He did define it. He is giving it an erroneous definition that refers to doctrinal development. He does not seem to understand the difference between the two.
Forgive me for randomly butting in, for posting something that someone else already posted, or for even taking this previous post a little out of context
, but papal infallibility was taught by the early church, or atleast the idea of it was around:
Thanks, Joey, and no apology needed. Would you agree that, even with Cyprian’s quote, that there has been and continues to be a disagreement between east and west (and between Catholics and (I’ll be quite specific) Lutherans within the west, exactly what papal infallibility, or more broadly, universal jurisdiction means? What it is supposed to look like, and how it is carried out?Forgive me for randomly butting in, for posting something that someone else already posted, or for even taking this previous post a little out of context
Cyprian of Carthage, writing about 256: “Would the heretics dare to come to the very** seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come**?” (Letters 59 [55], 14). (emphasis mine).
catholic.com/library/church_papacy.asp also has some good resources too.
Joey
Hi Jason,
i agree with both of these, obviously.
Again, agreed.
We also read that the Word of God was deposited in the Church. This statement (all we have is in scripture) is predicated upon the assertion that God did not instill His Word in the Church, or that the Word of God placed in the church is no longer vialble, it means that God was unable or unwilling to preserve it there.
Yes, but Smith was not entrused with the Sacred Deposit of faith, or the very great and precious promises of Christ.
It is also an historical fact that He established ONE CHURCH, through which He intended to manifest His glory to the world. Your perspective suggests that He did not keep His promises to her, and abandoned her.
Jason, I wanted to make one more comment here, if I can. I’m not willing to say, the Bible is sufficient, and leave it at that. I’m only willing to say that scripture is the final norm, by which all teachings and teachers are held accountable. The former (the bible is sufficient) implies that no teachings and teachers are necessary, and I fully disagree with that. Why would Christ have established the Church to preach (teach) the Gospel and administer the sacraments, if teachers and teachings were not important?
Did people tie Joseph Smith’s followers to pits, gouge out their eyes, toss them in a ring with hungry lions to have them ripped limb from limb, crucify them upside-down, or whip them with the things shown in Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ for weeks on end, all the while promising them that, if they’d just denounce the ludicrous claims of Smith, that the torture would end? Because that - and sooooo very much more - was done to the Apostles, to every single one of them, and all they had to do was admit that they’d made up the whole story about Christ’s resurrection and hidden the Body, and it would’ve ended. But none of them, not one man who was in that Upper Room, who had seen the Empty Tomb, NOT ONE, recanted. This isn’t just the old, vague “testimony of history” argument. This is the testimony of far, far, far more brutal and successful methods of torture than any government of today would even dare to dream using, that would have worked on any liar LONG before the end of the things the Apostles endured before they were martyred (or not in St. John’s case, despite being tortured as above more than once).
Ah. I’d like to thank both of you for correcting me. I would now like to ammend my previous claim. It is not Scripture that Pastor King was twisting with extreme bias in order to create a title that would keep the Church out of his interpretation of Scripture, but rather it was Irenaeus’ writing that he was twisting, much more subtly and cunningly (not unlike a certain animal in a certain Divinely Inspired Book I referred to earlier…) than I had previously though. I stand corrected.
Hey Jon,
Yes, it is a massive assumption. It totally disregards the origin of the Bible, which is Catholic. I think something like this had to be constructed by the Reformers, though, so that they could justify jettisoning the authority appointed by the Catholic Church.
There were several texts that were read during the Divine Liturgy that did not make it into the canon, and some of those that were read that narrowly made it. There were hot disputes over Revelation, James, and Jude as well as Hebrews.
I think you are confusing individuals with the Church as a whole. There were many leaders, fathers, and writers who made mistakes. That does not mean the Church can make mistakes.
So, how can you know the recognition is valid, since they embraced so many doctrines that you find false?
Yes, I agree. This is the same principle that was at work in the Council of Trent, since there was a whole group that wanted to detract from what had been received by the Church as a whole. I think you get it!
So why did the Reformers depart from the revelation and the recognition?
Yes. It shows that the “mind of Christ” is not necessarily espoused by all those who call themselves Christian. His mind is not divided.
I think you are confused, Miguel. Extracting doctrine from the pages of the book is a Reformation method that became necessessary when the Reformers became separated from the Aposotlic Succession. Jesus did not intend for us to grasp the faith by extracting it from the pages of verse. He designed HIs Word to be passed down through those He authorized to do so. In order to infallibly preserve His Word, He gave the Church His promise that they would never be abandoned, and would be led into “all Truth”. So the Gospel of the Church founded by Christ is proclaimed and enacted, but is not extracted from texts. The New Testament reflects the faith of the Church, but is not the Source of it. Jesus is the Source. The Church was fully formed before a word of the NT was ever written.
Your non-sequitur here is built upon some rather shaky either/or thinking. It simply doesn’t follow, however, that because the universal church is the pillar and foundation of the truth, that an individual church (such as Rome) cannot err.
No one said otherwise. But then again, neither was Rome entrusted with this deposit. So your point is moot.
And your non-sequitur dismissal of a sequitur statement is built on the false assumption that the Church built on the Rock of Peter is not the Universal Church. I would quote Matt 16:18 to support the oposite Truth, but you would just tell me that a sentense in which God names someone Rock and then refers directly to that Rock in the very next clause is decidedly not meant to be understood gramatically as stated. Aparently you know what God “meant” to say but was too lazy to actually speak precisely enough to be understood. (You know it would be much simpler for you to just reject Matthew as inspired Scripture because those pesky Catholic managed to get it written in a Gospel that Peter was specifically given authority as Chief Steward that no one else received…)
Oh, yes, we do recognize the assumption, which is why we ask the question. In fact, it is BOTH the HS, through the Catholic Church. The two have never been separated since Christ joined them by breathing the HS into His fledgling Church. Just like mankind cannot exist without the breath of God giving him life, so the Church cannot exist apart from God’s breath of life in her.
I agree, but the heretics also thought they were acting with the HS. That is why the Church had to close the canon.
I think it does, Miguel. That is the nature of canon. Once it is established, the issue is closed. That is why, when the Church followed the Apostles’ in the use of the Alexandrian Septuagint the issues was considered closed. All Catholic bibles produced from NT times until the Reformation included the Deuterocanonicals because the Church, in 382, closed the canon. c
Yes, of course. All Christian doctrine has it’s source in God’s word. But God’s Word is not confined to the Scripture, nor does Scripture say this.
No, you cannot, Miguel. Scripture is authoritative, especially when in the hands of those God has ordained to Teach. But Jesus and the Apostles were, in themselves, that Teaching Authority. Their words were authoritative in themselves, whether they were quoting Scripture, or not. Jesus often used the phrase, 'you have heard that it was said…but I say to you…". He had the authority, not of the scribes, but of God Himself. He passed this authority on to His Apostles, which is why what they spoke was considered the Word of God, whether it was found in the Scriptures, or not.
If this were true, one would think it would claim this about itself.
Or at least to get you to see that you are in one.
No, Miguel. You are wrong on two counts. The CC does not believe that Sacred Tradtiion “rules over” Scripture, or the Magesterium. No “sole rule” is taught at all. Secondly, the authority of the CC comes from God, not from herself. She draws her identity from how God created her.
I am glad you can see this, Miguel. You are right, of course. Jesus did not do anything without a Purpose, and if He created a Church for us to “know everything about other matters of importance”.
If you check you history I think you will find that unity with the Eastern Churches was accomplished, however, briefly at the Council of Florence. Those emmisaries of the Eastern Churches had no qualms in agreeing to reuniting with Rome under the Pope. It was only when they returned to their respective lands that the unity achieved was again broken and they were forced to repudiate their actions at the council. Still not all Eastern Churches returned to schism. Those churches such as the Byzantine Catholics are still united with Rome. That has earned them the derogatory term of Uniates by the schismatic Orthodox.
Um, as I understand it, the Patriacrch of Constantinole does not speak for every Orthodox Church in existence. It’s far more complicated - even now - than you seem to be recognizing…
Yes, it does, Miguel. The promise is not to individuals, who can (and do) fall into error, but to His One Body, the Church.
The Church was entrusted with the Deposit, and the Church had One Faith, all over the world. The Church at Rome, just like that in Alexandria, Constantinople, Antioch, etc. was entrusted with one and the same deposit. I am mystified what you might be referring to here with the reference to “Rome” if it is not an Apostolic See. To say this charge was not given to the Church in Rome is to contradict the Scriptures.
With all respect I think that Jesus taught otherwise.