To live by faith

[Craig_Kennedy]

,* " Seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand."

St Augustine*

You express my sentiments exactly when you say that your understanding is limited and that you trust the Authority of the Church in interpreting and explaining matters of Faith. That is their job! Jesus promised us that he would be with us always and that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church into all truth always. I believe Jesus and we have the witness of 2000 years. The evidence there. The truth is so clear.

Thank you for that.
Cinette

Yes, my understanding is limited, too. All of us here are only “scatching the surface” in attempting to be more faithful to God’s majesty and truth.

However, this admitted fact does not cause me to seek final, unchangeable truth from an INFALLIBLE ROMAN CATHOLIC MAGISTERIUM.

In Christ, Craig

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

Sorry to but in.

It is Christ’s Church, but he decided to build it on Peter and it is His Spirit that continue to guide it to this day. Sometimes I have the feeling that protestants if they can would have stopped these words being written or being included in Matthew.

Note too, Jesus says; it was the Father who revealed this to Peter, so the Father actually had a hand in choosing Peter.

When you come to think that the definitioin of a canon of books was started only by Pope Damasus in the council of Rome in 382 and not finalized until 787, the Apostles were long dead by then.

By your reasoning therefore, those who came up with the canon were no longer infallible.

To say that infallibility rested with the Apostles and not after that means that you do not think the Bible as it is today is infallible because that was established at the very least 200 years after apostolic times.

And if you say that okay, those who defined the canon were infallible but not their successors, how do you determine that. What standard do you use to determine when infallibility was in and when it went out. And who determines that ?

The Apostles THEN were infallibly guided and inspired by God to give us the deposit of truth laid down for us in the New Testament Scriptures.

The foundation of the True Church was laid upon Jesus Christ the CHIEF CORNERSTONE.

The Holy Spirit TODAY does not function in this SPECIFIC WAY.

God bless, Craig

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

That theory is not supported by anything in the Bible I know of. And it directly contradicts Revelation 21, which says that the apostles are the permanent foundation of the Church, that no one enters the city of God except through the apostles!

Revelation 21:12 says that in the city of God there are 12 gates, representing the 12 tribes of Israel (which also represent the completeness of the Church. People must pass through those gates, in other words be a part of the Church, to enter the city of God.

Then, in Rev. 21:14, it says, “And the wall of the city has twelve foundations, and on them are the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.”

The gates, representing the Church, or the true paths of the Church, are of course supported by and built in the wall, the foundation of which is the apostles. Every believer must pass through the wall, the foundations of the apostles, to enter the city of God. Therefore this foundation of the apostles is an eternal bulwark for the Church, not a temporary one limited to the 1st century. Every Christian must pass through this wall to enter the city, both then and now. And this is the wall that, according to Rev. 21, keeps all that is unclean out of the Church.

I agree that all that is unclean - the impure in heart, adulterers, fornicators, perverts and hypocrites will most definitely be kept out of the Church.

Praise God!

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

The view that Christ was talking only about “spiritual” unity in his prayer runs contrary to Scripture. St. Paul taught that physical and spiritual unity are interrelated, for he teaches that by dividing from those who are wrong, it will “become clear who among you are genuine.” Thus physical division is a sign of spiritual division:

1 Cor. 11:17-19 says, “Now in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. For, to begin with, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you; and to some extent I believe it. Indeed, there have to be factions among you, for only so will it become clear who among you are genuine.”

He teaches in Galations 5:20-21 that people engaged in “dissensions” or “factions,” “will not inherit the kingdom of God.” So on the one hand, in 1 Corinthians, Paul encourages “factions” in the sense that he wants people who are faithful to his teachings to divide from those that aren’t, so that in the one faithful faction the truth may be made clear. On the other hand, in Galatians we see that the existence of factions is a sign of division from the Kingdom of Heaven. Therefore Jesus could not have been talking about only “spiritual” unity. Physical unity is also part of it.

This is made even more clear when we look at the fact that Jesus prays that the Church “may be one, as we are one.” Jesus and the Father are one totally, with no division whatsoever. They are Persons of one Godhead. They aren’t just “one in spirit” while their actions or viewpoints on various issues can be in discord. They are entirely one, in total agreement on all doctrine. In the same way, Jesus prays that the Church may be one. In the Catholic Church, this unity exists to the extent that Catholics submit to the Church’s teaching (thus separating themselves from “dissensions” condemned in Scripture) and faithfully follow Christ in the paths of his apostles.

If the Catholic Church is wrong in its doctrine of the Magesterium, though, then believers are called to to divide from it and form a different faction, according to 1 Cor. 11, that they might be more perfectly united with the trueness of Christ’s teaching. If this is the case, then Christianity has always been broken in unity from its origins up to now, and there has never been a time when Christ’s prayer was answered since the apostles died.

Authority was never the context of that verse. One can see from the verse immediately preceeding that it was talking about the power of community prayer (Matt. 18:19).

My position remains that while you’re right that your viewpoint does not demand the Catholic Church, the Scripture does.

The prayer for the UNITY of the Apostles in John’s Gospel 17:11f, is a prayer that they, the first to believe, may all be spiritually secure - that is, that “not one of them be lost”; not that they may exhibit some sort of visible union with each other.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Hi Lief,

You say:

“Thus the office of apostleship never ended. While the apostles eventually died, the office of their authority was handed over to the bishops.”

You NEED to believe this to support your theory. You produce historical information and try to use this to provide vital connections with your theory.

Historical information, yes, and also seven passages of Scripture, including one, Acts 1:20, which shows them specifically passing on Judas’ “apostleship” to another man, Matthias, to replace the man who had died. So apostolic succession is explicitly described in the Bible. The idea that the apostleship’s authority never ended, but that all Christians must eternally (rather than temporarily) rely on this solid foundation, is also stated in Rev. 21:14.

The Church (ekklesia) in the biblical sense connotes an assembly rather than an INSTITUTION in our modern sense.

God bless you, Craig

The Church today is still fundamentally organic, made up of the true believers who are united with Christ and following Him. It always had a hierarchy and a government, as I pointed out from numerous passages of the New Testament (and you agreed that it had an ecclesiastical hierarchy), so its institutional shape always existed. These parts may be more clearly defined than they were in the past, because now we are over 1 billion members rather than a few thousand. This is a natural and necessary progression built on the biblical model. But the Church is ultimately made up of all true believers, “the temple of the living God.” People are the Church. This has never changed. The institutional elements of the Church are necessary for the Church government described in Scripture to continue to function. They are not themselves what the Church is, but are the method by which the Church is capable of operating.
Craig Kennedy:

However, this admitted fact does not cause me to seek final, unchangeable truth from an INFALLIBLE ROMAN CATHOLIC MAGISTERIUM.

What’s the point of having an infallible document when you don’t have an infallible interpretation of what it says? All you believe about it is fallible anyway, in the end. So Scripture’s infallibility becomes irrelevant.

Why wouldn’t you seek “final, unchangeable truth”? Sola Scriptura cannot be what God intends for the Church if “final, unchangeable truth,” is actually possible to have, here. But don’t you see how wonderfully glorious, final, unchangeable truth would be, if it could be known here on Earth?
Craig Kennedy:

Hi Lief,

You are giving too much weight to the opinions of the early Church. You state:

“The Early Church believed that the authority of the apostles was retained in those they appointed as successors. We can see them appointing successors in authority all over the New Testament, as in the verses I cited above, and can see the task of these bishops and other leaders given to protect the Church from error. The Early Church knew what it was talking about, and who better than one of the Apostle John’s intimate friends and disciples would know how this was to be interpreted?”

I do not think the views of the early Church were infallible and, in fact, Church histories often show they were sometimes divided among themselves over some doctrines; for example millennialism, gifts of the Spirit, the charismata, eschatology, the nature and character of the Church etc

God bless, Craig

Not everything they said was infallible. They also speculated, some. However, they simultaneously adhered to infallible Sacred Traditions and proclaimed their authority.

I know you don’t believe the views of the Early Church were infallible, but we already agreed that they would have understood better how to interpret the Scripture than we do in our social context. Therefore, when the Early Church wrote (without any serious disagreement except from heretics) that their leaders were appointed by the apostles and that the idea of Sacred Tradition, Magesterium and Papal Infallibility came from the apostles, logically, they would have known much better what they were talking about than we do what we are talking about. Therefore their interpretations must be taken extremely seriously.

And the man I was quoting from, St. Ignatius, was the Apostle John’s personal friend and disciple. You can’t get any closer than that to a good source for interpretation of the views of the apostles.

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

Craig, My loving Christian Brother, what I am about to say is with respect to you for your devotion and that I feel is clear. But in addressing that which you have not seen of yourself. at this point it would be beneficial to you to step outside the limits you have established for yourself in order to see what it is you are saying and how you are selectively discrediting ALL that which Jesus has instructed in clear words. Some things require interpretation of course but you are interpreting direct instructions into meaning something you base on another unrelated opinion which is self defeatist. I realize it is hard for you to accept the principles of Sacred Tradition and infalibillity. I have no doubt the Holy Spirit will help you there. But the fact is you attest to gospel but refute gospel at the same time and yet you love the word of God. That is directly because you are interpreting that which needs no interpretation. You say “I do not believe, however, we have Apostles NOW - THAT IS, TODAY. Their function has now ceased. CHRIST HIMSELF IS THE TRUE AND ONLY FOUNDATION OF THE CHURCH.”
You are correct in one sence and that is that we do not have Apostles now as we did then. But look at what you are saying. You are refuting the word of Jesus based on your opinion. That is the problem. The Bible is not up for individual opinions and you know in your heart it is not. Put away opinions for a minute and open your mind, add together all that is written and what was ordered by Christ in the establishment AND PROCESSION of His Church until His return. Look at the history that floowed, and consider everything you are trying to devote yourself to came from exactly the same source.

Paradosis: Handing On Divine Revelation
Catholic Christians believe that in Jesus Christ the Lord is summed up the entire Revelation of the most high God.
On Divine Revelation, 7, Vatican II Therefore [it is] Christ the Lord, in whom the entire Revelation of the most high God is summed up…
2 Cor 1:20
For however many are the promises of God, their Yes is in him (Jesus Christ).
2 Cor 4:5-6
For we do not preach ourselves but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your slaves for the sake of Jesus. For God who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” has shone in our hearts to bring to light the knowledge of the glory of God on the face of (Jesus) Christ.
The Revelation of Yahweh to His chosen People was given to the Israelites and transmitted from generation to generation for centuries.
Peter defined the process of handing down the Revelation of Yahweh from father to son. The Greek word for this process of handing on the Word of God is paradosis .
1 Pet 1:18-19
… realizing that you were ransomed from your futile conduct, handed on (patroparadotos) by your ancestors, not with perishable things like silver or gold but with the precious blood of Christ as of a spotless and unblemished lamb
The New Testament authors referred frequently to the process of “handing on” the Word of God to His People.
Lk 1:1-2
Since many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning and ministers of the word have handed them down (paredosan) to us.
1 Cor 11:23
For I received from the Lord what I also handed on (paredoka) to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread …
1 Cor 15:3-4
For I handed on (paredoka) to you as of first importance what I also received …
2 Tim 2:2
And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust (parathou) to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.
It is Paul who makes the distinction of modes in which the Revelation of God to His People can be handed on.
Paul also called the process of handing on the Word of God “tradition.” He then terms two ways in which “traditions” are transmitted, by word, orally, and by letter, written.
2 Thess 2:15
Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions (paradoseis) that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.
Therefore, Catholic Christians believe that the Bible–written tradition–is not the only source of Revelation. And, Catholic Christians believe, the Bible does not teach that it is the only source of Revelation.
John 20:30
Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of (his) disciples that are not written in this book.
John 21:25
There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.
The official teaching of the Catholic Church reflects Biblical teaching on the whole of Revelation.
On Divine Revelation, 9, 10, Vatican II
Sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other … Sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God, which is entrusted to the Church.
Catholic Christians believe that the Bible affirms that God’s way of revealing himself to His People is to choose certain people for these tasks:
o in the Hebrew Scriptures these people were the patriarchs, continued… to 2

Hi Tom,

I can follow your logic here in this post.

It still doesn’t NECESSITATE or DEMAND the theological conclusions that you eventually adopt, however.

God bless, Craig

 

[benedictus2]

The Apostles THEN were infallibly guided and inspired by God to give us the deposit of truth laid down for us in the New Testament Scriptures.

The foundation of the True Church was laid upon Jesus Christ the CHIEF CORNERSTONE.

The Holy Spirit TODAY does not function in this SPECIFIC WAY.

God bless, Craig

But the point I am making is that the NT canon was compiled at the very least 200 years after the death of the apostles, so by your criteria, no longer infallible.

If infallibility applied only to the apostles, then the Bible is not infallible and thus cannot really be taken as authority on faith and morals.

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

The first part of your statement is true today.
At the time of the Church fathers, those who wished to join the Church (catechumens) were excluded from the Mass until they were fully part of the Church.

One of the reasons was possibly due to the persecution of the members - you really didn’t want an agent from the emperor in your midst.

This did indeed happen and part of Pliny’s (the Roman official) records reflect the Mass and the Eucharist.

This restriction has however changed and today your statement is valid.

Concerning the second part of your statement, while I was in discussion woth my archbishop, he informed me that it is permittable for a non-Catholic to receive Communion at Mass under certain circumstances.

I would recommend that you discuss this with the bishop of your local diocese.

Hi dawid,

Thank you for bringing this information to my attention.

God bless, Craig

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

The text in brown is concerned with the term “Apostle” discussed at newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm

When Judas Iscariot ceased to be an apostle, he was replaced by another.

I think true apostolic succession is in doctrine.

The Church TODAY should teach apostolic doctrine and proclaim the gospel as it is given to us in scripture.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

I’d also appreciate it if you’d respond to this part of my post, which you haven’t yet responded to:
Lief Erikson:

Agreed. However, we do not rely on the Spirit alone, but also still upon the Church that remains the pillar and foundation of truth. This is why the Church Christ made has remained one, united to the ancient, Biblical faith of the earliest Christians, and has never fallen into heresy or the subjectivism that dogs individualist belief systems that admit their own fallibility.

I agree that this is the result of Christians losing their dependence on Jesus. And you should take this further. When Christians fail to live in dependence on the authorities Christ instituted to guide the Church as representatives of Him, they fail to adhere perfectly to their Head and thus scatter. There is a reason why scattering on crucial matters of doctrine plagues Protestantism with over 30,000 denominations and vast numbers more non-denominationals, while the Catholic Church remains one.

The reason is not that Protestants are overall much bigger sinners than Catholics. The reason is that where people break from the foundation of the apostles, they build a house not on a rock but on sand, so it always falls, no matter how people modify it to try to make it work and get it to become more in line with the will of the Holy Spirit.

I’m glad the verse you’re referring to says the foundation is the apostles, rather than the doctrine of the apostles, or the writings of the apostles. For if the Scripture said that, then the Church would not really be the truth’s foundation, but rather the teaching would be, or the Scripture. Then your view of Sola Scriptura might have been justified. And if it was, then the mayhem of Protestantism might have been what God would want for all of us, rather than unity in clearly revealed truth.

Craig Kennedy:

The prayer for the UNITY of the Apostles in John’s Gospel 17:11f, is a prayer that they, the first to believe, may all be spiritually secure - that is, that “not one of them be lost”; not that they may exhibit some sort of visible union with each other.

Jesus prayed that they may be one “as we are one,” or as He is one with the Father. That is visible unity as well as invisible, for He said that whenever anyone looks at Him, they look at the Father, and whatever He says is said by the Father. Therefore the unity between believers is both visible and invisible. Jesus’ unity with His Father was not split into pieces but was complete.

Besides, people only break from visible union with one another when they have doctrinal disagreements. Visible disunion is therefore a symptom of a deeper spiritual malady. There certainly was no spiritual separation, or doctrinal disagreement, between Jesus and His Father.

In addition, I already pointed out from several other passages that visible unity is included in these words. If your belief is correct, that the passage from John doesn’t refer to it, this does not negate the verses I referenced which say it is included.
Craig Kennedy:

I agree that all that is unclean - the impure in heart, adulterers, fornicators, perverts and hypocrites will most definitely be kept out of the Church.

Praise God!

Good, and I’d like to make a further comment, based on that agreement. But first, would you please respond to the point of that post I wrote? My point was that this passage says the apostles are twelve foundations of the wall of the city of God eternally. For the heavenly city described in that passage is eternal, and its arrangement eternal. Therefore the apostles are permanently, not just temporarily, foundations of the Church with Jesus.

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

#2
continued from 1
prophets, judges, and kings;
o in the New Testament, these people are apostles, prophets, teachers, and faithful people.
Paul defines the New Testament people chosen to hand on the Revelation of the Word of God.
2 Tim 2:2
And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.
Paul also continues to describe who the “faithful people” are who are to hand on the Revelation of God.
The first category of “faithful people” is episcopos, bishop.
1 Tim 3:1-2
This saying is trustworthy: whoever aspires to the office of bishop (episcopes) desires a noble task. Therefore, a bishop (episcopon) must be irreproachable, married only once, temperate, self-controlled, decent, hospitable, able to teach.
Tit 1:7-9
For a bishop (episcopon) as God’s steward must be blameless, … holding fast to the true message as taught so that he will be able both to exhort with sound doctrine and to refute opponents.
The second category of “faithful people” is presbyteros, a presbyter, priest, elder.
Tit 1:5-6
Appoint presbyters (presbyterois) in every town, as I directed you, on condition that a man be blameless, married only once, with believing children who are not accused of licentiousness or rebellious.
1 Tim 5:17
Presbyters who preside well deserve double honor, especially those who toil in preaching and teaching.
The third category of “faithful people” is diakonos, deacon.
1 Tim 4:6,13,16
If you will give these instructions to the brothers, you will be a good minister (diakonos) of Christ Jesus, nourished on the words of the faith and of the sound teaching you have followed. … Until I arrive, attend to the reading, exhortation, and teaching. … Attend to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in both tasks, for by doing so you will save both yourself and those who listen to you.
1 Tim 3:8-9
Similarly, deacons (diakonous) must be dignified, not deceitful, not addicted to drink, not greedy for sordid gain, holding fast to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience.
The Bible testifies that the Apostolic Church exercised this teaching authority (“holding fast to the true message … to refute opponents” (Tit 1:9)) beyond the words and deeds of Jesus Christ.

Error in teaching:

Acts 15:1
Some who had come down from Judea were instructing the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the Mosaic practice, you cannot be saved.”
Dissension and controversy:

Acts 15:2
Because there arose no little dissension and debate by Paul and Barnabas with them, …
Appeal to the apostles and presbyters in Jerusalem:

Acts 15:2
… it was decided that Paul, Barnabas, and some of the others should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and presbyters about this question.
Apostles and presbyters convened:

Acts 15:6
The apostles and the presbyters met together to see about this matter.
Discussion:

Acts 15:7-11 - Peter
Acts 15:12 - Barnabas and Paul
Acts 15:13-21 - James
Problem is resolved:

Acts 15:22
Then the apostles and presbyters, in agreement with the whole church, decided …
Decree is promulgated:

Acts 15:22-23
The ones chosen were Judas, who was called Barsabbas, and Silas, leaders among the brothers. This is the letter delivered by them: “The apostles and the presbyters, your brothers, to the brothers in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia of Gentile origin: greetings.”
The authority of the Holy Spirit is appealed:

There are clearly distinguished paradosis or traditions which are considered irrevocable, unchangeable, even to our day, e.g. circumcision is not a requirement for new Christians. On the other hand, today we would not be concerned with “pollution from idols,” how an animal is killed for meat, or whether blood is in our food. These appear to be different traditions from the former–changeable and not binding in the same way as non-circumcision.

The Roman Catholic Church also follows this biblical model in her approach to paradosis/traditions.

Hence, there are paradosis/traditions which are unchangeable, capital letter “T”, “Traditions.” These are the defined faith or moral teachings based on the Bible but revealed by the Holy Spirit as an authority in the Church (Acts 15:28). An example from the history of the Roman Catholic Church of Tradition (with a capital letter “T”) is the teaching on purgatory. This teaching of the Church can never change.

There appear to be paradosis/traditions which are changeable, small letter “t”, “traditions.” These are the “rules of the organization, rules of the club.” These change as people, culture, faith and understanding develop. An example from the history of the Roman Catholic Church of tradition (with a lower case letter “t”) is the teaching on the prohibition of eating meat on Fridays. This practice of mandatory abstinence as penance in the Church has changed.
Continued to #3

Hi Tom,

Your emphasis on the “HANDING OVER” of biblical traditions is admirable.

It is just that I see this handing over and “HANDING DOWN” to be the gospel, apostolic doctrine and the “FAITH ONCE FOR ALL DELIVERED TO THE SAINTS.”

This “deposit of truth” is nowhere, in my opinion, handed over to an INFALLIBLE MAGISTERIUM in order that it may be correctly interpreted.

God bless you, Craig

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

The word “canon” is not in the Scripture and the idea of a canon or even a “Bible” is not taught in the Scripture. The Scripture does teach that there are God-breathed Scriptures, but does not say when or if the canon will be ever completed. Neither does it say that there is a canon. So what is the authority on which is grounded your view that “we find the full deposit of the apostles’ teaching and doctrine in the completed canon of scripture”?

Hi Lief,

Revelation 22:18-19 will answer your question here admirably.

God bless, Craig

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

#3
Continued from #2
Bishop of Rome
The Roman Catholic Church from Apostolic times has literally followed the Bible in the establishment of good order in the Church. According to Paul’s letters to Timothy and Titus there are three orders to the organization and leadership of the Church (sometimes known as ecclesiastical order or hierarchy): episcopos or bishops, presbyteros or elders, commonly translated priests, and diaconos or deacons.
The first in order and the greatest in authority is the episcopos, the bishop.
1 Tim 3:1-2
This saying is trustworthy: whoever aspires to the office of bishop (episcopes) desires a noble task. Therefore, a bishop (episcopon) must be irreproachable, married only once, temperate, self-controlled, decent, hospitable, able to teach …
Tit 1:7,9
For a bishop (episcopon) as God’s steward must be blameless, not arrogant, not irritable, not a drunkard, not aggressive, not greedy for sordid gain, holding fast to the true message as taught so that he will be able both to exhort with sound doctrine and to refute opponents.
Luke, in the Acts of the Apostles, distinguishes the shepherding role of the episcopos/bishop.
Acts 20:28
Keep watch over yourselves and over the whole flock of which the holy Spirit has appointed you overseers (episcopous), in which you tend the church of God that he acquired with his own blood.
The shepherding role of the apostle Peter as episcopos was related by John.
Jn 21:15-17
When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” He then said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” (Jesus) said to him, “Feed my sheep.”
The Roman Catholic Church believes that the twelve apostles were the first episcopes, receiving at the Last Supper their leadership order to serve when Jesus told them “Do this in remembrance of Me.”
Peter, as demonstrated in the biblical portrait of him, exercised a leadership role first among the other apostles and early Christians, and then later in Rome before his martyrdom there in 67/68 AD.
Peter’s presence in Rome in indicated in his first letter. The name “Babylon” is used here as a cryptic name for the city of Rome, a characteristic of writings done during times of persecution. During Peter’s time (witnessed by his own martyrdom) and most New Testament times (witness the Book of Revelation–classic persecution literature), Rome took on the characteristics of the most outstanding example of a world power hostile to God–ancient Babylon.
1 Peter 5:12-13
I write you this briefly through Silvanus … The chosen one at Babylon sends you greeting, as does Mark, my son.
Clement of Rome (I Clement) and Irenaeus (To the Romans) both attest to Peter’s presence and death in Rome.
Paul makes mention of Linus, a Christian at Rome. Irenaeus (Adversus Haereses, 3, 3, 3) tells us that the same Linus was Peter’s first successor as bishop of Rome.
2 Timothy 4:21
Eubulus, Pudens, Linus, Claudia, and all the brothers send greetings.
Two great historians of the Church, Eusebius of Caesarea, a bishop and historian of the Council of Nicaea, and Augustine, bishop and theologian, preserve for us the list of successors of the bishop of Rome to their own time. They attest to the sense and realization the Church had to the need for historic succession to the Bishop of Rome.
Eusebius (260-339), The History of the Church, Book 3, 324 AD
After the martyrdom of Paul and Peter, the first man to be appointed Bishop of Rome was Linus. … Linus, who is mentioned in the Second Epistle to Timothy as being with Paul in Rome, as stated above was the first after Peter to be appointed Bishop of Rome. Clement again, who became the third Bishop of Rome … to Miltiades.
Augustine (354-430), Letters, No. 53, 400 AD
For, to Peter succeeded Linus, to Linus, Clement, to Clement Anacletus, to Anacletus Evaristus, … to Siricius Anastasius.
On the following pages is a list the bishops of Rome from Peter to Benedict XVI. Historians both secular and ecclesiastical concur with a final list published by the Vatican Library.
The only biblical “claim to fame” of these men is that they are episcopoi, bishops. There is no greater “order” according to the Bible. The Catholic Church teaches this. Other titles are only honorary and organizational.
The Catholic Church has also taken Paul at his word.
1 Cor 4:14-16
I am writing you this not to shame you, but to admonish you as my beloved children. Even if you should have countless guides to Christ, yet you do not have many fathers, for I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel. Therefore, I urge you, be imitators of me.
1 Thess 2:11-12
As you know, we treated each one of you as a father treats his children, exhorting and encouraging you and insisting that you conduct yourselves as worthy of the God who calls you into his kingdom and glory.
Continued to #4

Hi Tom,

In my view, all of these verses you present for analysis can equally be interpreted as OVERSEER.

Your tradition has interpreted the word “Bishop” to carry the particular theological freight which it does.

God bless you, Craig

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

final

The faithful of the Church has always called their ordered leadership “father.” In Greek, the language of the early Church, the word for father was pappas; in Latin, the language of the later Church, the word for father was papa.
By the 300’s, bishops were sometimes called “pope” a corruption of the word for father. By the 700’s the title for affection and respect for the Bishop of Rome exclusively was Pope.
It is not uncommon for enemies and non-believers of Roman Catholicism to create an argument against the succession and therefore validity of the Bishops of Rome as true successors to Peter by proffering the history of the “bad Popes.” That argument arises from a basic misunderstanding of Sacred Scripture.
The first response to be made to the so-called argument from the “bad Popes” is admission that many men who held the position of Bishop of Rome were not holy men. Perhaps Peter was the best model for human failure in such a leadership role. He denied Jesus three times after being told he would do so. Some (e.g., Peter, Judas) who are called stumble and fall.
Some (Peter) repent and are saved. Others (Judas) reject that grace. It behooves us to remember that Jesus does not call saints, but sinners.
Lk 5:31-32
Jesus said to them in reply, “Those who are healthy do not need a physician, but the sick do. I have not come to call the righteous to repentance but sinners.”
Mt 9:12
He heard this and said, “Those who are well do not need a physician, but the sick do.”
The moral miracle of the “bad Popes” is that they were worldly men, public sinners, and never functioned as spiritual leaders nor touched or changed the deposit of faith of Christianity.
We are reminded by the Lord even to the present day that the lifestyle of the messenger does not alter the validity of the message. Recall the American TeleEvangelists’ scandals in 1987 and 1988.

catholicapologetics.org/cabiapbk.htm

Hi Tom,

You write with honesty and candour here; I can accept what you are saying.

By the way, although I do not accept the theory of an INFALLIBLE MAGISTERIUM I have, however, always believed that there have been some eminent men of God amongst the Popes.

God bless you, In Christ Craig

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

How does the word fail to describe accurately what happened? The Scripture says the apostles and elders assembled specifically to discuss a certain issue of faith (v. 6) and make a decision on the matter for the Church (v. 28, 16:4). That is what a Church council is. They also said their decision was that of the Holy Spirit, which is a clear claim of infallibility (v. 28).

Actually, it does, as the Early Church was convinced that its councils were authoritative and that the practice was of apostolic origin. They were in a far better position to know the meaning of the apostles than you or I, so their practice and belief is a direct support to “my idea” of a Magesterium .

Something severely condemned by Paul. There historically have often been people who reject the will of the Holy Spirit revealed in the councils. But Paul said that people who engage in “dissensions” will not be in the Kingdom of Heaven (Gal. 5:20-21).

Oh, come on, Craig. No council is going to give all the answers to every question. They will only provide the answers to the questions brought up in the council. Councils also do not always provide a message in such a way that “no further clarification is necessary.” For there are always more details that could be defined.

And the council was clear on what it set out to clarify in verses 19-20. No passage you’ve provided shows that the teachings of the council were unclear- I skimmed those chapters, and they talk about things that the council was not even trying to talk about. It’s not like the whole Christian message was supposed to be defined in council #1. They were only giving dogma on the matter of the Gentiles and some other matters relating to the Law (v. 29).

If Paul wanted to repeat some of those teachings in his letters, how does that contradict the infallibility of the council? Some of the believers may not have got the message, or it may be being implemented in an unsatisfactory fashion, or Paul may simply be repeating to them how important this is.

Of course Paul can give further clarifications if he wants to. Our bishops and priests clarify matters of faith for confused laypeople all the time, including teachings passed on by councils. And sometimes priests themselves don’t know enough on certain matters of faith and are therefore instructed on the teachings of councils by other believers.

A repetition of or clarification of words of a council in no way negates the authority or infallibility of that council.

Hi Lief,

I have followed your arguments and reasonings here, very carefully.

You make and draw your conclusions based on your own unique set of pre-suppositions; and I guess I do too.

It’s just that I think my arguments resonate better with the “ethos” of the New Testament and do not have to draw - quite so heavily - on extra-biblical and historical information.

I can clearly see we are both approaching these issues with integrity but through the lenses of our our own pre-suppositions. This is not, of course, necessarily a bad thing but the fact has to be plainly understood and recognised.

God bless, Craig

 

[Cinette]

The Apostles THEN were infallibly guided and inspired by God to give us the deposit of truth laid down for us in the New Testament Scriptures.

The foundation of the True Church was laid upon Jesus Christ the CHIEF CORNERSTONE.

The Holy Spirit TODAY does not function in this SPECIFIC WAY.

God bless, Craig

“Comic Sans MS”]Benedictus made a point to which I was hoping you would answer:

When you come to think that the definitioin of a canon of books was started only by Pope Damasus in the council of Rome in 382 and not finalized until 787, the Apostles were long dead by then.

By your reasoning therefore, those who came up with the canon were no longer infallible.

To say that infallibility rested with the Apostles and not after that means that you do not think the Bible as it is today is infallible because that was established at the very least 200 years after apostolic times.

And if you say that okay, those who defined the canon were infallible but not their successors, how do you determine that. What standard do you use to determine when infallibility was in and when it went out. And who determines that ?

If the deposit of faith was given to the Apostles only for the duration of their lives and the canon of the bible was only compiled and declared inspired in the 4th century, by whose “infallibility” was this performed? Because if the infallibility given to the Apostles was no longer “active” then, according to you, there was no more infallibility and therefore the bible compiled and declared “inspired” by the CC would have been ineffective. This means therefore, that the bible as we know it is a tradition of man. How then would Sola Scriptura be valid?

Where do you get your belief that the Apostles mandate was only valid for the duration of their lives?

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

And everyone will interpret that passage in accordance with their own beliefs and upbringings, feel like the Spirit is guiding them, and then will come up with a million contradictory results. That’s why you need an infallible interpreter of the infallible Word, just as you did in the Old Testament- or denominationalism (or, worse, non-denominationalism) will be the result. Jesus said, “Sanctify them in the truth.”

Your claim that we have “the completed canon of scripture” is not supported by any verse of Scripture, and neither are the books of canon listed in Scripture, and neither does Scripture even say that there should be a canon! It never says Christians should make one or even talks about one at all. The word “canon” is not in the Bible. Neither is the word “Bible.” “Scriptures,” are referred to, though Scripture never says what any of the New Testament era “Scriptures” are or if there is a limited number of them. So what authority is your belief based on, that God would, “leave the guidance that we receive in its PERMANENT FORM, THAT IS - THE COMPLETED CANON OF SCRIPTURE,” considering that none of these necessary foundations for this belief are even in the Scripture?

You haven’t responded to any of the points I raised about the verses of Acts 15, yet.

You did argue, though, that clarifications or reaffirmations of the council were made later. However, the chapters you brought up, at least as far as I saw when skimming them, do not touch on the issues the council met to discuss. They discuss different issues unrelated to the topics of the council. Therefore a teaching by Paul about a matter unrelated to the council is hardly a “clarification” of that council.

Furthermore, I’d like to point out that the Church fully accepts the possibility of the need for clarifications of councils. For instance, the Council of Trent clarified and reaffirmed the teachings of the councils of Rome, Carthage and Hippo, when it declared infallibly the Scripture’s canon. And Vatican II was called together as a clarification of Vatican I. These things do not contradict the infallibility of what the councils they were describing, any more than the “clarifications” you and I are engaged in right now about the meaning of the Scripture contradict its infallibility.

Exactly. That is the role of the Magesterium. And without its infallibility (v. 28 “it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us”), these decisions could be neither binding nor authoritative, as the decisions of Acts 15 were (v. 28, “impose on you”, 16:4, “they delivered . . . for observance the decisions”).

What the heck?

Hi Lief,

I am pleased that " that the Church fully accepts the possibility of the need for clarifications of councils."

I would say, however, that no Church Council is always infallible in and of itself; and this applies, in my view, to the Roman Catholic leadership as well.

God bless, Craig

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

Historical information, yes, and also seven passages of Scripture, including one, Acts 1:20, which shows them specifically passing on Judas’ “apostleship” to another man, Matthias, to replace the man who had died. So apostolic succession is explicitly described in the Bible. The idea that the apostleship’s authority never ended, but that all Christians must eternally (rather than temporarily) rely on this solid foundation, is also stated in Rev. 21:14.

The Church today is still fundamentally organic, made up of the true believers who are united with Christ and following Him. It always had a hierarchy and a government, as I pointed out from numerous passages of the New Testament (and you agreed that it had an ecclesiastical hierarchy), so its institutional shape always existed. These parts may be more clearly defined than they were in the past, because now we are over 1 billion members rather than a few thousand. This is a natural and necessary progression built on the biblical model. But the Church is ultimately made up of all true believers, “the temple of the living God.” People are the Church. This has never changed. The institutional elements of the Church are necessary for the Church government described in Scripture to continue to function. They are not themselves what the Church is, but are the method by which the Church is capable of operating.

What’s the point of having an infallible document when you don’t have an infallible interpretation of what it says? All you believe about it is fallible anyway, in the end. So Scripture’s infallibility becomes irrelevant.

Why wouldn’t you seek “final, unchangeable truth”? Sola Scriptura cannot be what God intends for the Church if “final, unchangeable truth,” is actually possible to have, here. But don’t you see how wonderfully glorious, final, unchangeable truth would be, if it could be known here on Earth?

Not everything they said was infallible. They also speculated, some. However, they simultaneously adhered to infallible Sacred Traditions and proclaimed their authority.

I know you don’t believe the views of the Early Church were infallible, but we already agreed that they would have understood better how to interpret the Scripture than we do in our social context. Therefore, when the Early Church wrote (without any serious disagreement except from heretics) that their leaders were appointed by the apostles and that the idea of Sacred Tradition, Magesterium and Papal Infallibility came from the apostles, logically, they would have known much better what they were talking about than we do what we are talking about. Therefore their interpretations must be taken extremely seriously.

And the man I was quoting from, St. Ignatius, was the Apostle John’s personal friend and disciple. You can’t get any closer than that to a good source for interpretation of the views of the apostles.

Hi Lief,

This was an excellent post from you and it drew my full attention.

You made one statement, though, that I need to get right with you. You wrote:

“The Church today is still fundamentally organic, made up of the true believers who are united with Christ and following Him. It always had a hierarchy and a government, as I pointed out from numerous passages of the New Testament (and you agreed that it had an ecclesiastical hierarchy), so its institutional shape always existed…”

You are “putting words in my mouth” here somewhat. Please go back to my post and you will see that I only agreed that the New Testament taught that there was a duly constituted and ordered leadership that believers were to submit to. That is all I agreed to. I never said that the Church was an INSTITUTION as such.

I never said that there was a HIERARCHY as such.

God bless you, Craig

 

[Cinette]

But the point I am making is that the NT canon was compiled at the very least 200 years after the death of the apostles, so by your criteria, no longer infallible.

If infallibility applied only to the apostles, then the Bible is not infallible and thus cannot really be taken as authority on faith and morals.

My point exactly! Where does that leave Sola Scriptura?

It makes NO SENSE that the authority and inspiration that Jesus gave to the Apostles would only be for the “duration of their lives”. So the Church Jesus founded would be left without leadership and guidance until the second coming?

*Where is THAT in the Bible?

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

FOR LIEF,

Further comments on your Post 301.

Hi Lief,

In your post 301 you made this stunning admission, about the Church Fathers:

"Not everything they said was infallible. They also speculated, some. However, they simultaneously adhered to infallible Sacred Traditions and proclaimed their authority.

I know you don’t believe the views of the Early Church were infallible, but we already agreed that they would have understood better how to interpret the Scripture than we do in our social context. Therefore, when the Early Church wrote (without any serious disagreement except from heretics) that their leaders were appointed by the apostles and that the idea of Sacred Tradition, Magesterium and Papal Infallibility came from the apostles, logically, they would have known much better what they were talking about than we do what we are talking about. Therefore their interpretations must be taken extremely seriously."

Thank you, brother in Christ. This is what I have been saying all along, viz: the Church Fathers were NOT INFALLIBLE…THEY ALSO SPECULATED…

All of this confirms my belief that the early Church Fathers did not comprise or form part of an INFALLIBLE MAGISTERIUM.

God bless, Craig