You know, the Lord Jesus said that to Peter in Matthew 16, but He also said it to all the apostles two chapters later:Sorry if this has already been stated in a previous post. I suppose if relatively new is considered within the last 2000 years then the answer is yes. It all began when Jesus said “What ever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.”
Now, do we interpret Matthew 16 in light of Matthew 18, or do we interpret Matthew 18 in light of Matthew 16? Clearly, regardless of the presence of keys, binding and loosing is present in both chapters. Since keys are directly associated with locking and unlocking (i.e. binding and loosing), it is not a huge leap to imagine that all the Apostles were given the keys in the same way Peter was. Isn’t it interesting, too, that there must be agreement between two or three Christians before anything is given by God? That’s somewhat different from singular Papal Infallibility as defined by Vatican I.Amen I say to you: whatsoever you shall bind upon earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth shall be loosed also in heaven. Again I say to you that if two of you shall consent upon earth concerning any thing whatsoever shall they shall ask, it shall be done to them by my Father who is in heaven, for where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there I am in the midst of them.
False. No “imagination” is, can or should be involved in assenting to Christ’s teaching and that of His one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.Basilian #22
it is not a huge leap to imagine that all the Apostles were given the keys in the same way Peter was.
False.Isn’t it interesting, too, that there must be agreement between two or three Christians before anything is given by God? That’s somewhat different from singular Papal Infallibility as defined by Vatican I.
Anyone who claims there is no basis for Papal Authority until the 1800’s is uninformed about early Christian history (where genuinely ignorant, or intentionally ignorant, I can’t say). That’s why some Protestants try to claim the church went into almost universal apostacy right after the death of St. John - they recognize that the Church Fathers were Catholic in their theology, and the only way to claim their own version as “true Christianity” is to claim a hidden group that survived through the centuries, only to be re-discovered by the reformers, rather than accept that their interpretation of scripture doesn’t mesh with the historical interpretation, as evidenced by the writings of the Church Fathers.Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
Do you by chance have the source where they said that?According to Frs. Trigilio and Brighenti, there have only been two times in the entire history of the Catholic Church that the pope has spoken ex cathedra - the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary. I’m not really sure how you expect anyone to disprove either of these.
In their book, Catholicism for Dummies.Do you by chance have the source where they said that?
I would respectfully disagree with them. That means Vatican I met to define a dogma that related to one isolated instance. That means the Protestants vigorously opposed it and St. Francis de Sales vigorously defended papal infallibility when there were no instances of it. This does not pass the common sense test.In their book, Catholicism for Dummies.
Granted, he is probably speaking hyperbolically, but in any event it is obvious he had more than one in mind. Throughout history Popes have often intervened to provide definitive judgments in the areas of faith and morals, sometimes definitively condemning long lists of propositions (e.g. Coelestis Pastor of Bl. Innocent XI, Ex Omnibus Afflictionibus of St. Pius V, Unigenitus of Clement VI, etc., etc.; each condemned proposition is probably considered an individual judgment by Gasser above accounting for the high number he gives) and sometimes definitively asserting a truth (e.g. like those definitions in Benedictus Deus of Benedict XII, Unam Sanctam of Boniface VIII, the dogmatic letter of St. Agatho, etc.).But, most eminent and reverend fathers, this proposal simply cannot be accepted because we are not dealing with something new here. Already thousands and thousands of dogmatic judgments have gone forth from the Apostolic See; where is the law which prescribed the form to be observed in such judgments?
Me, too. But I’m pretty sure that’s where the quote came from…though it has been awhile since I read that book.I would respectfully disagree with them.
Thanks Randy.Me, too. But I’m pretty sure that’s where the quote came from…though it has been awhile since I read that book.