Where to begin?

[Randy_Carson]

I would like to understand why you have such faith in what these men taught you when the arguments they use to defend their position depend upon what they are ascribing to the text but is otherwise not evident (or, at least, certainly not clearly).

My pleasure…

The Infallibility of the Catholic Church Proved from Scripture

The following verses suggest that the Catholic Church is prevented from teaching error in matters of faith and morals by God Himself. I provide questions below each verse to illustrate why it is applicable to our understanding of infallibility.

Matthew 16:18
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Q: If Jesus promised to build his own church and that Church ever fell into doctrinal error, would this mean that a) Jesus was a liar, b) Jesus did not have the power to protect his own church, or c) Jesus was incompetent as a church builder?

Matthew 28:20
And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.

Q: If the Church fell into doctrinal error at any time during the 1500 years before the Protestant Reformation, would that suggest that Jesus did not remain with the Church “always”?

John 14:15-16
15"If you love me, you will obey what I command. 16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever—

Q: If the Church ever fell into doctrinal error, would that mean that Jesus did not give the Counselor or that the Counselor simply failed to remain with the Church “forever”?

John 14:18
18I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.

Q: If the Church ever fell into doctrinal error, would that imply that Jesus actually did leave us as “orphans” during all that time?

John 14:26
26But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

Q: If the Church fell into error despite this promise, would that mean the Holy Spirit failed to teach the Church “all things” or to remind the Church of the things that Jesus had said to the Apostles?

John 16:13
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

Q: Could the Holy Spirit fail to guide the Church into all truth - or allow the Church to fall into error - if Jesus promised otherwise?

Now, consider the following three verses:

1 John 4:4
4You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.

1 Timothy 3:13
15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Mark 3:27
27In fact, no one can enter a strong man’s house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he can rob his house.

Q: Is Satan stronger than Jesus, is the Church the household of God, and can Satan rob the Church of the deposit of truth by “binding” Jesus in any way?

In light of the above, is it possible for the Church to fall into doctrinal error? Taken individually, each of these verses creates a problem for those that assert that the Church “went off the rails” at some point in history or that the Church is fallible.

Taken as a whole, they portray Christ’s own involvement in building, nurturing and protecting His Church until the end of time. The Catholic Church remains strong and vibrant – not by her own efforts or innate qualities – but because God Himself is leading and guiding her to ensure that “the gates of hell will not overcome it.”

 

[Solus_Christus]

1. Jesus gives to Peter “the keys of the kingdom of heaven”. This alludes to the prophecy of Isaiah that reads, "In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.” (Isaiah 22:22) In ancient times, a king might choose a second in command or prime minister who literally wore a large key as a symbol of his office and who spoke with the authority of the king. Jesus gives Peter the authority to speak in His name and extends his authority beyond the earthly realm when he gives Peter the “keys to the kingdom of heaven.”
2. Finally, Jesus reveals the infallible nature of the Church when he declares, “whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." What does this passage mean? There are two possible interpretations. First, if God reciprocates the binding and loosing of Church on earth with an identical binding or loosing in heaven, then the binding and loosing done on earth must of necessity be free from all error. If this were not so, God would have put himself in the impossible situation of affirming that which is not true. A second interpretation would be that the authority of the church is to carry out the will and decisions of God upon earth as they have been established in heaven. This is in perfect accord with the way Jesus instructed us to pray: “Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven” (Matthew 6:10). Thus, the Church must either be prevented from teaching error in order that God may ratify its decisions in heaven or the Church must be proclaiming here below those things that are already true in heaven. Either way, the decisions and actions of the Church can be seen to be infallible with regard to matters of faith and morals. Anything less would make Jesus a liar for He also declared, “But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth” (John 16:13) and “I am with you always till the end of the world.” (Matthew 28:20)

I already pointed out that this authority was not only given to Peter, but to the other disciples as well in Matthew 18:18. In this passage Jesus does not explicitly mention keys but He mentions, using the exact same words, the same consequences arising from using the keys discussed in 16:19. Christ goes on in the very next verse (18:19) to say “Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven.” Obviously Christ does not have two popes in-view here, and clearly this thought is linked to the previous where he talks about binding and loosing. The verse starts with “Again I say.” Christ is exponding on his previous statement concerning binding and loosing. If we want to know what verse 18 means, then we had better listen to what Christ Himself had to say about it! But if we follow your argument, verse 18 necessitates at least two infallible leaders within the Church! To make matters worse, if we go to the next verse (20) Christ says: “For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.” Once again Christ is linking the thoughts together because He starts with the word “for.” In fine, the reason why God “reciprocates the binding and loosing” is because Christ Himself is present wherever two or more are gathered in His name.

The passage never uses the word “infallible” so I will neither try to add it nor exclude it. Instead, I take comfort from Christ’s promise that: 1) Christ gathers together with His people and 2) Whatever we ask in His name He will do. This is what we are told in this passage, and nothing more. Using the same line of logic you provided in point #6 we could likewise conclude from this passage in Matthew 18 and ones like it, such as John 14:13 and 14, that all Christian prayers will be granted by Christ. And, since Christ would never do the wrong thing, our prayers will be infallible. Randy, I contend that logical arguments devised to necessitate infallibility are dangerous. If God did not say we or some one person is infallible, then we should not insist upon it.

 

[Solus_Christus]

**Tertullian **

“[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to *you *the keys, not to the Church; and whatever *you *shall have bound or *you *shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed” (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).

What do you suppose Tertullian meant when he said: “I will give to you the keys, not to the Church”? Yes, Tertullian believed in the primacy of Peter, but he seems also to have believed that that primacy did not extend to Peter’s successors. Tertullian says elsewhere: “You therefore persume that the power of binding and loosing has derived to you, that is, to every Church akin to Peter, what sort of man are you, subverting and wholly changing the manifest intention of the Lord, conferring (as that intention did) this (gift) personally on Peter? 'On thee,’ He says and ‘I will give *to thee *the keys,’ not to the Church…Accordingly, ‘the Church,’ it is true will forgive sins: but (it will be) the Church of the Spirit, by means of a spiritual man; not the Church which consists of a number of bishops.” (Pud. 21)

 

[Solus_Christus]

And now, my evangelical friend, a few words from your Protestant brethren:

Although I have argued against the stance taken by these, my brethren, I have already agreed that Peter served in a leadership capacity in the ancient Church. If I concede the point, however, it does not at all detract from the primary issue before us. Namely: This passage only identifies Peter as a leader. It does not prove (or, I would even argue, suggest) infallibility, primacy, or succession.

 

[Defender1]

You could have also pointed out 1Peter 5:13 when Peter says "The chosen one at Babylon sends you greeting " . As you may know, Peter was in Rome . Babylon is code for Rome . he is calling himself the Chosen one .Of course we see it in Matthew 16, as well as John 21 .

 

[Solus_Christus]

“[In my first book against Donatus] I mentioned somewhere with reference to the apostle Peter that ‘the Church is founded upon him as upon a rock.’ This meaning is also sung by many lips in the lines of blessed Ambrose, where, speaking of the domestic cock, he says: ‘When it crows, he, the rock of the Church, absolves from sin.’ But I realize that I have since frequently explained the words of our Lord: ‘Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church’, to the effect that they should be understood as referring to him Peter confessed when he said: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God’, and as meaning that Peter having been named after this rock, figured the person of the Church, which is built upon this rock and has received the keys of the kingdom of heaven. For what was said to him was not ‘Thou art rock’, but ‘Thou art Peter’. But the rock was Christ, having confessed whom(even as the whole Church confesses) Simon was named Peter. Which of these interpretations is more likely to be correct, let the reader choose.” Retractations,1:21(A.D. 427),in GILES, 177

Kudos to you! I’m not opposed to giving credit where credit is due. Thanks for pointing this out.

 

[jmcrae]

Yes, of course the original discussion was in Aramaic. We were not there to hear the discussion, however, so we have to look at the Greek. If we believe the word of God to be infallible, then we need to understand why different forms of the word were used in the Greek (differences which appear in both the Textus Receptus and the Byzantine manuscripts).

We do. The Greek translator was masculinizing the feminine noun “Petra” in order to make it suitable as a man’s name. (We do the reverse, and feminize the man’s name “Peter” by making it “Petra” whenever we name a little girl after St. Peter.)

As you pointed out, the first time the word “rock” appears in this passage it is in the masculine form and the second time it is in the feminine form. This indicates the two words are referring to separate referents. Moreover, Peter is referred to in the second person in this passage whereas “this rock” is referred to in the third person.

In the original conversation, Jesus said to Peter, “Thou art Rock, and upon this Rock I shall build my Church.” Clearly, Jesus is referring to Peter as the foundation stone of His Church.

Last of all, I have a few questions for you to consider: If Jesus was doing here what the RCC claims He was doing, then why did He not make it more plain?

It was plain enough that after the Resurrection, it was Peter who was the head of the Church. He was the one who preached at Pentecost, and he was the one through whom the Holy Spirit spoke, to bring the Sacraments to the Gentiles.

Who was it that finally discovered His meaning? After all it certainly was not apparent to the disciple two chapters later in Matthew 18:1 where they asked Jesus who was the greatest. It would have been the perfect opportunity for Jesus to clarify what apparently had not been made clear when He addressed Peter in Matthew 16.

They were looking for worldly power. The Papacy is not a position of worldly power. It is a position of spiritual leadership. Remember, the Pope owns absolutely nothing of his own, except for his underwear, and perhaps two or three mementos from his life before the priesthood - everything else is the property of the Church - that is, it is yours and mine.

 

[maggie41]

When you are dialoguing with a non-Catholic Christian and you want to argue for the truth of Catholicism (as opposed to Mere Christianity), what verse(s) do you like to begin with, and how do you build your argument?

I think others have given you some great information. I just want to agree with those who have encouraged you to live your faith fully.

I understand your enthusiasm, especially as a convert. I converted in 2006. I wanted everyone to become Catholic just like me. I could not understand why others did not see what I saw, “why didn’t they get it”! One day in talking to my preist about this he said something I will never forget, he asked me “Who talked you into becoming Catholic?”

The point is you aren’t going to convince someone who isn’t seeking, who doesn’t have a question, or who doesn’t see that there may be more. I think for each convert it starts as a small seed of restlessness inside. It comes from within the person, prompted and moved by the Holy Spirit. Once a person is open to learning from God and they begin to ask questions, then you can be there to answer their questions.

But the best thing you can do for now and always, is be Catholic, authentically and passionately Catholic in front of this person. Let the love for Jesus and His Church show forth in your life.

You never know, you might just be that seed of restlessness that gets planted.

God Bless
Maggie

 

[ESMDHokie77]

One thing that led to a really good discussion with my presbyterian girlfriend was… instead of her questioning me… I questioned her; in a curious and polite manner.

I questioned her about the process for elder election, presbytery voting, minister election, etc. She didn’t know any complete answers and now she’s reading up on her church. … So either She’ll come back unsure of PC-USA or she’ll become more convinced by what they teach.

More on topic,
I like to use Matthew 16, John 6, Luke 1, and 1 Tim 3:15!

Peace,
Phil

 

[Randy_Carson]

I already pointed out that this authority was not only given to Peter, but to the other disciples as well in Matthew 18:18. In this passage Jesus does not explicitly mention keys…

Well, there you go. That’s the difference, isn’t it?

Peter holds the keys of the kingdom just as the royal steward held the key in the Davidic kingdoms of the Old Testament. The other apostles obviously have apostolic authority, and they are individually infallible (unlike their successors, the bishops, today), however they did not each hold the office of “royal steward” or “keeper of the keys” in the same way that Peter did.

The Apostles themselves, as well as the Early Church Fathers, all understood this.

using the exact same words, the same consequences arising from using the keys discussed in 16:19. Christ goes on in the very next verse (18:19) to say “Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven.” Obviously Christ does not have two popes in-view here, and clearly this thought is linked to the previous where he talks about binding and loosing. The verse starts with “Again I say.” Christ is exponding on his previous statement concerning binding and loosing. If we want to know what verse 18 means, then we had better listen to what Christ Himself had to say about it! But if we follow your argument, verse 18 necessitates at least two infallible leaders within the Church! To make matters worse, if we go to the next verse (20) Christ says: “For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.” Once again Christ is linking the thoughts together because He starts with the word “for.” In fine, the reason why God “reciprocates the binding and loosing” is because Christ Himself is present wherever two or more are gathered in His name.

I disagree that there is a direct connection between the passages "Again I say to you’ does not necessarily imply that He is re-stating what He has just said. The previous and subsequent passages have little to do with one another.

Just because Christ promises to be with “two or three”, it does not follow that He has given each of them the same authority that He gave to the original Apostles or to Peter, does it? Do you have a key? I don’t…but there’s more to this.

Wherever two or three are gathered…
An Explanation of “Church” in light of Matthew 18:19-20

Non-denominational Christians often reject the concept of a structured, hierarchical Church led by bishops, priests and deacons. One of their common objections is that the “church” exists wherever two or three believers are gathered in His name. Is this really how the Bible defines the Church? Let’s take a closer look at the Word of God to see if this is true.

Matthew 18:19-20
19"Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. 20For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."

From this passage, many Christians conclude that the “church” is composed of small groups of believers that come together from time to time. While it is true that Jesus has promised to be with believers who are gathered in His name, it is obvious from another passage that this is not how Jesus Himself defines the Church.

In fact, just a few verses earlier, Jesus had given a fuller picture of the Church when He said:

Matthew 18:15-17
15"If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. 16But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ 17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.”

If “two or three” believers gathered together really constitutes the “church” (as envisioned by those who reject “organized religion”), then it would not be necessary for us to refer the one who sins against us to “the church”. Doing so would be redundant! To the contrary, it is obvious in this passage that Jesus actually makes a clear distinction between the “two or three others” in verse 16 and “the church” in verse 17.

Clearly, Jesus does not consider that “two or three” constitute the Church that He Himself would build. Neither should we. Beginning with Peter, the rock, and the apostles, Jesus has built the Church just as He promised through their successors—the bishops, priests and deacons of the Catholic Church.

The passage never uses the word “infallible” so I will neither try to add it nor exclude it. Instead, I take comfort from Christ’s promise that: 1) Christ gathers together with His people and 2) Whatever we ask in His name He will do. This is what we are told in this passage, and nothing more.

Is this your personal experience? Does God grant all your requests?

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

Using the same line of logic you provided in point #6 we could likewise conclude from this passage in Matthew 18 and ones like it, such as John 14:13 and 14, that all Christian prayers will be granted by Christ. And, since Christ would never do the wrong thing, our prayers will be infallible. Randy, I contend that logical arguments devised to necessitate infallibility are dangerous. If God did not say we or some one person is infallible, then we should not insist upon it.

God did not say that we are all infallible; however, scripture very clearly demonstrates that the Apostles individually and the Church collectively is protected from teaching error in matters of faith and morals. For example, Jesus said:

Luke 10:16
He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.

Can Jesus teach error? How can anyone who listens to the Church hear Jesus if that Church is teaching error?

 

[Randy_Carson]

What do you suppose Tertullian meant when he said: “I will give to you the keys, not to the Church”? Yes, Tertullian believed in the primacy of Peter, but he seems also to have believed that that primacy did not extend to Peter’s successors. Tertullian says elsewhere: “You therefore persume that the power of binding and loosing has derived to you, that is, to every Church akin to Peter, what sort of man are you, subverting and wholly changing the manifest intention of the Lord, conferring (as that intention did) this (gift) personally on Peter? 'On thee,’ He says and ‘I will give *to thee *the keys,’ not to the Church…Accordingly, ‘the Church,’ it is true will forgive sins: but (it will be) the Church of the Spirit, by means of a spiritual man; not the Church which consists of a number of bishops.” (Pud. 21)

Tertullian

“Moreover, if there be any [heresies] bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, so that they might seem to have been handed down by the Apostles because they were from the time of the Apostles, we can say to them: let them show the origins of their Churches, let them unroll the order of their bishops, running down in succession from the beginning, so that their first bishop shall have for author and predecessor some of one of the Apostles or of the apostolic men who continued steadfast with the Apostles. For this is the way in which the apostolic Churches transmit their lists: like the Church of the Smyrnaeans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John; like the Church of the Romans where Clement was ordained by Peter. In just the same way the other Churches display those whom they have as sprouts from the apostolic seed, having been established in the episcopate by the Apostles” (The Demurrer Against the Heretics 32.1, [A.D. 200]).

“But should they even effect the contrivance [of composing a succession list for themselves], they will not advance a step. For their very doctrine, after comparison with that of the apostles [as contained in other churches], will declare, by its own diversity and contrariety, that it had for its author neither an apostle nor an apostolic man; because, as the apostles would never have taught things which were self-contradictory” (ibid.).

“Then let all the heresies, when challenged to these two tests by our apostolic Church, offer their proof of how they deem themselves to be apostolic. But in truth they neither are so, nor are they able to prove themselves to be what they are not. Nor are they admitted to peaceful relations and communion by such churches as are in any way connected with apostles, inasmuch as they are in no sense themselves apostolic because of their diversity as to the mysteries of the faith” (ibid.).

 

[Randy_Carson]

Although I have argued against the stance taken by these, my brethren, I have already agreed that Peter served in a leadership capacity in the ancient Church. If I concede the point, however, it does not at all detract from the primary issue before us. Namely: This passage only identifies Peter as a leader. It does not prove (or, I would even argue, suggest) infallibility, primacy, or succession.

Early Church Fathers on the Primacy of Peter

**Clement of Alexandria **

“[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you’” [Matt. 19:27, Mark 10:28] (*Who Is the Rich Man That is Saved? *21:3–5 [A.D. 200]).

---

**Tertullian **

“[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter” (Demurrer Against the Heretics 32:2 [A.D. 200]).

“[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to *you *the keys, not to the Church; and whatever *you *shall have bound or *you *shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed” (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).

**Letter of Clement to James **

“Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was, by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first-fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect” (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).

Origen (248 A.D.)

“*f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens” (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]).

Cyprian of Carthage (251 A.D.)

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ He says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven.’ And again He says to him after His resurrection: ‘Feed my sheep.’ On him He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles, yet He founded a single chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (*The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 *[A.D. 251]).

“Cornelius was made bishop by the decision of God and of his Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the applause of the people then present, by the college of venerable priests and good men, at a time when no one had been made [bishop] before him—when the place of [Pope] Fabian, which is the place of Peter, the dignity of the sacerdotal chair, was vacant. Since it has been occupied both at the will of God and with the ratified consent of all of us, whoever now wishes to become bishop must do so outside. For he cannot have ecclesiastical rank who does not hold to the unity of the Church” (Letters 55:[52]):8 [A.D. 253]).
“With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source” (ibid., 59:14).*

 

[Tomster]

I know I am getting into this discussion late, but my initial questions would be something like “How do you know what you know?”

In other words, before getting into doctrines, dogmas, Church, etc., I would get into some basic epistemology.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Early Church Fathers on Apostolic Succession

Clement of Rome

“Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” (*Letter to the Corinthians *42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).

“We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ, in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. (ibid.)

Hegesippus

“When I had come to Rome, I [visited] Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And after Anicetus [died], Soter succeeded, and after him Eleutherus. In each succession and in each city there is a continuance of that which is proclaimed by the law, the prophets, and the Lord” (Memoirs, cited in Eusebius, *Ecclesiastical History *4:22 [A.D. 180]).

Irenaeus

"1It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about…Surely they wished all those and their successors, to whom they handed on their authority, to be perfect and without reproach.” (Against Heresies 3.3.1, [A.D. 180])

"2But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul—that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition.” (Against Heresies 3.3.2, [A.D. 180])

“3The blessed Apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the Church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the Epistle to Timothy. To him succeeded Anencletus; and after him, in the third place from the Apostles, Clement was chosen from the episcopate. He had seen the blessed Apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that He still heard the echoes of the preaching of the Apostles, and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the Apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the Church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith. To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded; and Alexander succeeded Evaristus. Then, sixth after the Apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telesphorus, who also was gloriously martyred. Then Hyginus; after him, Pius; and after him, Anicetus. Soter succeeded Anicetus, and now, in the twelfth place after the Apostles, the lot of the episcopate has fallen to Eleutherus. In this order, and by the teaching of the Apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us.” (Against Heresies 3.3.3, [A.D. 180])

“4Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time” (*Against Heresies *3:3:4 [A.D. 189]).

 

[Randy_Carson]

EARLY CHURCH FATHERS ON PAPAL INFALLIBILITY

As men received clearer understanding of the teaching authority of the church and the primacy of the Pope, they also got a clearer understanding of the Pope’s infallibility.

---

Pope Clement I

“Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us… Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret… If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [God] through us [that you must reinstate your leaders], let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger… You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy…” (Letter to the Corinthians 1:1, 58:2-59:1,63:2[A.D.80]).

Clement declares that God is speaking through him.

Ignatius of Antioch

“… to the Church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and after the Father” (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).

This speaks of the primacy of Rome, the seat of Peter’s bishopric.

Irenaeus of Lyons

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [189 AD]).

---

Why must other churches agree with the Church of Rome if that Church is teaching error?

---

**Cyprian of Carthage **

"the Lord says to Peter; ’I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of Heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ Matt 16:18-19])*…*On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was *, but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (*The Unity of the Catholic Church *4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

“Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" (Epistulae 59 (55), 14, [256 AD]).

Pope Sixtus III

“all know that to assent to [the Bishop of Rome’s] decision is to assent to St. Peter, who lives in his successors and whose faith fails not.”(433 AD)*

 

[Solus_Christus]

In the original conversation, Jesus said to Peter, “Thou art Rock, and upon this Rock I shall build my Church.” Clearly, Jesus is referring to Peter as the foundation stone of His Church.

Your answer still does not solve the problem between second person and third person usage.

It was plain enough that after the Resurrection, it was Peter who was the head of the Church. He was the one who preached at Pentecost, and he was the one through whom the Holy Spirit spoke, to bring the Sacraments to the Gentiles.

Was it? Strange then that it took 1,500 years to finally set it in stone (forgive the pun). Consider also the council that was held in Jerusalem in Acts 15. Peter kicks things off, yes, but the final decision was made by the apostles and elders (Peter, I am, sure among them). The question, then, is why when James begins to speak in verse 13 does he refer to Scripture (verse 16) instead of simply turning to Peter and saying: “Hey, you got the keys. Do you bind or loose the Gentiles?” Here the ancient Church was faced with a big question. What would be more natural than to turn to someone you know to be infallible? What would be the point of the questions and debate? Somehow it seems this understanding of Peter’s alleged role was NOT “plain enough” after the resurrection.

They were looking for worldly power. The Papacy is not a position of worldly power. It is a position of spiritual leadership. Remember, the Pope owns absolutely nothing of his own, except for his underwear, and perhaps two or three mementos from his life before the priesthood - everything else is the property of the Church - that is, it is yours and mine.

You confirm my point nicely enough: If the disciples were expecting Christ to usher-in a worldly kingdom, and if Christ had declared Peter to be the rock, then the disciples would have assumed a secular primacy and would not have needed to ask the question they did in Matthew 18:1. And the question still stands: Why didn’t Christ correct them? It is revealing that Christ does correct their misunderstanding concerning the type of kingdom He is ushering-in, yet is silent on spiritual leadership within the Church Militant - His (spiritual) kingdom here on earth.

 

[Solus_Christus]

Well, there you go. That’s the difference, isn’t it?

Is it “the difference”? Allow me to complete the original reference: In this passage Jesus does not explicitly mention keys** but He mentions, using the exact same words, the same consequences arising from using the keys** discussed in 16:19.

Suppose Joe has an intangible and symbolic set of keys and Jack does not. If both Joe and Jack are capable of binding on earth and loosing on earth, and in both cases God reciprocates in Heaven, then what is Joe able to do that Jack is not? Moreover, if both are charged with this binding and loosing then in what manner do their roles differ?

According to your explanation it is by way of these figurative keys that the binding and loosing occurs. Therefore, if the other disciples are also able to perform this binding and loosing, then would it not follow that they also have these figurative keys?

The other apostles obviously have apostolic authority, and they are individually infallible (unlike their successors, the bishops, today)

Just a note here, but do Catholics really believe the apostles were infallible? The writers of the New Testament were infallible in their writing of Scripture, but only because the words they wrote were “God breathed.” In fact, it would be more precise to say God used fallible men to infallibly convey His words. None of the apostles were infallible in any sense of the word. If we are precise in our language we will avoid the mistake of attributing divine qualities to men. God alone is infallible. There is no created being that is infallible. In what sense are you saying the original 11 apostles were infallible? Not ex cathedra, right? (Since there is only one chair)?

I disagree that there is a direct connection between the passages "Again I say to you’ does not necessarily imply that He is re-stating what He has just said. The previous and subsequent passages have little to do with one another

That is going to be a difficult position to defend. So you’re saying Christ was just spouting disjointed thoughts one right after the other? Was he providing sound bites for a group of reporters? By saying “Again I say to you” is the same as saying “expressed differently” or “in other words.” The word rendered in the English as “again” is the Greek word palin, which could also be translated as “furthermore” or “moreover.” Would you think it strange if I started a converation with you using the words “again” or “furthermore” or “moreover”? Of course you would! Your fist thought would be: “What have I missed?” By using those words an allusion is being made to something said in the past.

I’m sorry Randy, but I don’t buy your explanation for a second. You cannot ignore certain words in the text in order to avoid the resulting consequence.

Clearly, Jesus does not consider that “two or three” constitute the Church that He Himself would build. Neither should we.

If you have succeeded in anything here, it is in showing that there are more than just two or three Christians in the entire world. I happen to agree with you there, so you will get no argument from me. What you have failed to do is show that this reality somehow necessitates a hierarchical ecclesiastical polity.

Is this your personal experience? Does God grant all your requests?

I was just restating what is written in Scripture. Are you suggesting Christ was lying in John 14:14? I do not wish to devolve into mud slinging here. I will not twist your words if you do not twist mine. We both know that Christ was not lying. But we also know that our understanding of His words needs to be tempered with what it says in other passages. As one example, our prayers must be in accordance with God’s will (Matthew 26:39 and Luke 11:2). If we pray according to God’s will, then yes, we can be assured our prayers will be answered.

 

[Solus_Christus]

God did not say that we are all infallible; however, scripture very clearly demonstrates that the Apostles individually and the Church collectively is protected from teaching error in matters of faith and morals. For example, Jesus said:

Luke 10:16
He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.

Can Jesus teach error? How can anyone who listens to the Church hear Jesus if that Church is teaching error?

The word “infallible” does not appear in this passage. You are using a logical argument to infer it. The question, then, is why the inconsistent application of this logic? If your argument “proves” infallibility of the Church, then the argument also “proves” infallibility of all Christians in their prayers. Neither one of us, however, is willing to accept the latter proposition. Therefore, the argument is faulty.

 

[Solus_Christus]

EARLY CHURCH FATHERS ON PAPAL INFALLIBILITY

You have an impressive repertoire of quotes from the Early Church Fathers. But unless we have faith in the the words of the men in the hierarchy of the RCC, we have no reason to suppose the Early Church Fathers spoke words that were God breathed, and certainly no reason to believe their words are infallible. Because I am suspicious of the men in the hierarchy of the RCC, I do not subscribe to the idea that God conveyed his words infallibly through those men, let alone that those men were infallible in any sense of the word.

In answer to your original question, when speaking with a Protestant, it is best to stick with Scripture, since that is the only source both Catholics and Protestants accept as infallible.