Sola Scriptura...

[pocohombre]

Wait … you don’t think that the whole Church was actually present, do you?
They weren’t in the Coliseum, or even the Temple, after all.

And they never assembled and spoke on the matter afterwards ? It is presumptuous to say only “represent”, as apart physiclly,or in a vacuum. I would never send letter in you name ( along with others) unless I ran it by you first. There was a time frame between the council and the sending of apostles with letters. Again, integrity. Maybe not in role but in essence.The brethren could "get it’ (God’s plan) in much the same fashion as those in the council. The Holy Spirit did not stop at the exit doors of the council room.

Nope. The Holy Spirit will “work harder” to show that.
Scriptures already show that 1) the Apostles were confirmed in their miracles and 2) the Apostles taught that they could and should pass on their Authority through the “laying on of hands.”

How about today? How can I check to see if the bishop here has miracles and signs validating him ? Not talking about apostles. Ordination is enough but not for Protestants ? Perhaps we were just talking of origins like apostles or reformers.

Re-read Numbers. It wasn’t the Levitical priests that Korah was rebelling against. In fact, he WAS a Levite, and all those involved with him were Levites.

Yes, but he employed the Reubenites in the rebellion claiming universal priesthood for them. They were not all Levites.

Also, the Church certainly agrees with the concept of a universal priesthood of all believers. However, there are different gifts and responsibilities between the universal and the ordained clergy. Hmmm … didn’t St. Paul say something about that?

One thing is intercession, say for healing, but CC has too much intermediary, where Paul says the curtain is torn in two and lay people can enter into the Holy of Holies and do “business”, where once only the high priest could enter.

 

[pocohombre]

You’re confusing authority with impeccability.

No. We were talking about authenticating authority, not it’s perfection.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

And they never assembled and spoke on the matter afterwards ? It is presumptuous to say only “represent”, as apart physiclly,or in a vacuum. I would never send letter in you name ( along with others) unless I ran it by you first.

Seriously?
How many times does your government speak for you? How many times do the talking heads on TV say that your demographic says this or that? Etc., etc.

There was a time frame between the council and the sending of apostles with letters.

How long of a time frame do you propose? Not quite long enough to visit all the churches throughout the whole empire.

How about today? How can I check to see if the bishop here has miracles and signs validating him ?

Ummm, not required for the Catholic Church; that’s the point.
Those who were given Authority by Christ passed that on by the means the Apostles taught us.

Not talking about apostles. Ordination is enough but not for Protestants ? Perhaps we were just talking of origins like apostles or reformers.

Sorry, that’s the way Jesus set it up.
Authority is passed on through ordination. If you wish to claim a NEW Authority, it needs divine confirmation.

Yes, but he employed the Reubenites in the rebellion claiming universal priesthood for them. They were not all Levites.

Your point was that they were NOT Levites.
I don’t know the extent of the Reubenites’ involvement; I do know that Moses addressed them all as Levites:

Nu 16:4 When Moses heard it, he fell on his face;
5 and he said to Korah and all his company, "In the morning the LORD will show who is his, and who is holy, and will cause him to come near to him; him whom he will choose he will cause to come near to him.
6 Do this: take censers, Korah and all his company;
7 put fire in them and put incense upon them before the LORD tomorrow, and the man whom the LORD chooses shall be the holy one. You have gone too far, sons of Levi!"
8 And Moses said to Korah, "Hear now, you sons of Levi:
9 is it too small a thing for you that the God of Israel has separated you from the congregation of Israel, to bring you near to himself, to do service in the tabernacle of the LORD, and to stand before the congregation to minister to them;
10 and that he has brought you near him, and all your brethren the sons of Levi with you? And would you seek the priesthood also?

One thing is intercession, say for healing, but CC has too much intermediary, where Paul says the curtain is torn in two and lay people can enter into the Holy of Holies and do “business”, where once only the high priest could enter.

Not discussing this. We’re talking about Authority given to the Church Bishops via the laying on of hands and breathing of the Spirit. More specifically, although not comprehensively, the Authority to bind and loose, and the Keys of the Kingdom (exclusively given to St. Peter, the Pope).

 

[FathersKnowBest]

No. We were talking about authenticating authority, not it’s perfection.

You weren’t. You were talking about people being condemned because of their personal sins, even though they performed miracles.

 

[KP3243]

I always wonder how Protestants think Saint Paul’s letters to Antioch, Philippians, made it into the Bible considering Saint Paul wrote them 300 years prior, paper was expensive and not a lot of people could read or write?

 

[Randy_Carson]

It could be argued that infallibility *ex cathedra * itself was not contained within the faith already delivered. It certainly isn’t extant in scripture, explicitly or implicitly.

Jon

Walk with me awhile here…

It is clear even from Scripture that Peter had a special commission and special powers from Christ to care for the flock of Christ, to bind and loose, and to confirm his brothers in faith – indeed he had the very powers of the keys to the Kingdom. Obviously, these powers were essential to the Church as constituted by Christ. And Christ promised to be with the Church always to the end of time, and said that the powers of hell would not prevail against it.

Now, clearly Christ knew that Peter would not live until the end of time, so he must have intended that the power he gave to Peter would be carried on until His return. After all, Peter was to feed “my” (Christ’s) sheep, and so was serving as the vicar of Christ in Christ’s absence. When Peter died, a new vicar would take his place, and so on, until Christ returned to claim his own. The parable of the steward awaiting his Master’s return is very much to the point.

Just as clearly, Peter’s authority also enabled himself (and his successors) to set forth the manner in which their successors would be selected, either by choosing the successor personally before death, or by setting forth some other means – eventually, election by the college of cardinals.

Moroever, if these special and essential powers were to pass out of existence, it would be proof that Christ was no longer with his Church and that the powers of Hell had indeed prevailed. Therefore, again, Christ must have intended successors to Peter.

For this reason, we are not at all surprised that subsequent popes claimed to have the Petrine power and that the early Christian community accepted it without question. This authority was excercised by the fourth Pope, Clement, while St. John the Evangelist was still alive. The earliest Christians were in a position to know Christ’s will from other sources than Scripture (just as we today, under the guidance of the Church, are able to learn from Tradition).

Now we come to the specific question of infallibility, by which the successors of Peter continue to confirm the brethren. Since the successors of Peter have the same Petrine authority, which comes ultimately from Christ, to bind and loose, they have the authority to bind the faithful in matters pertaining to salvation – that is, in faith or morals. Now, if a Pope could bind the faithful to error, it would be a clear triumph of the powers of Hell, because the entire Church would be bound to follow the error under Christ’s own authority. Obviously, this cannot happen.

**Therefore, the logic of the situation demands that the Petrine power of confirming the brethren must be an infallible power. When the Pope intends by virtue of his supreme authority to teach on a matter of faith and morals to the entire Church, he MUST be protected by the Holy Spirit from error – else the powers of hell would prevail.

This is the logic behind infallibility. But, of course, it is not based solely on logic, since it is attested in Scripture and was held by the earliest Christians and the Fathers and, indeed, by the vast majority of Christians from the beginning.**

Further, it is not a new thing. It was precisely defined at Vatican I in order to clarify what was at that time a confusing issue, but this was by way of stating clearly what Christ’s teaching was, not by way of adding anything new. Vatican I therefore carefully enumerated the conditions under which the Pope was in fact infallible – the same conditions which logic demands, which Scripture suggests, and which tradition shows us in action down through the centuries.

When the Pope (1) intends to teach (2) by virtue of his supreme authority (3) on a matter of faith and morals (4) to the whole Church, he is preserved by the Holy Spirit from error. His teaching act is therefore called “infallible” and the teaching which he articulates is termed “irreformable”.

 

[pocohombre]

Seriously?
How many times does your government speak for you? How many times do the talking heads on TV say that your demographic says this or that? Etc., etc.

So as the world governance goes there goes the church ? I am not ruling out your point. It can be both literal and symbolic.

How long of a time frame do you propose? Not quite long enough to visit all the churches throughout the whole empire. :rolley

The context of “brethren” is those in Jerusalem. Last I recall the center of Christianity at this time. I took it to mean the parishioners of the elders/bishops who attended from the Jerusalem area. Don’t you think there was some elapsed time ?Did they not meet weekly ,and maybe more ?

Ummm, not required for the Catholic Church; that’s the point.
Those who were given Authority by Christ passed that on by the means the Apostles taught us.

OK So only the first generation(apostles) needed validating, none thereafter in CC.

Sorry, that’s the way Jesus set it up.
Authority is passed on through ordination. If you wish to claim a NEW Authority, it needs divine confirmation.

Is this personal opinion /interpretation ? Is there any ex-cathedra doctrine stating that (divine confirmation for new) ?

Your point was that they were NOT Levites.

I think my point was many were not priests.

I don’t know the extent of the Reubenites’ involvement; I do know that Moses addressed them all as Levites:

It’s there. Did you find the quote where they claim priesthood for all ? Otherwise it doesn’t make sense for a Levite to say I wanna be a priest when already is. I’d have to look deeper, but for sure Reubenites rebelled also under Korah and claimed preisthood.

Not discussing this. We’re talking about Authority given to the Church Bishops via the laying on of hands and breathing of the Spirit. More specifically, although not comprehensively, the Authority to bind and loose, and the Keys of the Kingdom (exclusively given to St. Peter, the Pope).

yes, we were talking about what that means. You brought up Paul discussing the giftings,offices(as in two classes of priest,lay and ordained). CC teaches offices/governance is like that of OT. I said it is not. There is a big difference, more than similarities. So much so presbyter/elder (Greek word) is used and not “priest” anymore. The Greek was more precise,separating elder from a levitical type priest. Today’s english lumps two together so you will say presbyter =priest.

 

[pocohombre]

You weren’t. You were talking about people being condemned because of their personal sins, even though they performed miracles.

Only after you said signs and wonders or miracles must follow anything “new”(like reformers) for validation.

 

[pocohombre]

I always wonder how Protestants think Saint Paul’s letters to Antioch, Philippians, made it into the Bible considering Saint Paul wrote them 300 years prior, paper was expensive and not a lot of people could read or write?

So people didn’t read his letters for 300 years ? I also didn’t know you had to read john 3:16 for yourself for it to be true , like no one could read it to you. What was read in the early church during services/mass ?

 

[benjohnson]

It could be argued that infallibility *ex cathedra * itself was not contained within the faith already delivered. It certainly isn’t extant in scripture, explicitly or implicitly.

This really is a huge hurdle - for if papal infallibility were obvious, why would it need to be so boldly stated almost 1800 years afterwards.

 

[JonNC]

=Randy Carson;11504971]Walk with me awhile here…

It is clear even from Scripture that Peter had a special commission and special powers from Christ to care for the flock of Christ, to bind and loose, and to confirm his brothers in faith – indeed he had the very powers of the keys to the Kingdom. Obviously, these powers were essential to the Church as constituted by Christ. And Christ promised to be with the Church always to the end of time, and** said that the powers of hell would not prevail against it.**

Agreed, though I think my understanding of the last section is different than what Catholics often state it to be

Now, clearly Christ knew that Peter would not live until the end of time, so he must have intended that the power he gave to Peter would be carried on until His return. After all, Peter was to feed “my” (Christ’s) sheep, and so was serving as the vicar of Christ in Christ’s absence. When Peter died, a new vicar would take his place, and so on, until Christ returned to claim his own. The parable of the steward awaiting his Master’s return is very much to the point.

I think I can generally accept most of this, though I would not want to see the authority of the other apostles undermined, since the keys are also given to them and, ultimately, the Church.

Just as clearly, Peter’s authority also enabled himself (and his successors) to set forth the manner in which their successors would be selected, either by choosing the successor personally before death, or by setting forth some other means – eventually, election by the college of cardinals.

You admit here that AS is by human design, and not divine.

Moroever, if these special and essential powers were to pass out of existence, it would be proof that Christ was no longer with his Church and that the powers of Hell had indeed prevailed. Therefore, again, Christ must have intended successors to Peter.

This does not logically follow.

For this reason, we are not at all surprised that subsequent popes claimed to have the Petrine power and that the early Christian community accepted it without question. This authority was excercised by the fourth Pope, Clement, while St. John the Evangelist was still alive. The earliest Christians were in a position to know Christ’s will from other sources than Scripture (just as we today, under the guidance of the Church, are able to learn from Tradition).

How the early Christians defined the Petrine authority is significantly different than what the Catholic Church claims it to be today. Yes?

Now we come to the specific question of infallibility, by which the successors of Peter continue to confirm the brethren. Since the successors of Peter have the same Petrine authority, which comes ultimately from Christ, to bind and loose, they have the authority to bind the faithful in matters pertaining to salvation – that is, in faith or morals. Now, if a Pope could bind the faithful to error, it would be a clear triumph of the powers of Hell, because the entire Church would be bound to follow the error under Christ’s own authority. Obviously, this cannot happen.

Therefore, the logic of the situation demands that the Petrine power of confirming the brethren must be an infallible power. When the Pope intends by virtue of his supreme authority to teach on a matter of faith and morals to the entire Church, he MUST be protected by the Holy Spirit from error – else the powers of hell would prevail.

This is the logic behind infallibility. But, of course, it is not based solely on logic, since it is attested in Scripture and was held by the earliest Christians and the Fathers and, indeed, by the vast majority of Christians from the beginning.

This is where, I believe, the problem is. The notion that, if the pope, as successor of Peter, does not have certain (and increasing by development) powers, then somehow the powers of Hell shall overrun the Church just lacks evidence, not only from scripture, but also from the Tradition of the early Church.

Further, it is not a new thing. It was precisely defined at Vatican I in order to clarify what was at that time a confusing issue, but this was by way of stating clearly what Christ’s teaching was, not by way of adding anything new. Vatican I therefore carefully enumerated the conditions under which the Pope was in fact infallible – the same conditions which logic demands, which Scripture suggests, and which tradition shows us in action down through the centuries.

That it was defined at Vatican I, makes it, relatively speaking a new thing, Randy. That this is so vital, so important in defending the Church, that it was not defined a thousand years earlier, when the supremacy of the Petrine office was under question seem remarkable. ISTM that the authority of the Petrine office is couched in the authority of the Apostles as a whole, as a group and, just as in Acts, without their council, it is missing the true nature of the authority that Christ gave to him and them and the Church.

When the Pope (1) intends to teach (2) by virtue of his supreme authority (3) on a matter of faith and morals (4) to the whole Church, he is preserved by the Holy Spirit from error. His teaching act is therefore called “infallible” and the teaching which he articulates is termed “irreformable”.

Undefined until 1850, and understood before that in a council context.

Within that context, I say Amen.

Jon

 

[Randy_Carson]

You admit here that AS is by human design, and not divine.

Uh, no. Read what was written again. Peter’s authority allows the Church to choose the method by which apostolic succession is transmitted from one generation from the next but God established the office of the Royal Steward and the principle of it continuing in perpetuity. Here is that demonstrated:

Absolute Authority Established by God: Joseph, Eliakim, and Peter

Joseph - Genesis 41:40-44

40 You shall be in charge of my palace, and all my people are to submit to your orders. Only with respect to the throne will I be greater than you.” 41 So Pharaoh said to Joseph, “I hereby put you in charge of the whole land of Egypt.” 42 Then Pharaoh took his signet ring from his finger and put it on Joseph’s finger. He dressed him in robes of fine linen and put a gold chain around his neck. 43 He had him ride in a chariot as his second-in-command, and people shouted before him, “Make way!” Thus he put him in charge of the whole land of Egypt. 44 Then Pharaoh said to Joseph, “I am Pharaoh, but without your word no one will lift hand or foot in all Egypt.”

• Steward over Pharaoh’s kingdom
• Second in command
• Dressed in robes with gold chain around neck as symbols of authority
• Universal jurisdiction throughout the land of Egypt
• No one lifts hand or foot without Joseph’s word

Eliakim - Isaiah 22:20-22

20 “In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. 21 I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the people of Judah. 22 I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.

• Steward over Hezekiah’s kingdom
• Second in command
• Dressed in robe and sash with key on shoulder as symbols of authority
• Universal jurisdiction throughout Jerusalem and Judah
• No one opens or shuts without Eliakim

Peter - Matthew 16:18-20

18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

• Steward over Jesus’ kingdom
• Second in command (cf. John 21:15-19 vicarious shepherd of the one flock)
• Given keys as symbol of authority
• Universal jurisdiction over all of Jesus’ kingdom
• Authority to bind and loose

This does not logically follow.

Sure it does. See above. The office continues in perpetuity even when the steward dies or is replaced.

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

How the early Christians defined the Petrine authority is significantly different than what the Catholic Church claims it to be today. Yes?

Of course! Newman explained it this way:

Bl. Cardinal Newman on the Development of Papal Infallibility

The following excerpt is taken from John Henry Cardinal Newman’s Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine written just prior to his conversion to the Catholic Church from Anglicanism. 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.)​

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

This is where, I believe, the problem is. The notion that, if the pope, as successor of Peter, does not have certain (and increasing by development) powers, then somehow the powers of Hell shall overrun the Church just lacks evidence, not only from scripture, but also from the Tradition of the early Church.

Gee, the ECF’s couldn’t be more clear that anyone who had separated himself from the Chair of Peter had separated himself from the Church. So, if the Pope himself were to be the one in error, he would lead the whole Church into that error. I could easily defend this from scripture and from the ECF’s.

That it was defined at Vatican I, makes it, relatively speaking a new thing, Randy.

Nonsense. I asked my in-laws what they thought of the Pope’s promulgation of the dogma concerning the Assumption of Mary in 1950. There was this long moment of silence, and they just looked at each other trying to figure out how to answer my question. Finally, my father-in-law said, “Well, it’s what we all believed, so we were happy, but it wasn’t that big a deal.”

Same thing with papal infallibility. It wasn’t a NEW thing; it was an idea long held that was finally defined formally by the council. Jon, do you think a bunch of bishops walked into the council, and Pius IX just sprung this on them and FORCED them to go along?

Not so much. This is Wiki, but it is sufficient:

The doctrine of papal infallibility was not new and had been used by Pope Pius in defining as dogma, in 1854, the Immaculate Conception of Mary, the mother of Jesus.[5] However, the proposal to define papal infallibility itself as dogma met with resistance, not because of doubts about the substance of the proposed definition, but because some considered it inopportune to take that step at that time.[5] McBrien divides the bishops attending Vatican I into three groups. The first group, which McBrien calls the “active infallibilists”, was led by Manning and Senestrey. This group took an extreme view that argued that all papal teachings were infallible and that papal infallibility was the foundation of the church’s infallibility. According to McBrien, the majority of the bishops were not so much interested in a formal definition of papal infallibility as they were in strengthening papal authority and, because of this, were willing to accept the agenda of the infallibilists. A minority, some 10 percent of the bishops, opposed the proposed definition of papal infallibility on both ecclesiastical and pragmatic grounds. They opposed the ultramontane centralist model of the Church because, in their opinion, it departed from the ecclesiastical structure of the early Christian church.[6] From a pragmatic perspective, they feared that defining papal infallibility would alienate some Catholics, create new difficulties for union with non-Catholics, and provoke interference by governments in Church affairs.[1] Those who held this view included most of the German and Austro-Hungarian bishops, nearly half of the Americans, one third of the French, most of the Chaldaeans and Melkites, and a few Armenians.[1] Only a few bishops appear to have had doubts about the dogma itself.[1]

Clearly, the bishops present at the council had been considering the matter for a long time, and this suggests that there was nothing “new” about papal infallibility.

I, personally, would point to specific verses as evidence that the seeds of papal infallibility were planted long, long before Vatican 1.

 

[Randy_Carson]

This is where, I believe, the problem is. The notion that, if the pope, as successor of Peter, does not have certain (and increasing by development) powers, then somehow the powers of Hell shall overrun the Church just lacks evidence, not only from scripture, but also from the Tradition of the early Church.

Upon reflection, it strikes me that this is an argument from silence which, as you know, is generally considered weak or even a fallacy.

You are saying, I think, that the Scriptures must have some explicit or implicit instructions concerning the authority of Peter preventing the Gates of Hell prevailing. You also add that the Fathers must have said similar things in order for the idea to be true.

Really?

As I said in the post to which you were responding:

Now, if a Pope could bind the faithful to error, it would be a clear triumph of the powers of Hell, because the entire Church would be bound to follow the error under Christ’s own authority. Obviously, this cannot happen.

Therefore, the logic of the situation demands that the Petrine power of confirming the brethren must be an infallible power. When the Pope intends by virtue of his supreme authority to teach on a matter of faith and morals to the entire Church, he MUST be protected by the Holy Spirit from error – else the powers of hell would prevail.

This is the logic behind infallibility.

Is that not logical? If the pope is authoritative (and at least three distinct passages from scripture show that he is), then he must be prevented from using that authority incorrectly such that people are led astray.

At least one ECF referenced the chair of Peter “from whence no error may come”.

Gotta be blunt here: the evidence in support of the infallibility of the papacy is pretty strong, and all you have to counter it is, “But I don’t *like *it.”

Can you point to scriptures or the unanimous consent of the ECF’s explicitly or implicitly denying the infallibility of the papacy?

If so, I think someone would have brought that to my attention in this forum years ago, eh?

 

[pocohombre]

God is the author of Sacred Scripture.
"For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments,

Good. Glad to see she receives books that were not Catholic (OT).
106

God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "
107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."72

Good.

108 Still, the Christian faith is not a “religion of the book.” Christianity is the religion of the “Word” of God, a word which is “not a written and mute word, but the Word which is incarnate and living”.73 If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures."74

A bit conflicting, trying not to state the obvious and appear to be “protestant”. Of course we follow Christ, and He is the essence of being “Christian”. Fellowship with His Personhood. But He isn’t called Logos for nothing. While we are not "religion of the book " we have a “book of our religion” and is not defined dead or alive by it’s acceptance or understanding. Yet any proper understanding is divinely arrived as stated.

III. THE HOLY SPIRIT, INTERPRETER OF SCRIPTURE

Amen. He is His own interpreter.

"Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written."77

Amen. The same Spirit that indwells every believer.

The phrase “heart of Christ” can refer to Sacred Scripture, which makes known his heart, closed before the Passion, as the Scripture was obscure. But the Scripture has been opened since the Passion; since those who from then on have understood it, consider and discern in what way the prophecies must be interpreted.80

Yes and no. Simeon understood the “Passion”.before hand.

Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church”

Yes and no. What came before me I certainly am made to relish in the new man.However, if Scripture and tradition are God inspired, they must also both be divinely revealed and understood by individual (the Spirit within him).

According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records,

Yes and no. Scripture is scripture whether in the heart or not, but yes, the destination is the heart of all creation. Again sounds contrived in an effort to distance itself from Protestantism.* Scripture is “documents and records” *? Subtle attempt to degrade Scripture and upgrade the Church, in my humble opinion.

for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word,

Yes,the effectual Word.

it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (". . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church"81).

Yes and no. So we go to the individual as stated above to a magisteriums, distinct from the individual. How did this happen? Didn’t see it in your catechism quotes so far quotes here. I would accept "her and “church” in general sense, but not apart from the “brethren”.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Good. Glad to see she receives books that were not Catholic (OT).
106Good.
A bit conflicting, trying not to state the obvious and appear to be “protestant”. Of course we follow Christ, and He is the essence of being “Christian”. Fellowship with His Personhood. But He isn’t called Logos for nothing. While we are not "religion of the book " we have a “book of our religion” and is not defined dead or alive by it’s acceptance or understanding. Yet any proper understanding is divinely arrived as stated.
Amen. He is His own interpreter.
Amen. The same Spirit that indwells every believer.
Yes and no. Simeon understood the “Passion”.before hand.
Yes and no. What came before me I certainly am made to relish in the new man.However, if Scripture and tradition are God inspired, they must also both be divinely revealed and understood by individual (the Spirit within him). Yes and no. Scripture is scripture whether in the heart or not, but yes, the destination is the heart of all creation. Again sounds contrived in an effort to distance itself from Protestantism.* Scripture is “documents and records” *? Subtle attempt to degrade Scripture and upgrade the Church, in my humble opinion. Yes,the effectual Word. Yes and no. So we go to the individual as stated above to a magisteriums, distinct from the individual. How did this happen? Didn’t see it in your catechism quotes so far quotes here. I would accept "her and “church” in general sense, but not apart from the “brethren”.

Wow. Not too bad.

Maybe you’ll like the Catechism better than you like “Catholicism”.

 

[Nicea325]

pocohombre:

Yes and no. Scripture is scripture whether in the heart or not, but yes, the destination is the heart of all creation. Again sounds contrived in an effort to distance itself from Protestantism. Scripture is “documents and records” ? Subtle attempt to degrade Scripture and upgrade the Church, in my humble opinion.

On the contrary, aren’t Protestants the ones who degraded the church and placing the Bible above it?

 

[Nicea325]

That it was defined at Vatican I, makes it, relatively speaking a new thing, Randy.

And the Trinity was defined at Nicaea in 325 AD. I doubt any orthodox bishop considered it relatively new? When and where a doctrine is defined at any point in time does not invalidate its orthodoxy.

 

[pocohombre]

Your point was that they were NOT Levites.
I don’t know the extent of the Reubenites’ involvement; I do know that Moses addressed them all as Levites:

“Now Korah, the son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi, and Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab, and On, the son of Peleth, **sons of Reuben **took men:”
Nu 16:4 "When Moses heard it, he fell on his face; (Nu 16:1). And they gathered themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, and said unto them, Ye take too much upon you, *seeing all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the LORD is among them: *wherefore then lift ye up yourselves above the congregation of the LORD? (vs 3). Speak unto the congregation, saying, Get you up from about the tabernacle of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram. (24)
5 and he said to **Korah and all his company, **“In the morning the LORD will show who is his, and who is holy, and will cause him to come near to him; him whom he will choose he will cause to come near to him.
6 Do this: take censers, Korah and all his company;
7 put fire in them and put incense upon them before the LORD tomorrow, and the man whom the LORD chooses shall be the holy one. You have gone too far, sons of Levi!”
8 And Moses said to Korah,“Hear now, you sons of Levi:
9 is it too small a thing for you that the God of Israel has separated you from the congregation of Israel, to bring you near to himself, to do service in the tabernacle of the LORD, and to stand before the congregation to minister to them;
10 and that he has brought you near him, and all your brethren the sons of Levi with you? And would you **seek the priesthood **also?”… "They (Levites) were ordained to take care of the tabernacle and all of its implements, as well as the Ark of the Covenant. Only the descendants of Moses and Aaron, however, were allowed to serve as priests".

Read more: gotquestions.org/sons-of-Korah.html#ixzz2nlHW8fSn
So the company with Korah were not all Levites. Further more Levites were not “priests” apparently, hence Moses says , “seek ye the priesthood”. The Levites may have been like “altar boys”. Korah used Ex 19:6 wrongly “And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.”. Korah forgot the unmet condition, " Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be …" Korah had bad timing… Peter states, the condition being met thru Christ- “But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people to be his very own and to proclaim the wonderful deeds of the one who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.” (1Peter2:9). Now is the time. Aaron and temple priests merge with Levites and Reubenites and all the rest , for all are priests, not for temple rites,f or they are gone but for the other priestly functions of reconciliation and proclamation of such.