Infallibility of Church?

[mcq72]

So, let’s see if we can characterize our anonymous Church of the first century, and if that makes it any clearer about which Church it is:

• It has Peter as its head
• It appoints bishops as successors to Peter and the apostles
• These bishops accept Peter as their head
• This Church celebrates the Eucharist, and proclaims it to be the Body and Blood of Jesus

Hmm… now which contemporary Church bears all those characteristics? Hmm… it’s on the tip of my tongue…

Well thank you for agreeing to the historical origin of the adjective turned proper name of “Catholic”. And agree that a rose by any other still smells as sweet. I like to say a la Forest Gump, “Apostolic is as apostolic does”.

But my point was not trivial and runs just as deep as all your points, and then some. Just as the name Catholic developed, so did all your points except that for sure the apostles appointed deacons, elders, presbyters/ bishops.

It is quite sectarian to call the Body of Christ, the Bride of Christ, even the Church Catholic at this time. It was appropriate at one time, when the church was universal, but not now.

 

[MT1926]

The fact that the books of the NT developed over time says nothing about the chain of authority.

So you don’t believe the Church that was formed before the NT was written wouldn’t have a better idea of the interpretations of what was written? You don’t believe members of a Church that finally get to hear John 3 wouldn’t right away say "oh yeah Jesus is talking about Baptism or John 6 is the real presence in the Eucharist. "After all what else can Jesus mean seeing that we have already been doing these things for 30 years or so now.

As compared to people who came along 1500 to 2000 years later and said nope you are interpreting that wrong? You don’t need to actually get wet or have someone say the words (in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit) you just need to believe.

I know you don’t believe this but I’m just trying to help you see that the further we go, without someone holding the reigns, that many do. Sure there isn’t a very wide gap between what you and I believe, however how wide do we allow that gap to get, between us and others, before we realize that it is also a gap between us and Jesus?

The main criteria the Church used to determine if a given book was authoritative was whether or not it was of Apostolic origin.

Actually that might have been one criteria but not the main criteria. If so who wrote Hebrews? Why didn’t they accept the Gospel of Thomas or many others that claimed to be written from Apostolic origin? The main criteria was did the books line up with the Oral Tradition already being followed in the Apostolic Churches.

The Church considered itself to be under the authority of the Apostles, the ones whom he directly commissioned.

How can you be under the Authority of the Apostles if they are dead? Now being under the authority of their successors does make sense though. Just as Jesus directly commissioned the Apostles they to directly commissioned others with authority.

I’m sure you would agree that the Apostles commissioned, the next generation of teachers to teach in their place. Why do you believe this would have stopped after Timothy and Titus and Luke, etc?

God Bless

 

[Paytheon]

Nothing you state is fact. It’s your opinion. There is no comparing the word “Holy Trinity” which defines the Godhead, and the belief that “you have to be Catholic for salvation”. Everywhere you placed the words “Catholic Church” you can place the words “Christian Church” or better yet, “Jesus Ministry”. I love how some of you love to ‘judge others’ by claiming “I deny the very words of Jesus” which I have not. But I will do as Christ has asked me, love one another as he loves us (even my enemies), repent, obey, and forgive.

 

[Paytheon]

Paytheon:

There was no Catholic church then. You do not need to be “Catholic” to receive salvation. That’s simply fact!

Now here is the theological rebuttal that has been crafted carefully for you, that if the thief had the chance, had he been freed, he would have done all the righteous things that saves us, he would have become a Catholic thru baptism. ( baptism of desire).

I love the song “What might have been”. But your theological rebuttal is asking me to accept “subjective truth”, not “objective truth”. Your rebuttal simply is not fact, but fun fiction to think about.

 

[MT1926]

Partly correct. People like to draw lines in the sand so as to feel secure in their rightness, and that is ok.

Do you believe there shouldn’t be any lines? Did Jesus draw any lines in the sand for us?

I think you are missing my point. My discussion with @Glenn isn’t about whether or not we need to be Baptized. The point I am getting at is what you say here.

But if one can get free a little from that need, there are connections between the lines, the boxes.

Sure one can get free of that need but when have they gotten to free? Especially when we can make connections between verses of scripture to make the scriptures say whatever we want to here. Just because you decided to make a connections between scriptures on re-generational baptism and override those verse because of your understanding of “no works righteousness” isn’t evidence that you correctly made that connection. That is all I am saying.

It is similar to what @Glenn keeps saying about homosexuality being a sin taught clearly in scripture. Sure he can see it and I can see it but many see those “connections between the lines, the boxes” and justify what they do. Same goes for abortion and divorce and remarriage. Just because someone can make those connections between the lines isn’t evidence that the Apostles made those connections.

That’s the only point I’m trying to make, call it lines, call it connections, call it boxes, call it whatever you want, it doesn’t matter. Just because a line, connection or box can be made isn’t evidence that it should be made.

God Bless

 

[MT1926]

So the church informally came to a consensus, and zero evidence of any top down papal force.

I guess that depends on what one is will to accept as evidence.

For sure there was apostolic force, I mean they or a close companion wrote for God.

If it existed between the Apostles back then and there is definitive evidence that this force was shared with the companions of the Apostles, what happened to this force? Where did it go? Did the Apostles not want their companions to share this force with others?

They acted as a body, one part communicating with the other, naturally, even divinely.

And how did they communicate with each other? I mean it’s not like they were able to send group emails or skype. Was there a central authority that handled all of the communication or did they willy nilly send out letters of communication to other communities waiting months, if not years, to get return letters from every single church and wait for responses and rebuttals from all of those letters as well.

Do you not see what you think occurred could have never occurred back then.

Imagine you have 9 siblings whom you need to communicate with to make decisions on how to take care of your elderly parents. An impossible task even today. Now imagine those siblings are scattered throughout all of the US and it will take a month to communicate with each one of them. How long do you think it would take for those 10 people to come to a unified decision? Personally I think the parents would be dead and gone long before any decision could be made.

God Bless

 

[Gorgias]

But my point was not trivial and runs just as deep as all your points

OK… so, you’re not just pointing out the timing of the origin of the name. Cool.

Just as the name Catholic developed, so did all your points except that for sure the apostles appointed deacons, elders, presbyters/ bishops.

Umm… and that the Eucharist existed, and that it was considered the Body and Blood of Jesus. (The explanation for how it occurred – that is, ‘transubstantiation’ – didn’t arise for another millennium, but the belief that it was Christ’s Body and Blood was there from the beginning!)

It is quite sectarian to call the Body of Christ, the Bride of Christ, even the Church Catholic at this time. It was appropriate at one time, when the church was universal, but not now.

So… Christ has many brides? Hmm…

 

[mcq72]

love the song “What might have been”. But your theological rebuttal is asking me to accept “subjective truth”, not “objective truth”. Your rebuttal simply is not fact, but fun fiction to think about.

Yes agree, but hope you understood twas not my rebuttal, but I posted what has been rebutted to me by Catholics.

 

[mcq72]

So… Christ has many brides? Hmm…

Well, we have two choices. Either each of the big 3 branches (C, O, and P), must cite the other two as wrong, or the Bride is comprised of saints coming out of all three, salvation being universal enough to withstand sectarian differences.

At least the Catholic church has admitted lately that indeed there can be saints from the other two “churches”, but of course must claim it is due to them being united with Catholic teaching, that all truth, all saving truth, is of “Catholic” origin.

Sounds reasonable if you believe that Jesus only instituted the Catholic church, that the apostles were Catholic, that the bible is Catholic, that all early fathers were Catholic, and that the Orthodox and Protestants can only have heretical differences with the Catholic Church.

Thankfully what is universal is that a God graced encounter with Jesus is what ultimately saves and puts us in the bridal party

 

[Glenn]

As compared to people who came along 1500 to 2000 years later and said nope you are interpreting that wrong?

The Reformers just didn’t just come along, out of the blue, 1500 to 2000 years later. Luther, for example, was an Augustinian monk, a professor of theology and a recognized scholar in the Catholic Church. He was fully aware of the history and practice of the early Church, and of the writings of the early Church fathers. And he debated the best minds of his time.

You don’t believe members of a Church that finally get to hear John 3 wouldn’t right away say "oh yeah Jesus is talking about Baptism or John 6 is the real presence in the Eucharist.

This is really the crux of my issue. I have shelves of Catholic writings all the way back to the Church Fathers, and I have deep regard for them. But I have also made serious study of great Protestant theologians. And my conclusion? I don’t know which side is right on many of the issues, and I can as vigorously defend one as another. Luther believed in the real presence in the Eucharist, Calvin believed in a spiritual presence, and Baptists believe the sacrament is essentially a memorial. But God judges the heart, and there are true and faithful followers of our Lord in Lutheran, Presbyterian, and Baptist churches.

I have to rest in a degree of uncertainly, but it is in matters that I consider to be non-essential for salvation. So in spite of division, there can be a great deal of unity in knowing that we are all in Christ. Not one of us will ever have a perfect theology. Even if we affirm that the Catholic Church is infallible, none of us will ever have a perfect, infallible grasp of its doctrine. We are all sinners and we are all personally subject to error.

I see plenty of issues with Protestant churches, and have recently considered once again the teachings of Catholicism. But the Catholic Church still says that I must believe everything as written exactly in its conciliar documents, and I just can’t do that because I can’t be sure about certain matters that it says I must believe. And to be honest, each time I think through this Catholic-Protestant debate, I come down mostly on the Protestant side. But I continue to pray that God, through his Spirit, will lead me into all truth.

 

[steve-b]

For the Protestants, the chain of authority is like this: Christ → Apostles → Scripture → Church.

Except that the Church came before a single word of the NT scriptures was written… The Church officially came into being on Pentecost, when the tongues of fire, the Holy Spirit, descended on the apostles.THEN the apostles went out and built the Church.

That Church had a name.

Acts 9:31
From the Greek Study Bible
Ἡ μὲν οὖν ἐκκλησία καθ’ ὅλης τῆς
Translation:
ἐκκλησία = church ,
καθ’ = according to ,
ὅλης = whole / all / complete / universal ,
τῆς = the ,
= the Kataholos Church = the Catholic Church.

the writers of the NT by definition, were already in the Church they were writing to and for.

AND

Ignatius of Antioch, ordained Bishop by the apostles, ~69 a.d. That is before the book of Acts is written. Ignatius a direct disciple of St John the apostle. Ignatius wrote 6 letters to the Church in 6 locations. In his writings, He uses Christian in (ch 2) and Catholic Church in (ch 8) in his Epistle to the Smyrnæans
Note: He writes, schismatics won’t be going to heaven, Epistle to the Philadelphians (ch 3)
Ignatius is passing on what he learned from the apostles.

AND

The Church, not only wrote the NT, it selected only 27 books to be the NT, and canonized those books in the 4th century. Prior to the 4th century canonization of 27 books of the NT, and 46 books of the OT, there was no “bible”.

 

[mcq72]

Do you believe there shouldn’t be any lines? Did Jesus draw any lines in the sand for us?

I said it was ok. I also alluded to Pauls warning of carnal motivation in that matter

That’s the only point I’m trying to make, call it lines, call it connections, call it boxes, call it whatever you want, it doesn’t matter. Just because a line, connection or box can be made isn’t evidence that it should be made.

The connections I was trying to refer to are where areas of agreement can be found. For instance I may not call baptism a sacrament conferring grace in Catholic and others terms, but I do believe one is graced to be baptized and is graced due to the obedience to be baptized, that there “benefits”, as with anytime you obey God.

Or just like I do not believe in and am not under papal office, I believe I am to submit or honor any bishop, even the pope, when he extols Christian virtues and truths and behaviors that please our Lord.

That is what I meant about lines or boxes, and connecting lines between two opposing doctrines or “positions”/ interpretations.

 

[mcq72]

f it existed between the Apostles back then and there is definitive evidence that this force was shared with the companions of the Apostles, what happened to this force? Where did it go? Did the Apostles not want their companions to share this force with others?

No, that consensus force remained with successors as we have mentioned and as evidenced by early writings suggesting what was considered new scripture. Again “informally”, not in council fashion.

And how did they communicate with each other? I mean it’s not like they were able to send group emails or skype. Was there a central authority that handled all of the communication

Well not sure that a central government makes the mail go faster from one end of the church to the other.

I mean how did apostles communicate?Did everything get filtered thru Peter? Did not the apostles have some unity and authority on their own via their own commission, that came from the same Lord ?

I also think you exaggerate the communication process back then, as if Rome and it’s empire were backward ,that it would take years for a letter to travel 300 miles,say Rome to Corinth, and not several weeks.

I will admit evidence does suggest a slow consensus on some of the books, but don’t believe “central planning” is evidenced in first few centuries.

Do you not see what you think occurred could have never occurred back then.

Please show me the evidence that Rome was always involved with putting its stamp of approval for all new sacred writings, not just for its patriarchal jurisdiction, but for all other patriarchs in 80 ad, or 180 ad, even 280 ad. .For sure it had a primacy in honor, but not beyond that, or above other patriarchs in this matter of formalizing Writ.

I stick by evidences of informal formalizing during first three centuries.

 

[mcq72]

Umm… and that the Eucharist existed, and that it was considered the Body and Blood of Jesus. (The explanation for how it occurred – that is, ‘transubstantiation’ – didn’t arise for another millennium, but the belief that it was Christ’s Body and Blood was there from the beginning!)

Well that is pretty big admission I think, that the how of Real Presence was not really clear at first, that it indeed developed.

I agree with those who suggest that there were at several views, and up to four, of just how His words are to be interpreted, in the earliest church. I mean scripture itself says “This is my body” , and really early fathers repeat this. If any context or explanation is given, it is varied amongst writers, just as today. For sure, after centuries, the dominant view was the Catholic developed view in the western church. Even that was not with out a few hiccups, that is dissenting Catholic opinions along the way, later having to be deemed heretical.

 

[Francis]

In my opinion, only Catholics think that whenever Jesus or scripture mention “church”

Personal opinion,or matter of one’s own interpretation dont count much’first of all not every thing is written in the Bible neither the word Catholic not Trinity as in **John 21:25 But there are also many other things that Jesus did; if every one of them were written down, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written…

** Matthew 16:16-18 7 And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.18 And I say to thee : That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. ** Acts 20:28 Keep watch over yourselves and over all the flock, of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God that he obtained with the blood of his own Son.**Jesus taught the Apostles for 3 years and instruction everything ,even at the resurrections some still doubted Jesus rebuked then for their disbelief, so dont keep doubting.

2 Thessalonians 2:14 For this purpose he called you through our proclamation of the good news,so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter. In the apostolic preaching. . .

76 In keeping with the Lord’s command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways:
- orally “by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit”;[33]

• in writing “by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing”.[34]

. . . continued in apostolic succession

77 “In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority.”[35] Indeed, “the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time.”[36]

78 This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, “the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes.”[37]“The sayings of the holy Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer.”[38]

 

[Francis]

And what, no one believed in the Trinity before the definition?

The word Holy Trinity is not mentioned in the Bible doesn’t mean they dont exist

Genesis 1:26 Then God said, “Let us =(Holy Trinity) make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth,[[d]and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.” 2 Thessalonians 2:14 For this purpose he called you through our proclamation of the good news,so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter. In the apostolic preaching. . .

76 In keeping with the Lord’s command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways:
- orally “by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit”;

Jesus did not establish the Catholic church…church yes…Catholic? Well we wouldn’t be on this forum if that were not so debatable.

Oh yes he did in The Catholic Church is GUIDED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT and JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF THROUGH HIS TRUE CHURCH ON EARTH AND THE POPE. Matthew 16:16-18 7 And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.18 And I say to thee : That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

1 Timothy 6:4 4 is conceited, understanding nothing, and has a morbid craving for controversy and for disputes about words. From these come envy, dissension, slander, base suspicions,

 

[Francis]

Nothing you state is fact. It’s your opinion.

Word of God is Truth not opinions John 17:17 Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.

There is no comparing the word “Holy Trinity” which defines the Godhead, and the belief that “you have to be Catholic for salvation”.

Yes it does, It was Jesus who established the Catholic Church in Matthew 16:16-18 ,naturally one will follow the True Church on Earth rather than Man made Church with out the complete 7 Sacraments First of all not everything is written in the Bible neither the word Catholic not Trinity as in **John 21:25 But there are also many other things that Jesus did; if every one of them were written down, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written…

** Matthew 16:16-18 7 And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.18 And I say to thee : That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. ** Acts 20:28 Keep watch over yourselves and over all the flock, of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God that he obtained with the blood of his own Son.**Jesus taught the Apostles for 3 years and instruction everything ,even at the resurrections some still doubted Jesus rebuked then for their disbelief, so dont keep doubting.

The Catholic Church 1Tim 3:15 …which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.Jesus prayers for St Peter Lk 22:32 but I have prayed for you that your own faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.1 Cor 12:28-29 ”28 And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers; then deeds of power, then gifts of healing, forms of assistance, forms of leadership, various kinds of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles?

Everywhere you placed the words “Catholic Church” you can place the words “Christian Church” or better yet, “Jesus Ministry”. I love how some of you love to ‘judge others’ by claiming “I deny the very words of Jesus” which I have not. But I will do as Christ has asked me, love one another as he loves us (even my enemies), repent, obey, and forgive.

If Jesus was Jesus who established the Catholic Church in Mt16:16-18 ,why would any one change it for other names,i can quote from many saints and private revelations through the centuries but as a protestant you will not accept them. Eph 2:20 – Church built upon foundation of apostles ; prophets Power given to the Catholic Church and Peter and his successors Matthew 18:18 Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.sorry you taking it as judging,Catholic always consider Protestants as their brothers,but if you see numbers websites it shown just the opposite of Love, Jn 17:22,23

 

[mcq72]

Prior to the 4th century canonization of 27 books of the NT, and 46 books of the OT, there was no “bible”.

Then how does the Vatican have a bible that is thought to have been made around 350 ad, before any cannonizing council?

 

[Vico]

Gorgias:

True. But that was because they rejected His claim of divinity.

Jews actually do not believe they need a Messiah as Christians believe because the do not believe in original sin. I remember watching a documentary where a School of Rabi’s sat and said they do not see "original sin anywhere in the Torah "

Ps. It seems Jews are looking at this way different.

No original sin as elaborated by Christians, but Leonard Levin writes on 16th century commentator Ephraim Luntshitz (1550-1619),

Originally, he said, death incurred no impurity. But because of the sin of our ancestors in Eden, mankind was visited with the “pollution of the serpent.” When Israel stood at Sinai, they were cleansed of this pollution. When they worshipped the Golden Calf, the ancient pollution returned.

Ref: Seeing With Both Eyes: Ephraim Luntshitz and the Polish-Jewish Renaissance (by Leonard Levin, Brill, 2008).

The Golden Calf is in Exodus 32, created while waiting for Moses to return from the mountain. Aaron was destined to lead Israel and authorized the Golden Calf.

 

[Gorgias]

Well that is pretty big admission I think, that the how of Real Presence was not really clear at first, that it indeed developed.

Why? “How is God a Trinity?” and “How is Jesus fully human and fully divine?” are also both questions that were not really clear at first, but developed… and, just like “how is the Eucharist the Real Presence?”, they were answered by the Church and accepted by the Church, well prior to the Reformation.

I agree with those who suggest that there were at several views, and up to four, of just how His words are to be interpreted, in the earliest church.

If you mean “it’s a symbol”, or “it’s a mystery”, then yeah, I’d agree – but none of these are meant exclusively, or even to the exclusion of “it’s really the Body and Blood of Christ.”

Anyway, you’re letting this get off into a tangent – the question was “which modern Church has the characteristics of the Church Jesus founded?” Given that you’re now debating against a position that the Catholic Church holds, and which the Early Church also held, I think that that answer is pretty clear.