallibility gets passed down?

[david_ruiz]

But you (and John) seem to have been arguing that all of us–the “nation of priests” who make up the body of Christ–can and do have access to this “special knowledge” and should be able to override and ignore those “careful in discipleship” who have preceded us and those who have been “appoint[ed] to carry on the ministry” of teaching the faith.

Well first of all, that is what we are discussing , are we of a nation of priests that have access to all or “special knowledge” ? Some say yes and some no. So your first part of the question I get but then you take a turn and think we say, " (we)should be able to override and ignore those “careful in discipleship” who have preceded us and those who have been “appoint[ed] to carry on the ministry” of teaching the faith" . I understand as a Catholic you feel non-Catholics do this. Perhaps, I mean there are over 30,000 sets of doctrines ( not ! ) so I am sure some of them or parts of them do.
Otherwise, it is a bit prejudicial to say automatically this nation of priests should be able to override wise council, the prejudice being that it is indeed "wise’ council they are rejecting. The other side says not only are they able to reject ,but indeed should reject “unwise” council. The prejudice is also that this council is indeed from the beginning, apostolic ,that it has come down to us “carefully”…Let me just say this ,it is possible for God to reveal all good things to an individual quite directly ,in prayer and study and meditation. May I also say we are a Body ,with many giftings, for the equipping of the saints . We can and should glean much from each other , and from our forefathers for sure.

 

[david_ruiz]

Could you please provide the historical references you use to determine this? All the historical references I have ever read about the Eastern Orthodox Church said that it split from the Roman Catholic Church. The dispute in that case was mainly over the Filioque clause.

.

Howdy neighbor. The history to be discerned is not of the Eastern church, but that of as you say, the Roman Catholic Church. As you see it’s formation, and apparently there seems to be two views, you will see eastern church history accordingly.

 

[david_ruiz]

…The Primacy of The Vicar of Christ has never been disputed in Christ’s Church, from the beginning ", a quote from Abu . I am contesting that assertion by Abu . I am not basing the primacy of Rome on “contestation” at this moment. I am just saying it has been contested. What is your take on it ?

Every time I have read anything about the primacy being disputed throughout history, it revolved around a certain group within the church that formed doctrines that conflicted with church doctrine (with the exception of a time when there was a dispute over who was actually pope). After much debating, a formal declaration of the doctrine was put forth (infallible ruling). In most cases the person or people disputing the doctrine would then leave the church, because they had not succeeded in changing the doctrine that was already being taught-- if it was not being taught already, then logically it would not be in dispute (how can something be disputed that didn’t already exist previously?). And if it was something that had been just made up recently, then certainly the detractors would have pointed that out as probable cause to dismiss the doctrine as fraudulent.

Totally understand where you are coming from. After all, being now in Protestantism’s 30,000 divisions (not), we have much experience in your well described scenario. It has happened as you say, and early on I would agree in the CC stands. However, it is not once saved always saved, once right always right. Because the church was right on say the trinity and the nature of Christ, does not mean she was right on the eucharist, or confession, or regeneration at baptism, or Mary doctrine. Remember what you are asking others to believe , is that for two thousand years, she has been right and all the others wrong. What must be remembered is that many of the reformers were good Catholics, in the clergy, well educated, having that special anointing and even part of succession. Many did not wish to "depart " but had sincere hope of reform.Please do not forget how extremely difficult it was to go “against the grain” ,with possible threat of total ostricization from society itself .Not to mention of threats to life and liberty and property. The same things could be said about our revolutionary fathers against England. Were they cry babies, who did not like authority ? Perhaps, but most gave there fortunes and many their lives for this cause. But reform was impossible, even on minor issues. Why ? Cause to admit any error (doctrinal or practice) was inconceivable and politically inexpedient. It is like the two rules : #1- she is always right , #2- when she is wrong refer to rule #1. It is about protecting the status quo. Many scholars have said Luther would be a Catholic saint today had he been placated on minor issues, but the “flexibility” was not there, as once had been.

 

[Abu]

david ruiz #270
This primacy has been contested every time it was asserted, down to today.

The recognition of the primacy, the assent displayed, is so evident that it is idle speculation, assumption, and denial of history that clouds the intellect and saps the understanding of this poster. It is only dissenters and schismatics that deny Christ in giving His authority to teach infallibly to His Supreme Vicar.

**Pope Julius I **
“[The] judgment [against Athanasius] ought to have been made, not as it was, but according to the ecclesiastical canon. . . . Are you ignorant that the custom has been to write first to us and then for a just decision to be passed from this place [Rome]? If, then, any such suspicion rested upon the bishop there [Athanasius of Alexandria], notice of it ought to have been written to the church here. But now, after having done as they pleased, they want to obtain our concurrence, although we never condemned him. Not thus are the constitutions of Paul, not thus the traditions of the Fathers. This is another form of procedure, and a novel practice. . . . What I write about this is for the common good. For what we have heard from the blessed apostle Peter, these things I signify to you” (Letter on Behalf of Athanasius [A.D. 341], contained in *Athanasius, Apology Against the Arians *20–35).

Council of Sardica
“If any bishop loses the judgment in some case [decided by his fellow bishops] and still believes that he has not a bad but a good case, in order that the case may be judged anew . . . let us honor the memory of the apostle Peter by having those who have given the judgment write to Julius, bishop of Rome, so that if it seem proper he may himself send arbiters and the judgment may be made again by the bishops of a neighboring province” (Canon 3 [A.D. 342]).

**Optatus **
“You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas ‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all” (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).

**Epiphanius of Salamis **
“At Rome the first apostles and bishops were Peter and Paul, then Linus, then Cletus, then Clement, the contemporary of Peter and Paul” (*Medicine Chest Against All Heresies *27:6 [A.D. 375]).

**Pope Damasus I **
“Likewise it is decreed: . . . [W]e have considered that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see [today], therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it” (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).

#281(on the origin of the Orthodox Church)
there seems to be two views

This poster is absolutely mesmerized by “views” – facts are of little consequence.

Apart from denying the reality of the infallibility of the Pope and His supremacy, the Orthodox reject the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, and permit divorce and remarriage. Their priestly ordinations are valid and therefore so is the Mass.

 

[Trebor135]

Well first of all, that is what we are discussing , are we of a nation of priests that have access to all or “special knowledge” ? Some say yes and some no. So your first part of the question I get but then you take a turn and think we say, " (we)should be able to override and ignore those “careful in discipleship” who have preceded us and those who have been “appoint[ed] to carry on the ministry” of teaching the faith" . I understand as a Catholic you feel non-Catholics do this. Perhaps, I mean there are over 30,000 sets of doctrines ( not ! ) so I am sure some of them or parts of them do.
Otherwise, it is a bit prejudicial to say automatically this nation of priests should be able to override wise council, the prejudice being that it is indeed "wise’ council they are rejecting. The other side says not only are they able to reject ,but indeed should reject “unwise” council. The prejudice is also that this council is indeed from the beginning, apostolic ,that it has come down to us “carefully”…Let me just say this ,it is possible for God to reveal all good things to an individual quite directly ,in prayer and study and meditation. May I also say we are a Body ,with many giftings, for the equipping of the saints . We can and should glean much from each other , and from our forefathers for sure.

Translation: we’ll give precedence to those who came before us in a few areas, and lip service in a few others, but we can make the faith up as we go along in all other respects. By this way of doing things, the faith will never stay the same, as each generation compromises with the spirit of the age and sways with every wind of doctrine.

In post #122 of the recent thread “Is Protestantism, in it’s nature, a heresy?” (see page 9), Patavium cites St. Irenaeus of Lyons, writing in the late second century, as follows (Against Heresies 3.2.2):

But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; and that not the apostles alone, but even the Lord Himself, spoke as at one time from the Demiurge, at another from the intermediate place, and yet again from the Pleroma, but that they themselves, indubitably, unsulliedly, and purely, have knowledge of the hidden mystery: this is, indeed, to blaspheme their Creator after a most impudent manner! It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition.

An up-to-date version of this passage would read:

But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the clergy today, but even than the Christians of the first few centuries of the faith, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the successors of the apostles and the faithful over time intermingled the traditions of man with the teachings of Scripture; and that not some among the laity alone, but even the successors of the apostles, spoke on increasingly more numerous occasions from the inspiration of man but that they themselves, indubitably, unsulliedly, and purely, have knowledge of the hidden mystery: this is, indeed, to speak ill of their ancestors in faith after a most impudent manner! It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition.

As it turns out, Protestantism and Gnosticism are… strikingly similar.

David, if you wanted to write a modern version of “Against Heresies”, which doctrines would you target?

 

[Abu]

david ruiz #282
Because the church was right on say the trinity and the nature of Christ, does not mean she was right on the eucharist or confession or regeneration at baptism, or Mary doctrine .Remember what you are asking others to believe , is that for two thousand years, she has been right and the others wrong.

Such a denial of Christ results in the confusion which this poster exhibits. It follows the denial of Her Scriptures through St Paul:
The Church is “the pillar and bulwark of the truth” (1 Tim 3:16). St. Paul says also, “through the Church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places” (Eph 3:10).The Church teaches even the angels! This is with the authority of Christ!

He denies Christ also in giving His Church through His Apostles the power to forgive sins, and the Sacrifice of the Eucharist at the Last Supper.

Such self-will and arrogance is what develops through Original Sin when pride takes over.

 

[JonathonofOhio]

Howdy neighbor. The history to be discerned is not of the Eastern church, but that of as you say, the Roman Catholic Church. As you see it’s formation, and apparently there seems to be two views, you will see eastern church history accordingly.

Since the history of the Eastern Orthodox Church includes two opposing views concerning the Filioque Clause contained within the Nicene creed that existed first in the Catholic Church, which resulted in it’s eventual formation in the first place, how can one discern the history of one without addressing the history of the other, since both were in existence at the time of it’s formation?

Pope (St. Leo IX, 1048-56 precedes the schism which officially is said to have occurred in 1054…how can there be a schism if only one church existed? Did it disagree with itself and then setup shop in the east?

Side note: The Eastern Orthodox Church was not always called “Orthodox”. It was just referred to the Eastern Church and it is unclear as to when the name “Eastern Orthodox” was adopted.

In what year, according to your version of history, was the Catholic Church established?

 

[Trebor135]

Totally understand where you are coming from. After all, being now in Protestantism’s 30,000 divisions (not), we have much experience in your well described scenario.

There are five thousand Protestant denominations. Here’s the list.

It has happened as you say, and early on I would agree in the CC stands. However, it is not once saved always saved, once right always right. Because the church was right on say the trinity and the nature of Christ, does not mean she was right on the eucharist, or confession, or regeneration at baptism, or Mary doctrine.

On what basis do you conclude that the Catholics and Orthodox haven’t gone astray on the trinity and the nature of Christ as well?

Remember what you are asking others to believe , is that for two thousand years, she has been right and all the others wrong.

But you would tell the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Mormons that we Christians have been right all along on the trinity and the nature of Christ. Both sects claim, just as you’re doing, that the faith was corrupted and it has become necessary for new groups to be founded.

What must be remembered is that many of the reformers were good Catholics, in the clergy, well educated, having that special anointing and even part of succession.

So were Arius, Eutyches, and other heretics of the early centuries. Why don’t you follow their doctrines?

Many did not wish to "depart "

And did it anyway.

but had sincere hope of reform.

Rather, they had “sincere hope” of imposing their novelties on the Catholic Church as a whole.

Please do not forget how extremely difficult it was to go “against the grain” ,

Why should apostolic Christians feel any sympathy for those wanting to change the faith potentially beyond all recognition?

with possible threat of total ostricization from society itself .Not to mention of threats to life and liberty and property.

I’m not in favour of shunning or executing those who believe differently, but I still can find no place in my heart for Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli. May God have mercy on their souls–and on ours.

The same things could be said about our revolutionary fathers against England.

Preposterous comparison.

Were they cry babies, who did not like authority ? Perhaps, but most gave there fortunes and many their lives for this cause.

Neither Luther, nor Calvin, not even Zwingli were executed for their actions. I can’t speak to their financial status after launching/joining the Protestant Revolt.

But reform was impossible, even on minor issues. Why ? Cause to admit any error (doctrinal or practice) was inconceivable and politically inexpedient. It is like the two rules : #1- she is always right , #2- when she is wrong refer to rule #1. It is about protecting the status quo. Many scholars have said Luther would be a Catholic saint today had he been placated on minor issues, but the “flexibility” was not there, as once had been.

Which is indeed unfortunate (no sarcasm), for the catastrophe of the Protestant Revolt could have been averted if the Catholic Church had taken swift action right away to address legitimate concerns (e.g., by ending the sale of indulgences and enjoining Mass be said not in Latin but in the vernacular languages).

 

[JonathonofOhio]

But you would tell the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons that we Christians have been right all along on the trinity and the nature of Christ. Both sects claim, just as you’re doing, that the faith was corrupted and it has become necessary for new groups to be founded.

That seems to be a very common excuse for the formation of a new denominations: that everyone else got it wrong and now they came along and they got it right. That the Church somehow became corrupt and now we have to start all over with the original teachings.

But this is calling Jesus a liar. He said, “On this rock I will build my Church, and not even the gates of Hell [death] will prevail against it.”

If death can not overcome and corrupt his church, then it is not possible for his church to be completely corrupted since death is the most powerful weapon Satan has, and Christ has overcome it.

 

[Trebor135]

That seems to be a very common excuse for the formation of a new denominations: that everyone else got it wrong and now they came along and they got it right. That the Church somehow became corrupt and now we have to start all over with the original teachings.

But this is calling Jesus a liar. He said, “On this rock I will build my Church, and not even the gates of Hell [death] will prevail against it.”

If death can not overcome and corrupt his church, then it is not possible for his church to be completely corrupted since death is the most powerful weapon Satan has, and Christ has overcome it.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormon sects are the logical extention of Protestantism.

 

[david_ruiz]

Translation: we’ll give precedence to those who came before us in a few areas, and lip service in a few others, but we can make the faith up as we go along in all other respects. By this way of doing things, the faith will never stay the same, as each generation compromises with the spirit of the age and sways with every wind of doctrine.

In post #122 of the recent thread “Is Protestantism, in it’s nature, a heresy?” (see page 9), Patavium cites St. Irenaeus of Lyons, writing in the late second century, as follows (Against Heresies 3.2.2):

An up-to-date version of this passage would read:

As it turns out, Protestantism and Gnosticism are… strikingly similar.

David, if you wanted to write a modern version of “Against Heresies”, which doctrines would you target?

Well thank-you Interesting response .I can only quickly say the Jewish status quo thought Christ was “disrespectful” to the forefathers also. I will try to apply the gnostic scenario and would hope you apply the jewish scenario.

 

[david_ruiz]

The Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormon sects are the logical extention of Protestantism.

Quite possibly true yet maybe none of it would have happened if Tetze (Germany-indulgences-Luther) were not gruesomely wrong , like the money changers in the temple Jesus rebuked. Yet you had crazy dissenters way before any protestants -think France-was it the Albigensis or something . Things cut both ways, but yes ,sin is ugly

 

[Trebor135]

Well thank-you Interesting response .

Thanks.

I can only quickly say the Jewish status quo thought Christ was “disrespectful” to the forefathers also. I will try to apply the gnostic scenario and would hope you apply the jewish scenario.

I’ve heard that analogy before, and it just doesn’t work.

Jesus was the second person of the trinity incarnated as man, so had the authority to deal as he saw fit with the religious leadership of his day. Christ rose from the dead after enduring a terrible death by crucifixion courtesy of the Romans.

Did God reveal himself to mankind by means of incarnation through Luther, Calvin, or Zwingli? No. Did Luther, Calvin, or Zwingli suffer execution at the hands of the authorities only to resurrect three days later? No.

Since you believe firmly in sola scriptura, I would like to ask two questions:

(1) Where in the Bible is each individual Christian given the right to establish a new sect any time he doesn’t like the way things are going or finds that the teachings being proposed to him do not line up with Scripture?

(2) Where in the Bible are such teachers of grave error as Marcion, Arius, and Eutyches foretold and declared personae non grata in the kingdom of God, but such plucky rebels against the established order as Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli are predicted and celebrated as God’s first European messengers who–after many centuries of gradual corruption–will bring back the true faith preserved in Scripture?

 

[david_ruiz]

But this is calling Jesus a liar. He said, “On this rock I will build my Church, and not even the gates of Hell [death] will prevail against it.”

 

[david_ruiz]

Thanks.

I’ve heard that analogy before, and it just doesn’t work.

 

[Trebor135]

Quite possibly true

That’s an astounding admission. Thank you.

yet maybe none of it would have happened if Tetze (Germany-indulgences-Luther) were not gruesomely wrong ,

But this wasn’t a matter of doctrine. The Catholic Church–if I’m not mistaken–hadn’t approved Tätzel’s actions; moreover, the Council of Trent ended the sale of indulgences. Luther proposing new doctrines cannot be justified (no pun intended) by what some German guy was doing wrong.

like the money changers in the temple Jesus rebuked.

Jesus and Luther are incomparable. The former died on a cross for our salvation. The latter didn’t do anything nearly as worthy of our gratitude, respect, and awe.

Yet you had crazy dissenters way before any protestants -think France-was it the Albigensis or something .

Well, Marcion, Arius, and Eutyches were dissenters too, but you don’t follow their doctrines. Moreover, the Albigensians–also known as Cathars–appear to have been a west-European sect with… Gnostic influences. Given the passage from Irenaeus’s Against Heresies that I cited and rendered in modern terms earlier in the thread, it is more than a little ironic that you would point to that sect in defense of Protestantism to show that Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli had at least one historical precedent to fall back upon!

Things cut both ways, but yes ,sin is ugly

Indeed. May God be truly gracious and forgiving to all of us at our judgment.

 

[Trebor135]

This is not litmus test for righteousness -resurrection.That is it can be, for us in the FUTURE, but…Did not Jesus rebuke the Jews saying their forefathers slew the righteous prophets (and they did not resurrect-yet.)

True.

Please ,no one is saying they started a new religion like Mohammed .

You seem to believe that they held as much authority as the Old Testament prophets–at least enough to found new sects that the already-existing Christians should join.

Luther gave no new revelation.

Then who taught the doctrines of salvation by grace alone through faith alone and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the believer’s account before 1500?

You’ve criticized the Catholic Church for defining doctrines in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and objected to the immaculate conception and assumption of St. Mary as being innovations. (For a couple reasons I myself am not comfortable with those teachings being dogmatized, but that question is for another day.)

Let’s apply a consistent standard when determining whether certain teachings merit our acceptance.

just like Jesus gave no real new revelation. It was new only if you were blind and unregenerate.

From Mark chapter seven:

[14] And he called the people to him again, and said to them, “Hear me, all of you, and understand:
[15] there is nothing outside a man which by going into him can defile him; but the things which come out of a man are what defile him.”

Christ here tells his Jewish audience that they should no longer regard eating certain foods as gravely sinful. This doesn’t count as “new revelation” in a sense?

Dispensations come and go but God is the same yesterday,today and tomorrow.

Correctly qualified–keeping the Mark passage above in mind–I agree.

 

[JonathonofOhio]

Quite possibly true yet maybe none of it would have happened if Tetze (Germany-indulgences-Luther) were not gruesomely wrong , like the money changers in the temple Jesus rebuked. Yet you had crazy dissenters way before any protestants -think France-was it the Albigensis or something . Things cut both ways, but yes ,sin is ugly

I think I would also liken it to the money-changers in the temple. It was definitely wrong, and a dark time in the Church’s history. Jesus told us that there would be divisions among us (Luke 12:51). He chose 12, wasn’t one a devil? Satan has tried over and over to corrupt the entire church, but each time he tries, God raises up good people to fight against it. Unfortunately, this results in more division and hatred towards his holy church, because Satan knows: a house divided against itself cannot stand (Matthew 12:25).

 

[JonathonofOhio]

Only if there is not other possible interpretation, but alas there is and has been for at least a millenia. Christ is not a liar we agree ,He just fulfills this scripture differently than you think

God said that when a man and woman come together they are one flesh. The church is the bride of Christ, and so Christ is one with his Church. Putting faith in Christ is putting faith in his Church. Christ is not divided, nor is the body (1 Corinthians 1:13). It is united in one faith-- and we are not followers of Luther, or Wycliffe or any other man who founded a church, or preached the gospels. They claim, as do you to be part of his church, but they are not because they are not with us (1 John 2:19). If you were of us, you would be with us, but you are not of us, and this is so it is known to the world and God that you are not of us. No one established our Church but Jesus himself, therefore, we do not belong to any man but to Jesus Christ. We do not say we are followers of the pope, and we do not put our trust in any man who has disagreed with Church doctrine and then left and formed his own church. We put trust is God, in Jesus Christ, and his Holy Church, his servants (yes, some of whom turn out to be bad servants-- but those bad servants have no effect on my salvation).

You say, ‘[the church is] continually growing’, but as it was said before, the common excuse for new denominations is that ‘the church has been corrupted and now we must start over.’…if there is a continued growth then it should be seen in history from the time of Christ, and indeed it is, but not among Protestants or any other religion claiming to come from Christ. That church, which was built by Christ, is the Catholic Church. Historical record, regardless of what you choose to believe, is proof enough of that. From humble beginnings, the Church expanded and grew. Throwing out both the historical records and the archeological evidence, accepting a distorted view of history, and then making wild claims that the Catholic Church was invented, is fallacious arguing and based on actual historical record.

The church had it trials, and it had it’s dark times (to be expected since the world rejects her), but it has grown and spread to nearly every corner of the world. But all the churches Satan founded, perversions of God’s Church, have also grown and spread too like a cancer, trying to snuff out the light and life of the world.

 

[JonathonofOhio]

That’s an astounding admission. Thank you.
But this wasn’t a matter of doctrine. The Catholic Church–if I’m not mistaken–hadn’t approved Tätzel’s actions; moreover, the Council of Trent ended the sale of indulgences. Luther proposing new doctrines cannot be justified (no pun intended) by what some German guy was doing wrong.

I’d just like to add this:

Luther took a rather extreme stand against indulgences. His argument was a false dichotomy; either you have to get rid of indulgences or the church remains corrupt. A false dichotomy is a type of logical fallacy that involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option. The options may be a position that is between the two extremes (such as when there are shades of grey) or may be a completely different alternative. The Church proposed a reform in order to curb abuses, but since Luther saw that as supporting continued corruption in the Church (when in fact it wasn’t), a division occurred. Divisions and disputes are often a result of narrow-minded thinking.