Sola Scriptura...

[pocohombre]

pocohombre:

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

Some have. Both paradigms have suffered. Then let every man be called a liar, for only God is true.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

“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".

Yes, that’s what I said.
Thanks for re-posting what I had posted.

I said that, even though Reubenites were included, it seems from the text that they weren’t driving the issue since Moses was addressing the Levites.

But I also said that this is beside the point, since the point I was addressing, and the point that you don’t seem to be addressing, is that you had implied that the Levites were NOT involved.

Read more: gotquestions.org/sons-of-Korah.html#ixzz2nlHW8fSn
So the company with Korah were not all Levites.

Right. I said as much.
However, you had implied that the Levites were NOT involved.

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.

Exactly my point!!!

Nearly exactly like you are doing!!!

Korah had bad timing…

No. ANY timing would be bad. As I pointed out, according to St. Jude in the NEW TESTAMENT, the same issue is at stake.

 

[JonNC]

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.

I think our Catholic friends would respond because it was being questioned and doubted, and that is always the reason a council makes a declaration such as this. I may be wrong however.
My thought was the opposite. Why wasn’t this declared around the year 1,000 AD?

Jon

 

[Nicea325]

Originally Posted by benjohnson
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.

Then why did it take the church 325 years after Christ death to define the Trinity? Wasn’t it obvious to the early church Jesus IS God in the incarnate?

 

[JonNC]

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

LOL. Of course you don’t, but it was a good try.
We see AS as founded by the fathers of the Church, for good, solid reasons, and do not oppose it. And I think one can, as you have here, come up with implicit reasons. Of course, Randy , I have seen these. If Peter’s authority allows him, Peter, a human, to make the determination, he may in Catholic reasoning, have divine permission, but I can’t see the logistical aspects as being divine.

Jon

 

[Nicea325]

I think our Catholic friends would respond because it was being questioned and doubted, and that is always the reason a council makes a declaration such as this. I may be wrong however.
My thought was the opposite. Why wasn’t this declared around the year 1,000 AD?

Jon

Well my friend one could say the same of the Trinity,Hypostatic Union. Why were they not declared in 100AD instead of 325 and 381 AD?

 

[JonNC]

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.

​

(cont.)

Again, then, the question becomes, why was it not declared much sooner, when the Church had the greatest need of such a dogmatic declaration prior to the Great Schism? How could, or would the other patriarchs, knowing of this great charism, separate themselves from it?
800 years late of the Schism, and 300 years tardy of the Reformation. The logic that it became known when needed seems perilous when the need for it predate the declaration.

Now you know me, Randy, I am not going to cross intellectual swords with one such as Cardinal Newman, but…

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Randy Carson;11506153]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.

The ECF’s knew nothing of papal supremacy or infallibility. Cardinal Newman makes that clear above. Clearly, the patriarchs of the East, the successors of the apostles as well, did not see it this way. They thought the pope in error, precisely on this (generally speaking) topic.

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.”

Yes, even Luther believed it, to one degree or another. This, however, is dramatically different than supremacy, or its companion, infallibility.

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?

If he has infallibility, ex cathedra, if he is the one on the Chair of St. Peter, do they actually have a choice in the matter? Obviously, the bishops who were not there don’t agree. But to your point, again, Cardinal Newman implies that the early Church might not have even thought of the concept in second millennium terms.

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.

I respectfully ask you to stop and think about the declarations we have discussed, just briefly here. While I don’t think it fair or even possible to ask the Catholic Church to make decisions based on whether or not they might be divisive in an already divided Church (Lord knows that argument hasn’t work for us with the ELCA), but these - all in the second millennium - have been that.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Well my friend one could say the same of the Trinity,Hypostatic Union. Why were they not declared in 100AD instead of 325 and 381 AD?

Was there a need in 100 AD? Is there a difference between 200 years and 800 years? Was there a split between the patriarchates themselves imminent? All questions I’m sure someone can answer.

Jon

 

[Randy_Carson]

The ECF’s knew nothing of papal supremacy or infallibility. Cardinal Newman makes that clear above. Clearly, the patriarchs of the East, the successors of the apostles as well, did not see it this way. They thought the pope in error, precisely on this (generally speaking) topic.

Yes, even Luther believed it, to one degree or another. This, however, is dramatically different than supremacy, or its companion, infallibility.

If he has infallibility, ex cathedra, if he is the one on the Chair of St. Peter, do they actually have a choice in the matter? Obviously, the bishops who were not there don’t agree. But to your point, again, Cardinal Newman implies that the early Church might not have even thought of the concept in second millennium terms.

I respectfully ask you to stop and think about the declarations we have discussed, just briefly here. While I don’t think it fair or even possible to ask the Catholic Church to make decisions based on whether or not they might be divisive in an already divided Church (Lord knows that argument hasn’t work for us with the ELCA), but these - all in the second millennium - have been that.

Jon

I want to mull this over to do it justice, and I’m headed out to dinner, but this: don;t you see that only 10% of the bishops were concerned about the divisiveness (if Wiki be true)?

Everyone else was on board, generally.

“Only a few bishops appear to have had doubts about the dogma itself.”

 

[Nicea325]

Was there a need in 100 AD? Is there a difference between 200 years and 800 years? Was there a split between the patriarchates themselves imminent? All questions I’m sure someone can answer.

Jon

Where there not Gnostics and other sects before 100 AD? Wouldn’t that be enough reason over need? God never said His Church had to declared doctrines as a specific point in time in order to be valid.

 

[Nicea325]

The ECF’s knew nothing of papal supremacy or infallibility. Cardinal Newman makes that clear above. Clearly, the patriarchs of the East, the successors of the apostles as well, did not see it this way. They thought the pope in error, precisely on this (generally speaking) topic.

Perhaps not in the defined and strictest sense we have today. Again, no post Apostolic Father had a formally defined and declared understanding of Christ Hypostatic Union as later ECF did. Doctrines develop over time and understood more clearly over such a specific period of time, hence are ratified.

 

[JonNC]

=Randy Carson;11506325]Upon reflection, it strikes me that this is an argument from silence which, as you know, is generally considered weak or even a fallacy.

I would beg to differ. Our friend Nicea mentioned here the Trinity, and the Hypostatic Union, and the delays involved in the defining. Those delays are nothing compared to what we see here, and the loud cry of protest from the other Patriarchs in protest. There is much more than silence here.

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.

No. I am saying the scripture verse has much more to do with Parousia than intermediate times between Pentecost and then, or the errors or truths of any one bishop, successor of Peter or not. I think Christ’s victory over sin, death, and the Devil is far mightier than that.

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.

Precisely the reason for councils including all the patriarchs. That, to me, was the strength of the early Church. That, I believe, is where a charism of infallibility may lay, if there is indeed one.

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

But not by himself.

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.”

Oh, come on, Randy. I think I deserve from you a little more credit than that.

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

No. Can you point to a council of the early Church which explicitly or implicitly acknowledges it?

Jon

 

[Nicea325]

I would beg to differ. Our friend Nicea mentioned here the Trinity, and the Hypostatic Union, and the delays involved in the defining. Those delays are nothing compared to what we see here, and the loud cry of protest from the other Patriarchs in protest. There is much more than silence here.

Which patriachs protested? When and where?

No. Can you point to a council of the early Church which explicitly or implicitly acknowledges it?

And did it have to be at a council in order to be acknowledged? Again, the Trinity was acknowledged long before Nicaea in 325 AD.

 

[pocohombre]

Exactly my point!!!
Nearly exactly like you are doing!!!

The more things change the more they stay the same.The veil that was wrent has been resewn and we are back to the OT wilderness. That is my feeling on the two OT priesthood and how the CC has reintroduced it, despite Peter’s and Paul’s proclamation that finally we are all priests, as in temple priests (with respects to no intermediary). This has nothing to do with elders/presbyters/bishops which deal with governance more specifically.

 

[Kliska]

The more things change the more they stay the same.The veil that was wrent has been resewn and we are back to the OT wilderness. That is my feeling on the two OT priesthood and how the CC has reintroduced it, despite Peter’s and Paul’s proclamation that finally we are all priests, as in temple priests (with respects to no intermediary). This has nothing to do with elders/presbyters/bishops which deal with governance more specifically.

Underscored by the fact that we are all made heirs through Christ; and that means each and every person who faithes on Him.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

The more things change the more they stay the same.

Sooo true.
Korah and others rebelled in the times of the Exodus, and some are still rebelling against the Authority that God granted. Most times out of envy.

The veil that was wrent has been resewn and we are back to the OT wilderness.

Yep. Sins repeated.

That is my feeling on the two OT priesthood and how the CC has reintroduced it, despite Peter’s and Paul’s proclamation that finally we are all priests, as in temple priests (with respects to no intermediary).

Where did they say this?

 

[Nicea325]

The more things change the more they stay the same.The veil that was wrent has been resewn and we are back to the OT wilderness. That is my feeling on the two OT priesthood and how the CC has reintroduced it, despite Peter’s and Paul’s proclamation that finally we are all priests, as in temple priests (with respects to no intermediary). This has nothing to do with elders/presbyters/bishops which deal with governance more specifically.

Where does Jesus teach the ministerial priesthood would be eradicated? He Himself is the High Priest so why would he not pass it on to others. Here is where non-Catholics convey a message that Christ Church is a loose-knit church and no authority is needed. The end results of the Bible-alone and no church has clearly reared its ugly head the last 500 years.

 

[Randy_Carson]

No. Can you point to a council of the early Church which explicitly or implicitly acknowledges it?

Jon

So, if an ecumenical council acknowledges papal infallibility, that recognition is sufficient evidence for you that the doctrine is valid.



Should it matter WHEN that council is held?

Is the Church LESS led the Holy Spirit in 1870 than in 870? Has God abandoned us in these latter days?

 

[Nicea325]

So, if an ecumenical council acknowledges papal infallibility, that recognition is sufficient evidence for you that the doctrine is valid.



Should it matter WHEN that council is held?

Is the Church LESS led the Holy Spirit in 1870 than in 870? Has God abandoned us in these latter days?

That is what I say. I do not see the same opponents against infallibility expressing the same about all other doctrines ratified at one point in time. God never mentions due dates or dead-lines.