How do we know infallibility gets passed down?

[inkaneer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
There are no new doctrines. The ones you cite, Immaculate Conception, Papal infallibility and Assumption are not new. The doctrines previously lacked formal definition which is what happened in 1854, 1870 and 1950. Now if you want to call those new doctrines then what about the Trinity? I suppose that is a new doctrine in your eyes also. Most doctrines in the church still lack formal definition to this day. A good exampl,e is the canon of scripture. It was set at 73 books in 400 AD. The canon was never formally defined until 1547 at Trent. However, the canon was not new in 1547 AD it was the same one as in 400 AD. The infallibility was promised to Peter alone in Mt 16:18-19 and then to the college of Apostles, including Peter, in Mt 18:18. This “group infallibility”, if you will is the basis for the infallible decrees of General councils. But the General councils do not possess this with out Peter’s successor’s approval.
As for the keys just read the OT account in Isaiah 22:22. The parallel of the OT chief steward and Peter in Mt 16:18-19 is as plain as the nose on your face. The rest of your post rambles. Like I could care less what Luvtosew points out. He is as wrong as you are and if you are following him then it is a case of the blind leading the blind.

Well if you read Rev you will see Jesus has the keys to HIS kingdom, and ISS is talking about our Lord, not some future man, the Bible is about JESUS and the keys signify knowlege that was given to the 11 disciples to spread the word of the Lord. Now I could careless who the fIrst Pope is or was, but the Jesus is the Rock and his Church is the body of all Christians.

PS I’'m a female and not blind, don’t even wear glasses.

Well apparently you are blind because I read Revelation and the only mention of keys there is in Rev 1:18 which states [beginning with verse 17]:

"17 When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand upon me, saying, “Fear not, I am the first and the last, 18 and the living one; I died, and behold I am alive for evermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades” [Rev 1:18 RSV]

Death and Hades is the kingdom??? I thought the kingdom was heaven. Isn’t that what John the Baptist said in Mt 3:2?

“Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” [Mt 3:2 RSV]

And Jesus also in Mt 4:17:

"17From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” [Mt 4:17 RSV]

And look what Rev 20:14 says of death and Hades:

“Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire;” [Rev 20:14 RSV]

Maybe that is your idea of the kingdom but I don’t think too many people, indeed if any at all, will agree with you.

In addition, apparently you have not read Issaiah 22 where the keys represent authority. And if you are so interested in Jesus then you better get interested in the Church that He established because He went through a lot of trouble to establish it and to ensure it would proclaim the gospel till the end of the age. As for the pope you should care, for he is your pope too whether you like it or not. Moses wasGod’s chosen leader for the OT church and a lot of people did not like him either but he was God’s chosen leader for His church. Beyond that your attitude here speaks volumes. In short, your anti Catholicsm is showing for all to see.

 

[mackbrislawn]

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

I’ve heard it said that the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Mormons are examples of the Protestant heresy gone to seed.

They are protesting against Protestantism itself. One of the principles of the Reformation was that there was no such thing as an authoritative interpreter of scripture, such as the Church. But, the founders of the Watchtower and the Mormon church realized that there was a need for such an interpreter, so they started churches that were authorities.

The Watchtower is God’s organization on earth, His faithful and wise servant, and receives meat in due season from Jehovah. The Watchtower tells the JW’s what the bible says, and they must accept it.

The Mormon church has apostles and the true priesthood restored to it.

So what the original Reformaton denied, these reformers of the Reformation affirmed, and have set up miniature versions of the Catholic church.

 

[JonathonofOhio]

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…

 

[david_ruiz]

Well apparently you are blind because I read Revelation and the only mention of keys there is in Rev 1:18 which states [beginning with verse 17]:

 

[Luvtosew]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
There are no new doctrines. The ones you cite, Immaculate Conception, Papal infallibility and Assumption are not new. The doctrines previously lacked formal definition which is what happened in 1854, 1870 and 1950. Now if you want to call those new doctrines then what about the Trinity? I suppose that is a new doctrine in your eyes also. Most doctrines in the church still lack formal definition to this day. A good exampl,e is the canon of scripture. It was set at 73 books in 400 AD. The canon was never formally defined until 1547 at Trent. However, the canon was not new in 1547 AD it was the same one as in 400 AD. The infallibility was promised to Peter alone in Mt 16:18-19 and then to the college of Apostles, including Peter, in Mt 18:18. This “group infallibility”, if you will is the basis for the infallible decrees of General councils. But the General councils do not possess this with out Peter’s successor’s approval.
As for the keys just read the OT account in Isaiah 22:22. The parallel of the OT chief steward and Peter in Mt 16:18-19 is as plain as the nose on your face. The rest of your post rambles. Like I could care less what Luvtosew points out. He is as wrong as you are and if you are following him then it is a case of the blind leading the blind.

Well apparently you are blind because I read Revelation and the only mention of keys there is in Rev 1:18 which states [beginning with verse 17]:

"17 When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand upon me, saying, “Fear not, I am the first and the last, 18 and the living one; I died, and behold I am alive for evermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades” [Rev 1:18 RSV]

Death and Hades is the kingdom??? I thought the kingdom was heaven. Isn’t that what John the Baptist said in Mt 3:2?

“Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” [Mt 3:2 RSV]

And Jesus also in Mt 4:17:

"17From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” [Mt 4:17 RSV]

And look what Rev 20:14 says of death and Hades:

“Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire;” [Rev 20:14 RSV]

Maybe that is your idea of the kingdom but I don’t think too many people, indeed if any at all, will agree with you.

In addition, apparently you have not read Issaiah 22 where the keys represent authority. And if you are so interested in Jesus then you better get interested in the Church that He established because He went through a lot of trouble to establish it and to ensure it would proclaim the gospel till the end of the age. As for the pope you should care, for he is your pope too whether you like it or not. Moses wasGod’s chosen leader for the OT church and a lot of people did not like him either but he was God’s chosen leader for His church. Beyond that your attitude here speaks volumes. In short, your anti Catholicsm is showing for all to see.

hey I have no problem saying Peter was a leader among the apostles, with is the begining of the Church of Christ, all Chrisitan Churches belong to the Body of Christ. But the Good Lord did not stop with Peter, you do remember apostle Paul don’t you. They all belong to Christians , Catholic and Protestant alike.

 

[david_ruiz]

david ruiz;9230659:

The problem I have with this is the insinuation that the Trinity was added, the Eucharist was added, confession was added, etc. As if, when the doctrines were defined, they were created out of thin air. However, this is a misunderstanding (perhaps a deliberate one to promote an agenda) of historical events. Councils were formed to hear arguments over issues brought before the church which called certain doctrines and practices into question, and to review evidence of both sides (See Acts 15). That is, whenever someone was teaching something other than what was traditionally taught and handed down. If the person or people didn’t stop what they were doing, then official action had to be taken.

There are plenty of examples of this, but one I will point out was the iconoclast movement that started in 730 AD which condemned the use of images, veneration of the saints, and the use of relics. St. John Damascene defended the church in his Exposition of the Faith. The Second Council of Nicaea (787) was formed to address the matter, and a decision was reached based on scriptural and historical evidence that these things were always part of the faith.

The councils were formed and declared certain doctrines of the Church are true, because certain individuals wanted to change them. As to the matter of indulgences, the foundation of that, as well as the Trinity, is in the scriptures (see: catholic.com/tracts/primer-on-indulgences

for an article on this). So it became necessary within the church, at times, to make a formal declaration of something that is not explicitly taught in order to clear up any confusion that people were having.

It was incorrect to abuse the system, and take advantage of it for personal gain. Luther was correct about this. What he was wrong about is, that he wanted to remove them to prevent the abuse from happening again. However, this would have required a dogmatic change, which the church would not do, and so he left. Quickly ,but all I wrote was the church was right on the trinity .The church was right on the nature of Christ. .Sorry you got that that meant they were added .I think we both agree on the history of those issues,debates ,defining etc .Did not insinuate “add”…

 

[inkaneer]

hey I have no problem saying Peter was a leader among the apostles, with is the begining of the Church of Christ, all Chrisitan Churches belong to the Body of Christ. But the Good Lord did not stop with Peter, you do remember apostle Paul don’t you. They all belong to Christians , Catholic and Protestant alike.

But you do have a problem. Your problem is failing to recognize that God always had an earthy leader for His church whether it be OT or NT. And as a Davidic King, Jesus also had His 12 stewards from which one was selected to be the chief steward. That chief steward had the keys to the kingdom and could act in the name of the King so that, as Isaiah 22:15-22 states;

"15 Thus says the Lord GOD of hosts, “Come, go to this steward, to Shebna, who is over the household, and say to him: 16 What have you to do here and whom have you here, that you have hewn here a tomb for yourself, you who hew a tomb on the height, and carve a habitation for yourself in the rock? 17 Behold, the LORD will hurl you away violently, O you strong man. He will seize firm hold on you, 18 and whirl you round and round, and throw you like a ball into a wide land; there you shall die, and there shall be your splendid chariots, you shame of your master’s house. 19 I will thrust you from your office, and you will be cast down from your station. 20 In that day I will call my servant Eli’akim the son of Hilki’ah, 21 and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. 22 And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.”

Peter receiving the keys, the sign of authority, is the fulfillment of this OT prefigurement.

I see that you did not press the issue of the Book of Revelation stating that Jesus still held the keys to the kingdom. He gave those to Peter.

As for the Apostle Paul, in his own words before he started on his missionary journeys what did he do? He went to meet with Peter. Why? Because Peter was the boss. Jesus said so in John 21:15-17. In verse 16 of that Passage Jesus tells Peter to rule my flock. In verses 15 and 17 Jesus tells Peter to feed his sheep but in verse 16 there is a cahange in the Greek words. The Greek word bosko is used in verse 15 and 17 and it means to feed. But in verse 16 the greek word used is poimaino and it means to rule or to govern. It is often times translated as ‘tend’. Who feeds and tends a flock of sheep but a shepherd? Jesus is making Peter the shepherd of His church. Paul was never given such a command by Jesus. Neither were the othe apostles. They knew Peter was the boss. That is why, at the council of Jerusalem the scripotures say "there was great debate but then Peter stood up and the place fell silent. Why? The Boss, the shepherd of the flock, was going to speak. They knew it. Too bad you don’t.

 

[jinc1019]

I’ve heard it said that the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Mormons are examples of the Protestant heresy gone to seed.

They are protesting against Protestantism itself. One of the principles of the Reformation was that there was no such thing as an authoritative interpreter of scripture, such as the Church. But, the founders of the Watchtower and the Mormon church realized that there was a need for such an interpreter, so they started churches that were authorities.

The Watchtower is God’s organization on earth, His faithful and wise servant, and receives meat in due season from Jehovah. The Watchtower tells the JW’s what the bible says, and they must accept it.

The Mormon church has apostles and the true priesthood restored to it.

So what the original Reformaton denied, these reformers of the Reformation affirmed, and have set up miniature versions of the Catholic church.

I think, to some extent, this is correct. Although THEY would say God set it up that way, not them.

 

[mackbrislawn]

I think, to some extent, this is correct. Although THEY would say God set it up that way, not them.

That’s right. The Mormons say Joseph Smith was a prophet, and the Jehovah’s Witnesses say Jesus chose their organization when He returned in 1914.

They both agree, contrary to Protestantism, that there is indeed an authoritative church, guided by God, here on earth.

 

[david_ruiz]

david ruiz;9230659:

The problem I have with this is the insinuation that the Trinity was added, the Eucharist was added, confession was added, etc. As if, when the doctrines were defined, they were created out of thin air. However, this is a misunderstanding (perhaps a deliberate one to promote an agenda) of historical events. Councils were formed to hear arguments over issues brought before the church which called certain doctrines and practices into question, and to review evidence of both sides (See Acts 15). That is, whenever someone was teaching something other than what was traditionally taught and handed down. If the person or people didn’t stop what they were doing, then official action had to be taken.

There are plenty of examples of this, but one I will point out was the iconoclast movement that started in 730 AD which condemned the use of images, veneration of the saints, and the use of relics. St. John Damascene defended the church in his Exposition of the Faith. The Second Council of Nicaea (787) was formed to address the matter, and a decision was reached based on scriptural and historical evidence that these things were always part of the faith.

The councils were formed and declared certain doctrines of the Church are true, because certain individuals wanted to change them. As to the matter of indulgences, the foundation of that, as well as the Trinity, is in the scriptures (see: catholic.com/tracts/primer-on-indulgences

for an article on this). So it became necessary within the church, at times, to make a formal declaration of something that is not explicitly taught in order to clear up any confusion that people were having.

It was incorrect to abuse the system, and take advantage of it for personal gain. Luther was correct about this. What he was wrong about is, that he wanted to remove them to prevent the abuse from happening again. However, this would have required a dogmatic change, which the church would not do, and so he left.Thank-you but he was excommunicated.

 

[inkaneer]

inkaneer;9232262:

Rev.3:7- “These things saith He that is Holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he openeth and no man shutteth; and shutteth and no man openeth.” Isaiah 22 :22 “And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his sholder; so shall he open and none shall shut; and he shall shut and none shall open”. Looks like Jesus has all the keys, but I tell you He shares them with ALL His friends, and we can do nothing unless He does it first .

The reference from the other poster was about the keys to the kingdom as in Mt 16:18-19. The passage in Isaiah refers to the chief steward not to the king. Jesus is the Davidic King. Peter is his chief steward. Jesus gives the keys to the kingdom to Peter. And if what you say is true, if “…we can do nothing unless He does it first.” Then Peter can’t boind something unless it has already been bound by Jesus and if that is true how can the Catholic Church be in error. And how can protestantism be so fractured with different and contradictory doctrines? There is something wrong in your reasoning my friend. Your words may sound real good but they make absolutely no sense.

 

[JonathonofOhio]

inkaneer;9232262:

Rev.3:7- “These things saith He that is Holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he openeth and no man shutteth; and shutteth and no man openeth.” Isaiah 22 :22 “And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his sholder; so shall he open and none shall shut; and he shall shut and none shall open”. Looks like Jesus has all the keys, but I tell you He shares them with ALL His friends, and we can do nothing unless He does it first .

This verse, and no other verse in the bible says anything about Jesus sharing his keys with anyone except Peter. You say: ''but I tell you He shares them with ALL His friends", but this is a Non Sequitur, because that is not anywhere in the scripture you quoted, and it cannot be derived from any other scripture. When someone is given the keys to anything, it is a symbolic transfer of power. They still do it to this day. A mayor gets the ‘Keys to the City’ when elected, and bestowing ceremonial keys on heroes and celebrities is something mayors generally do.

As the royal son of David, Christ is the owner of the key of David, but this doesn’t mean he can’t give to Peter, as his “prime minister,” the keys to his heavenly kingdom.

In the passage to which Revelation 3:7 alludes, Isaiah 22:20-23, Eliakim is made master of the palace, a post roughly equivalent to prime minister. As the king’s right-hand man, the master of the palace is given the “key of the House of David.”

Keys symbolize authority, so bestowing the key to the House of David upon Eliakim is equivalent to giving him, as the king’s duly appointed representative, authority over the kingdom.

Revelation 3:7 speaks of Jesus as the “holder of the key of David.” Some argue this means he fulfills the role Eliakim foreshadowed in Isaiah 22:20-23. They claim this excludes a prophetic application of this text to Peter by Christ in Matthew 16:18-19.

There’s a problem with this argument. In Isaiah 22 Eliakim is master of the palace–the king isn’t. Eliakim possesses the key of the kingdom not as its owner, but as one deputed to oversee the king’s affairs. If we apply this to Christ, then we must conclude he’s not the true messianic king, merely his prime minister, the Messiah’s chief representative!

Although Jesus is called the “holder of the key of David” in Revelation 3:7, he doesn’t hold it as Eliakim did. As the son of David, Jesus is the heir to the throne of his ancestor (Lk 1:32-33). He really is the king, not the master of the king’s palace, as was Eliakim. As king, Jesus is free to bestow the keys of his kingdom on whomever he wishes–without losing the authority those keys represent.

It’s the Catholic position that this is precisely what Jesus does in Matthew 16:18-19. Peter identifies Jesus as the Messiah, which means, among other things, acknowledging his kingship. Christ then shows his kingly authority by bestowing on Peter something only the king could give–the keys of the kingdom of heaven–thus making Peter the messianic equivalent of Eliakim.

From www.catholic.com, in response to this claim.
Link: catholic.com/quickquestions/dont-revelation-37-and-isaiah-22-point-to-christ-not-peter-as-having-the-keys-of-davi

No offense intended, but I can’t help but to conclude that your assertions have no basis in scripture or history.

 

[JonathonofOhio]

JonathonofOhio;9232754:

Thank-you but he was excommunicated.

And that proves what?

 

[JonathonofOhio]

JonathonofOhio;9232754:

Quickly ,but all I wrote was the church was right on the trinity .The church was right on the nature of Christ. .Sorry you got that that meant they were added .I think we both agree on the history of those issues,debates ,defining etc .Did not insinuate “add”…

Understood.

It sounded like that, because other protestants I have talked to claim that the Catholic Church added to its doctrines, but the historical records prove that all she did was clarify them whenever they were challenged or called into question. Your argument resembled others that I have heard before from people who believe that doctrines were added, and not clarified.

 

[david_ruiz]

david ruiz;9234711:

And that proves what?

Nothing ,just that some were saying reformers “just” start their own churches when they don’t like where they were.This is part of the picture ,that they were kicked out of where they were ,hence had to fellowship elswhere.

 

[david_ruiz]

david ruiz;9233516:

Understood.

It sounded like that, because other protestants I have talked to claim that the Catholic Church added to its doctrines, but the historical records prove that all she did was clarify them whenever they were challenged or called into question. Your argument resembled others that I have heard before from people who believe that doctrines were added, and not clarified.

Thank-you .O.K. I have probably “sounded” like that before .However, when one says they have it wrong it could mean many things . Most understand the notion of original intent, either of scripture or early practice/tradition. Getting it wrong is straying from that original truth and spirit. It could be considered wrong therefore adding or detracting from the original. I am wondering if all our differences fall into that . I do understand however, that all CC doctrine and practices are presented with biblical and or traditional /historical basis. I suppose same with protestantism. No one is pulling things out of thin air (that is “adding” at it’s worst), but rather on interpretations of the same scriptural, historical data. If one is to be honest one must include the terms of “evolving” or “developing”, not so much “adding”. Those terms at least suggest an original seed. Anyway, I ramble, and in haste one may need to use “blanket” statements like add /detract etc ,yet when time permits, every doctrine and practice is fascinating and deserves to be studied and judged on it’s own merit. Thanks to CAF for that opportunity.

 

[Trebor135]

I do understand however, that all CC doctrine and practices are presented with biblical and or traditional /historical basis. I suppose same with protestantism. No one is pulling things out of thin air (that is “adding” at it’s worst), but rather on interpretations of the same scriptural, historical data. … [Indeed,] when time permits, every doctrine and practice is fascinating and deserves to be studied and judged on it’s own merit.

I have read that every single Early Church Father believed in baptismal regeneration. Do you also accept this not-very-Evangelical doctrine?

 

[david_ruiz]

david ruiz;9232797:

This verse, and no other verse in the bible says anything about Jesus sharing his keys with anyone except Peter. You say: ''but I tell you He shares them with ALL His friends", but this is a Non Sequitur, because that is not anywhere in the scripture you quoted, and it cannot be derived from any other scripture. When someone is given the keys to anything, it is a symbolic transfer of power. They still do it to this day. A mayor gets the ‘Keys to the City’ when elected, and bestowing ceremonial keys on heroes and celebrities is something mayors generally do.

So is Peter like the mayor and the other apostles heroes/celebrities ? One is one does .The others did the same things of loosening /binding or remitting/retaining sins, shepherding.Mark 28:1 says “All authority is given me in heaven AND EARTH, go therefore and teach all nations baptizing them, ,teaching them what I command you,…I am with you …” Is a Vicar needed here ? A prime minister ? I see Jesus commanding all the disciples and being with all the disciples.Would he “upbraid” us also (as He just did the apostles) for lack of faith in this. Do we need to interpret a human form to this promised Vicar of Christ himself and the Holy Ghost ?
(Yes Peter was a leader ,but because he was a leader, not because of more authority)

There’s a problem with this argument. In Isaiah 22 Eliakim is master of the palace–the king isn’t. Eliakim possesses the key of the kingdom not as its owner, but as one deputed to oversee the king’s affairs. If we apply this to Christ, then we must conclude he’s not the true messianic king, merely his prime minister, the Messiah’s chief representative!

A parable depicts the owners son as being sent to the owners vineyard for payment. This parallels Isaiah 22. You don’t think the father “deputized” the Son ? Jesus is both prime minister and king , He is all . I do not think His first visit to us was as "king of kings’ , yet He is and shall be.

 

[david_ruiz]

I have read that every single Early Church Father believed in baptismal regeneration. Do you also accept this not-very-Evangelical doctrine?

Thank-you .I could be nit-picky and say not very Father wrote one way or another on it ,Certainly the first hundred years gave us nothing more than what is in scripture, and scripture is purposely “all over the place” on this. Paul says, " I am glad I did not baptize any of you ,but preached Christ crucified ,the power to save you" something like that. Justin Martyr , “He who is illumined is washed” Tit for tat- Barnabus (100AD) #21- Father wrote, “It is well that we who have learned the judgements of the Lord, as many as have been written,should walk in them”. “Meditate how to save a soul by the Word.” Anyways ,each on it’s own merits and fascinating.

 

[inkaneer]

david ruiz;9234711:

And that proves what?

That his teaching was not in accord with that of the church which Jesus said would be guided into all truth by the Holy Spirit and the same church that Jesus said He would remain with until the end of the age. Now, are Jesus and the scriptures lying???