second question for our non-catholic brethern

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Hi Gary. Just got on. Reading posts "backwards. Liked your post. You seemed honest with your quest. I often say if I were Catholic, I would interpret scripture, early fathers etc., from the Catholic view also. It is to the “bone”. But we know why, or who makes it possible to go thru the eye of the needle. All things are possible… I’ll have to read your posts and see the level of understanding you seek. It is rare to find someone comfortable ans secure enough to walk a mile in someone else’s shoes. Hopefully you will be able to know, even understand the rebuttals, responses, reasonings of protestants/orthodox, as some of us do yours. Not agree, but simply know and understand.

Thanks Pocohombre: Yes, I am just interested in hearing the Protestant view on Apostolic Succession and the like.

Thanks again,
Gary

 

[pocohombre]

That said, as a Catholic, I am satisfied that because we can name every Bishop of Rome all the way back to St. Peter, we have firmly established the idea of Apostolic succession. I do not see a counter argument to that on any terms.

I would agree that you, the CC, has established succession. That is at some point it became important to establish, and so it was ( a century and a half later?). That apostles ordained others does not rule out possibility of coloring, politicizing it down the road. From what I understand there are lists of bishops for other cities… One must compare the choosing of todays’ pope with those immediately following Peter. Night and day. We have no record of whom Peter chose to be next pope. We may have record of some he ordained as presbyters/bishops, but nothing denoting head bishop. And if he ordained 3 or 4 in Rome, did he say you go 2nd and you go third and you go fourth after me? Very sketchy details. Lists vary in the first five popes. History shows Rome had no monarchal bishop till possibly 2nd century. Did Rome have leaders,elders presbyters ? Yes, and when a list was needed in 2nd century, one could by tradition and writings have “leaders” names, and even later call them popes. I suppose you could just go with it and not get hung up on details, technicalities and take it for what it became and is today. Like some Jews in OT and today take most of Bible literally but not all (Jonah swallowed by a whale, 7-day creation ?) and still find themselves very Jewish… …From scripture to earliest fathers, councils etc. we interpret things differently on Rome’s succession. As far as succession in general I would say all have a lineage to presbyters, even spiritual fathers (papas) .They had presbyters in first church, on down to today, as sure as we all have lineage back to Eve. The difference is in saying I am of Peter and you are of Paul, and having the need to say that (denominationalism) . Succession is not so much for authority, but to show the passing on of gospel truths(as was Iraneus’s motive for his lists of bishops for three cities including Rome). To the extent that she is faithful in that transference is the extent that it is legitimate. To make succession an “institution” therefore legitimate takes away that safety net.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

I would agree that you, the CC, has established succession. That is at some point it became important to establish, and so it was ( a century and a half later?). That apostles ordained others does not rule out possibility of coloring, politicizing it down the road. From what I understand there are lists of bishops for other cities… One must compare the choosing of todays’ pope with those immediately following Peter. Night and day. We have no record of whom Peter chose to be next pope. We may have record of some he ordained as presbyters/bishops, but nothing denoting head bishop. And if he ordained 3 or 4 in Rome, did he say you go 2nd and you go third and you go fourth after me? Very sketchy details. Lists vary in the first five popes. History shows Rome had no monarchal bishop till possibly 2nd century. Did Rome have leaders,elders presbyters ? Yes, and when a list was needed in 2nd century, one could by tradition and writings have “leaders” names, and even later call them popes. I suppose you could just go with it and not get hung up on details, technicalities and take it for what it became and is today. Like some Jews in OT and today take most of Bible literally but not all (Jonah swallowed by a whale, 7-day creation ?) and still find themselves very Jewish… …From scripture to earliest fathers, councils etc. we interpret things differently on Rome’s succession. As far as succession in general I would say all have a lineage to presbyters, even spiritual fathers (papas) .They had presbyters in first church, on down to today, as sure as we all have lineage back to Eve. The difference is in saying I am of Peter and you are of Paul, and having the need to say that (denominationalism) . Succession is not so much for authority, but to show the passing on of gospel truths(as was Iraneus’s motive for his lists of bishops for three cities including Rome). To the extent that she is faithful in that transference is the extent that it is legitimate. To make succession an “institution” therefore legitimate takes away that safety net.

Thank you Pocohombre: So what you are saying is that while there was a Bishop of Rome who did show leadership among the Bishops elsewhere, this was basically during a formative period, and that strong definitive language regarding the primacy of the Roman Bishop didn’t really start to take root until Clement of Rome, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian and the like who came sometime later in a period of some political positioning. I would imagine that if some political or power maneuvering was taking place, there had to have been some disagreement here and there among various factions that developed as a result of ministries that from the start could have formed in no other place than the teachings of the original Apostles who initially spread the word under the direction of Peter.

If I am putting words into your mouth, then please feel free to correct me as needed. I am only trying to ensure that I’m following your points by paraphrasing a bit. Moreover, I would say that these are interesting and well thought arguments.

As a follow on, you said something interesting here:

To the extent that she is faithful in that transference is the extent that it is legitimate. To make succession an “institution” therefore legitimate takes away that safety net

My question in regards to this statement is that it puts itself in the path of the Catholic idea of infallibility. Specifically, I think the Catholic counterpoint to that statement would be that is that transference has been faithful because of the presumption of infallibility. What would be the Protestant argument against infallibility?

I have a follow on question for Patrick and/or Randy on this matter as well. For some background, could you bring readers like myself up to speed on where the idea of infallibility came from, and how we explain it? I think that some foundational background like that would be helpful to those of us following the discussion who have a less scholarly basis in our understanding of such things, myself included.

Thanks!
Gary

 

[pocohombre]

Thank you Pocohombre: So what you are saying is that while there was a Bishop of Rome who did show leadership among the Bishops elsewhere, this was basically during a formative period, and that strong definitive language regarding the primacy of the Roman Bishop didn’t really start to take root until Clement of Rome, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian and the like who came sometime later in a period of some political positioning. I would imagine that if some political or power maneuvering was taking place, there had to have been some disagreement here and there among various factions that developed as a result of ministries that from the start could have formed in no other place than the teachings of the original Apostles who initially spread the word under the direction of Peter.
If I am putting words into your mouth, then please feel free to correct me as needed. I am only trying to ensure that I’m following your points by paraphrasing a bit. Moreover, I would say that these are interesting and well thought arguments.

Thank you. My post felt awkward like I was starting from nowhere, so maybe I can clear it up once the dialogue starts. I am not saying there was a bishop of Rome who showed leadership over others at the beginning… It is like we all agree on the twelve apostles, who went around forming churches, who then needed presbyters, co-laborers, even while the apostles remained, sometimes for years, and obviously even more if they left. I would also say at the beginning (during epistles writings), a bishop, elder ,deacon, presbyter were synonomous. We view Peter as the most famous of them all, later rivaled by Paul. Peter was a leader of sorts, but as* first amongst equals.* That is, he was not over the others, but like someone leading the charge, (as he was during the 3 years of discipleship with Jesus). I call it part of* group dynamics*, that is part of our makeup. Get a group of people together to do something and after a while giftings become evident, even a group leader. It does not have to be authoritative, but more of guidance, and putting things in motion (will not hesitate to use keys). I think Jesus used this and encouraged this. Anyways, more could be said but back to my picture of apostolic times. So the church grew from Jerusalem outward with the missionary sent ones(apostles and co-laborers). They all got together once to solve a problem with Judaizers (whole other topic,but where Peter was not pope but acted in accordance with what I said above, first amongst equals). After that imagine looking down at that part of the globe seeing churches subject to their apostles/presbyters without any pope (I imagine much like the east /orthodox do) . This continued past the apostles, with no central authority/monarchy, but with definite authority within each city church (presbyters/bishops). At some point head bishops may have been appointed, that is a presbyter over other presbyters in an area .Many think this did not happen till mid 2nd century, at least in Rome. So in Rome you may have had a group of equally ranked presbyters, ruling the large city church. Back to group dynamics, there may have been some more “popular” than others but still equal. It is these I propose later were said to be popes for succession reasons (Iraneus) . Popes in the sense that they were possibly thought to be head presbyter over others, when in fact/opinion they were not. Like backfilling ( can no longer see the foundation except per conflicting diagrams) , cause this is what the papacy is today, then it must have been that way yesterday, and it must have been that way from the first. The papacy evolved. Don’t deny it exists today nor that it was here yesterday, and that it had beginnings. Just don’t see it as apostolic. But your version of the diagram is quite thorough and impressive,very well done…to be cont.

My question in regards to this statement is that it puts itself in the path of the Catholic idea of infallibility. Specifically, I think the Catholic counterpoint to that statement would be that is that transference has been faithful because of the presumption of infallibility. What would be the Protestant argument against infallibility?

Yes, was gonna put that in, saw it coming. Which came first, leaders that could stray and therefore were to be held accountable or infallibility decrees ? More to be said…gotta go .Blessings

I

 

[jmcrae]

Which came first, leaders that could stray and therefore were to be held accountable or infallibility decrees ? More to be said…gotta go .Blessings

The Council of Vatican I produced The First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ - a surprisingly short read, with clear documentation of where the idea of infallibility came from. A bit of follow-up research is recommended to nail down dates and political situations, cultural considerations, etc., but it’s quite well laid out, and an excellent starting place to understand the teaching.

 

[JonNC]

The Council of Vatican I produced The First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ - a surprisingly short read, with clear documentation of where the idea of infallibility came from. A bit of follow-up research is recommended to nail down dates and political situations, cultural considerations, etc., but it’s quite well laid out, and an excellent starting place to understand the teaching.

Thanks for this. I read it through, but plan to study it more.

Jon

 

[spina1953]

if apostolic succession and papal infallibility are errors of the faith, how is a christian to know what Jesus really taught us?

the “inspiration of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of believers” concept does not seem to have produced or maintained the definitive teachings of Jesus Christ or there would not be over 35,000 different protestant sects proclaiming over 35,000 different interpretations of the bible.

believe the teaching that speaks to you best is a principle that essentially says we do not know the real truth, so just go by how you feel.

by the way, it has been the constant teaching of the Church that priests cannot marry. i do not know of any citations that support the idea that priests can marry.

on the other hand, it is equally clear from history that married men can be ordained. afterall, the apostle peter had a mother-in-law and Jesus ordained him.

finally, the bible post-dates the faith and Church that became public on the first pentecost sunday.

the Church created the bible. the bible did not create the Church.

so it is what the Church possesses that determines truth since the Church had the truth before the bible was written.

I have to agree with you!! It seems to me from talking to many different Protestants that all clain that they have the Holy Spirit to guide them, yet each have different doctrines that they claim are born of the Holy Spirit but the problem is that each disagree and say that they have the Holy Spirit and the others are wrong. What it all tells me is that the Holy Spirit can not be the author of chaos, and anyone can claim that they are guided by the Holy Spirit but we must test the spirits to see if it is actually from the Holy Spirit or not. I am beginning to wonder what Bible is used by Kliska as I can not find anything that she states as true as too what the Bible says. I do know that some Bibles that the New Testament does not have all that the Catholic New Testament has. The Bible in it fullness was determined by the Catholic Church. Martin Luther once said that everything that they have came from the Catholic Church. However, the reformers could never agree what doctrine is to be agreed on. at least that is my understanding of it.

 

[Kliska]

KJV and NASB, since you asked so nicely. Oh, and I mainly use Strong’s Concordance to double check the Hebrew and Greek words I’ve been taught about.

 

[Johnny777]

To the bishops who they ordained by the laying on of hands.

The laying of hands was before the fall.

You can’t compare the first century church to the church today. It is from earth to heaven different in many aspects.

Now before John departed the fall into apostasy was well under way and Gnostic teachings were infused within Christianity.

Today you cannot say without a reasonable doubt that the authority has been passed down to the genuine article. Since the dark ages, the remnant genuine article was under attack and was trampled.

In my opinion there is the likelihood that we may have a counterfeit claiming to be the genuine article.

The reasoning behind this is very straight forth.

Firstly there are hundreds of denominations and main importantly Jesus himself stated that he will send Elijah before the great and terrible day of The Lord to restore all things.

Since we see that Jesus for saw his restoration project through the ministry of Elijah, we see it evident that the latter church is far from God’s ways.

If there was one denomination that was the genuine article, then I am sure Jesus would have prophesied it.

The church train has gone of the beaten track that is certain. This started to happen almost 2000 years ago and so here today we can say with certainty that there is no denomination that can claim to be the genuine article.

That is not an uncharitable thing to say if you think about it.

 

[pocohombre]

The Council of Vatican I produced The First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ - a surprisingly short read, with clear documentation of where the idea of infallibility came from. A bit of follow-up research is recommended to nail down dates and political situations, cultural considerations, etc., but it’s quite well laid out, and an excellent starting place to understand the teaching.

conciliaria.com/2012/09/the-first-vatican-council/
was a pretty god read dealing with council from US bishops perspectives and involvement,

 

[pocohombre]

The Council of Vatican I produced The First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ - a surprisingly short read, with clear documentation of where the idea of infallibility came from. A bit of follow-up research is recommended to nail down dates and political situations, cultural considerations, etc., but it’s quite well laid out, and an excellent starting place to understand the teaching.

Which came first, leaders that could stray and therefore were to be held accountable or infallibility decrees ? It is interesting that just when the pope lost all secular power, (last king-pope), and no army at his disposal, and to put an end to rival concilarism, the infallible decree came out. The thought that the decree was unnecessary, therefore possibly political, was that most Catholics did not think any pope ever erred on faith decrees already. And it did further division amongst the “Old Catholics”.

 

[jmcrae]

Which came first, leaders that could stray and therefore were to be held accountable or infallibility decrees ?

What’s your definition of an “infallibility decree”? It’s my understanding that the first Papal Decree of an infallible nature was St. Peter’s declaration, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,” in Matthew 16:16

It is interesting that just when the pope lost all secular power, (last king-pope), and no army at his disposal, and to put an end to rival concilarism, the infallible decree came out. The thought that the decree was unnecessary, therefore possibly political, was that most Catholics did not think any pope ever erred on faith decrees already. And it did further division amongst the “Old Catholics”.

I, too, consider it unnecessary, since under the clause “whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matthew 16:19), we have to obey him and believe his teachings on pain of Hell, whether he is right or wrong. Infallibility is for us, to protect us from being required under pain of mortal sin to do or believe things that would harm us or that are not really true; it’s not for him. It adds nothing to his authority over us.

His authority is recognized in Heaven, even if he is wrong about something. It is for our sake that the Holy Spirit prevents him from being wrong; not his.

 

[PJM]

=Randy Carson;11416845]And Jn 20:15-19.

OK, I did AND?

At the tender age of 69 I’m slowing down a bit my freind. I’m not following your thought here:shrug:

God Bless,
pat

 

[Randy_Carson]

OK, I did AND?

At the tender age of 69 I’m slowing down a bit my freind. I’m not following your thought here:shrug:

God Bless,
pat

Sorry…that was a typo.

Jn 21:15-19

 

[pocohombre]

E]What’s your definition of an “infallibility decree”? It’s my understanding that the first Papal Decree of an infallible nature was St. Peter’s declaration, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,” in Matthew 16:16

I referred to decre/dogma.canon at first vatican 1870.

I, too, consider it unnecessary, since under the clause “whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matthew 16:19), we have to obey him and believe his teachings on pain of Hell, whether he is right or wrong. Infallibility is for us, to protect us from being required under pain of mortal sin to do or believe things that would harm us or that are not really true; it’s not for him. It adds nothing to his authority over us.

The underlined is incorrect. If Pope is wrong we are not obey him. Jesus did not obey all of the “binding” rabbis did. (Healing on sabbath was “bound”). But I see your point, infallibility makes it a mute point. It may not “add” to his authority but it certainly solidifies it (why the thought was added that First Vatican declared the dogma formally, when the Vatican was going thru momentous changes in terms of authority/ jurisdiction).

His authority is recognized in Heaven, even if he is wrong about something.

It has nothing to do with him. If he is wrong it is not bound or loosed in heaven.

 

[jmcrae]

I referred to decre/dogma.canon at first vatican 1870.
The underlined is incorrect. If Pope is wrong we are not obey him. Jesus did not obey all of the “binding” rabbis did. (Healing on sabbath was “bound”). But I see your point, infallibility makes it a mute point. It may not “add” to his authority but it certainly solidifies it (why the thought was added that First Vatican declared the dogma formally, when the Vatican was going thru momentous changes in terms of authority/ jurisdiction).
It has nothing to do with him. If he is wrong it is not bound or loosed in heaven.

In that case, who is the “super Pope” who decides he’s wrong? No - we have to obey him because he’s in charge. His authority comes from Christ and can’t be removed by human opinions.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

(Matthew 16:19), we have to obey him and believe his teachings on pain of Hell, whether he is right or wrong. Infallibility is for us, to protect us from being required under pain of mortal sin to do or believe things that would harm us or that are not really true; it’s not for him. It adds nothing to his authority over us.

His authority is recognized in Heaven, even if he is wrong about something. It is for our sake that the Holy Spirit prevents him from being wrong; not his.

Good morning JMcCrae: I hope all is well with you today. As a matter of clarification, are you saying that it is our position that the Pope is infallible even if the Pope is wrong? This is a new concept for me, wherein it would seem that if someone is wrong, they are not infallible. Can you explain the reasoning behind the idea of being infallible even when wrong?

Thanks,
Gary

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Which came first, leaders that could stray and therefore were to be held accountable or infallibility decrees ? It is interesting that just when the pope lost all secular power, (last king-pope), and no army at his disposal, and to put an end to rival concilarism, the infallible decree came out. The thought that the decree was unnecessary, therefore possibly political, was that most Catholics did not think any pope ever erred on faith decrees already. And it did further division amongst the “Old Catholics”.

Thank you Pocohombre.

Good Afternoon everyone. I hope all is well today. What is our response to what Pocohombre has said? If I were to take a strictly logical view of the decree, wherein I would consider both the social and political pressures and constraints of the time it was written, it seems that Pocohombre has asked some interesting questions. For instance, if the reasons for coming out with such a decree at that particular moment in history are other than what Pocohombre has offered as possibilities, what are the reasons? Again, I am looking for some polite and rational discussion, and I think that both Protestants and Catholic participants on the thread have done an excellent job at that so far. In that same spirit of mutual open dialog, I am wondering if we have a response to what Pocohombre has said. So far, to my understanding, our response has been that the Pope is infallible even when the Pope is wrong. I am offering here (kindly and respectfully) that I don’t find this a compelling answer. Do we have another?

Thanks, and happy Sunday to everyone!
Gary

 

[jmcrae]

Good morning JMcCrae: I hope all is well with you today. As a matter of clarification, are you saying that it is our position that the Pope is infallible even if the Pope is wrong? This is a new concept for me, wherein it would seem that if someone is wrong, they are not infallible. Can you explain the reasoning behind the idea of being infallible even when wrong?

Thanks,
Gary

Far from it; no - rather, that he is to be obeyed even if he is not infallible, just as parents and police officers must be obeyed, though not infallible.

Thank God he is infallible, though.

 

[PJM]

=Gary Sheldrake;11431252]Good morning JMcCrae: I hope all is well with you today. As a matter of clarification, are you saying that it is our position that the Pope is infallible even if the Pope is wrong? This is a new concept for me, wherein it would seem that if someone is wrong, they are not infallible. Can you explain the reasoning behind the idea of being infallible even when wrong?

Thanks,
Gary

Some NECESSARY information my friend,

“Infallibility” MUST be declared as such to be “infallible” CANON’s 751-752-753

It is an absolute impossibility for the POPE to TEACH anything on matters of:

1. Faith belief
2. Morals

And be wrong: CAN’T HAPPEN!

A Pope CAN error on OTHER issues; and “church practices”

God Bless you Gary!
Patrick