M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
Is there any?
If there are, is that supported by the ECF’s?
If there are, is that supported by the ECF’s?
- Status
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
Martin, here you are. I’ve missed you in Non-Catholic.
Actually no, but there is a lot for the primacy (not supremacy) of Rome. Interpret that as you will.
G
Genesis315
Guest
St. Peter and his faith are made a rock of the Church and he is given alone the same power the whole college of bishops is also given (of binding and loosing) (Matt. 16, Matt. 18). Christ prays for his faith alone so that he can confirm the brethren (Luke 22). He is also given the commission to feed and tend the sheep (and we are fed with the word of God) (John 21). Likewise, in Acts, St. Peter often speaks for the whole Church.
St. Ireneaus in Against Hereises says all churches must agree with Rome (Book III chapter 3). St. Clement of Rome says he speaks with the authority of Christ (Epistle to the Corinthians). There is also a general consent that the judgments of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable–that is, he has the final say and that Rome is the unshakeable standard of orthodoxy. As St. Cyprian says, to depart from the chair of St. Peter is to depart from the faith (St. Jerome says the same). The chair of St. Peter can never depart from the faith, however. Additionally, rather than just cutting and pasting quotes, this fact can be seen through the study of historical situations and controversies.
If we believe the prophecy of Isaiah:
Isa 59:20 And there shall come a, redeemer to Sion, and to them that return from iniquity in Jacob, saith the Lord. 21 This is my covenant with them, saith the Lord: My spirit that is in thee, and my words that I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed’s seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth and for ever.
…that the word of God will always be in the mouth of the Church, and if the successor of St. Peter has the authority to definitively confirm whether some doctrine is or is not revealed by God, and which all other churches must assent to, then it follows that those judgments must be infallible.
St. Ireneaus in Against Hereises says all churches must agree with Rome (Book III chapter 3). St. Clement of Rome says he speaks with the authority of Christ (Epistle to the Corinthians). There is also a general consent that the judgments of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable–that is, he has the final say and that Rome is the unshakeable standard of orthodoxy. As St. Cyprian says, to depart from the chair of St. Peter is to depart from the faith (St. Jerome says the same). The chair of St. Peter can never depart from the faith, however. Additionally, rather than just cutting and pasting quotes, this fact can be seen through the study of historical situations and controversies.
If we believe the prophecy of Isaiah:
Isa 59:20 And there shall come a, redeemer to Sion, and to them that return from iniquity in Jacob, saith the Lord. 21 This is my covenant with them, saith the Lord: My spirit that is in thee, and my words that I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed’s seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth and for ever.
…that the word of God will always be in the mouth of the Church, and if the successor of St. Peter has the authority to definitively confirm whether some doctrine is or is not revealed by God, and which all other churches must assent to, then it follows that those judgments must be infallible.
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
I’ve opted to avoid your uncharitable misgivings.
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
Verse please? I am assuming you are speaking of verse 32 and that general area?
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
Irenaues:
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 Apostolic Tradition has been preserved continuously by those who are everywhere
Notice that Irenaues said that Rome has authority, a controversial view but he certainly felt that way as did others at that time, but look why. Not because Peter had a specific successor but their adherence to the Apostles teachings(which we also believe as well, this is preserved in the Bible).
NOTHING ON INFALLIBILITY!!!
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
Context? Can you show us where in the epistle and in what context, I’d like to take your word but prefer to see it in context!
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
And how did the Apostolic tradition at Rome get preserved continuously such that it was acknowledged to be the preeminent authority?
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
Interesting. You didn’t avoid spewing your uncharitable mischarectizations on the Real Presence over and over, and insisting that the Latins “nonrespose” to them was an admission. Yet you want a lil hunk of charity?I’ve opted to avoid your uncharitable misgivings.
My charity ends where your blasphemy began.
J
jimmy85
Guest
In my humble opinion, I believe Mat 16, and the comandment that Jesus gave to the apostoles to make disciples of them fits enough in my opinion for the sucetion of Peter.
H
heisenburg
Guest
Good Afternoon Martin,
While I understand you may not accept this interpretation, there is scriptural evidence.
I know you do not agree with our understanding of these passages, but they are understandings that come from the bible.
Hope that helps
In Christ
While I understand you may not accept this interpretation, there is scriptural evidence.
- Naming of Peter as Head Apostle. - (a point I know you are contentious with) In Matthew, Jesus pulls peter aside, Renames him and says that upon Peter, I will build my Church. I know you do not agree with this understanding, but for the sake of this thread, this is the starting point for Catholics. It should also be pointed out the Jesus says to Peter Specifically Feed My Sheep. This was not a commandment to all the apostles, just Peter. In other words, Peter wasn’t just a Sheep, but an Shepard doing the Work of God, He does not REPLACE Jesus as Shepard, but merely is the earthly Man sited by Jesus to Head the flock, much like a head pastor of a church.
- Apostolic succession (A.S.) - First, in Acts we see that the Apostles needed to fill the seat vacated by Judas. If A.S. was not needed, there would be no need to fill this seat. We also see how Paul instructs Timothy in the Ordaining of Bishops, Elders, Priests, etc. THis is a group of people that the bible sets apart from the normal Christian. They have a special office. But Paul gives some very specific requirements. One of which is that he was to ordain just as he was ordained. Furthermore, only someone validly ordained can ordain. If you were not validly ordained then you are not a bishop,elder,priest etc. A natural result of this is that in order to claim to be a valid Priest, you must also be able to claim Apostolic Succession. - So… Apostolic succession is biblical, and the offices left vacant must be filled. er go, when Peter died, his Office of Chief Apostle, Pope, needed to be filled as well.
- Gates Of Hell - Jesus promised us that he would not leave us, that he would not let the Gates of Hell prevail. If there is to be a head apostle, and this office is to be filled, then this office must be protected so that it can never teach error. If the Chief Apostle ever teaches anything publicly in regards to faith and morals that is in error, then the office instituted by God would have succumbed to the devil. Something that should be impossible if Christ promised that he would never leave us to the wolves. There are plenty of instances of Popes that had bad theologies, but were never able to actually preach those theologies Publicly. They would either die, or be so mired in their own personal affairs, the never had a chance to teach the error to the flock. Infallibility does NOT mean everything the Pope does is perfect. it has very limited power in the it only applies to public teachings of faith and morals. (thats why there can also be bad Popes, and there have been bad Popes. Anyone who says there weren’t bad Popes has their head in the sand.)
I know you do not agree with our understanding of these passages, but they are understandings that come from the bible.
Hope that helps
In Christ
M
mrteachersir
Guest
It was Irenaeus (Against Heresies) that says that the bishop is what protects and passes down Apostolic teaching. Take those two statments, coupled with the exhortations of Ignatius of Antioch to follow the bishop as they preserve Christ’s teaching, mix in the references (by these two) to the supremacy of the Church of Rome, add to that the Augustine’s Letter LIII, Chap 1 (in which he traces the successors of Peter from Bishop Anastasius–contemporary of Augustine–back to Clement) and we see the importance of the Bishop of Rome. If we hold Irenaeus and Ignatius and Augustine to be authorities on Early Christian belief, then the following conclusions can be logically drawn: if the Roman Church is to be followed because of its steadfastness (as Irenaeus argues) and it is the bishop that guarantees steadfastness, then it is the Bishop of Rome that guarantees the steadfastness of the Church, which is why Augustine would bother to list the successors of Peter above the successors to any other apostle.
Check out the instance of the Council of Chalcedon: It was Leo, Bishop of Rome, who gave the final word on the Monophysite heresy, and it was his authority that settled the Council. Christian doctrine on the nature of Christ (one Person, two natures) was finalized by him. Christians have not stopped believing this since he proclamed the doctrine. That doctrine was not seriously challenged until the Jehovah’s Witnesses and LDS movements arose.
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
Hi Heisenberg!
Peter taught in error, Paul addressed him tp his face!
I can find that scripture if you’d like but it sure seems like 1 strike against scriptural basis for infallibility.
H
heisenburg
Guest
I believe the passage you are referring to was in Galatians (though I could be wrong, feel free to provide the actual verse). This was when he was sitting privately with a group of people insisting of adherence to the old Jewish Ways. Peter was in error, you are absolutely correct, further more, Paul was absolutely correct in calling him on it. What is important though to note about this instance is that it was at a large, but still private gathering. Peter never taught this to the church as a whole.
This is why I pointed out that the promise of Infallibility is VERY limited. It only becomes valid when it is directed to the church as a whole. It does NOT protect the Chief Apostle from Sin, just that he never teaches that sin publicly to the whole church. The instance in questions was a one time, one night event with a very specific group of people.
This could actually be looked at in the opposite light as well. Perhaps its was one of Paul’s Jobs to KEEP Peter on the strait an narrow. Had it not been for Paul’s correction, probably emboldened by the HS, Peter may have faltered, but he didn’t, and he never taught it Publicly.
The situation in question was more in line with someone at a party succumbing to peer pressure than anything else. It was a sin, it was wrong, but it was never taught.
May you be blessed
In Christ
This is why I pointed out that the promise of Infallibility is VERY limited. It only becomes valid when it is directed to the church as a whole. It does NOT protect the Chief Apostle from Sin, just that he never teaches that sin publicly to the whole church. The instance in questions was a one time, one night event with a very specific group of people.
This could actually be looked at in the opposite light as well. Perhaps its was one of Paul’s Jobs to KEEP Peter on the strait an narrow. Had it not been for Paul’s correction, probably emboldened by the HS, Peter may have faltered, but he didn’t, and he never taught it Publicly.
The situation in question was more in line with someone at a party succumbing to peer pressure than anything else. It was a sin, it was wrong, but it was never taught.
May you be blessed
In Christ
L
lukewarm
Guest
There is nothing in the Bible about infallibility specifically, Catholics use Apostolic tradition and the primacy of Rome and Peter as the Churches head for Papal authority. Infallibility comes into play when Jesus says “whatever you bind on Earth is bound in Heaven”, and Jesus’ promise to that the Holy Spirit will guide in all truth.
I’m not really sold on Papal infallibility (hence my name “lukewarm”). That’s why I’m looking at the Eastern Orthodox Churches.
I’m not really sold on Papal infallibility (hence my name “lukewarm”). That’s why I’m looking at the Eastern Orthodox Churches.
H
HailMary
Guest
That was a pastoral issue, hence, infallibility doesn’t apply there Martin. Get real dude, you are fully aware of this or are just incapable of reading about infallibility and understanding it properly.
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
Instead of affronting me why don’t you explain for the readers why Peters dealings with Jewish ways are not “Faith and Morals” issues. Then tell me to “GET REAL” wow another voice of charity!
L
lukewarm
Guest
Hailmary,
I have yet to meet a Catholic who could accurately tell me the proper use of Papal infallibility (I am Catholic BTW) and in 30 years I have never understood papal infallibility or what exactly has been infallibly declared within the Church., and all doctrines which have been infallibly declared. The area is so grey to me that the papal infallibility position becomes untenable. Especially when you factor in statements by previous Popes that contradict future Vatican councils.
Popes have authorized the use of torture in Papal Bulls, is that infallibly declared? If so is it moral for me to torture modern day enemies of the Church? If it was infallibly declared it would be…
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
Yes and they have removed people from the church because of certain scientific proclamations using papal bulls and accordingly they claim there is no salvation outside the church! So how are issues like Galileo not a matter of faith and morals, when in fact he was forced out of the church? hence out of salvation!
H
HailMary
Guest
Did I hurt your feelings? Sowwy bub.
I’m sure you’ve read this so many times because you are so familiar with the Church’s teachings:
Peter Not Infallible?
As a biblical example of papal fallibility, Fundamentalists like to point to Peter’s conduct at Antioch, where he refused to eat with Gentile Christians in order not to offend certain Jews from Palestine (Gal. 2:11–16). For this Paul rebuked him. Did this demonstrate papal infallibility was non-existent? Not at all. Peter’s actions had to do with matters of discipline, not with issues of faith or morals.
Furthermore, the problem was Peter’s actions, not his teaching. Paul acknowledged that Peter very well knew the correct teaching (Gal. 2:12–13). The problem was that he wasn’t living up to his own teaching. Thus, in this instance, Peter was not doing any teaching; much less was he solemnly defining a matter of faith or morals.
Fundamentalists must also acknowledge that Peter did have some kind of infallibility—they cannot deny that he wrote two infallible epistles of the New Testament while under protection against writing error. So, if his behavior at Antioch was not incompatible with this kind of infallibility, neither is bad behavior contrary to papal infallibility in general.
Turning to history, critics of the Church cite certain “errors of the popes.” Their argument is really reduced to three cases, those of Popes Liberius, Vigilius, and Honorius, the three cases to which all opponents of papal infallibility turn; because they are the only cases that do not collapse as soon as they are mentioned. There is no point in giving the details here—any good history of the Church will supply the facts—but it is enough to note that none of the cases meet the requirements outlined by the description of papal infallibility given at Vatican I (cf. Pastor Aeternus 4).
You can read that and continue to believe what you want, just like you probably believe we worship Mary even thou we say we don’t.
- Status