How do you defend Papal Infallibility?

[mercytruth]

Hi, mercy! Mind if I ask you a few questions about your assertions?

Your formulation is interesting. What does “over all Christians” mean, in this context? It seems that you’re saying that ‘infallibility’ is ok, as far as it goes, as long as it doesn’t attempt to assert itself ‘over all Christians’. Is this a reasonable take-away from your statement?

What does this prove? In the Gospels, Jesus never says, “I am the Second Person of the Trinity”, yet we believe it to be true…!

Yes, he is one of the elders – he’s a co-elder, along with others. This doesn’t establish (or disprove) his prominence among them, but rather, only identifies that he is an elder and that there are many.

I’m not certain that your case holds up under scrutiny…

In other words, the question was whether a Christian, who was legitimately part of the Church, but who left the communion of the Church by virtue of heresy, was able to baptize.

No… Cyprian was talking about heretics, who had been part of the Christian Church but had later embraced heresy. We’re talking about people who had never been part of the Christian Church at any part of their lives, but had been members of the LDS all their lives. Big difference!

Really? 'cause, from where I’m sitting, “God’s Church” was divided far in advance of any assertion of this doctrine…

Why’s that? After all, that’s what Jesus predicted, wasn’t it?

Presumption must be universal for any doctrine to even be considered as true. The Orthodox do not presume the Roman Papacy to be universally infallible.

If one studied the historical meaning of the word ‘presbyter’ in 1 Peter 5:1 one would see that above all else it reflects teaching authority. The apostle Peter was a co-teacher with the teachers of churches of the diaspora.

Bishop Victor of Rome excommunicated Bishop Polycrates and the Asian bishops over their celebration of the days of the Paschal feast. He was strongly rebuked by Bishop of Ireneaus of Lyons for doing this, and was strongly disobeyed by Bishop Polycrates and the Asian bishops who wrote, **'better men than we have said, “it is better that we obey God rather than men” **(Of course, he was referring to St. Peter’s statement to the Sanhedrin in his refusal not to obey their command of not speaking in the name of Jesus)

Bishop Cyprian and the African Synod of Bishops disagreement was with Bishop Stephen of Rome over the issue of re-baptizing those who had been baptized by heretics is basically vindicated by the Vatican’s ruling in 2001 stating that Mormon baptisms are invalid.

Bishop Cyprian and the African Bishops were not in disagreement with Bishop Stephen over those who had left the Catholic Church and joined heretics. It was those whose only baptism was the one performed by heretics. For Bishop Cyprian and the African bishops, a false faith can not produce a true baptism. There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism. For Bishop Stephen, form and matter is all that was required for a true baptism.

If you are saying that the Orthodox and other apostolic churches of the East are not of the body of Christ because they are not in communion with Rome you are in very great danger of having a millstone tied around your neck. "Whosoever would offend one of these little ones…"

Now please read the 17th chapter of the gospel of John and ask yourself if Jesus Christ did not pray for unity within his church.

God’s peace be with you

micah

 

[MilesVitae]

There are three principle reasons why the doctrine of the infallibility of the Papacy of the Roman Catholic church over all Christians is unsustainable, and not necessarily in this order.

1. St Peter, the apostle never referred to himself as the sole source of teaching authority. He in fact said that he was a **co-**presbyter, or teacher with the presbyters of the churches of the diaspora. (1 Peter 5:1).

Well, the simple fact that something is not said in Scripture does not prove it isn’t true. We are not sola scripturists - or are you embracing sola scriptura?

But, more to the point, the Catholic Church does not teach that the Pope is the “sole source of teaching authority.” The whole magisterium, of which the Pope is the head, has teaching authority and possesses an infallibility, even outside of extraordinary forms of teaching (ecumenical councils). The magisterium is infallible “when, even though dispersed throughout the world but preserving for all that amongst themselves and with Peter’s successor [the pope] the bond of communion, in their authoritative teaching concerning matters of faith and morals, they [the bishops] are in agreement that a particular teaching is to be held definitively and absolutely” as Lumen Gentium says.
Personally, I’m no expert in the matter, but from my recent studies of this topic, I’ve come to see papal infallibility not as a stand-alone charism, but as an extension of the infallibility of the Church. The Church as a whole, including the laity, cannot defect from the true faith (although this is distinct from teaching authority). The ordinary magisterium, as the teaching organ of the Church, cannot defect. The magisterium, when defining dogma in extraordinary circumstances (as in the case of an ecumenical council), cannot defect. The head of the Church, when definitely teaching as that head, cannot defect.

Bishop Cyprian and the African Synod of Bishops disagreement was with Bishop Stephen of Rome over the issue of re-baptizing those who had been baptized by heretics is basically vindicated by the Vatican’s ruling in 2001 stating that Mormon baptisms are invalid.

Bishop Cyprian and the African Bishops were not in disagreement with Bishop Stephen over those who had left the Catholic Church and joined heretics. It was those whose only baptism was the one performed by heretics. For Bishop Cyprian and the African bishops, a false faith can not produce a true baptism. There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism. For Bishop Stephen, form and matter is all that was required for a true baptism.

Sometime last week I started a thread on this, which I’ve been meaning to get back to. If you’re interested in reading or contributing: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=721776

 

[mercytruth]

Well, the simple fact that something is not said in Scripture does not prove it isn’t true. We are not sola scripturists - or are you embracing sola scriptura?

But, more to the point, the Catholic Church does not teach that the Pope is the “sole source of teaching authority.” The whole magisterium, of which the Pope is the head, has teaching authority and possesses an infallibility, even outside of extraordinary forms of teaching (ecumenical councils). The magisterium is infallible “when, even though dispersed throughout the world but preserving for all that amongst themselves and with Peter’s successor [the pope] the bond of communion, in their authoritative teaching concerning matters of faith and morals, they [the bishops] are in agreement that a particular teaching is to be held definitively and absolutely” as Lumen Gentium says.
Personally, I’m no expert in the matter, but from my recent studies of this topic, I’ve come to see papal infallibility not as a stand-alone charism, but as an extension of the infallibility of the Church. The Church as a whole, including the laity, cannot defect from the true faith (although this is distinct from teaching authority). The ordinary magisterium, as the teaching organ of the Church, cannot defect. The magisterium, when defining dogma in extraordinary circumstances (as in the case of an ecumenical council), cannot defect. The head of the Church, when definitely teaching as that head, cannot defect.

Sometime last week I started a thread on this, which I’ve been meaning to get back to. If you’re interested in reading or contributing: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=721776

No I am not. The epistles of St.Ignatius, the epistle of St. Clement, the Constitutions of the Apostles, the writings of St. Cyprian, the History of the Church by Eusebius are all part of the pre-Nicene puzzle.

I did not even bring up the fact that St.Peter was not a bishop, but an apostle. The apostle of primacy among the apostles, and the apostle to the circumcism. Maybe if one could understand those basic facts, one could understand why he speaks of himself as a co-presbyter, or co-teacher with the teachers/presbyters of the churches** of the diaspora**.

For Rome to represent the authority of St.Peter it needs to also represent the ministry of St.Peter to the circumcism, that is, to the Jewish people. For Rome to represent the authority and spirit of St.Peter it needs to be a co-teacher with the other teachers of God’s church.

God’s peace be with you.

micah

 

[steve_b]

Presumption must be universal for any doctrine to even be considered as true. The Orthodox do not presume the Roman Papacy to be universally infallible.

That’s not an argument. Neither do Protestants of all stripes…true?
m:

If one studied the historical meaning of the word ‘presbyter’ in 1 Peter 5:1 one would see that above all else it reflects teaching authority. The apostle Peter was a co-teacher with the teachers of churches of the diaspora.

co teacher doesn’t necessarily mean, one teacher among the teachers, is not the principle…true?
m:

Bishop Victor of Rome excommunicated Bishop Polycrates and the Asian bishops over their celebration of the days of the Paschal feast. He was strongly rebuked by Bishop of Ireneaus of Lyons for doing this,

true. Did Victor relent? ewtn.com/library/answers/popeapol.htm scroll to Victor I, and quartodeciman controversy for the answer.
m:

and was strongly disobeyed by Bishop Polycrates and the Asian bishops who wrote, **'better men than we have said, “it is better that we obey God rather than men” **(Of course, he was referring to St. Peter’s statement to the Sanhedrin in his refusal not to obey their command of not speaking in the name of Jesus)

The quartodeciman issue was a tiny group of bishops going against the entire Church. They lost that fight. In fact, while this controversy continued, The council of constantinople wrote the following canon

Council of Constantinople I [AD 381]

“Those who embrace orthodoxy and join the number of those who are being saved from the heretics, we receive in the following regular and customary manner: Arians, Macedonians, Sabbatians, Novatians, those who call themselves Cathars and Aristeri, Quartodecimians or Tetradites, Apollinarians—* these we receive when* they hand in statements and anathematize every heresy which is not of the same mind as the holy, catholic, and apostolic Church of God” (Canon 7).
m:

Bishop Cyprian and the African Synod of Bishops disagreement was with Bishop Stephen of Rome over the issue of re-baptizing those who had been baptized by heretics is basically vindicated by the Vatican’s ruling in 2001 stating that Mormon baptisms are invalid.

Mormons don’t believe in the Trinity, and don’t baptise in the Trinitarian formula. THAT’S why their baptism is invalid.
m:

Bishop Cyprian and the African Bishops were not in disagreement with Bishop Stephen over those who had left the Catholic Church and joined heretics. It was those whose only baptism was the one performed by heretics. For Bishop Cyprian and the African bishops, a false faith can not produce a true baptism. There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism. For Bishop Stephen, form and matter is all that was required for a true baptism.

As you know, pope Stephen’s position prevailed

 

[mercytruth]

That’s not an argument. Neither do Protestants of all stripes…true?

co teacher doesn’t necessarily mean, one teacher among the teachers, is not the principle…true?

true. Did Victor relent? ewtn.com/library/answers/popeapol.htm scroll to Victor I, and quartodeciman controversy for the answer.

The quartodeciman issue was a tiny group of bishops going against the entire Church. They lost that fight. In fact, while this controversy continued, The council of constantinople wrote the following canon

Council of Constantinople I [AD 381]

“Those who embrace orthodoxy and join the number of those who are being saved from the heretics, we receive in the following regular and customary manner: Arians, Macedonians, Sabbatians, Novatians, those who call themselves Cathars and Aristeri, Quartodecimians or Tetradites, Apollinarians—* these we receive when* they hand in statements and anathematize every heresy which is not of the same mind as the holy, catholic, and apostolic Church of God” (Canon 7).

Mormons don’t believe in the Trinity, and don’t baptise in the Trinitarian formula. THAT’S why their baptism is invalid.

As you know, pope Stephen’s position prevailed

**It really does not matter to God **whose position on the keeping of Passover, or whose position on the baptism of heretics, or whose position on who has legitimate teaching authority within His Church has prevailed up to this time in history. What really matters is the truth. God’s true church are the remnant who are faithful to Apostolic tradition and to the truth of sacred scriptures.

That ‘small minority’ of which you were speaking , were the whole synod of Asian bishops who were following the tradition of the Apostle John, the one who was close to Jesus Christ our Lord.

Bishop Cyprian and the African bishops were following the tradition of St.Paul who said that there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism. Not many faiths and one baptism.

The apostle Paul had teaching authority to the Gentile nations, and the apostle Peter to the circumcism. It is evident from history that the teaching authority of the Apostle Paul has prevailed among the Gentiles within the Roman Catholic church at least before Vatican II, when the Roman Catholic Church after 1900 years had to clarify its relationship to the Jewish people.

So, I am not interested in back and forth arguments where one can point to history, and try to prove a point. The Church throughout its history will eventually will judged by the truth or falsity of what it upheld individually, and corporately when Jesus Christ comes to judge the living and the dead. **For now we see as through a glass darkly, but then face to face. Now we know in part, and prophesy in part, but then shall we know, even as we are known. **

God’s peace to you

micah

 

[steve_b]

It really does not matter to God whose position on the keeping of Passover, or whose position on the baptism of heretics, or whose position on who has legitimate teaching authority within His Church has prevailed up to this time in history. What really matters is the truth. God’s true church are the remnant who are faithful to Apostolic tradition and to the truth of sacred scriptures.

it does matter to God what is taught in His Church, the pilar and foundation of truth. And He expects obedience to the Church that He established and sustains for being the pilar and foundation of truth… That’s why the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church is an article of faith we recite in the creed. That’s what we believe.
m:

That ‘small minority’ of which you were speaking , were the whole synod of Asian bishops who were following the tradition of the Apostle John, the one who was close to Jesus Christ our Lord.

No, it was not all of Asia but those in Asia minor. And not all in Asia minor were involved in the controversy… That’s why I referred to the council of Constantinople 1. The Quartodeciman’s were a small bunch in Asia minor, who wouldn’t follow the Easter norm of the entire Church. Did you miss the point about canon 7?

Council of Constantinople I [AD 381]
Canon 7

Those who from heresy turn to orthodoxy, and to the portion of those who are being saved, we receive according to the following method and custom: Arians, and Macedonians, and Sabbatians, and Novatians, who call themselves Cathari or Aristori, and Quarto-decimans or Tetradites, and Apollinarians, we receive, upon their giving a written renunciation [of their errors] and anathematize every heresy which is not in accordance with the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of God. [snip for space] (Canon 7). earlychurchtexts.com/public/constantinople_canons.htm

just to be clear, did you notice the qualifying statements of canon 7?

• those who embrace orthodoxy are so when they
• renounce their errors, every heresy, which is not the same mind as the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church

& Just to further clarify, the quartodecimans are newadvent.org/cathen/05228a.htm

The point is, these are conditions (qualifications) for Quartodecimans to meet 1st if they are going to be received as embracing orthodoxy. iow, they will be received as embracing orthodoxy only upon renouncing heir errors, anathematize every heresy which is not of the same mind as the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of God"
m:

Bishop Cyprian and the African bishops were following the tradition of St.Paul who said that there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism. Not many faiths and one baptism.

One who is baptised in the trinitarian formula, is baptised. Even if the one pouring the water is not of the faith or a heretic. That’s because the heretic isn’t the one making the baptism effective. It’s the signs, water, + the trinitarian formula that gives the baptismal grace.
m:

The apostle Paul had teaching authority to the Gentile nations, and the apostle Peter to the circumcism.

Just for clarification, It’s not that Peter did this or Paul did that as if they were somehow restricted in their mission to teach. Paul got tired of all the abuse he got from his fellow Jews, so he went to preach to the gentiles. Peter, before Paul was converted, taught Jews and gentiles while Paul was still Saul, and persecuting the Church.
m:

It is evident from history that the teaching authority of the Apostle Paul has prevailed among the Gentiles within the Roman Catholic church at least before Vatican II, when the Roman Catholic Church after 1900 years had to clarify its relationship to the Jewish people.

please explain.
m:

So, I am not interested in back and forth arguments where one can point to history, and try to prove a point.

pointing to Tradition and history is a valid argument for proving points.
m:

The Church throughout its history will eventually will judged by the truth or falsity of what it upheld individually, and corporately when Jesus Christ comes to judge the living and the dead.

people will be judged for what they have done.

 

[mercytruth]

it does matter to God what is taught in His Church, the pilar and foundation of truth. And He expects obedience to the Church that He established and sustains for being the pilar and foundation of truth… That’s why the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church is an article of faith we recite in the creed. That’s what we believe.

No, it was not all of Asia but those in Asia minor. And not all in Asia minor were involved in the controversy… That’s why I referred to the council of Constantinople 1. The Quartodeciman’s were a small bunch in Asia minor, who wouldn’t follow the Easter norm of the entire Church. Did you miss the point about canon 7?

Council of Constantinople I [AD 381]
Canon 7

Those who from heresy turn to orthodoxy, and to the portion of those who are being saved, we receive according to the following method and custom: Arians, and Macedonians, and Sabbatians, and Novatians, who call themselves Cathari or Aristori, and Quarto-decimans or Tetradites, and Apollinarians, we receive, upon their giving a written renunciation [of their errors] and anathematize every heresy which is not in accordance with the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of God. [snip for space] (Canon 7). earlychurchtexts.com/public/constantinople_canons.htm

just to be clear, did you notice the qualifying statements of canon 7?

• those who embrace orthodoxy are so when they
• renounce their errors, every heresy, which is not the same mind as the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church

& Just to further clarify, the quartodecimans are newadvent.org/cathen/05228a.htm

The point is, these are conditions (qualifications) for Quartodecimans to meet 1st if they are going to be received as embracing orthodoxy. iow, they will be received as embracing orthodoxy only upon renouncing heir errors, anathematize every heresy which is not of the same mind as the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of God"

One who is baptised in the trinitarian formula, is baptised. Even if the one pouring the water is not of the faith or a heretic. That’s because the heretic isn’t the one making the baptism effective. It’s the signs, water, + the trinitarian formula that gives the baptismal grace.

Just for clarification, It’s not that Peter did this or Paul did that as if they were somehow restricted in their mission to teach. Paul got tired of all the abuse he got from his fellow Jews, so he went to preach to the gentiles. Peter, before Paul was converted, taught Jews and gentiles while Paul was still Saul, and persecuting the Church.

please explain.

pointing to Tradition and history is a valid argument for proving points.

people will be judged for what they have done.

Evidently you did not read the history about the difference of practice surrounding the Paschal feast. Bishop Ireneaus of Lyons rebuked Bishop Victor for being so divisive. Traditional differences of keeping the Paschal feast had not separated Rome from the Asian churches in the past, and nor should it keep them separated. You are defending the indefensible. I am not interested in councils which took place after the emperors of Rome were no longer pagan and the church was no longer being persecuted. All one has to do is read what happened to the church thereafter, and see what became of her. It is not very edifying.

As I said, I have no desire to pursue this subject. I could list early church canons which
the Church of Rome has rejected or disobeyed. I have done this on other threads and I do not wish to rehash.

I will not defend division in God’s church. I will not defend anathema on those who do not agree that Rome has universal authority of doctrine. Yes, I will defend doctrinal truth, but Rome is not the sole depositor of truth. If it was, St Paul would not have said that we are not to say that we have no need of our brethren, who are the other parts of the body of Christ… I will not be one who offends one of those little ones of faith, lest I have a millstone tied around my neck. I will not be part of that which God hates most, sowing discord among the brethren. I have other brethren in the body of Christ, and they are Orthodox and even some Protestant. I will be held accountable.

God’s peace be with you

micah

 

[steve_b]

Evidently you did not read the history about the difference of practice surrounding the Paschal feast. Bishop Ireneaus of Lyons rebuked Bishop Victor for being so divisive. Traditional differences of keeping the Paschal feast had not separated Rome from the Asian churches in the past, and nor should it keep them separated. You are defending the indefensible. I am not interested in councils which took place after the emperors of Rome were no longer pagan and the church was no longer being persecuted. All one has to do is read what happened to the church thereafter, and see what became of her. It is not very edifying.

The pope was against the quartodeciman controversy in the late (180’s a.d.), and the Council of Constantinople was against the quartodecimans in (381 a.d. ). That’s consistent teaching and practice against the quartodeciman’s.

As far as what happened to the Catholic Church after this, it brought the faith to the world, such that the Church and the faith covers the world today.
m:

As I said, I have no desire to pursue this subject.

okay
m:

I could list early church canons which
the Church of Rome has rejected or disobeyed. I have done this on other threads and I do not wish to rehash.

I was merely respondiong to what you wrote. I didn’t initiate these issues.
m:

I will not defend division in God’s church. I will not defend anathema on those who do not agree that Rome has universal authority of doctrine. Yes, I will defend doctrinal truth, but Rome is not the sole depositor of truth.

by saying it that way, division is being defended, because valid authority is dismissed, so doctrinal truth then, is a matter of personal agreement, not by Church authorirty? Do I understand that correctly?
m:

If it was, St Paul would not have said that we are not to say that we have no need of our brethren, who are the other parts of the body of Christ…

As I recall, Paul was very harsh on those who were disobedient to the faith and cause division as a result.
m:

I will not be one who offends one of those little ones of faith, lest I have a millstone tied around my neck. I will not be part of that which God hates most, sowing discord among the brethren. I have other brethren in the body of Christ, and they are Orthodox and even some Protestant. I will be held accountable.

God’s peace be with you

micah

Just thinking out loud, defending truth and combating error, is not sowing discord. We are called to defend truth vogorously but as Peter instructs, do it with charity. Relativism otoh, is really offensive to God. He spits those folks out of his mouth. [Rev 3:16]

 

[mercytruth]

The pope was against the quartodeciman controversy in the late (180’s a.d.), and the Council of Constantinople was against the quartodecimans in (381 a.d. ). That’s consistent teaching and practice against the quartodeciman’s.

As far as what happened to the Catholic Church after this, it brought the faith to the world, such that the Church and the faith covers the world today.

okay

I was merely respondiong to what you wrote. I didn’t initiate these issues.

by saying it that way, division is being defended, because valid authority is dismissed, so doctrinal truth then, is a matter of personal agreement, not by Church authorirty? Do I understand that correctly?

As I recall, Paul was very harsh on those who were disobedient to the faith and cause division as a result.

Just thinking out loud, defending truth and combating error, is not sowing discord. We are called to defend truth vogorously but as Peter instructs, do it with charity. Relativism otoh, is really offensive to God. He spits those folks out of his mouth. [Rev 3:16]

It seems obvious to me that sacred scripture, the writings/traditions of pre-nicene apostolic church fathers, and the teaching authority that God gives to others besides the Roman Catholic church are the three criteria for determining doctrinal truth. Where there is no clear teaching from these criteria, judgement of others should be deferred.

I personally do not think it is charitable to proclaim anathema on those who have legitimate differences of doctrinal understanding based on the three criteria that I have stated.

Your definition of relativism as it relates to the church of Laodicea does not apply as an analogy. It would better describe those who are attempting to serve both God and mammon. These are the ones that Jesus will spit out of his mouth, and the Church of the West are prime candidates.

Now, if your conscience is telling you to proceed with the course you are now on, I would be the last person to judge you. My conscience says that I must do otherwise. So all we can do is agree to disagree, and hope for the return of our Lord Jesus Christ who will straighten us all out.

God’s peace

micah

 

[steve_b]

It seems obvious to me that sacred scripture, the writings/traditions of pre-nicene apostolic church fathers, and the teaching authority that God gives to others besides the Roman Catholic church are the three criteria for determining doctrinal truth.

Scripture, Tradition, and the teaching magisterium (those bishops in union with the pope) are the 3 componants of authority of the Catholic Church.
m:

Where there is no clear teaching from these criteria, judgement of others should be deferred.

What specific doctrinal truth(s) are you refering to that there is no clear teaching on? btw, Eastern and Western Catholics agree on the doctrines of the Church.
m:

I personally do not think it is charitable to proclaim anathema on those who have legitimate differences of doctrinal understanding based on the three criteria that I have stated.

what ligitimate doctrinal differences are you speaking of, and between which parties?
m:

Your definition of relativism as it relates to the church of Laodicea does not apply as an analogy.

I’m not restricting relativism to Laodicea. I’m not even refering to Laodicea as an analogy. It’s relativism I’m refering to.
m:

It would better describe those who are attempting to serve both God and mammon. These are the ones that Jesus will spit out of his mouth, and the Church of the West are prime candidates.

please explain

 

[mercytruth]

Scripture, Tradition, and the teaching magisterium (those bishops in union with the pope) are the 3 componants of authority of the Catholic Church.

What specific doctrinal truth(s) are you refering to that there is no clear teaching on? btw, Eastern and Western Catholics agree on the doctrines of the Church.

what ligitimate doctrinal differences are you speaking of, and between which parties?

I’m not restricting relativism to Laodicea. I’m not even refering to Laodicea as an analogy. It’s relativism I’m refering to.

please explain

Quoting you:
**Relativism otoh, is really offensive to God. He spits those folks out of his mouth. [Rev 3:16] **

Revelation 3:16 speaks of the church of Laodicea and her wealth, it has nothing to do with relativism, only with regard to the relativism of trying to serve both God and mammon. That is, having the outward appearance, and form of Christianity, while having one’s heart serving mammon.

I am not going to go into specific doctrines. I think the Apostle’s Creed is a very good template for doctrinal faith. Anything beyond that usually gets murky with scriptural interpretation, and sometimes absent, and sometimes contradictory writings of the apostolic church fathers. The Constitutions of the Apostles is a very good template for church structure and authority.

What is most important apart from the Apostle’s Creed is that we have agreement on the true morals of our faith. The Didache of the two ways: the way of life, and the way of death are the most simple and profound statements on Christian morality.

Finally, a mature Christian does not need a teacher for the simple doctrinal truths of the Apostle’s Creed, and the moral code of the Didache. A mature Christian needs the body of Christ for the assemblying of one another around the holy Eucharist and prayer and worship.

As it is written: **"And as for you, let the unction, which you have received from him, abide in you. And you have no need that any man teach you; but as his unction teaches you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie. And as it has taught you abide in him. **

And, **"Let him that teaches, although he be one of the laity, yet, if he be skillful in the word and grave in his manners, teach; for “they shall be all taught of God” ** ( Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, Book VIII, Section IV, chapter XXXII. Quoting from John 6:45 and Isaiah 54: 13)
God’s peace be with you

micah

 

[steve_b]

Quoting you:
**Relativism otoh, is really offensive to God. He spits those folks out of his mouth. [Rev 3:16] **

Revelation 3:16 speaks of the church of Laodicea and her wealth, it has nothing to do with relativism, only with regard to the relativism of trying to serve both God and mammon. That is, having the outward appearance, and form of Christianity, while having one’s heart serving mammon.

As I said previously, I wasn’t making my point about Laodicea, but relativism.

16: So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.

iow, to a relativist, truth is not objectively true, it depends on one’s own prevailing view of what’s truth and what is true for them at the time.
m:

I am not going to go into specific doctrines. I think the Apostle’s Creed is a very good template for doctrinal faith. Anything beyond that usually gets murky with scriptural interpretation, and sometimes absent, and sometimes contradictory writings of the apostolic church fathers. The Constitutions of the Apostles is a very good template for church structure and authority.

What is most important apart from the Apostle’s Creed is that we have agreement on the true morals of our faith. The Didache of the two ways: the way of life, and the way of death are the most simple and profound statements on Christian morality.

Finally, a mature Christian does not need a teacher for the simple doctrinal truths of the Apostle’s Creed, and the moral code of the Didache. A mature Christian needs the body of Christ for the assemblying of one another around the holy Eucharist and prayer and worship.

Once a Christian becomes a “mature” Christian, they no longer need teachers? Where did this idea come from?
m:

As it is written: **"And as for you, let the unction, which you have received from him, abide in you. And you have no need that any man teach you; but as his unction teaches you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie. And as it has taught you abide in him. **

And, **"Let him that teaches, although he be one of the laity, yet, if he be skillful in the word and grave in his manners, teach; for “they shall be all taught of God” **( Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, Book VIII, Section IV, chapter XXXII. Quoting from John 6:45 and Isaiah 54: 13)
God’s peace be with you

micah

***Jn 6:***45 It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God. That does NOT translate to, teachers are not needed.

 

[mercytruth]

As I said previously, I wasn’t making my point about Laodicea, but relativism.

16: So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.

iow, to a relativist, truth is not objectively true, it depends on one’s own prevailing view of what’s truth and what is true for them at the time.

Once a Christian becomes a “mature” Christian, they no longer need teachers? Where did this idea come from?

***Jn 6:***45 It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God. That does NOT translate to, teachers are not needed.

Correct exegesis is using scripture in the correct context. Rev. 3:16 is not speaking about moral relativism. Find another scripture, like "Woe unto to them that call evil good, and good evil"

A mature Christian will be taught by God and great will be the peace of His Children. This idea is from Isaiah 54:13 and is quoted by Jesus Christ in John 6:44-45. and re-iterated by the apostle John in 1 John 2:27 and reaffirmed in The Constitutions of the Apostles, Book VII, Section IV.

Truth begins in the head and heart until it sinks into the heart and is obeyed through the human will saying yes to God’s will as it is united with the unction of the Holy Spirit.

I can assure you that we would not be having this discussion if all of professing Christianity, and if all of the Catholic Church were actually living out the **way of life **as put forth in the Didache.

To put it more strongly, ‘doctrines’ can be use like the fences that the Pharisees built around the law to keep the Jewish people ritually clean. If our focus is on the nit-pick details of obtruse doctrines which are put forth as a remedy for securing the purity of faith, we are missing the mark. Our Christian/Catholic faith is ultimately a submission to the will of God in humility and trust to the teachings of Jesus Christ as simplified by **the way of life **written in the **Didache **empowered by the unction of the Holy Spirit.

God’s peace be with you

micah

 

[steve_b]

Correct exegesis is using scripture in the correct context. Rev. 3:16 is not speaking about moral relativism. Find another scripture, like "Woe unto to them that call evil good, and good evil"

That could be one way to describe relativism. Another way is to say for a relativist, truth and moral values are not absolute. iow a relativist takes a relaxed view, a lazy view, a lukewarm view, of what is true. It’s a view that is neither hot nor cold.

Rev 3:15-16 'I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were cold or hot! 16 So, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew you out of my mouth.
m:

A mature Christian will be taught by God and great will be the peace of His Children. This idea is from Isaiah 54:13 and is quoted by Jesus Christ in John 6:44-45. and re-iterated by the apostle John in 1 John 2:27 and reaffirmed in The Constitutions of the Apostles, Book VII, Section IV.

Truth begins in the head and heart until it sinks into the heart and is obeyed through the human will saying yes to God’s will as it is united with the unction of the Holy Spirit.

I can assure you that we would not be having this discussion if all of professing Christianity, and if all of the Catholic Church were actually living out the **way of life **as put forth in the Didache.

God’s peace be with you

micah

I’m familiar with the passages you quote. None talk about a “mature” Christian, nor any Christian that one might deem mature or immature, needing no teacher

 

[mercytruth]

That could be one way to describe relativism. Another way is to say for a relativist, truth and moral values are not absolute. iow a relativist takes a relaxed view, a lazy view, a lukewarm view, of what is true. It’s a view that is neither hot nor cold.

Rev 3:15-16 'I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were cold or hot! 16 So, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew you out of my mouth.

I’m familiar with the passages you quote. None talk about a “mature” Christian, nor any Christian that one might deem mature or immature, needing no teacher

**Let him that teaches, although he be one of the laity, yet, if **he be skilful in the word and grave in his manners, teach; for they shall be all taught of God. John 6:45

(The Constitutions of the Apostles, Book VII, Section IV.)

The gist of this quotation is that it refers back to Isaiah 54:13 and to the teaching of Jesus Christ which he gave to his disciples (who were mature and skilful in their Jewish scriptures). In other words, they had been listening and learning from their heavenly Father, and the heavenly Father was drawing them to his Son Jesus Christ.

When we are drawn to Jesus Christ, we are granted the gift or unction of the teaching of the Holy Spirit of which 1 John 2:27 speaks. The law of Moses and the prophets joined with the teachings of Jesus Christ are summed up in the way of life as written in the Didache. In other words, as laity, as we become mature in the basic teachings of the Didache we have the unction of the Holy Spirit and need not a teacher.

A teacher is needed to instruct us as catechumens of the faith,and lead us to the sanctifying waters of baptism and the anointing of the Holy Spirit. If one was to read the Didache, it was an instruction manual for catechumens leading up to the waters of baptism.

God’s peace be with you

micah

 

[steve_b]

Let him that teaches, although he be one of the laity, yet, if **he be skilful in the word **and grave in his manners, teach; for they shall be all taught of God. John 6:45

(The Constitutions of the Apostles, Book VII, Section IV.)

The gist of this quotation is that it refers back to Isaiah 54:13 and to the teaching of Jesus Christ which he gave to his disciples (who were mature and skilful in their Jewish scriptures). In other words, they had been listening and learning from their heavenly Father, and the heavenly Father was drawing them to his Son Jesus Christ.

When we are drawn to Jesus Christ, we are granted the gift or unction of the teaching of the Holy Spirit of which 1 John 2:27 speaks. The law of Moses and the prophets joined with the teachings of Jesus Christ are summed up in the way of life as written in the Didache. In other words,*** as laity, as we become mature in the basic teachings of the Didache we have the unction of the Holy Spirit and need not a teacher.***

A teacher is needed to instruct us as catechumens of the faith,and lead us to the sanctifying waters of baptism and the anointing of the Holy Spirit. If one was to read the Didache, it was an instruction manual for catechumens leading up to the waters of baptism.

God’s peace be with you

micah

What is it you’re defending?

• That you’ve graduated from the catechuman stage and don’t need teachers anymore?
• that all you need is the didache

This is all off topic.

You should start a new thread if you want to talk about those issues

 

[mercytruth]

What is it you’re defending?

• That you’ve graduated from the catechuman stage and don’t need teachers anymore?
• that all you need is the didache

This is all off topic.

You should start a new thread if you want to talk about those issues

You asked me a question, and I answered it. This was your question:

**I’m familiar with the passages you quote. None talk about a “mature” Christian, nor any Christian that one might deem mature or immature, needing no teacher **

Just to re-iterate, I John 2:27 says that we have no need of a teacher if we have the unction of the Holy Spirit.

This is supported by Hebrews 5:12: Although you should be teachers by this time, you need to have someone teach you again the basic elements of the utterances of God."

All of this is confirmed by our Lord Jesus Christ in John 6:45, who says God is our teacher, as per Isaiah 54:13.

God will teach anyone, if they are willing to hear and learn.

So, God has taught me, and it has everything to do with why I do not defend Papal infallibility. If you disagree, that’s fine with me, but my God is teaching me otherwise,
and I am not alone in this understanding.

End of discussion.

God’s peace be with you,

micah

 

[Gorgias]

Just to re-iterate, I John 2:27 says that we have no need of a teacher if we have the unction of the Holy Spirit.

Micah,

If this is the meaning of 1 John 2:27, then why would it be necessary for John to have to teach this to people who have the anointing of the Holy Spirit? That is, if this passage means what you say it means, then it would have been completely unnecessary for John to preach this teaching. Therefore, it would seem to be the case that either they were not baptized in the Spirit or that the meaning is other than what you understand it to be.

This is supported by Hebrews 5:12: **Although you should be teachers by this time, you need to have someone teach you again **the basic elements of the utterances of God."

Actually, this hurts your case, not supports it! If they had ‘the unction of the Spirit’, then they should not require a teacher. They have been baptized, so no teacher is necessary, you claim… and yet, it’s being asserted here that they do need a teacher!

All of this is confirmed by our Lord Jesus Christ in John 6:45, who says God is our teacher, as per Isaiah 54:13.

Right. This simply means that what Jesus teaches is ultimately from God the Father (see John 17:7). In fact, Jesus sends out the apostles not just to baptize, but to teach – if no teaching was necessary following baptism, why would Paul send letters to the communities he founded?

God will teach anyone, if they are willing to hear and learn.

Agreed; and he does so through the teaching authority that Jesus invested in the apostles.

If you disagree, that’s fine with me, but my God is teaching me otherwise,
and I am not alone in this understanding.

I thought that your authority came from the anointing of the Holy Spirit? Now you’re claiming its validity based on the fact that there are others who believe this? So… which is it – anointing or popular understanding?

Blessings,

G.

 

[mercytruth]

Micah,

If this is the meaning of 1 John 2:27, then why would it be necessary for John to have to teach this to people who have the anointing of the Holy Spirit? That is, if this passage means what you say it means, then it would have been completely unnecessary for John to preach this teaching. Therefore, it would seem to be the case that either they were not baptized in the Spirit or that the meaning is other than what you understand it to be.

Actually, this hurts your case, not supports it! If they had ‘the unction of the Spirit’, then they should not require a teacher. They have been baptized, so no teacher is necessary, you claim… and yet, it’s being asserted here that they do need a teacher!

Right. This simply means that what Jesus teaches is ultimately from God the Father (see John 17:7). In fact, Jesus sends out the apostles not just to baptize, but to teach – if no teaching was necessary following baptism, why would Paul send letters to the communities he founded?

Agreed; and he does so through the teaching authority that Jesus invested in the apostles.

I thought that your authority came from the anointing of the Holy Spirit? Now you’re claiming its validity based on the fact that there are others who believe this? So… which is it – anointing or popular understanding?

Blessings,

G.

I think we have a different understanding of the meaning of teaching. It seems that you may have the idea that teaching always implies authority as it is given to ordained presbyters who are as the Sanhedrin to the High Priest, that is to the Bishop. In this capacity, a presbyter would be an authoritative voice of counsel to the bishop. I would never assume that sort of authority.

Teaching as it applies to the layperson in 1 John 2:27, Hebrews 5:12, and the Apostolic Constitutions has to do with upholding the doctrinal and moral norms of the Christian faith as **universally implied **by the Apostle Paul when he says that there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism. In its most basic form, the doctrine of the Christian faith is proclaimed in the Apostle’s Creed, and the most basic form of Christian morality is known by **the way of life **in the Didache.

Now admittedly, the issue of Papal infallibility would seem to be outside the doctrinal and moral norms of the Christian faith, and be more within the jurisdiction of the presbyters when giving counsel to the bishop.

As I stated earlier, three criteria are needed in deciding whether an issue such as this is valid. Sacred scripture, apostolic tradition and practice, and the teaching authority of others.

I gave my personal views as a layperson according to the scriptures I cited, and apostolic traditions and practices that I cited. (I did not cite the teaching authorities of the Orthodox church for instance, as this has been discussed widely already on other threads)

So, in the matter of Papal Infallibility, I am giving my personal viewpoint according to the three criteria, and since this is an area of controversy within God’s church, I can not, and I would not speak authoritatively on this subject since I am not a presbyter, or in Roman Catholic structure of speaking, of the Magesterium.

Normally, when it comes to differences of doctrinal issues within the body of Christ, I try to remain silent. This issue affects the unity of the body of Christ, it offends the faith of the little ones, and it seems uncharitable to anathematize those who are not in agreement.
For these reasons, I am outspoken about this issue, my conscience can not do otherwise.

God’s peace be with you

micah

 

[wisedom]

Correct exegesis is using scripture in the correct context. Rev. 3:16 is not speaking about moral relativism. Find another scripture, like "Woe unto to them that call evil good, and good evil"

A mature Christian will be taught by God and great will be the peace of His Children. This idea is from Isaiah 54:13 and is quoted by Jesus Christ in John 6:44-45. and re-iterated by the apostle John in 1 John 2:27 and reaffirmed in The Constitutions of the Apostles, Book VII, Section IV.

Truth begins in the head and heart until it sinks into the heart and is obeyed through the human will saying yes to God’s will as it is united with the unction of the Holy Spirit.

I can assure you that we would not be having this discussion if all of professing Christianity, and if all of the Catholic Church were actually living out the **way of life **as put forth in the Didache.

To put it more strongly, ‘doctrines’ can be use like the fences that the Pharisees built around the law to keep the Jewish people ritually clean. If our focus is on the nit-pick details of obtruse doctrines which are put forth as a remedy for securing the purity of faith, we are missing the mark. Our Christian/Catholic faith is ultimately a submission to the will of God in humility and trust to the teachings of Jesus Christ as simplified by **the way of life **written in the **Didache **empowered by the unction of the Holy Spirit.

God’s peace be with you

micah

Jesus’s only teaching is : “LOVE ONE ANOTHER AS I HAVE LOVED YOU”

the pharisees interpreted the law to the word but failed to comprehend the SPIRIT OF THE WORD/LAW, which is why they failed to recognise Jesus as God incarnate, unlike the majority of humble folk, and crucified him because he did God’s Will and not theirs!

one has to interpret any SCRIPTURE in the context of all sayings or teachings of Jesus or else we will be tricked by the teachers of the law (now as it prevailed then) into being subservient to the so-called elders who by their actions have denigrated or destroyed the Church Jesus had in mind and initiated…

Jesus’ church is of the laity, for the laity, by the laity and from the laity…his denounciation of the pharisees, teachers of the law, etc. (the counterparts of todays leaders),- (i.e. their hypocrisy and evil)-, in a language unparalleled in human history, is indeed a delight for all who believe in Him!