second question for our non-catholic brethern

[Randy_Carson]

Nor in the Tradition of the early Church.

Jon

Well, off the top of my head…

EARLY CHURCH FATHERS ON PAPAL INFALLIBILITY

As men received clearer understanding of the teaching authority of the church and the primacy of the Pope, they also got a clearer understanding of the Pope’s infallibility.

Pope Clement I

“Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us… Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret… **If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [God] through us **[that you must reinstate your leaders], let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger… You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy…” (Letter to the Corinthians 1:1, 58:2-59:1,63:2[A.D.80]).

Clement declares that God is speaking through him.

Irenaeus of Lyons

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [189 AD]).

Why must other churches agree with the Church of Rome if that Church is teaching error?

Cyprian of Carthage

"the Lord says to Peter; ’I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of Heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt 16:18-19])…On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was *, but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

“Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" (Epistulae 59 (55), 14, [256 AD]).

Pope Sixtus III

“all know that to assent to [the Bishop of Rome’s] decision is to assent to St. Peter, who lives in his successors and whose faith fails not.”(433 AD)*

 

[eddie_too]

good stuff randy carson. thanks for taking up the challenge.

history, faith and reason all tell us the same thing. Jesus left a definite structure and put someone in charge of it.

to think otherwise is to think Jesus did not care if His followers continually divided themselves from each other over doctrinal issues.

 

[pocohombre]

As men received clearer understanding of the teaching authority of the church and the primacy of the Pope, they also got a clearer understanding of the Pope’s infallibility.

 

[jmcrae]

-Often times the people in authority that a child can go to are the very people in positions of authority who are abusing them; parents, teachers, clergy, coaches and the like. Many such positions are beacons for predators. And when the predators work for organizations with unchecked power and authority, corruption and cover ups often follow. We have seen enough of that.

So to solve the problem we should get rid of authority and all rules, and everyone should only do what they want - because it’s the rules that are causing the abuse?

Or should we instead call everyone to obedience, and not allow abusers off with a gentle slap.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

EARLY CHURCH FATHERS ON PAPAL INFALLIBILITY

As men received clearer understanding of the teaching authority of the church and the primacy of the Pope, they also got a clearer understanding of the Pope’s infallibility.

Good afternoon Randy: I hope all is well with you today. This passage reads to me that the idea of Papal infallibility evolved over time, rather than having been something that was generally understood at the outset by people such as the first Pope (Peter). Since Peter was first among Popes, is there a verse somewhere wherein Peter says anything about his infallibility, or is it as stated above, an idea that evolved with subsequent church ;leaders? Standing on it’s own, this passage alludes to the latter more than the former, and as such, would stand only as the opinion of someone whom we haven’t as yet established as being infallible, other than by their own statement.

Pope Clement I

“Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us… Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret… **If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [God] through us **[that you must reinstate your leaders], let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger… You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy…” (Letter to the Corinthians 1:1, 58:2-59:1,63:2[A.D.80]).

I don’t read anything in tis passage about infallibility. I see a lot in it about obedience, but obedience and infallibility are not the same thing.

Clement declares that God is speaking through him.

Irenaeus of Lyons

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [189 AD]).

Again, this points to obedience and tradition, but I do not see infallibility being proclaimed here either. This is becoming something of a quest as I move through this thread. Can someone please show me something that claims infallibility? As I stated earlier on, I do not claim to know the answer, but I can assess whether or not anyone has given me the answer, and as it stands, no one has done that to my satisfaction.

Cyprian of Carthage

"the Lord says to Peter; ’I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of Heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt 16:18-19])…On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was , but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

This speaks to the primacy of Peter, which is another matter into which we will need to delve after we explore this, but the matter at hand at the moment is Papal infallibility. This passage doesn’t mention infallibility, and I would be cautious in regards to reading anything that implies infallibility into it. The reason I say this is that it would imply that anything Peter could say on matters surrounding the affairs of the Christian faith would henceforth be infallible, whereas we know that Peter made fallacious statements soon afterward in regards to having even known Jesus, and Peter knowing Jesus is in fact and to my understanding a principle tenet of the Christian faith. Either Peter was not infallible, or Jesus never met him, which would make this scripture passage fallacious, and we know that this cannot be the case, because as a matter of faith we hold scripture to be true. I am open to further discussion on the matter if anyone has anything to add, however, I am unable to conclude that this passage lends any support to the idea of Peter’s infallibility, and lesser still the infallibility of anyone who came after him.

 

[eddie_too]

if peter’s successor can not define for everyone the dogmas of the faith, then there are no such dogmas. nothing can be known with certainty.

such a belief system could result in thousands of people and groups of people claiming that their understanding of the truth is the same as Jesus Christ’s understanding while they simultaneously have DIFFERENT understandings of the truth.

i know that the Jesus i worship would never have left His followers without a method to ensure they remained faithful to Him and His teachings.

if others think that Jesus left a free for all among His followers, i can only appeal to their ability to reason in disputing such an idea.

if they reject all of the sacred tradition and sacred scripture and other Church writings, from every century since Christ, and also reject the use of reason, it is highly likely that they will become ardent supporters of the divisions among those claiming to follow Christ.

these divisions are scandalous and great impediments to advancing Christ’s mission in this world.

 

[eddie_too]

besides the word infallibility not being in sacred scripture, the word trinity is not in sacred scripture.

some christians think this means that the doctrine of the trinity is not an authentic christian doctrine.

the same people who think because the word trinity is not in scripture it is not an authentic teaching also deny papal infallibility. this is not by chance.

 

[spina1953]

EDDIE TOO: I agree with your statement. It seems to me that if it was intended that an Ecumenical Council as a group of people who can decide whatever the truth is to be without a head means to me that in the end politic’s and ego come into play, with one side that has more power or influence can get or force the other side to agree even if they really don’t. Besides, in many of the posts concerning Ecumenical Councils that it is the final authority and that the Pope has to go along with it, that an Ecumenical Council is the highest authority. Howeve, what I find troublesome is that how do we know know that the Ecumenical Council is infalliable? No one knows as another thing, how did the Apostles veiw Peter as the head of the group or leader of them? Did they look to Peter for advice or not?

 

[PJM]

=pocohombre;11436449]From my understanding there is no unanimous consent of the fathers on Papal infallibility. You find decrees of Church infallibility but not Papal until 14 th century

My Friend

I think you have an incomplete understanding.

Infallibility was not defined as such in the Early Church because it was NOT called into question. It was an accepted, undisputed fact, until it became prudent to do so.

The Early Church Fathers understood from the beginning that Peter and his successors held a place of primacy in the Church.

Clement of Rome
Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect (Letter to the Corinthians 58:2, 59:1[A.D. 95]).

Ignatius of Antioch
You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]).

Irenaeus
But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [inter A.D. 180-190]).

Clement of Alexandria
[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? “Behold, we have left all and have followed you” [Matt. 19:2 7, Mark 10:28] (Who is the Rich Man That is Saved? 21:3-5 [A.D. 200]).

Tertullian
[T]he Lord said to Peter, “On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven” [Matt. 16:18-19]. … Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loose
and, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]).

Letter of Clement to James
Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first-fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D, 221]).

Cyprian
With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Rome] 59:14 [A.D. 252]).

The Lord says to Peter: “I say to you,” he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church” . . . On him he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was *, but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 [A.D. 251]).

Cyril of Jerusalem
In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis [Acts 9 ;3 2-3 4] (Catechetical Lectures 17;27 [A.D. 350]).

Ambrose of Milan
[Christ] made answer: “You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church . . .” Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]? (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).

Augustine
Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear “I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).

God Bless you,
Patrick*

 

[Randy_Carson]

Good afternoon Randy: I hope all is well with you today. This passage reads to me that the idea of Papal infallibility evolved over time, rather than having been something that was generally understood at the outset by people such as the first Pope (Peter).

This is correct and understandable.

The following excerpt is taken from John Henry Cardinal Newman’s Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine. In this passage, Newman considers the development of the modern papacy and explains why an explicit understanding of Papal Supremacy by the early Church Fathers is not necessary and the lack thereof not fatal to the Catholic claims defined at the First Vatican Council in 1870.

Let us see how, on the principles which I have been laying down and defending, the evidence lies for the Pope’s supremacy.

As to this doctrine the question is this, whether there was not from the first a certain element at work, or in existence, divinely sanctioned, which, for certain reasons, did not at once show itself upon the surface of ecclesiastical affairs, and of which events in the fourth century are the development; and whether the evidence of its existence and operation, which does occur in the earlier centuries, be it much or little, is not just such as ought to occur upon such an hypothesis.

. . . While Apostles were on earth, there was the display neither of Bishop nor Pope; their power had no prominence, as being exercised by Apostles. In course of time, first the power of the Bishop displayed itself, and then the power of the Pope . . .

. . . St. Peter’s prerogative would remain a mere letter, till the complication of ecclesiastical matters became the cause of ascertaining it. While Christians were “of one heart and soul,” it would be suspended; love dispenses with laws . . .

When the Church, then, was thrown upon her own resources, first local disturbances gave exercise to Bishops,and next ecumenical disturbances gave exercise to Popes; and whether communion with the Pope was necessary for Catholicity would not and could not be debated till a suspension of that communion had actually occurred. It is not a greater difficulty that St. Ignatius does not write to the Asian Greeks about Popes, than that St. Paul does not write to the Corinthians about Bishops. And it is a less difficulty that the Papal supremacy was not formally acknowledged in the second century, than that there was no formal acknowledgment on the part of the Church of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity till the fourth. No doctrine is defined till it is violated . . .

Moreover, an international bond and a common authority could not be consolidated, were it ever so certainly provided, while persecutions lasted. If the Imperial Power checked the development of Councils, it availed also for keeping back the power of the Papacy. The Creed, the Canon, in like manner, both remained undefined. The Creed, the Canon, the Papacy, Ecumenical Councils, all began to form, as soon as the Empire relaxed its tyrannous oppression of the Church. And as it was natural that her monarchical power should display itself when the Empire became Christian, so was it natural also that further developments of that power should take place when that Empire fell. Moreover, when the power of the Holy See began to exert itself, disturbance and collision would be the necessary consequence . . . as St. Paul had to plead, nay, to strive for his apostolic authority, and enjoined St. Timothy, as Bishop of Ephesus, to let no man despise him:so Popes too have not therefore been ambitious because they did not establish their authority without a struggle. It was natural that Polycrates should oppose St. Victor; and natural too that St. Cyprian should both extol the See of St. Peter, yet resist it when he thought it went beyond its province . . .

On the whole, supposing the power to be divinely bestowed, yet in the first instance more or less dormant, a history could not be traced out more probable, more suitable to that hypothesis, than the actual course of the controversy which took place age after age upon the Papal supremacy.

It will be said that all this is a theory. Certainly it is: it is a theory to account for facts as they lie in the history, to account for so much being told us about the Papal authority in early times, and not more; a theory to reconcile what is and what is not recorded about it; and, which is the principal point, a theory to connect the words and acts of the Ante-Nicene Church with that antecedent probability of a monarchical principle in the Divine Scheme, and that actual exemplification of it in the fourth century, which forms their presumptive interpretation. All depends on the strength of that presumption. Supposing there be otherwise good reason for saying that the Papal Supremacy is part of Christianity, there is nothing in the early history of the Church to contradict it . . .

Moreover, all this must be viewed in the light of the general probability, so much insisted on above, that doctrine cannot but develop as time proceeds and need arises, and that its developments are parts of the Divine system, and that therefore it is lawful, or rather necessary, to interpret the words and deeds of the earlier Church by the determinate teaching of the later.

(Ven. John Henry Cardinal Newman,** Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine**, 1878 ed., Univ. of Notre Dame Press, 1989, pp. 148-155; Part 1, Chapter 4, Section 3.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

Pope Clement I

I don’t read anything in tis passage about infallibility. I see a lot in it about obedience, but obedience and infallibility are not the same thing.

Clement declares that God is speaking through him.

If God is speaking through Clement, can Clement be speaking error?

Irenaeus of Lyons

Again, this points to obedience and tradition, but I do not see infallibility being proclaimed here either.

Why should all churches agree with Rome if Rome is in error? IOW, Rome can be obeyed precisely because she does not err.

This speaks to the primacy of Peter, which is another matter into which we will need to delve after we explore this, but the matter at hand at the moment is Papal infallibility. This passage doesn’t mention infallibility, and I would be cautious in regards to reading anything that implies infallibility into it. The reason I say this is that it would imply that anything Peter could say on matters surrounding the affairs of the Christian faith would henceforth be infallible, whereas we know that Peter made fallacious statements soon afterward in regards to having even known Jesus, and Peter knowing Jesus is in fact and to my understanding a principle tenet of the Christian faith. Either Peter was not infallible, or Jesus never met him, which would make this scripture passage fallacious, and we know that this cannot be the case, because as a matter of faith we hold scripture to be true. I am open to further discussion on the matter if anyone has anything to add, however, I am unable to conclude that this passage lends any support to the idea of Peter’s infallibility, and lesser still the infallibility of anyone who came after him.

The purpose of the first passage of Cyprian was to establish the primacy of the Chair or Seat of Peter. Then the second passage reads:

“Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" (Epistulae 59 (55), 14, [256 AD]).

And that passage is very plain concerning infallibility.

 

[gnosisofthomas]

Did Christ give to the Apostles the Power and Authority to

[1] Teach this new faith FULLY and CORRECTLY?

Yes, although our understanding of their teachings has certainly been developed, expanded, and most likely altered over 2,000 years.

[2] Give [transfer] the necessary Powers and Authority to them?

Yes.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

if peter’s successor can not define for everyone the dogmas of the faith, then there are no such dogmas. nothing can be known with certainty…

Good evening Eddie: I agree with you that nothing can be known with certainty.

such a belief system could result in thousands of people and groups of people claiming that their understanding of the truth is the same as Jesus Christ’s understanding while they simultaneously have DIFFERENT understandings of the truth.

It appears that such a belief system did In fact do that.

As for Jesus Christ’s understanding of anything, that is not known to any great extent by any one person or assembled body of human beings.

i know that the Jesus i worship would never have left His followers without a method to ensure they remained faithful to Him and His teachings.

It is possible to ask questions about Papal infallibility without being unfaithful to the teachings of Christ, unless we can establish that Christ taught that Popes are infallible. I do not see where we have established that as yet.

if others think that Jesus left a free for all among His followers, i can only appeal to their ability to reason in disputing such an idea.

Questioning whether the leaders of one denomination have primacy over leaders of over denominations is in my opinion at least, hardly a free for all. Most agree on the basic facts about the life of Christ.

if they reject all of the sacred tradition and sacred scripture and other Church writings, from every century since Christ, and also reject the use of reason, it is highly likely that they will become ardent supporters of the divisions among those claiming to follow Christ.

these divisions are scandalous and great impediments to advancing Christ’s mission in this world.

I don’t think that we can conclude that people from other denominations reject all of the scriptures and sacred writings by interpreting matters differently on some points that are more institutional in nature rather than faith based. I have not met a Protestant who had the fundamentals of Christ’s teachings wrong. They just disagree with the idea that we own any institutional heft over any other congregation. They object to our saying that we are the one infallible Church, with the sole rights to the claim of being followers of Christ. To that end, we have not satisfactorily supported any such claims in regards to our primacy as yet on this thread. I have not found an argument yet that doesn’t have good counterpoints.

 

[eddie_too]

i believe what Jesus taught can be known with certainty.

i think the RCC teaches us that what Jesus taught can be known with certainty.

 

[eddie_too]

the apostles knew exactly what Jesus spent three years teaching them.

the apostles knew whom they wanted as their successors to maintain accurate knowledge and understanding of what they had received from Jesus.

there is no real Jesus if we can not be certain of His teachings.

i seriously doubt reducing Jesus’ life and teachings to the lowest common denominator of agreement was what Jesus wanted. i welcome someone explaining why they would believe such an understanding or publicly espouse such a belief.

it is pretty much absurd to think that He who told us He is the “the Way, the Truth and the Life” would keep what that means from us; or, alternatively, make the understanding of what that means a source of division among His followers.

short of papal infallibility, how does Jesus ensure His followers are one?

i suppose, again venturing in to the absurd, someone could claim they are one in that they are all separated from each other. you know, they all share their division and confusion. absurd?

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

If God is speaking through Clement, can Clement be speaking error?

I don’t recall that Clement said that God was speaking through him. Can you refresh me on that?

Why should all churches agree with Rome if Rome is in error? IOW, Rome can be obeyed precisely because she does not err.

Yes, according to Rome. That is good enough for you and I because we are Catholic. I expect that sounds a bit unsubstantiated and nonsensical to those outside of our church. If the SBC came out and said the same of themselves tomorrow, you would laugh. This is probably the same reaction that the SBC and others have to our assertion of the same.

The purpose of the first passage of Cyprian was to establish the primacy of the Chair or Seat of Peter. Then the second passage reads:

“Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" (Epistulae 59 (55), 14, [256 AD]).

And that passage is very plain concerning infallibility.

Again, as I have said many times of this and other examples given on this thread. It establishes authority and does not assert infallibility. Where is the seat of Peter established by Christ or by Peter as being infallible? Read back a few posts on this thread. Peter was very fallible soon after being given the name Rock in saying that he never knew Jesus. That was fallacious both in intent and content that is pertinent to the core of Christian teaching, which is the fact that Jesus and Peter knew one another. I think Peter would agree, as he seems to have been pretty guileless, which is why Jesus probably liked him. So, we are back to where we started. While we have posted many statements on authority, a clear statement Infallibility has not been produced. I have no interest in who is right and who is wrong. I am interested in the truth, and I have still not seen anything that says that the Church is infallible. Only scripture showing that Peter was not infallible.

 

[eddie_too]

some sound like the bahai or the mormons. they make the assertion that the people who wrote sacred scripture do not know its meaning.

the RCC wrote the new testament. the RCC is the only body that has the authority to preach the meaning of what it has written.

of course people can deny that. but, the denial implies that the people who wrote the book are not qualified to interpret what they wrote, but others who did not write it are qualified.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

I don’t recall that Clement said that God was speaking through him. Can you refresh me on that?

Yes, according to Rome. That is good enough for you and I because we are Catholic. I expect that sounds a bit unsubstantiated and nonsensical to those outside of our church. If the SBC came out and said the same of themselves tomorrow, you would laugh. This is probably the same reaction that the SBC and others have to our assertion of the same.

Again, as I have said many times of this and other examples given on this thread. It establishes authority and does not assert infallibility. Where is the seat of Peter established by Christ or by Peter as being infallible? Read back a few posts on this thread. Peter was very fallible soon after being given the name Rock in saying that he never knew Jesus. That was fallacious in both intent and content. I think Peter would agree, as he seems to have been pretty guileless, which is why Jesus probably liked him. So, we are back to where we started. While we have posted many statements on authority, a clear statement Infallibility has not been produced. I have no interest in who is right and who is wrong. I am interested in the truth, and I have still not seen anything that says that the Church is infallible. Only scripture showing that Peter was not infallible.

 

[eddie_too]

i seriously doubt that when peter denied Christ that peter was acting infallibly.

one adds to the dubiousness of such a claim when one uses it to defy Church teaching on papal infallibility.

implying that he was imposes on the one doing the implying an obligation to provide some kind of support for making such an assertion.

to base one’s belief on such an assertion demands more that simply asserting but something beyond a person saying, it is my opinion and that settles it.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

some sound like the bahai or the mormons. they make the assertion that the people who wrote sacred scripture do not know its meaning.

the RCC wrote the new testament. the RCC is the only body that has the authority to preach the meaning of what it has written.

of course people can deny that. but, the denial implies that the people who wrote the book are not qualified to interpret what they wrote, but others who did not write it are qualified.

Hi again Eddie: The question is infallibility. We can start another thread on who wrote the New Testament. That is not the matter at hand. Infallibility has been claimed here, and we are trying to vet the claim. So far, we haven’t even produced a statement on it. Before someone posts another document on the authority of the Church, please recall that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about infallibility. Where are the documents on that? Let’s get them out here and go over them together, or concede that they don’t exist and stop referencing the idea at all. I am not saying that they don’t. I am saying that I haven’t seen them, and while I am no scholar on church matters, I have simply asked to see them. Are they secret?