If the Rock is Peter's faith

[benhur]

Actually my point is that they are Catholic on this. They (Orthodox) have choked on the bad behavior of individuals in that office, and the development of doctrine, but not the nature of the role (papacy).

Hi g,

It is my understanding it is about the nature of the role.

“As outlined by the canons of the Ecumenical Councils, the Bishop of Rome held a primacy of honor as the first among equals, but had no actual authority outside of his own Patriarchate”

antiochian.org/node/17076

Rome’s papacy is primary in honor but not jurisdiction for the Orthodox.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Of course men have free will, and can go against God, but if Jesus is able to keep His promise that HIs church will not fall, then surely He could have found SOMEONE SOMEWHERE He could use to communicate to the Church that there was a mistake being made. We see powerful guidance in the NT, of God preventing Paul from going in a wrong direction. Do you think He lost the ability to do this? If not, what prevented Him from making it clear that Peter and/or his successors were making a mistake?

Hi g,

What is a mistake? Is it never falling down , or refusing to get up ?

The promise of Christ is perfect guidance, not that we will always perfectly follow. The promise is that we will win the war but not that we will never lose a battle.

The very epistles testify to that sin (action and doctrine) does enter the church, if only for a “moment”, and correction is given. Infallibility is contrary, suggesting not one second of error on faith and morals.

Many think the reformers were that SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE to try to put an end to that “momentary” error . God has His timing and His prophets to speak on a matter (and sometimes they were popes). The OT is full of this paradigm. God shows His strength in our weakness. “But let us no suppose that because God can that He does” (keep us from error on faith and morals for every second). At least there is always a remnant, and sometimes they are like the sands of the seashore.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Perhaps you imagine that this is not how it works? You may have little understanding of the Curia, which is really the organ that drives the Church (from the human standpoint).

Hi g,

Again it seems that two is better than one , as in two "popes’’, or as in Peter and Paul, together with the Curia. (at least per Irenaeus statement).

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Perhaps we differ on this because we have a different concept of the Church. The Apostles taught that the Church is incarnational, just like Christ, with a divine nature, and a human nature. The Holy spirit is her soul, and Christ is her Head. It is these divine elements that make her infallible, not the human aspects.

Hi g,

Again like Christ, to declare that the man part of the church is infallible due to spiritual part is in itself presumptuous of conditionality. That is the man Jesus was infallible, because He was infallibly or perfectly also divine. The man Jesus prayed and fasted constantly, to be one with the Father. The example for us is that it is not auto-pilot, guaranteed (infallibility or 100 % in union with the Head).That we (Church) can be "perfect " yes, but not unconditionally or infallibly, as in auto pilot.

Blessings

 

[rcwitness]

Hi rc,

Yes as I stated in the post ,“by civil enforcement”

That began at the council of Nicea (325 AD) to roughly just before1800.

Blessings

PS- Sorry to say a negative outcome when the “rock” is an office, and not Christ or faith in Christ. I appreciate your candor and faith in that office , just as I have in Christ and professed faith in him as our unifying factor, despite any other negative outcomes, even 30,000 denoms.

Hey ben, can you provide the reference from Nicea that supports coercion? The state may have attempted to use religious influence, but Church Teaching doesn’t justify coercion.

You say “faith in Christ, not papal office”

I say, “faith in Christ, so faith in papal office”

I will approach the faith like St Paul, and confirm what I practice and
preach through the Petrine office.

Today’s second reading:

I did not confer with flesh and blood,17nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia; and again I returned to Damascus.

18*Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days.

 

[benhur]

I see your point, but I don’t think it has much merit. The Church has always considered Timothy and Titus Bishops appointed by Paul with Apostolic Authority, and that they were instructed to ordain others. One has to set aside significant portions of Scripture and history to reject this.

 

[benhur]

Hey ben, can you provide the reference from Nicea that supports coercion? The state may have attempted to use religious influence, but Church Teaching doesn’t justify coercion.

You say “faith in Christ, not papal office”

I say, “faith in Christ, so faith in papal office”

I will approach the faith like St Paul, and confirm what I practice and
preach through the Petrine office.

Today’s second reading:

I did not confer with flesh and blood,17nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia; and again I returned to Damascus.

18*Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days.

Hi rc,

Well it is clear the church knew of the presence and desire of the emperor. The church was not naïve to what "condemning " a heretic might lead to as far as civil authorities… The synodal letter also indicates the bishops were aware of heretical consequences,as in banishment.

“And of the charges against him (Arius) and of the results they had, you have either already heard or will hear the particulars, lest we should seem to be oppressing a man who has in fact received a fitting recompense for his own sin.”

Blessings

 

[susanlo]

Hey ben, can you provide the reference from Nicea that supports coercion? The state may have attempted to use religious influence, but Church Teaching doesn’t justify coercion.

The government began to get entangled in Christianity around the time of the Council of Nicea. Constantine released an edict after the Nicene council making it illegal to have any writings by Arius.
"And I hereby make a public order, that if someone should be discovered to have hidden a writing composed by Arius, and not to have immediately brought it forward and destroyed it by fire, his penalty shall be death. As soon as he is discovered in this offense, he shall be submitted for capital punishment."
fourthcentury.com/urkunde-33/
Now instead of Christians being independent from the government and practicing in private or secretly, certain religious beliefs were becoming mandated by law. This was just the beginning of political influence and entanglement between politics and religion to evolve over the centuries.

 

[rcwitness]

The government began to get entangled in Christianity around the time of the Council of Nicea. Constantine released an edict after the Nicene council making it illegal to have any writings by Arius.
"And I hereby make a public order, that if someone should be discovered to have hidden a writing composed by Arius, and not to have immediately brought it forward and destroyed it by fire, his penalty shall be death. As soon as he is discovered in this offense, he shall be submitted for capital punishment."
fourthcentury.com/urkunde-33/
Now instead of Christians being independent from the government and practicing in private or secretly, certain religious beliefs were becoming mandated by law. This was just the beginning of political influence and entanglement between politics and religion to evolve over the centuries.

The good thing about Constantine was the prohibition of persecution of Christians! The bad was that government wanted to use the Church to control things.

And though some Church members may have been corrupted by political power, the Church did not Teach religious coercion, right?

 

[guanophore]

Yes as I stated in the post ,"by civil enforcement"

That began at the council of Nicea (325 AD) to roughly just before1800.

I think maybe just a little earlier with the Edict of Milan, a proclamation that permanently established religious toleration for Christianity within the Roman Empire. It was the outcome of a political agreement concluded in Milan between the Roman emperors Constantine I and Licinius in February 313.

This edict just made Christianity “legal” by decriminalizing it, and over the centuries, the Church became conflated with secular rule.

Even more impactful was the Edict of Thessalonica 380 which declared Nicene Christianity to be the state religion of the empire, with the name “Catholic Christians” reserved for those who accepted that faith. This is where secular power started to enforce the Christian faith. This was not a new practice, as the secular rulers had always enforced religious practice. In fact, early Christians were persecuted for “atheism” because they would not worship the Pantheon and could be put to death for it as treasonous.

While the civil power in the Eastern Roman Empire controlled the church, and the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. The Bishops of Rome were able to consolidate the influence and power they already possessed in the Western Roman Empire. Some of this came by virtue of being in Rome, but also because the Church in Rome was considered pre-eminient due to the intense Apostolic doctrinal foundation laid before the martyrdom of Peter and Paul.

The secular power of Rome was lost with the sacking of Alaric. The Empire had been losing ground to the “barbarians” as well as to civil wars. When Rome was sacked and the seat of the Empire transferred to Constantinople, there was no secular authority left in the City to manage the masses. The Emperor gave the responsibility for managing the affairs of the City to the Pope, as the most functional institution available. The title Roman Pontiff was conferred and the overlap of secular power with spiritual was sealed.

It is a great blessing and a gift that our current pope has eschewed this title, along with a number of other titles and practices that St. Peter would find objectionable.

PS- Sorry to say a negative outcome when the "rock" is an office, and not Christ or faith in Christ.

I suppose this is true, but you seem to be setting up a false dichotomy. There is no separation in the faith of Peter and Peter’s “rockness”. He was made “rocky” by Christ, and his faith was a sturdy “rock” in Christ. Jesus does not change a persons name for no reason!

I don’t think any one here has ever claimed that the “office” is a rock!

 I appreciate your candor and faith in that office , just as I have in Christ and professed faith  in him as our unifying factor, despite any other negative outcomes, even 30,000 denoms.

This seems like another false dichotomy. We have faith in Christ, that He established all that was necessary to preserve and protect His Church until He comes again. By our faith in Him, we accept that Peter was given certain gifts and responsibilties that were passed to his successors. Being in unity with the Apostles, and the successors of the Apostles, is not somehow “opposite” of faith in Christ, as you seem to indicate here.

Division and separation creates more division and separation. If the successors of Peter in the middle ages had the holiness that the popes have been in the last 100 years, it is likely the rebellion would never have happened.

 

[rcwitness]

Hi rc,

Well it is clear the church knew of the presence and desire of the emperor. The church was not naïve to what "condemning " a heretic might lead to as far as civil authorities… The synodal letter also indicates the bishops were aware of heretical consequences,as in banishment.

“And of the charges against him (Arius) and of the results they had, you have either already heard or will hear the particulars, lest we should seem to be oppressing a man who has in fact received a fitting recompense for his own sin.”

Blessings

The Church did “condemn” heretics. These were Christians who disobeyed the rule of the leaders in the Church of God. And Teaching the brothers things that the Church does not. This is not coercion. This is stopping heresy from corrupting the Deposit of Faith.

 

[guanophore]

Hi g,

And there are not two heads, or an invisible belly button and an invisible one.

Blessings

Indeed not! And Jesus leaving Peter to strengthen His brethren does not make Jesus any less the Head. Giving Peter the Keys does not mean that He is still not Lord of the House! Jesus gave His church authority, but it does not subtract from HIs own.

Luke 10:16

16 He who hears you hears Me, he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me.”

A visible church:

Matthew 18:17
And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.

Authorative and heirarchical:

For, since ye are subject to the bishop as to Jesus Christ, ye appear to me to live not after the manner of men, but according to Jesus Christ, who died for us, in order, by believing in His death, ye may escape from death. It is therefore necessary that, as ye indeed do, so without the bishop ye should do nothing, but should also be subject to the presbytery, as to the apostle of Jesus Christ, who is our hope, in whom, if we live, we shall [at last] be found. The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians — Ignatius

Faith in the office flows out of faith in Christ, and His promises.

 

[guanophore]

The good thing about Constantine was the prohibition of persecution of Christians! The bad was that government wanted to use the Church to control things.

And though some Church members may have been corrupted by political power, the Church did not Teach religious coercion, right?

No, the Church has never taught this, but that did not prevent it from happening. People were forced to convert, under penalty of death, somthing that Jesus and the Apostles certainly never advocated.

If there had not been so many clerics in Europe living large, and politically powerful, we may not have suffered a “reformation” at all, or at least one so divisive.

 Hi g,

What is a mistake? Is it never falling down , or refusing to get up ?

Did you think that Peter orchestrating the choice of Matthias to replace Judas was a mistake?

How come Jesus was so weak or disinterested He could not direct Peter any better?

The promise of Christ is perfect guidance, not that we will always perfectly follow. The promise is that we will win the war but not that we will never lose a battle.

The very epistles testify to that sin (action and doctrine)  does enter the church, if only for a "moment", and correction is given.  Infallibility is contrary,  suggesting not one second of error on faith and morals.

You seem to be confused about the gift of infallibility , benhur. I would think it would be clear from the NT scriptures that a person can be protected from error in teaching and preaching, yet still commit sins/make mistakes.

Many think the reformers were that SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE to try to put an end to that "momentary" error .

Yes, but I am talking about the 1400 years prior to that time. If God’s Church were so off track that doctrine had to be changed, why did Jesus allow this? He promised that He would not allow His Church to fall into error, yet apparently He did? For a millenia?

Do you honestly believe that the Holy Spirit would teach opposite of what He has already taught? or that He is the author of division and confusion?

 God has His timing and His prophets to speak on a matter (and sometimes they were popes). The OT is full of this paradigm. God shows His strength in our weakness. "But let us no suppose that because God can that He does" (keep us from error on faith and morals for every second). At least there is always a remnant, and sometimes they are like the sands of the seashore.

This seems to imply that the teaching itself is obscured somewhere, such that we cannot count on being able to find inerrant Truth except when God raises up an extraordinary prophet?

Hi g,

Again it seems that two is better than one , as in two "popes’’, or as in Peter and Paul, together with the Curia. (at least per Irenaeus statement).

Blessings

Jesus built the Church so that it would function like a Body. Everyone has an important role. Not all are leaders or pastors. It functions best when all the parts are connected to Him, and fulfilling the functions to which each is called.

 

[guanophore]

Hi g,

Again like Christ, to declare that the man part of the church is infallible due to spiritual part is in itself presumptuous of conditionality.

I would agree, except that Christ gave His divine promise.

4Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.Rom 14:4

God is able to make anyone stand where He has put them to stand.

  That is the man Jesus was infallible, because He was infallibly or perfectly also divine. The man Jesus prayed and fasted constantly, to be one with the Father. The example for us is that it is not auto-pilot, guaranteed (infallibility or 100 % in union with the Head).That we (Church) can be "perfect " yes, but not unconditionally or infallibly, as in auto pilot.

This is a good point. Infallibility is a “negative” gift. Jesus has promised to lead the Church into “all Truth”. He will not allow His Church to fall into error. He prevents error from occurring.

Hi g,

OK, that is succession of sorts, especially for new young churches. Do not have scripture (save OT) to show the assembly picking elders /bishops. But you also mentioned history and here we have the Didache,

" Appoint, therefore, for yourselves, bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord".

“Those [elders] therefore who were appointed by them [apostles], or afterward by other men of repute with the consent of the whole church…” (1 Clement 44:3)

We do see several examples of ordinations and charges to missionary works done by the whole leadership, and “consent of the whole church”.

The Didache was written to elders (this is why it is not in the NT, it is a clergy liturgical document). Certainly a Bishop appointed by an Apostle would have an easier acceptance. We also see the Fathers enjoining the faithful to be obedient and submissive to their presbyters and bishops “as unto Christ”.

‘It is not desirable for us to neglect the word of God in order to serve tables, but select from among you, brethren, seven men of good reputation," Acts. Seems like the congregation somehow chose elders, not the apostles.

This is not different than how ordination takes place today. Deacons and potential priests are identified within their parishes, and are sent to a Vocation Director to enter into a process of discernment. Not all those entering discernment are ordained by the Bishop.

3Therefore, brothers, select from among you seven men confirmed to be full of the Spirit and wisdom.** We will appoint this responsibility to them
** Acts 6:3

6They presented these seven to the apostles, who prayed and laid their hands on them.…Acts 6:6

Those selected were brought to the Apostles who were responsible/authorative to appoint them, and ordain them.

Paul’s instructions to Timothy and Titus are clear that those selected should be tested first. The Church has always had a period of spiritual formation and preparation, as Paul directs Timothy not to be “hasty in the laying on of hands” (ordain them before they are ready).

" Evangelists merely appoint these men. They do not select them. There is a vast difference in the selection process and the appointment. Titus was to appoint these men as elders in every city. No formal ceremony was involved.

I would not say there is a ‘vast difference" They are two parts of the same process. I am puzzled why there would need to be a claim that there was no "formal ceremony involved’.I am sure the Deacons who were put forth and appointed by the Apostles with the laying on of hands felt that something formal had occurred.

 The late H. Leo Boles wrote, “The term ‘appoint’ does not carry with it, either in English or in the original, the idea of ‘selected’ elders.

It seems clear that the Apostles relied heavily upon the sense of the local communities, just as we still do today. Any number of persons in a parish may think they are called to ordination, but only those who will submit to the process of spiritual formation will be considered.

 In the case of the seven men selected at Jerusalem, the apostles did not ‘select’ them -- the apostles only ‘appointed them. They did not choose these men; they only ‘appointed them. The disciples at Jerusalem selected or chose the men and the apostles appointed them.”

I guess I am lost on the significance of this. It seems to be a way to diminish the authorative role of the Apostles and the Bishops. Unfortunately that does not work for anyone in a historical tradition coming from the Apostles, because the method has been preserved to this day.

As heretical communities arose, it was even more important that the ordained be in unity with the Bishop. It was a practice for heretical communities to defy the Bishop, choosing leaders for themselves, creating schism, just as it continues to do to this day.

 

[susanlo]

The good thing about Constantine was the prohibition of persecution of Christians! The bad was that government wanted to use the Church to control things.

And though some Church members may have been corrupted by political power, the Church did not Teach religious coercion, right?

Over the centuries after Nicea, the government and the Church became inseparable. The Roman Catholic Church/government did invade territories and force the inhabitants to become baptized or be killed. Those with contrary Christian views were burned at the stake or tortured to recant. Not being a Christian or holding contrary Christian views was a serious crime. I don’t think this is what Jesus had in mind with his great commission. I am glad that the Roman Catholic Church has changed in the recent centuries and no longer advocates this kind of evangelization. Separation of the church and state was a really good idea!

Pope Innocent III 1201 “[T]hose who are immersed even though reluctant, do belong to ecclesiastical jurisdiction at least by reason of the sacrament, and might therefore be reasonably compelled to observe the rules of the Christian Faith. It is, to be sure, contrary to the Christian Faith that anyone who is unwilling and wholly opposed to it should be compelled to adopt and observe Christianity. For this reason a valid distinction is made by some between kinds of unwilling ones and kinds of compelled ones**. Thus one who is drawn to Christianity by violence, through fear and through torture, and receives the sacrament of Baptism in order to avoid loss, he (like one who comes to Baptism in dissimulation) does receive the impress of Christianity, and may be forced to observe the Christian Faith as one who expressed a conditional willingness though, absolutely speaking, he was unwilling **. . .” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_conversion

 

[rcwitness]

Over the centuries after Nicea, the government and the Church became inseparable. The Roman Catholic Church/government did invade territories and force the inhabitants to become baptized or be killed. Those with contrary Christian views were burned at the stake or tortured to recant. Not being a Christian or holding contrary Christian views was a serious crime. I don’t think this is what Jesus had in mind with his great commission. I am glad that the Roman Catholic Church has changed in the recent centuries and no longer advocates this kind of evangelization. Separation of the church and state was a really good idea!

Pope Innocent III 1201 “[T]hose who are immersed even though reluctant, do belong to ecclesiastical jurisdiction at least by reason of the sacrament, and might therefore be reasonably compelled to observe the rules of the Christian Faith. It is, to be sure, contrary to the Christian Faith that anyone who is unwilling and wholly opposed to it should be compelled to adopt and observe Christianity. For this reason a valid distinction is made by some between kinds of unwilling ones and kinds of compelled ones**. Thus one who is drawn to Christianity by violence, through fear and through torture, and receives the sacrament of Baptism in order to avoid loss, he (like one who comes to Baptism in dissimulation) does receive the impress of Christianity, and may be forced to observe the Christian Faith as one who expressed a conditional willingness though, absolutely speaking, he was unwilling **. . .” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_conversion

Thank you susanlo,
I am interested to see the rest of this statement, since it seems to be cut off mid sentence. He states,

“It is, to be sure, contrary to the Christian Faith that anyone who is unwilling and wholly opposed to it should be compelled to adopt and observe Christianity.”

 

[benhur]

I guess I am lost on the significance of this. It seems to be a way to diminish the authorative role of the Apostles and the Bishops. Unfortunately that does not work for anyone in a historical tradition coming from the Apostles, because the method has been preserved to this day.

Hi g,

The significance is that the congregation and elders may have selected there elders/presbyters/bishops, while the apostles then confirmed/ordained/laid hands on. It lays a foundation for some credence that some congregations selected and confirmed their own elders/bishops, presbyters.

As heretical communities arose, it was even more important that the ordained be in unity with the Bishop. It was a practice for heretical communities to defy the Bishop, choosing leaders for themselves, creating schism, just as it continues to do to this day.

Agreed. But would also agree that the CC has asked its bishops to believe in evolving doctrine. It is a two thousand year history.

I mean one thing is to defy a bishop because one wants to be Gnostic or Arian, or today in female ordination etc… It is another to defy the CC/bishop stand on indulgences, or role of Roman bishop over other patriarchs etc…

Blessings

 

[benhur]

I would agree, except that Christ gave His divine promise.

4Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.Rom 14:4

God is able to make anyone stand where He has put them to stand.

This is a good point. Infallibility is a “negative” gift. Jesus has promised to lead the Church into “all Truth”. He will not allow His Church to fall into error. He prevents error from occurring.

Hi g,

Again, what does it mean to stand (never fall?) And not to fall into error ?

Does that mean everything uttered on faith and morals is ex cathedra, perfect . There are not teachings and morals not ex cathedra, in transition ? That is, never needing correction, reform, because not for a nano second is an utterance on faith and morals in error ?

Are we not both presuming just how the Lord keeps His promises ?

Blessings

 

[guanophore]

Hi g,

The significance is that the congregation and elders may have selected there elders/presbyters/bishops, while the apostles then confirmed/ordained/laid hands on. It lays a foundation for some credence that some congregations selected and confirmed their own elders/bishops, presbyters.

Except that this selection would not be considered valid if it were not done in unity with the Bishop. Certainly there were whole communities that did this, and purported themselves to be part of the One, Holy , Catholic, apostolic Church, but that self selection, self confirmation, and self proclamation does not change the facts.

Agreed. But would also agree that the CC has asked its bishops to believe in evolving doctrine. It is a two thousand year history.

I am sure it seems this way to those who do not understand the development of doctrine. But the CC teaches that doctrine cannot "evolve’ in the sense that it fundamentally changes from one thing to another (ie, infant baptism replaced by “believers baptism” only). The Holy Spirit does not teach one thing, then lead others the opposite direction.

The CC teaches that there is a “once for all divine deposit of faith” that contains all the infallible doctrines delivered by Christ through the apostles. No one can add or subtract to this deposit.

Our understanding of that doctrine develops or we may “evolve” if you will, but the doctrine does not.

I mean one thing is to defy a bishop because one wants to be Gnostic or Arian, or today in female ordination etc… It is another to defy the CC/bishop stand on indulgences, or role of Roman bishop over other patriarchs etc…

I don’t see that there is any difference. All who defy the authority established by Christ will do so for a “good” reason. Gnostics and Arians believed they had it right. Those who ordain women do so because they believe it is right.

I do agree that it is another thing to defy or disobey about a misunderstanding (which the issue of indulgences usually is), or something that is not a church teaching (it is not possible to “sell” an indulgence, so the appearance that one has been sold is a farce).

Departure from what the Apostles believed and taught is almost always done because those who are departing actually believe that they are moving CLOSER to what was taught, because that is their understanding of scripture/history.

Jesus did not say to stop being obedient to the Apostles/Bishops when they made a mistake or did something someone did not like. Holiness is not attained in the Body by schism and factiousness. The current practice of abandoning a faith community when the leader does something objectionable and going down the street to start again is not what Jesus had in mind. He gave us methods IN the Church to confront sin and problems. He did not authorize those who disagree to change the doctrines, or “fire” the leadership.

One has to wonder, if you were to be in unity with the successor of Peter, even though you have misgivings about the “supremacy” of the role, why would that be a practical problem?

Have you ever observed the successor of Peter throwing his weight around in a unholy manner, that you find offensive? If so, what did you see? or what are you concerned you might see?

I just don’t see these popes of the last century in any way arrogant or supremacy minded, so I fail to see the problem.

Hi g,

Again, what does it mean to stand (never fall?) And not to fall into error ?

There are two aspects here. Jesus never promised that the man filling the office would never make mistakes. He promised that the Church would be led into “all Truth”. He protects the Church through the office, the councils, and the sensus fidelum.

Does that mean everything uttered on faith and morals is ex cathedra, perfect .

There are many levels of teaching authority recognized, and ex cathedra is only the highest one.

There are not teachings and morals not ex cathedra, in transition ? That is, never needing correction, reform, because not for a nano second is an utterance on faith and morals in error ?

The people of God are always in need of reform, but the doctrines of Christ are not. I think the biggest problem with the Reformation was changing doctrine in an effort to address corrupted clerics. This mistake has continue to perpetuate itself.

Jesus infallible teachings are never in need of correction or reform. They need to be applied differently in different areas of the world, and in different cultures over time.

Teaching error causes the faithful to pass through the Gates of Hell. Jesus promised that He would not allow this to happen.

Are we not both presuming just how the Lord keeps His promises ?

Blessings

No, I am accepting what was handed down, which is from the paradosis, rather than from a presumption of my own.

I guess you are saying that Jesus does not mind if the Church teaches error, since that has nothing to do with Him leading His Church into “all Truth”?

 

[YADA]

Hi g,

The significance is that the congregation and elders may have selected there elders/presbyters/bishops, while the apostles then confirmed/ordained/laid hands on. It lays a foundation for some credence that some congregations selected and confirmed their own elders/bishops, presbyters.
Agreed. But would also agree that the CC has asked its bishops to believe in evolving doctrine. It is a two thousand year history.

I mean one thing is to defy a bishop because one wants to be Gnostic or Arian, or today in female ordination etc… It is another to defy the CC/bishop stand on indulgences, or role of Roman bishop over other patriarchs etc…

Blessings

Even today the Faithful have a role in selecting priests - and from priests comes the bishops. In fact it is similar to the role the faithful have in selecting those who seek membership in the Community … with RCIA we celebrate the Rite of Acceptance - people come and express and interest in living a Christian Life - they begin to worship and during the Rite of Acceptance into the Catechumenate they stand and express a desire to be admitted and the Parish Assembly - on behalf of the entire Church - and affirms and accepts them [or not]. Similarly, those seeking the priestly ordination are called to express their intentions in public and its accepted publicly. And this is long after the initial entry into formation which includes discussions not only with the applicant but other faithful from their worship community and those who helped form their faith [parish priests parishioners, catechists]. With graduate studies and such - we tend to focus on the purely academics of the process and the role of the formation directors … but the Faithful have a role throughout the process. Thus the congregation does have a role in selection and the Bishop lays hands to seal the process … its still very similar to the ancient Church practice … The Church is consistent in every age.