A
Augustine3
Guest
Please give reasons for your answers, thanks!
- Status
T
Tarpeian_Rock
Guest
What do you mean by “Old Testament Church?”. Do you mean Judaism?
C
CopticChristian
Guest
Augustine,
Scott Hahn has a series of the Rise and Fall of the OT Church…the Kingdom of David is the prototype of the Church…this is a good question. Was it infallible…the question would be oriented towards the fidelity of the Church as evidenced with Solomon and adherence to the precription to avoid money, sex, power…and as you know he failed on all of those accounts…
The question has to be looked at in terms of any revelation of the Kingdom of David as it regarded Faith and Morals…I am not sure that I know the answer to that…there was fidelity to one God…Morals? Wow…a difficult question to answer.
meltzerboy
New member
If you’re referring to the Temple or the High Priest, the answer is no. Neither the ancient biblical Temple nor the modern synagogue is based on the notion of infallibility. In fact, the concept itself is foreign to Judaism, except if it pertains to G-d.
M
mercytruth
Guest
Moses instituted among 70 or 72 elders of Israel, (Numbers 11:24) his authority of ‘loosing and binding’ with regard to interpreting and enacting the precepts of the Torah for the people of Israel.
This authority was institutionalized through the Sandhedrin and the High Priest, and later became the jurisdiction of the various schools of the Pharisees in rabbinic Judaism.
jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/3307-binding-and-loosing
This concept of authority became institutionalized as ‘infallibility’ within the jurisdiction of the Papal authority of the church of Rome.
In the early church documents this authority was vested in the apostles who were the interpreters of doctrine and practice for the appointed bishops as the gospel of Jesus Christ was preached throughout the world. This apostolic authority was then passed on to the presbyters of the local church as scriptural advisors to the appointed bishops. Much like the Sandhedrin were advisors to the High Priest under Judaism.
One can read of this authority in the epistles of Ignatius, and of the Apostolic Constitutions.
This authority was institutionalized through the Sandhedrin and the High Priest, and later became the jurisdiction of the various schools of the Pharisees in rabbinic Judaism.
jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/3307-binding-and-loosing
This concept of authority became institutionalized as ‘infallibility’ within the jurisdiction of the Papal authority of the church of Rome.
In the early church documents this authority was vested in the apostles who were the interpreters of doctrine and practice for the appointed bishops as the gospel of Jesus Christ was preached throughout the world. This apostolic authority was then passed on to the presbyters of the local church as scriptural advisors to the appointed bishops. Much like the Sandhedrin were advisors to the High Priest under Judaism.
One can read of this authority in the epistles of Ignatius, and of the Apostolic Constitutions.
A
Augustine3
Guest
What about:
- The added traditions which Christ denounced?
- The various Jewish sects i.e. Pharisees, Sadducees & the Essenes?
M
mercytruth
Guest
We seem to have contrary statements from our Lord Jesus Christ:
“The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat, so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. For they preach, but do not practice. (Matt.23:2-3 ESV)
**In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’
You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.”
And he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition! For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’
But you say, ‘If a man tells his father or his mother, “Whatever you would have gained from me is Corban”’ (that is, given to God)— then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do.”** (Mark 7:7-13)
Perhaps, Jesus is saying, when traditions violated the law of Moses, an Israelite was not bound by those traditions.
In the same way, when traditions violate the teachings of Jesus Christ, we are not bound to the spiritual authorities of our day.
Yet, who is to determine if a tradition is a violation of the teachings of Jesus Christ? In the book of Acts we have the proceeding that took place in Jerusalem under James the bishop, between the apostles Paul and Barnabas speaking on behalf of the Gentile church in Antioch, and the Pharisees of the church of Jerusalem who required circumcism.
Acts 15:6 “And the apostles and ancients assemble to consider this matter.”
When all was said, Bishop James of Jerusalem gave due deference to the apostle Peter and made a specific ruling for the church of Antioch.
So it seems, that the attendance of the **apostles and ancients **were necessary as scriptural advisors to Bishop James of Jerusalem. With the bishop of Jerusalem having the ultimate authority to adjudicate the matter since the church of Antioch was a sister church of the diocese of Jerusalem.
"Then it pleased the apostles and ancients, with the whole church, to choose men of their own company, and to send to Antioch, with Paul and Barnabas and Silas…Writing by their hands: 'the apostles and ancients, brethren, to the brethren of the Gentiles that are at Antioch, and in Syria and Cilicia, greeting:
(Acts 15:22-23)
And as previously stated, (the presbyters, or elders who took on the authority of the apostles after they died) were the scriptural advisors to the bishops in the early church, just as the Sandhedrin were advisors of the law of Moses to the High Priest during the Temple era of the Israelites.
This authority is related by Bishop Ignatius, the second bishop of Antioch in his epistles. So, he most likely had the personal experience of knowing how issues of church doctrine and practice were to be settled, since he was of the church of Antioch at the time of this proceeding, or at least was instructed by the first bishop of Antioch, Bishop Euodius.
This authority is related also in the Apostolic Constitutions.
God bless.
A
Augustine3
Guest
Your comment alone proves they weren’t infallible because the Pharisees had many traditions contradicting the law of Moses showing their teachings were not perfect. The Sadducees only believed in the first five books of the Old Testament and I might add the high priest in Jesus’ day was a Sadducee who was not even a direct descendant of Aaron so the line of succession was broken.
I see many holes toward a claim of infallibility in the Old Testament, can the issues above be reconciled?
God bless,
S
Salvatore123
Guest
Augustine,
I think it is YOU who answered your own question
First, I think it legitimate to state that no “OT Church” existed in the sense that we view a “church” today.
Second, as you pointed out, several Jewish “sects” existed that gave evidence that even Judaism was not united.
Finally, when one understands the doctrine of infallibility, one realizes that it existed before it was defined in Vatican I. The Catholic Church has not “added” any new dogma to the Deposit of Faith - it has simply affirmed/confirmed on occasion that which has always existed in that Deposit, but may not have been an issue before an ex cathedra pronouncement was warranted.
Obviously, some of God’s laws from OT times continued and had validity past the death of Christ. Even Christ adhered to many OT traditions, and I think it safe to assume that those traditions that he continued were infallible. Christ would not follow or exercise an illegitimate tradition. But until the Catholic Church deems a particular practice an infallible doctrine/dogma, we simply have no assurance that it is until that pronouncement occurs.
P.S. - the Ten Commandments were and are infallible. But that is not a “church” - that is God’s law given to Moses. Even Christ said that some of God’s laws were “bent” simply to keep the Jews from deserting Moses and possibly killing him. When Pharaoh released the Jews, we must not forget that he released an entire people - tens of thousands - we are not talking just a few hundred prisoners/slaves. While they were wandering for 40 years, where would this “OT Church” have been and what would it have looked like?
I think it is YOU who answered your own question
First, I think it legitimate to state that no “OT Church” existed in the sense that we view a “church” today.
Second, as you pointed out, several Jewish “sects” existed that gave evidence that even Judaism was not united.
Finally, when one understands the doctrine of infallibility, one realizes that it existed before it was defined in Vatican I. The Catholic Church has not “added” any new dogma to the Deposit of Faith - it has simply affirmed/confirmed on occasion that which has always existed in that Deposit, but may not have been an issue before an ex cathedra pronouncement was warranted.
Obviously, some of God’s laws from OT times continued and had validity past the death of Christ. Even Christ adhered to many OT traditions, and I think it safe to assume that those traditions that he continued were infallible. Christ would not follow or exercise an illegitimate tradition. But until the Catholic Church deems a particular practice an infallible doctrine/dogma, we simply have no assurance that it is until that pronouncement occurs.
P.S. - the Ten Commandments were and are infallible. But that is not a “church” - that is God’s law given to Moses. Even Christ said that some of God’s laws were “bent” simply to keep the Jews from deserting Moses and possibly killing him. When Pharaoh released the Jews, we must not forget that he released an entire people - tens of thousands - we are not talking just a few hundred prisoners/slaves. While they were wandering for 40 years, where would this “OT Church” have been and what would it have looked like?
A
Augustine3
Guest
I’m not sure if that’s true. There’s evidence that Jesus adhered to OT traditions so as not to offend the Jews “However, so that we do not offend them, go to the sea and throw in a hook, and take the first fish that comes up; and when you open its mouth, you will find a shekel. Take that and give it to them for you and Me." – Matthew 17:27. In context of this verse Jesus clearly did not agree with their tradition but adhered to it.
I’m not saying the OT leaders were not infallible, quite the opposite I was hoping to find strong evidence to support they were infallible. The Protestants admit they are not infallible but they claim it’s no big deal since the OT congregation were not infallible either. How do we Catholics respond to this?
God bless,
S
Salvatore123
Guest
First, I believe Christ was attempting to “keep the peace” (as you allude to) by requesting that the disciples adhere to a doctrine of DISCIPLINE - not one of belief. That is no different than today’s Catholic Church - matters of discipline may always be changed (such as preventing receipt of consecrated wine vs. permitting its use during Holy Communion - whatever method is prevented does not change the belief in transubstantiation or in our belief that it occurs).
Second, you will never find that anyone (other than Christ, God, and the HS) were infallible. That “protection” is afforded only to God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit, and to Holy Mother Church when she acts in an official capacity in pronouncing a dogma belonging to the Deposit of Faith.
Finally, as to those who say “infallibility is no big deal”, I would remind them that Luther’s “no big deal” led to approximately 30,000+ different religious sects in the US alone. When I resort to listening to the Church on matters of dogma (faith and morals), I KNOW that I am listening to God because Christ told us we would be. Without having SOME infallible source to turn to when disputes arise, who settles the dispute?
It is MUCH too long of a topic(s) to discuss how to respond to the protestant arguments against infallibility.
My only short answer has been: “If we take MY route of the Catholic Church, I am one with a body who has lived for 2000 years. If we take YOUR (protestant) route, I am one only with who I adhere to for the moment, and that to which I adhere to began in the 1500’s. Does it make sense to following something that has been in existence for only 500 years, and that keeps changing based on personalities and petty disagreements?”
Second, you will never find that anyone (other than Christ, God, and the HS) were infallible. That “protection” is afforded only to God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit, and to Holy Mother Church when she acts in an official capacity in pronouncing a dogma belonging to the Deposit of Faith.
Finally, as to those who say “infallibility is no big deal”, I would remind them that Luther’s “no big deal” led to approximately 30,000+ different religious sects in the US alone. When I resort to listening to the Church on matters of dogma (faith and morals), I KNOW that I am listening to God because Christ told us we would be. Without having SOME infallible source to turn to when disputes arise, who settles the dispute?
It is MUCH too long of a topic(s) to discuss how to respond to the protestant arguments against infallibility.
My only short answer has been: “If we take MY route of the Catholic Church, I am one with a body who has lived for 2000 years. If we take YOUR (protestant) route, I am one only with who I adhere to for the moment, and that to which I adhere to began in the 1500’s. Does it make sense to following something that has been in existence for only 500 years, and that keeps changing based on personalities and petty disagreements?”
M
mercytruth
Guest
God’s gifts and calling to the Jewish people are not revokable. Even in his own unbelief, Caiphas, the high priest prophesied unknowingly:
It was Caiaphas who had advised the Jews that it would be expedient that one man should die for the people. (John 18:14).
Then we have the example of the apostle Paul apologizing to the ruler, (the high priest) of the people.
And looking intently at the council, Paul said, “Brothers, I have lived my life before God in all good conscience up to this day.” And the high priest Ananias commanded those who stood by him to strike him on the mouth. Then Paul said to him, “God is going to strike you, you whitewashed wall! Are you sitting to judge me according to the law, and yet contrary to the law you order me to be struck?” Those who stood by said, “Would you revile God’s high priest?” And Paul said, “I did not know, brothers, that he was the high priest, for it is written, ‘You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.’”
(Acts 23:1-5)
The citation that Paul quotes is from the Torah. In the epistles of Ignatius, and in the Apostolic Constitutions the ‘Bishop’ of an assembly was considered to be analagous to the High Priest of the Israelites.
So, from these scriptures it would seem that the High Priest of the Jewish people was to be regarded with respect, and even were gifted unknowingly with certain prophetic gifts, for instance. Yet, when push came to shove, Peter and the apostles had these things to say:
**Having brought the apostles, they made them appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. “We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name,” he said. “Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man’s blood.”
Peter and the other apostles replied: “We must obey God rather than men! The God of our fathers raised Jesus from the dead—whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree. God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might give repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel. We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.”
When they heard this, they were furious and wanted to put them to death. But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, who was honored by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin and ordered that the men be put outside for a little while**. (Acts 5:27-35)
Notice, how a teacher of the law was respected even by the high priest for the advice that he gave to the High Priest and to rest of the Sandhedrin.
God’s peace.
A
Augustine3
Guest
You’ve made many fine points but there’s still one thing I’m unclear about, the high priest in Jesus’ time was a Sadducee. As you know Sadducees did not believe in most of the books of the OT that we believe in. He most likely taught that to the Jews so how could he be infallible?
God bless,
M
mercytruth
Guest
I hope this website below, clears some misunderstandings that we might have regarding the Sadducees. It is important to remember that the high priest did not act unilaterally, but listened to the advice of the Sandhedrin. As the book of Proverbs says, “in the multitude of counsellors there is safety”. (Proverbs 11:14).
This was the protocol for the early bishops of the church, they listened to the advice of the ‘Christian Sanhedrin’, other wise known early on as the apostles, and after the apostles died, they listened to the advice of the elders, or presbyters before making a decision on doctrine or morals.
Finally, perhaps having the ‘deciding authority’ from heaven unto earth would be a better explanation of this authority, rather than ‘infallibility’.
livius.org/saa-san/sadducees/sadducees.html
God bless.
- Status