Infallibility of Church?

[John_Martin]

Paul and Peter, who both appointed many bishops.

Yes, many appointed, but only one sits in Rock’s Chair, his name was once Clement, now his name is Francis.

The "inherent office " was actually established at Caesarea Philipi.

 

[mcq72]

Yes, many appointed, but only one sits in Rock’s Chair, his name was once Clement, now his name is Francis.

The "inherent office " was actually established at Caesarea Philipi.

Yes, that is the tradition of the western church, and in particular the Roman Catholic portion.

Tradition teaches that Peter and Paul ordained the first two or three popes (up to Clement), and outlined the succeeding order of which they were to occupy the Chair?

 

[mcq72]

Second, you have to be taught to observe, to obey, all that Christ commanded his apostles.

Correct, and as per Barnabus who presumably after all sacred scripture had been penned and much error corrected, wrote this:

“To those knowledgeable of the Lord’s precepts, keep them, as many as are written.”

 

[John_Martin]

To those knowledgeable of the Lord’s precepts, keep them, as many as are written.”

The person who wrote Barnabas’s Epistle wrote a lot of precepts in his “Epistle”; can we assume he is encouraging people ( his catechumens) to follow his epistle in keeping everything that he wrote about what the Lord said since it was written rather than verbal. and does that include the errors about the Old Testament that he put in writing?

While it is of historical significance the Epistle of Barnabas is not an authoritative document; it is not a writing of Sacred Tradition and not appealed to by the Magisterium.

 

[mcq72]

can we assume he is encouraging people ( his catechumens) to follow his epistle in keeping everything that he wrote about what the Lord said since it was written rather than verbal.

Not everything he wrote, but everything Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, James, and Paul wrote.

 

[mcq72]

While it is of historical significance the Epistle of Barnabas is not an authoritative document; it is not a writing of Sacred Tradition and not appealed to by the Magisterium.

Yep, so much for unanimous consent of fathers…or famous escape clause for when they don’t agree with us

 

[John_Martin]

Yep, so much for unanimous consent of fathers…or famous escape clause for when they don’t agree with us

It is not the Fathers who are “Tradition”, it is the Bishops, the Pope and Magisterium in their living giving to me what they have received for me (and giving you what they have received for you). Bishop Ambrose was the living Magisterium for Augustine when he was a Catechumen, and told him to study Isaiah, not because he needed to get doctrine from the Bible, but because reading Isaiah could help him understand the Gospel that Ambrose was giving to him as the living and authorized officiator of the Gospel to Augustine. The Fathers are the theologians who help us say, “I understand”, to the Tradition.
Thus someone like Thomas Aquinas, as much as he helps us say, “I understand,” also bows to Holy Mother Church when it is later recognized that Mary was conceived without sin, which he, himself, had not fully comprehended.

When one reads the Church Fathers, one is reading expositions of how people comprehended the living Magisterium, in Persona Christi, interacting with them, and how all the understandings of the Church, understandings of the People of God, fit together and made sense. But the truth of it is in the real living person authorized in 2019, now, the present day, to deliver deliverance to me, to you. If no authorization, then no participation in any of the history of the Church, but only wishful thinking and hoping, until some real authorized messenger appears, legitimately.

 

[KameiJohnWison]

I don’t think your answer to the question is accurate. There is difference between doctrines and moral teachings of the Church from that of apparitions. The Church does not compel anyone to decide or to believe who landed on Moon first or did Mary appear to someone somewhere but the Church cannot compromise on any doctrine either be purgatory or real presence of Christ in the form of bread and wine. One may not approve of any apparition but he must absolutely accept all the teachings of the Church on faith and moral to be a Catholic otherwise, the Church knowing his disagreement with her teachings cannot come in communion with him. One cannot be half Catholic, we cannot pick and choose according to our convenience. Pick and choose is the principle of Protestantism.

 

[mcq72]

If no authorization, then no participation in any of the history of the Church,

well, not sure a straw man here , a either or but not both and…an ultimatum, of all authority my way or none at all…sorry to be critical after a nice thoughtful post…

The words of C.S. Lewis are not lost on us;

“the unhistorical, without knowing it, are usually enslaved to a fairly recent past”.

so for example in a mid 19th century Catholic catechism dealing with Protestantism has this;

Q.Most Catholics believe the Pope in himself (office) to be infallible ?
A.That is a Protestant invention, it is no article of the Catholic faith

a quarter century later came the decree came making it an article of faith for all Catholics.

point being what is today was not necessarily yesterday in doctrinal or application/practice…they develop., thanks to your living magisterium, and though it is restrained or channeled by Writ, tough to say if it is apostolic, that such Words ever passed their lips.

Controversial Catechism vs. Protestantism by Fr. Stephen Keenan, Dublin 1854

As to Augustine, he speaks for himself (well, writes), and indeed he praises the church and the preacher (Ambrose) and Holy Writ, and Jesus and I dare say see what you want, but he reinforces “my” theology and understanding of said “authority”, of which Writ is “surpassing authority”, and Jesus teaches him, even thru the preacher, and the church…And yes he succumbs to tradition, such as citing that all have sinned, then following tradition says except for Mary without too much explanation…kind of go along to get along, don’t rock the boat but just be Catholic in my opinion.

 

[mcq72]

Read the epistle of Peter where it says, " Corresponding to that baptism now saves you" How is baptism not a saving grace? Peter was flipping the OT to make his point on baptism and you are here telling baptism doesn’t save?! Ridiculous! How about you writing an epistle saying baptism doesn’t save? Oh yeah you are doing it already

I have read the epistle, thank you. Baptism is representative of the spiritual reality, and Peter is careful to stay clear of elevating the sacrament or rite to operate in a vacuum, by itself, the actual baptism saving you (putting away flesh). I mean the water saved none, but killed all flesh. What saved was the ark, what saved is Jesus Christ and Resurrection, a rising out of the waters that saves giving us a clean conscience.

This verse does not negate the symbolism of what really is signified by baptism. No one is baptized who does not believe in Christ for forgiveness of sins, and for new life already. And folks back then were immediately baptized upon this new life , change of heart with a new one, and i have no problem with equating baptism to demonstrating this new found grace.

What saved Noah? Was it the water ? No. Was it the ark, yes, but what came first, saving faith, a relationship with God, a right heart towards God, that gladly led him to obey and build the ark? Which came first ?

 

[John_Martin]

What saved Noah? Was it the water ? No. Was it the ark, yes, but what came first, saving faith, a relationship with God, a right heart towards God, that gladly led him to obey and build the ark? Which came first ?

Noah, indeed trusted the LORD, ‘I AM’, and was saved and WOW, SEVEN EXTRA PEOPLE were saved with his Faith, with one man’s Faith - then he taught them the ‘Faith’ during the time afloat. And even though saved, Ham gave up his inheritance.
Why, of coarse WHOLE HOUSEHOLDS were Baptized when the head of the house was converted. And the members of that house are shown to believe by the head and the Church as a gift after already having been saved, already having been given the Holy Spirit.

Great point; you have given evidence for Baptizing entire families, including every infant as it is born into the household of a family of Faithful Catholics.
And this is an example of how Scripture helps us to understand the Faith, the Deposit of Faith, the Sacred Tradition that was delivered to us by the living Magisterium. We can say, “I understand.”

John Martin

 

[MT1926]

Sorry I left you hanging. I was at an awesome retreat all weekend. I 'll try to touch on some of the highlights from where we left off.

Not sure I follow you. Being born again, born of God, is not exclusively for adults.

Agreed, that is why we Baptize babies.

Well, after Peter’s first sermon did the 3000 come to understand anything new to want to gladly be baptized?

Don’t know it doesn’t say. It says they were cut to the heart, not the brain. So to think they totally understood St. Peter would be reading that into the text.

I think the question to ask here is were they born again at this moment or were they “not there yet”?
I would argue they had a desire to be born again in Baptism and once they were born again this gave them the grace they needed to (v42) devote themselves to the apostles’ teaching, fellowship, Eucharist and prayers. So after being born again is when they would come to understand.

Cornelius and his household, after Peter’s preaching to them did they come to understand anything new just before the Holy Ghost came upon them?

Saying it wasn’t his entire household, just Cornelius and those that understood would be reading that into the text. I would argue when the Bible states “household” it means the entire household regardless of age or level understanding (which the Bible never tells us).

“For God puts understanding in the heart of a man.” Job

Agreed. But it seems to me you are saying this understanding must occur before one is born again where I am saying it can occur after.

God Bless

 

[MT1926]

What about a person on their death bed who has the desire to believe but doesn’t fully understand?

I totally agree with what you say here. I believe it so much so that the parents can even cry out to the Lord that He will allow their baby to be born again in Baptism and they will not be refused.

My question however, was why does the person on the death bed get to be born again because of their desire but other people can’t? Why do they need to understand and have evidence? And if they don’t then they are “not there yet”.

This is the central point of our entire discussion. You’re claim that a person’s understanding and evidence is the basis of whether they are or aren’t there yet.

The same way the CC “gets around”, or explains how people’s who have never heard the gospel (indigenous people of America’s, or Africa, Australia) will be judged by God, that there is hope for some or many of them.

Awesome, I’m glad you believe this as well. But once again how do you line this up with you believing you can look at someone’s evidence and level of understanding and state they’re not there yet?

God Bless

 

[mcq72]

Noah, indeed trusted the LORD, ‘I AM’, and was saved and WOW, SEVEN EXTRA PEOPLE were saved with his Faith, with one man’s Faith - then he taught them the ‘Faith’ during the time afloat

Not sure about that…would have to reread…pretty sure no infants on the ark…pretty sure the kids had their own faith, and indeed the kids helped build the ark that would save them also…i mean for 120 years Noah preached to the world, so pretty sure the kids heard the message, and came to believe…faith cometh by hearing, and that by the Word of God.

 

[mcq72]

Why, of coarse WHOLE HOUSEHOLDS were Baptized when the head of the house was converted. And the members of that house are shown to believe by the head and the Church as a gift after already having been saved, already having been given the Holy Spirit.

Yes that wonderfully happened with Cornelius…so we all believe first, get baptized in Holy Ghost first, maybe even speak in tongues, then we get water baptized…it happens…shall we put this in a box and doctrinalize it all?

So how about Cain and Abel or Absolom, or a host of other families that the houshold does not follow ?

And Jesus said He came and would divide , brother against brother and father against son etc…

Again as Peter warned, watch out for outward signs only (boxes to place everything neat and tidy for our, our, understanding) that the inward reality is where it is at…

His ways are higher, can not always be put in boxes…like Nike, He just does it…like the wind in our midst…and what happens to wind when you put it in a box?

 

[KameiJohnWison]

Why would baptism be just symbolic. Can physical event play important role in salvation?! Surely does play. First of all you said baptism doesn’t confer saving grace while scripture says baptism saves. Wasn’t the literal dead on Calvary required to save us in the plan of God. Would you say Christ death was also symbolic? If objective reality is not necessary and only symbolic, why would Jesus die on the real cross and not on symbolic cross and bring about salvation. If baptism doesn’t confer grace but just a symbolic act of the other side of reality and not of itself the realty then Jesus warning, " unless one is born of water spirit…will not enter the kingdom of heaven" has no value. To damn someone for not doing the symbolic thing seriously?! But you cannot deny what he meant by that.
Physical things are good too when God works with them. Christ used mud to restore the sight blind. He can use physical water to cleanse our sins, is it anything too hard for the Lord?
If physical reality is downplayed to be merely symbolic why not God crucify a donkey as a symbol of his saving grace, that would have been easier.

When the Holy Spirit felt on the gentile and spoke tongues even before water baptism Peter did not omit water baptism why? because was necessary and Incomplete. Without water there is no baptism.

 

[mcq72]

scripture says baptism saves.

No it does not. Jesus saves. Belief in Jesus saves. Confession of that belief seals the salvation in baptism.

“For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.”

“That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.” Romans 10

Would you say Christ death was also symbolic?

No, but is your death in baptism symbolic ? …“Buried with him in baptism,…” Col 2:12

but (baptism) just a symbolic act of the other side of reality

Just ? Really ? Confessing Jesus is the spiritual reality of new life .

" no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost." 1 Cor.12 :3

unless one is born of water spirit

So please tell me how did David and Abraham and all the OT saints get to see the kingdom, and then enter it. I dare say we agree that by the faith they had in the coming Christ, but now tell me when were they ever born of water , or born of baptism as you interpret that.

Many do not interpret born of water to mean baptism because of the context , or that it is not an OT context (regenerational baptism). I addressed this in another post here on this thread.

To damn someone for not doing the symbolic thing seriously?

“but he that believeth not shall be damned.” Matt1 6:16

Don’t see “not baptized shall be damned”, anywhere.

If physical reality is downplayed to be merely symbolic

The physical reality is nothing, in vain, if not accompanied by the spiritual reality, which is the heart of the matter. The spiritual can be symbolized by the physical.

“but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:” 1Peter 3:21

When the Holy Spirit felt on the gentile and spoke tongues even before water baptism Peter did not omit water baptism why? because was necessary and Incomplete. Without water there is no baptism.

Well without water there is no water baptism. They were already baptized in the Holy Ghost.
“He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:” Matt 3:11

So why was water necessary for you ask rightly, if indeed they believed, had been baptized in the Holy Ghost, had been born again ? I can only suggest to seal the deal, for with confession your salvation has brought forth first fruit, for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. I would not say that the confession justifies, for Paul says faith does that, but confession proves it, in good conscience then.

Would you say it was to to wash away sins, as one might apply Peter’s words to the 3000? I would say not, for can the Holy Ghost inhabit what has not been washed already ?

 

[John_Martin]

mcq72 is trying to convince of a different “gospel” than was delivered to us from Jesus and the Father, preached to us by authorized successors to Paul and the Apostles, but we must let him be as the unbelievers, because, “There are some that trouble you and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, were to preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so do I say now again, If anyone preaches any other gospel unto you than what ye have received, let him be anathema.”

 

[mcq72]

Unfortunately, you may be right, and our gospels may have the same parts but in different order (regeneration before baptism etc.), thereby making them different.

However, I would qualify such a statement. Indeed some are regenerated by your gospel, and what I am more familiar with, that indeed some, or many, are regenerated by this other gospel. This should dull, and nullify for some, any anathemas given each other.

Reminds me a little bit of the apostles complaining to Jesus about these other disciples, that didn’t hang out with the apostles. Not a great analogy but…

 

[MT1926]

The bottom line for any Christian is to believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and that he was crucified died for our sins and was resurrected.

AMEN!

Trusting in the authority of the church, any church does not necessarily enhance or strengthen your personal relationship with God.

Disagree.

Romans 10:14 But how are men to call upon him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher? 15 And how can men preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach good news!” 16 But they have not all heeded the gospel; for Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” 17 So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ.

St. Paul stress the need to spread the gospel message. Unless missionaries are sent and Christ is proclaimed, the world cannot call upon a savior.

Without an authoritative Church guarding that gospel message you and I would have never heard it in the first place. Which means we would not have any relationship with Jesus.

Jesus did not walk the earh and preach

He didn’t? You sure about that?

God Bless