What do I do? I don't have a spiritual home anymore.

[jinc1019]

Firstly - the Apostles did NOT agree on whether Gentiles should be bound to the Jewish law. That is why they needed a council. Peter spoke, and even those who disagreed with him listened and obeyed.

Not all the bishops agreed on Christ’s nature during the Arian controversy. So a council was called, again. The majority of attendees concurred with the then Pope that bishop Arius was wrong. Some, including Arius of course, didn’t. The disagreement of some of the successors of the Apostles didn’t mean that the issue was unresolved, it was resolved. It meant that those who disagreed with the Pope and those bishops who were in communion with him were wrong.

By the way, Jesus didn’t walk up to you and say ‘Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are
inspired scripture. In particular Matthew 18 reports my words exactly, so believe in them implicitly. The Gospel of Thomas, the Protoevangelion of James, the letters of Clement … well, some in the early church will consider them scripture, but they’re not, so feel free to ignore them.’

No. He said to the Apostles ‘what you bind on earth will be bound in heaven’, and more
significantly ‘he who hears you hears Me, he who rejects you rejects me.’ He gave them full authority to determine the Canon of that scripture you love so much.

Why on earth do you think that we can have a functioning church with a bunch of Appstles or bishops all holding equal sway and equal weight? Even if there were only two, they would be bound to disagree on something important. Result? Chaos. The split between Orthodoxy and Catholicism was chaos, as was the Reformation and everything that has happened outside of Catholicism since.

Jesus told Peter - no-one else - that Satan especially wanted his soul, that Perer had been specially prayed for, and that it was Peter’s role, no-one else’s, to ‘strengthen your brethren’. This clearly shows a very special leadership role for Peter and his successors that none of the other Apostles had - one where he was the final go-to person intimes of doubt or trouble, including disputes about the faith.

To be honest, I am not sure where a lot of this is coming from.

But to address your points one at a time…The apostles did not agree on whether the gentiles should be bound to the Jewish law…Peter didn’t just speak and the rest obeyed. That is TOTALLY false. Peter had a dream where God essentially told him to allow the gentiles to be apart of his Church. When the rest of the apostles learned of this, they listened. They weren’t listening to Peter, they were listening to Peter’s vision.

Second, I don’t even know why you brought up the Arian issue and the bishops not agreeing on that point. Because I don’t believe infallibility applied to anyone after the apostles, this is pretty meaningless to me. I have no doubt many bishops did not agree!

Third, your argument about scripture is completely illogical and has nothing to do with what I am saying. I never said scripture is perfect, I am not a Protestant who needs scripture for authority. Further, the CATHOLIC CHURCH, not me, but the Catholic Church agrees with me that Mathew 18 grants infallibility to the apostles. The difference between my view and the Church’s view is that the Church also says the apostles must be in communion with Peter to be infallible and I say that there is nowhere in Mathew 18 that says that, thus I think the Church is in error on that.

Fourth, shouldn’t you love the scripture? Your arrogant attitude toward my focus on it implies that I shouldn’t focus on it…But under what authority are you doing that? Certainly not the Church’s authority, who says the Bible is the inspired Word of God.

Fifth, Jesus, NOT ME, said that the other apostles have infallibility and that he would be with them WHENEVER TWO OR THREE OF THEM SPOKE IN HIS NAME. I am not making that up…the Catholic Church agrees that He said that! If you have a problem with the statement, take it up with Jesus…because HE is the one who said it, not me.

 

[jinc1019]

Are you sure? Peter said a similar thing about always following Jesus. Later he denied him three times?

If Jesus walked up to me and told me the Pope is infallible, yes, I would believe it. I would believe it with a lot less…but since no one can present that here…I am waiting on Jesus.

 

[Church_Militant]

So…let me be sure I understand you…You are saying that Matthew 28: 18-20, which reads, 18] And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19] Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20] teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.” allows for the departure of authentic Catholic teaching from the will of God despite Christ’s promise? Consider this…would Christ make such a promise and then abandon His Church to teach error in His name after this express mandate?

 

[catharina]

If Jesus walked up to me and told me the Pope is infallible, yes, I would believe it. I would believe it with a lot less…but since no one can present that here…I am waiting on Jesus.

Then you are assured an eternal wait because Jesus has
already told that to ALL of us through the teachings of His Church.

(Edited)

 

[LilyM]

To be honest, I am not sure where a lot of this is coming from.

But to address your points one at a time…The apostles did not agree on whether the gentiles should be bound to the Jewish law…Peter didn’t just speak and the rest obeyed. That is TOTALLY false. Peter had a dream where God essentially told him to allow the gentiles to be apart of his Church. When the rest of the apostles learned of this, they listened. They weren’t listening to Peter, they were listening to Peter’s vision.

Second, I don’t even know why you brought up the Arian issue and the bishops not agreeing on that point. Because I don’t believe infallibility applied to anyone after the apostles, this is pretty meaningless to me. I have no doubt many bishops did not agree!

Third, your argument about scripture is completely illogical and has nothing to do with what I am saying. I never said scripture is perfect, I am not a Protestant who needs scripture for authority. Further, the CATHOLIC CHURCH, not me, but the Catholic Church agrees with me that Mathew 18 grants infallibility to the apostles. The difference between my view and
the Church’s view is that the Church also says the apostles must be in communion with Peter to be infallible and I say that there is nowhere in Mathew 18 that says that, thus I think the Church is in error on that.

Fourth, shouldn’t you love the scripture? Your arrogant attitude toward my focus on it implies that I shouldn’t focus on it…But under what authority are you doing that? Certainly not the Church’s authority, who says the Bible is the inspired Word of God.

Fifth, Jesus, NOT ME, said that the other apostles have infallibility and that he would be with them WHENEVER TWO OR THREE OF THEM SPOKE IN HIS NAME. I am not making that up…the Catholic Church agrees that He said that! If you have a problem with the statement, take it up with Jesus…because HE is the one who said it, not me.

Firstly - you seem to imply that a direct personal statement to you by Christ, along the lines of his words to Peter, would be required for you to believe in infallibility.

My point is that you believe lots of things in terms of your faith, not because they were personally revealed to you by Jesus or anything like, but basically because you trust the Catholic Church that taught them. Or whatever other authority taught them to you. The Canon and accuracy of scripture is one such thing that you believe purely because of faith in authority.

Christ never personally commanded anyone to write a single word. How then do we know that He actually wanted anything written down? How do we know that what was recorded in the Gospels, Epistles and Revalation is accurate?

There was no consensus at all among early Christians as to which texts were inspired scripture. That is why church councils were required to determine the issue. You accept that determination, at least as far as the New Testament goes, as infallible. I am presuming that you do not think anything could be missing from the Catholic canon of the NT that should be in there, or is in there that should not be?

So my point is - WHY do you accept that the Church had the authority to male binding determinations about sacred scripture and then so happily ignore it on other issues? What upsets me is not that you love scripture, but that you don’t recognize that it was written by Catholics for Catholics and it’s Table of Contents was determined by … The Catholic Church. And that the only guarantee that it is an accurate record of the faith is the infallible authority of the Catholic Church which pronounced it to be so.

And Christ never said that whatever two or three of the Apostles taught was guaranteed
infallible. He said ‘where two or three (people) are gathered in My name, there I am with them.’ He is indeed with all believers, but that doesn’t by any means guarantee infallibility, or else we would all be in possession of the truth and in agreement, instead of disagreeing on so many fundamentals as we do.

You have some very strange ideas. Do you really think the apostles were so credulous as to listen to Peter merely because he had a dream? When Thomas demanded physical sight of Christ to even believe that He was risen? C’mon!

Even if it were true that they believed because of the dream, why did only Peter dream it? Why not let all the 12 see the vision so that they would all start out in agreement and there wouldn’t be a need for them to meet in council in the first place? I don’t suppose it could possibly have been because Peter was the one with the authority to sway the others who hadn’t dreamed?

 

[Church_Militant]

Fifth, Jesus, NOT ME, said that the other apostles have infallibility and that he would be with them WHENEVER TWO OR THREE OF THEM SPOKE IN HIS NAME. I am not making that up…the Catholic Church agrees that He said that! If you have a problem with the statement, take it up with Jesus…because HE is the one who said it, not me.

I’m sorry but you have apparently paraphrased Christ’s precise words and in so doing interjected your own interpretation onto Matthew 18:20, which actually says, 20] For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them." Therefore, your remaining statement is actually in error.

The Church bases it’s infallibility in speaking on matters of faith and morals on a great deal more than this one verse (example being the passage that I cited above).

Furthermore, your argument is actually a Protestant one that is often used by non-Pentecostals/Charismatics that allows them to try to assert that the gifts of the Spirit ceased after the death of the last apostle and in both cases, (yours and the n-Ps) the argument fails on the simple face of manifest Christian history & scripture. Since Christ’s promises are to the whole Church even as His promise of the Holy Spirit is, then I believe you’d be wise to rethink your beliefs on this.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

All apostolic authority is without error. Those in positions of authority who depart from the Deposit of Faith no longer have apostolic authority. When individuals attempt to teach things contrary to the Catechism, creeds and official documents of the Church, it is clear they are longer speaking with apostolic authority.

What is the purpose of laws, particularly moral laws? They meant to protect us from error. Doing the wrong thing isn’t freedom, its slavery.

When was the last time that the Vatican police knocked on your door to force you to follow some teaching. Force? I don’t think so?

Lets read St Justin Martyr (AD 100–165) in his 1st Apology:

1. This food we call Eucharist, **of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, **and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Saviour being incarnate by God’s word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus. For the apostles in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, thus handed down what was commanded them: that Jesus, taking bread and having given thanks, said, “Do this for my memorial, this is my body”; and likewise taking the cup and giving thanks he said, “This is my blood”; and gave it to them alone. This also the wicked demons in imitation handed down as something to be done in the mysteries of Mithra; for bread and a cup of water are brought out in their secret rites of initiation, with certain invocations which you either know or can learn.
2. After these [services] we constantly remind each other of these things. Those who have more come to the aid of those who lack, and we are constantly together. Over all that we receive we bless the Maker of all things through his Son Jesus Christ and through the Holy Spirit. And on the day called Sunday there is a meeting in one place of those who live in cities or the country, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read as long as time permits. When the reader has finished, the president in a discourse urges and invites [us] to the imitation of these noble things. Then we all stand up together and offer prayers. And, as said before, when we have finished the prayer, bread is brought, and wine and water, and the president similarly sends up prayers and thanksgivings to the best of his ability, and the congregation assents, saying the Amen; the distribution, and reception of the consecrated [elements] by each one, takes place and they are sent to the absent by the deacons. Those who prosper, and who so wish, contribute, each one as much as he chooses to. What is collected is deposited with the president, and he takes care of orphans and widows, and those who are in want on account of sickness or any other cause, and those who are in bonds, and the strangers who are sojourners among [us], and, briefly, he is the protector of all those in need. We all hold this common gathering on Sunday, since it is the first day, on which God transforming darkness and matter made the universe, and Jesus Christ our Saviour rose from the dead on the same day. For they crucified him on the day before Saturday, and on the day after Saturday,he appeared to his apostles and disciples and taught them these
   things which I have passed on to you also for your serious consideration.

Link: thefishersofmenministries.com/Early%20christian%20fathers.pdf

Lets compare his tone with yours… Vatican police… really… thanks for your charity… :hammering:

First: I am either a slave to sin or a slave to Christ. Freedom is only in Him and never on my own.

Notice how he says that the Eucharist is taken by those who believes the things they teach are true. Do we have their Catechism? How much do we differ in “things”?
This is the 2nd century A.D. Further, he explains the things they believed as true and they are simple enough.

Would you say that St Justin spoke with authority?

Who is talking about moral laws?

To the OP:

Here is a NIHIL OBSTAT article on Communion:
catholic.com/tracts/who-can-receive-communion

 

[Michael_Francis]

Eastern Rite churches all have bishops that have seats that can be traced back to the other 11 apostles. They do not believe in papal infallibility.

This is not true at all. All the Eastern Rites actually do accept infallibility and their differences are in liturgical rites, not in doctrines.You cannot use them as support for your own position on this issue.

 

[jinc1019]

So…let me be sure I understand you…You are saying that Matthew 28: 18-20, which reads, 18] And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19] Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20] teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.” allows for the departure of authentic Catholic teaching from the will of God despite Christ’s promise? Consider this…would Christ make such a promise and then abandon His Church to teach error in His name after this express mandate?

Absolutely not. You are citing the wrong verses. It’s Mathew 18:15 (I believe, you will know it when you see it). You have the wrong chapter completely though.

 

[AnneElliot]

I know it is transmitted by the Holy Spirit…but according to Mathew 18, it is transmitted to the Eastern Orthodox churches as well as the Catholic Church, and because they are all in disagreement with eachother over, of all things papal infallibility, then papal infallibility cannot be true. If it were true, none of the churches that have a seat going back to an apostle could disagree on a matter deemed infallible.

So, because YOU believe that infallibility is also transmitted to all the apostles (though this is not the understanding of either the Catholic or Orthodox churches…)… papal infallibility cannot be true? That’s convenient…

Perhaps they disagree on infallible matters because only one Church was gifted with the charism of infallibility on matters of faith and morals?

 

[LilyM]

Absolutely not. You are citing the wrong verses. It’s Mathew 18:15 (I believe, you will know it when you see it). You have the wrong chapter completely though.

I think CM’s point is that your odd views make a mockery of Christ’s command to them teach all truth, since there must be but one truth for all twelve, and without Peter’s guiding hand they could easily come up with half a dozen contradictory ‘infallible’ truths. (

Note that those two or three at Jerusalem who thought Gentiles should be circumcised did not, and did not even dare to attempt to declare an infallible dogma without him, although on your view they would have been well within their rights to do so.

 

[DJK100]

I believe the Bible is correct because I believe it is the sacred tradition passed down directlty from the apostles themselves, who I believe to be infallible…I believe there are some errors in the Bible because later on, a fallible Church was forced to compile the oral and written traditions that had been handed down to them, but I believe it really is a very accurate depiction of what occurred. I also believe God played a hand in ensuring that this oral and written tradition was passed down…Although, I would say that I do think the Bible does contain some error in it, especially since it has been translated dozens of times over and certain words have been lost in translation or “found” in translation.

Thanks for answering… Just so I understand you believe that infallible Apostles helped with Gods Holy Spirit protecting them assemble a fallible book? Then why do you think the bible is accurate again? Was it the events in the bible you find accurate? What about the teachings in the bible? And why what was the Holy Spirit protecting was the Truth of Jesus’ teachings or protecting only the Apostles?

I am not trying to debate you I am trying to understand your postition because, I still don’t get how you can believe the bible when you have no way of knowing what is true in it and what isn’t?

 

[DJK100]

Please explain to me where in Mathew 18 it says that the apostles must be in communion with Peter to be infallible. Please show that to me. Because the Church has already stated that this passage is about infallibility; they just argue that the apostles have to be in communion with Peter to have it…something which I cannot find anywhere in those verses.

Have you though about this… because I don’t have a good explaination for it. Why in Matthew 16:18 Jesus gives the keys to Peter and the abilty to loose and bind. I understand later he goes and give ithe loose and binding to all the apostles and is why you thing that all the Apostles are equal but why would Jesus single him out first to give him this ability and then go the rest of the group to give them this ability. This passage makes no sense then. Why go through this whole rigamarole thing with Peter only then to just basically give everything else to the apostles as well. The passage makes no sense then and would just seem to be a pointless excersize by Jesus. What are your thoughts?

 

[DJK100]

I know it is transmitted by the Holy Spirit…but according to Mathew 18, it is transmitted to the Eastern Orthodox churches as well as the Catholic Church, and because they are all in disagreement with eachother over, of all things papal infallibility, then papal infallibility cannot be true. If it were true, none of the churches that have a seat going back to an apostle could disagree on a matter deemed infallible.

I think you logic is faulty. Infallibilty is not transmitted to the Eastern Orthodox churches as well as the Catholic church but is transmitted to THE CHURCH. So because the have a disagreement doesn’t mean that infallbility doesn’t exist it simply means that one is not THE CHURCH as one or the other excommunicated each other. Of course you have to decide for yourself which one is THE CHURCH. Which is also coincidently why I think you have to have a tie breaker (ie a pope that is protected) in just such situations. What would happen if the orginal Apostles had a 6-6 split on something they knew Jesus taught then what? I think we had better have an protected person when breaking a tie don’t you think otherwise we just lost a crucial teaching of Jesus to uncertainty.

It would be similar to what was occuring with the Jews all trying to follow the book but splintering of into many different sects based upon their interpretations. Sure the books contained Gods word but how to understand that word? Do you think God would be so short sighted to let that happen again?

However, I honestly think you are seeing infallibilty incorrectly. Infallbility isn’t for the benefit of the person (ie the bishops or the pope) but is for the benefit of the Truth. Without infallibilty you CANNOT be sure of what is the truth which then renders Jesus promise when sending the Holy Spirit void. For if we have as you say an infalliblity that was not/cannot be passed down then we have lost the truth because it can never be known. We have a bible with the truth hidden in it somewhere but absolutely no way of knowing what it is. Is this truly what you think Jesus promised his Church and do you really think Jesus would come to earth, preach his gospel and then leave absoultely no way to discern what he meant? What good would that be? So he opened a door to salvation but no one has any idea about how to walk throught it – then what was the point of his coming in the first place?

 

[maryj]

If Jesus walked up to me and told me that the Pope was infallible, I assure you I would believe it. The comparison is not even close to the same.

If the chruch tells you, It is Jesus telling you! St. Peter pray for us.

 

[DJK100]

Sorry Jinc to have so many post in a row. However, I do have one more question.

In the senerio you laid out you said you believe the apostles were infallible but gave no special chrism to the Pope because Jesus goes on to tell the rest of the apostles what he told Peter thus conferring individual Apostolic infallibility.

Have you ever thought about the passages this way… Jesus first gives the promise of infallibility to Peter alone and then gives it to the rest of the apostles as a group. Did you ever ask yourself why he does this, what is its significance and what it could mean? Does this kind of remind you of a current church set up?

Could it be that the significance is that the Pope (ie the successor of Peter) has the individual charism of infallibilty as Jesus orginally tells Peter alone seperately from the rest of the apostles and then goes to the GROUP of Apostles and gives them that chrism of infallibilty. Why one seperately and then later to a group?

It is interesting how this is exactly how the church is set up today. It is a group teaching with the consent of the pope that the Bishops can excersize infallibilty.

Just food for thought.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

I know it is transmitted by the Holy Spirit…but according to Mathew 18, it is transmitted to the Eastern Orthodox churches as well as the Catholic Church, and because they are all in disagreement with eachother over, of all things papal infallibility, then papal infallibility cannot be true. If it were true, none of the churches that have a seat going back to an apostle could disagree on a matter deemed infallible.

Your understanding still seems to go along the lines that infallibility flows through a line of succession which it doesn’t.

Infallibility is a gift of the Holy Spirit which is given in the here and now. It doesn’t come as a perk of being a bishop. Remember, there were MANY heretical bishops in the history of the Church. It is proverbial to say that the road to hell is paved with the skulls of bishops!

Infallibility is given to the CHURCH, through the Pope, or the Magisterium, or the Faithful, as the occasion requires. Only the Pope is given this gift as an individual, and only on matters regarding Faith and morals, and only when speaking ex cathedra.

But the gift is transmitted through the Holy Spirit, not through apostolic succession.

It is helpful to keep in mind that God didn’t put a Church mechanism in place which has been humming along without Him ever since. In reality the Church is actively and personally led by the risen Jesus Christ Himself, through the Holy Spirit, until the end of time. The Pope, is His vicar on earth, and the Magisterium are His apostolic successors to the original 12. But Jesus is the head of the whole body, not just the Pope or the Magisterium. That is why even the faithful are directly led by Jesus Christ too, through the Holy Spirit.

 

[Church_Militant]

I think CM’s point is that your odd views make a mockery of Christ’s command to them teach all truth, since there must be but one truth for all twelve, and without Peter’s guiding hand they could easily come up with half a dozen contradictory ‘infallible’ truths.

Note that those two or three at Jerusalem who thought Gentiles should be circumcised did not, and did not even dare to attempt to declare an infallible dogma without him, although on your view they would have been well within their rights to do so.

Thanks Lily, you are correct.

The fact is that our understanding Christian doctrines are not (or should not be) based solely upon a single verse, but understood in the total context of all scriptures on that topic, and that is actually what I have found to be the case in Catholic teaching.

The Catechism speaks of it in this way:

**892 **Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful “are to adhere to it with religious assent” which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

One can read its teaching in its full context by clicking Enter the Catechism at this paragraph and I urge readers to take the time to carefully read and study any and all footnotes, as they usually add great depth and understanding to its information.

 

[Church_Militant]

Note also from the catechism:

*** The teaching office **
888 Bishops, with priests as co-workers, have as their first task “to preach the Gospel of God to all men,” in keeping with the Lord’s command.415 They are “heralds of faith, who draw new disciples to Christ; they are authentic teachers” of the apostolic faith "endowed with the authority of Christ."416
889 In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a “supernatural sense of faith” the People of God, under the guidance of the Church’s living Magisterium, "unfailingly adheres to this faith."417
890 The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium’s task to preserve God’s people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church’s shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. The exercise of this charism takes several forms:
891 “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421

 

[jinc1019]

So, because YOU believe that infallibility is also transmitted to all the apostles (though this is not the understanding of either the Catholic or Orthodox churches…)… papal infallibility cannot be true? That’s convenient…

Perhaps they disagree on infallible matters because only one Church was gifted with the charism of infallibility on matters of faith and morals?

You are wrong. The Catholic Church does teach the other apostles were given infallibility in Mathew 18…You are COMPLETELY misinformed on this issue. I posted a video earlier of a Catholic Answers session where they explained this. The difference between my view and the Church’s view is not that I think the apostles were given infallibility and they don’t (we both do), it’s that the Church teaches that infallibility only works when in communion with Peter and I am pointing out that nowhere in Mathew 18 does Jesus make that a requirement. He never says, “By the way, you have to be in communion with Peter for this to work.” If that’s what He intended, why didn’t He just say it?