D
DianaCC
Guest
Yeah, and the Bible would have said they all wore funny hats too. Therefore…
- Status
S
Solus_Christus
Guest
I’m not sure what you mean by this, but I actually agree with jmcrae. The disciples at that point were in fact anticipating an earthly kingdom.
My statement was a boolean proposition. IF (the disciples were expecting Christ to usher-in a worldly kingdom = TRUE) AND (Christ had declared Peter to be the rock - we disagree on this part, but the RCC says TRUE) THEN the disciples would have assumed a secular primacy and would not have needed to ask the question they did in Matthew 18:1 (FALSE, because they clearly did ask the question).
S
Solus_Christus
Guest
All of these Tertullian quotes discuss heritage. None of them speak about the keys/infallibility of Peter being transferred to his successors. Tracing heritage back to the apostles lends credibility to his arguments over against the heretics (whose ideas originated independent of the apostles). But he is NOT contradicting the position he maintained in the quote I supplied. There are different objects in-view here.
If you insist these quotes show Tertullian believed that infallibility passed from Peter to his successors, then you will either need to: 1) Produce a retraction from Tertullian as you did with Augustine or 2) Admit that Tertullian was inconsistent with himself (in which case the RCC can hardly claim unanimous consent of the Fathers on this point).
J
jmcrae
Guest
Where are you getting that from? St. Irenaeus gives a list of the Popes from Peter until his own time (a list of 12) in Adverses Haereses (Against the Heresies), showing the primacy of Rome, which was written no later than 150 AD.
The Pope today also consults with his Bishops. Things don’t actually operate in the dictatorial style that you imagine, and they never have. Keep in mind, it was the Bishops of Trent and not the Pope who condemned the Protestants - it was a democratic vote overwhelmingly against them.
J
jmcrae
Guest
Whether we do or whether we don’t, they are the only witnesses we have.
If we reject the testimony of the Fathers, then we have only two other choices - one, reject Christianity altogether, or two, invent our own version of Christianity and hope it in some way resembles what Christ established.
The Fathers are our link to the Apostles. It was the Fathers who preserved their Sacraments, their rituals, their writings, and their sayings - together with their theology and their world-view. But if we reject them, then we have no living link with the Apostles, nor with Christ, any more.
You are forgetting that it was the Fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries who told us what books the Scriptures are comprised of - there is nothing independent of them that says, “this is Scripture,” or “that is Scripture.” It is only by means of the Holy Tradition that we know who authored which books, and that they were indeed Apostles of Jesus Christ - none of the books are actually signed.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
While each of the apostles were infallible, the keys given to Peter represented his ultimate authority, and the New Testament is chock full of examples of Peter being seen as the final arbiter. When the Apostles had disagreements, they looked to Peter, the keeper of the keys, for the last word.
Additionally, the successors of Peter (who receive the keys by virtue of their assumption of the office of Bishop of Rome) are individually infallible whereas no successor of any other Apostles has that charism.
No. Peter was seen to be the ultimate authority, because only Peter held the office of royal steward in Jesus’ kingdom.
Yes. It was not possible for an apostle to teach error.
Luke was not an apostle, and he was not infallible. However, he was inspired. Same with Mark.
Wrong. Each of the 12 were infallible, meaning that by GOD’s action (not theirs), they were PREVENTED from teaching error. None of these men had divine qualities on their own; infallibility is a work of God and not of man.
Then allow me to do so now.
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.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
The flaw is in your reasoning just demonstrated. How can you make the leap from Jesus’ statement that the small group he was addressing in Luke will speak on his behalf to the fact that “all Christians in their prayers” are somehow infallible? Jesus wasn’t speaking to that latter, larger group, was he?
Let me provide a larger set of verses which support the doctrine of infallibility for your consideration, okay? I think the Bible is very clear on this…
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. 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.”
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Since according to you Bible Christians the Catholic Church did not exist until after Constantine’s Edict of Milan in the fourth century, the writings of the earliest Bible Christians are relevant to our understanding of what true those true Bible Christians believed long before the Catholic hierarchy corrupted the faith and re-wrote history.
That’s why I gave you all these REALLY EARLY quotes from men who knew the Apostles personally or were discipled by men who did. What were the uncorrpted, pre-Catholic Christians saying about infallibility?
My take is that the Early Church seemed to believe that Peter and his successors could not err when teaching on matters of faith and morals.
What do the words of the early believers say to you about their teaching on this matter?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
I suspect you misunderstand “unanimous consent” as you seem to imply above that it means that each and every Father without exception held a particular viewpoint. Maybe this will help:
"Unanimous Consent" of the Church Fathers
by Steve Ray
socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/11/unanimous-consent-of-church-fathers.html
The Church sees the Fathers as the successors of the apostles, the closest source to the apostolic teaching and tradition, and therefore authoritative. One must ask, why should I trust Protestant Joe X’s interpretation, or his pastor’s, when we can go back to the source and listen to those who knew the apostles?
One must understand what the Church means when she is bound by the *unanimous consent *of the Fathers. The Church cannot, has not, and does not contradict Herself. She can develop doctrine, but she cannot deny what is organically Her heritage and the foundation of her existence in the Scriptures, the Tradition and the Magisterium. The Church does not claim that all her “authority rests” on the consent of the Fathers. It rests on several things including Scripture; the Fathers are one element of this foundation.
Second, the Church has never understood or taught that unanimous consent means that the Fathers are individually infallible or that various Fathers have never held an alternative opinion. Any given passage of scripture may have several valid applications and they were all appropriated by the Fathers depending on the matter at hand. Thus, a Father may refer to Jesus as the Rock, Peter as the Rock, or Peter’s *confession *as the Rock. This in not unusual or unexpected. It certainly does not negate the literal intent of Matthew, nor does it invalidate the unanimous consent of the Fathers.
The Catholic Church has organically grown up from the apostles and the Fathers. To say that it does not agree with them is absurd. Now, what is the unanimous consent of the Fathers? The Maryknoll Catholic Dictionary gives a good simple definition:
When the Fathers of the Church are morally unanimous in their teaching that a certain doctrine is a part of revelation, or is received by the universal Church, or that the opposite of a doctrine is heretical, then their united testimony is a certain criterion of divine revelation. As the Fathers are not personally infallible, the counter testimony of one or two would not be destructive of the value of the collective testimony; so a moral unanimity only is required.
The word “unanimous” comes from two Latin words: únus, one + animus, mind. “Consent”, as was used when coined means “to be of the same mind or opinion.” Where the Fathers speak overall with one mind, not necessarily each and every one, nor numerically complete, but by consensus and general agreement, we have “unanimous consent.”
To illustrate, I cite the following excerpt from Pope Leo XIII (“The Study of Holy Scripture”, from the encyclical Providentissimus Deus, Nov., 1893) where the pope admits that there are varying ideas among the Fathers and that not everything they write is a matter of dogma. He could not say this if he understood “unanimous consent” as having to agree on every detail:
Because the defense of Holy Scripture must be carried on vigorously, all the opinions which the individual Fathers or the recent interpreters have set forth in explaining it need not be maintained equally. For they, in interpreting passages where physical matters are concerned have made judgments according to the opinions of the age, and thus not always according to truth, so that they have made statements which today are not approved. Therefore, we must carefully discern what they hand down which really pertains to faith or is intimately connected with it, and what they hand down with unanimous consent; for “in those matters which are not under the obligation of faith, the saints were free to have different opinions, just as we are,” according to the opinion of St. Thomas. In another passage he most prudently holds: “It seems to me to be safer that such opinions as the philosophers have expressed in common and are not repugnant to our faith should not be asserted as dogmas of the faith, even if they are introduced some times under the names of philosophers, nor should they thus be denied as contrary to faith, lest an opportunity be afforded to the philosophers of this world to belittle the teachings of the faith” Henry Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma [London: B. Herder Book Co., 1954], 491-492).
P
Prieldedi
Guest
I’ve read several conversions of protestants and they all seem to agree that the most difficult issue for them was accepting the Catholic teachings on the Virgin Mary. That was their last obstacle. The issue of the “brothers and sisters of Jesus” is deep rooted in them.
I would start my argument by proving that James, the “brother of the Lord”, is not Mary’s son. To do that I would go first to Galatians 1:18-19:
“Later, after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to meet Cephas [Peter], and I stayed with him for fifteen days. BUT I DID NOT SEE ANY OTHER APOSTLE EXCEPT JAMES, THE LORD’S BROTHER.”
In other words what Paul is saying is: “When I went to Jerusalem I saw only two Apostles, one was Peter and the other was James, the brother of the Lord.”
We know there are two Apostles named James: 1) James “the Greater”, brother of John the Apostle and both sons of Zebedee and Salome, and 2) James “the Lesser” or “younger”, the one mentioned by Paul above, but he was not the son of St. Joseph and the Virgin Mary as we will see in these passages from the NT:
Mt 10:3, “James, the son of Zebedee, and his brother John; Philip and Bartholomew, Thomas and Matthew, the tax collector; JAMES, THE SON OF ALPHAEUS, and Thaddaeus;”
Mt 13:55 "Isn’t he the carpenter’s son? Isn’t Mary his mother AND AREN’T JAMES, JOSEPH, SIMON AND JUDAS HIS BROTHERS?
Mt 27:56, “Among them were Mary Magdalene, MARY “the other” Mary] THE MOTHER OF JAMES AND JOSEPH, and the mother of Zebedee’s sons.”
Mk 3:18, “Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, JAMES SON OF ALPHEUS, Thaddeus, Simon the Cananean”
Mk 6:3, “Who is he but the carpenter, the son of Mary and the brother of JAMES AND JOSET AND JUDAS AND SIMON? His sisters, too, are they not here among us?” So they took offense at him."
Mk 15:40, “There were also some women watching from a distance; among them were Mary Magdalene, MARY THE MOTHER OF JAMES THE YOUNGER AND JOSET, AND SALOME,”
Lk 6:15-16, “Matthew and Thomas; JAMES SON OF ALPHEUS and Simon called the Zealot; AND JUDAS THE BROTHER OF JAMES, and Judas Iscariot, which also was the traitor.”
Lk 24:10, “Among the women who brought the news were Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and MARY THE MOTHER OF JAMES.”
Jn 19:25, “Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother’s sister MARY, WHO WAS THE WIFE OF CLEOPHAS, and Mary of Magdala.”
Acts 1:13, “On entering the city they went to the room upstairs where they were staying. Present there were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, JAMES, SON OF ALPHEUS; Simon the Zealot and Judas son of James.”
Jude 1:1, “Jude, servant of Jesus Christ AND BROTHER OF JAMES, to those called to the faith, beloved by God the Father and kept in Christ Jesus.”
Summarizing, James “the Lord’s brother”…
- is an Apostle. (Galatians 1:18-19)
- his real father and mother are Alpheus/Clopas and Mary (“the other” Mary). (Matthew 10:3, Matthew 27:56, Mark 15:40, Luke 24:10, John 19:25)
- he has three brothers: Joseph (Joset), Judas (Jude) and Simon. (Matthew 13:55, Mark 6:3, Luke 6:16)
I would add that none of the “brothers and sisters” of Jesus are EVER referred to as the “sons and daughters of Mary” in the Bible. They are always referred to in relation to Jesus, not Mary. They are Jesus relatives or “cousins”, a word that the Aramaic and Hebrew languages lack.
Finally I would refer to Jesus at 12 years old, lost in the Temple when His parents “looked for him among their RELATIVES and friends” (Luke 2:44). Why didn’t they ask their other children if they knew where their brother was? Now I’ll move about 15 years later, when “there was a wedding at Cana in Galilee and the mother of Jesus was there. Jesus was also invited to the wedding with his disciples” (John 2:1-2). When you’re invited to a wedding it means that it’s a family event, more so in those days and that land. Why aren’t His “brothers and sisters” in this event either? Mary is there, so is Jesus, even His disciples are mentioned, but no mention of the “brothers and sisters” of Jesus. Why? Because there were none.
S
Solus_Christus
Guest
I was not speaking to succession in this case, but rather infallibility and primacy.
You’re missing the point completely, I’m afraid. The situation with the Jerusalem council called for the right decision to be made. If the apostles and elders considered Peter to be infallible, then they naturally would have looked to his pronouncement on the issue. It would not have been a matter of primacy, but infallibility.
S
Solus_Christus
Guest
You ommitted a third option: Listen to what God has told us in His Word and accept Him at His word. Declining to accept the commentary of men as being infallible (because God did not speak through them infallibly) in no way leaves us destitute of His Word, which is infallible.
Can you prove that the teachings of the RCC ultimately trace back to the apostles? For example, can you prove that one or all of the apostles taught about the sacrament of confession as it is taught by the RCC today? If not, then the basis for the RCC claim is merely hearsay. The closest thing we have to “proof” is that we are instructed in the New Testament to confess our sins to one another. That this must be done to a priest and that this along with penance absolves us of sin is not explicitly stated (and I would strongly argue is not even implied) in those verses. Therefore, the significance and details surrounding the RCC’s sacrament of confession stem from what is being called Tradition. Since it cannot be proven, however, that this truly originated with the Apostles, it is nothing more than hearsay.
If anyone can present me with a letter from one of the Apostolic Fathers (i.e. worked directly with one of the apostles) that lays out all of the details of the sacrament of confession as it is taught by the RCC today, then I would be most interested in reading this.
Suppose I wrote a letter to a friend in another city. A few years later I went and visited that friend. The friend asks me whether I wrote the letter and I confirm that I did. My friend shares the letter with his friends and it is widely circulated among like-minded individuals. Imagine this continued on a few centuries past my death. 400 years later, a guy named Joe says: “This letter was written by Mike.” Is Joe infallible for making that statement, or is he just acknowledging what is commonly known?
Also, I do not know what you mean when you say none of the letters were signed. Paul certainly identifies himself in his letters. Could there be forgeries? Sure! Like the so-called Gospel of Thomas, however, these were rejected. Does that make the rejectors infallible? Returning again to the analogy, if the wider circle of like-minded individuals were presented with a new letter purported to be written by my second cousin Gilbert, they would probably check with me or even Gilbert himself to see if this were true. Once it became known Gilbert did not author the letter, however, it would fall into disrepute. Now if our man, Joe, 400 years later is asked about this fake letter from Gilbert, what do you suppose he would say? Would he be infallible because he rightly rejects the letter? Does his knowledge depend upon some line of succession directly to Gilbert, or merely common knowledge among those who were of a like mind?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
They did.
Peter, James and the Council of Jerusalem
Many non-Catholics claim that Peter could not have been the head of the earthly Church or “pope” because they believe that it was James, not Peter, who gave the final decision concerning circumcision of the Gentiles at the Council of Jerusalem recorded in Acts 15. This position indicates a complete misunderstanding of the dynamics of the council. Mark Bonocore, a noted Catholic apologist, addressed this misunderstanding in his debate with Jason Engwer in 1999.
Regarding the Jerusalem council in Acts 15, I pointed out in my [opening statement] how Peter gives the definitive teachings and how, after he speaks, all debate comes to an end. However, Engwer rejects this, citing the amendments given by James, and says how James is the only one to render “judgment.” Well, first of all, it must be noted that James bases his remarks on Peter’s teaching:
“Brothers, listen to me. Symeon (i.e., Peter) has described how …” (Acts 15:13-14).
Secondly, look at what James actually says in relation to his “judgment”:
“It is my judgment, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles” (Acts 15:19).
Well, who is this “we”? Who was “troubling the Gentiles”? Certainly not Peter (Acts 10:44-49, 11:1-18, 15:7-10). Certainly not Paul or Barnabas. So, who? Acts 15:1 tells us:
“Some who had come down from Judea were instructing the brothers, ‘Unless you are circumcised …, you cannot be saved.”
It was the Jewish faction under James (bishop of Jerusalem) that was troubling the Gentiles (Acts 15:5, Gal 2:12).
Thus, James is speaking for them, not for the whole council. Indeed, that’s why his remarks are recorded at all—to show that the leader of the Jewish faction subscribed to the decisions of the council, and so silence the Judaizers who Paul will encounter later (Titus 1:10-11).*
*Taken from: Mark Bonocore v. Jason Engwer: Was the Papacy Established by Christ? (bringyou.to/apologetics/debate13.htm)
(cont.)
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
In addition to Bonocore’s comments, I would point out that as leader of the church in Jerusalem, James was the head of a congregation which counted among its members many priests and Pharisees who still held to their Jewish roots and believed that Gentiles must become Jews through circumcision in order to become Christians. I refer you to the following:
Acts 4:36-37
36Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means Son of Encouragement), 37sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles’ feet.
Acts 6:7
7So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith.
Some from among this group had gone to Galatia and upset the Gentile believers there.
Galatians 2:11-14
11When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.
From this, we can see that the Council of Jerusalem was divided into two camps: those who believed the Gentile converts should be circumcised and those who did not. Peter addresses the former with these words:
“Now then, why do **you [Judaizers] **try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are." (Acts 15:10-11)
James addresses them, also:
“Brothers, listen to me. 14Simon (note that James even used Peter’s Hebrew name when speaking to the Judaizers) has described to us (James must be speaking here to the believers from Jerusalem since those from Galatia would already have been familiar with God’s work in that province!) how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself…19"It is my judgment, therefore, that we (the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem) should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20Instead we should write to them…” (Acts 15:13-20)
Thus, after hearing Peter’s doctrinal pronouncement, James rose to speak and addressed those from his own flock whom he knew would have the hardest time accepting Peter’s decision. James accepted Peter’s teaching and added his own pastoral comments for the benefit of the pro-circumcision group present and for those who might be tempted to doubt that the leader of the “Judaizers” really had accepted the decision of the full ecumenical council that circumcision was unnecessary for Gentiles.
Acts 4:36-37
36Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means Son of Encouragement), 37sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles’ feet.
Acts 6:7
7So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith.
Some from among this group had gone to Galatia and upset the Gentile believers there.
Galatians 2:11-14
11When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.
From this, we can see that the Council of Jerusalem was divided into two camps: those who believed the Gentile converts should be circumcised and those who did not. Peter addresses the former with these words:
“Now then, why do **you [Judaizers] **try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are." (Acts 15:10-11)
James addresses them, also:
“Brothers, listen to me. 14Simon (note that James even used Peter’s Hebrew name when speaking to the Judaizers) has described to us (James must be speaking here to the believers from Jerusalem since those from Galatia would already have been familiar with God’s work in that province!) how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself…19"It is my judgment, therefore, that we (the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem) should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20Instead we should write to them…” (Acts 15:13-20)
Thus, after hearing Peter’s doctrinal pronouncement, James rose to speak and addressed those from his own flock whom he knew would have the hardest time accepting Peter’s decision. James accepted Peter’s teaching and added his own pastoral comments for the benefit of the pro-circumcision group present and for those who might be tempted to doubt that the leader of the “Judaizers” really had accepted the decision of the full ecumenical council that circumcision was unnecessary for Gentiles.
S
Solus_Christus
Guest
I just mentioned the council in Jersusalem where Peter failed to help out the Church with an infallible pronouncement on an important matter. What is more telling is that no one looked to Peter to make the pronouncement. So not only did the disciples fail to realize Peter was infallible, but Peter himself failed to realize this. What good are keys and infallibility if the person with the keys does not realize he has them and does not excerise his infallibility at crucial junctures?
How do you know this? Because the RCC told you so? Since this is the topic being debated this statement hardly advances your cause. What’s more, it completely fails to answer the objection I put forth.
Once again, you are just parroting what the RCC has taught you, and you are doing this in contradiction to the evidence I have supplied. Since the question still stands, I will ask again: If it is by way of these figurative keys that binding and loosing occurs (according to your own words), and Christ gave this power to all of his disciples (Matthew 18:18), then does it not stand to reason that the other disciples also have these keys?
How does one teach? Do we teach by words only or also with actions? If you say by words only, then it is clear you do not have any children of your own. If Peter was infallible in his teaching, then he would also have taught infallibly with his actions. And if Paul knew that Peter was infallible, then he never would have confronted Peter the way he did in Galatians 2:11. Instead, Paul would have concluded: “My understanding must surely be wrong. It must be morally wrong, maybe even a mortal sin, to eat with Gentiles. After all, this is what Peter is teaching by his actions.”
I am really surprised by your answer, Randy. Does the RCC really teach that the apostles were all infallible? What about ex cathedra?
The quality of infallibility belonged to God and not to men. It is a part of God’s nature - it is not a part of the nature of any man. If we are in agreement on this then we are done with this matter.
It now remains only for you to show that God enabled these men to be infallible in all of their teaching endeavors, not just when He used them in the writing of His Holy Word.
It seems clear you are attempting to make a distinction between big “C” Church and small “c” church. I think we both agree that small “c” church can be used to describe a local community or gathering of Christians (a parish in Catholic parlance), so I think your argument is a red herring.
The real topic before us is the organization and polity of big “C” Church. Unfortunately, the passage you supply discusses relationships between believers within the Church and says nothing about organization and polity of that Church.
By the way, why do you think we find plenty of passages in the New Testament discussing the qualifications of elder and bishop, but not a single passage describing the qualifications of the all-important role of pope?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
The Mormon takes your advice to “Listen to what God has told us in His Word and accept Him at His word” and embraces his Book of Mormon.
The Muslim takes your advice to “Listen to what God has told us in His Word and accept Him at His word” and embraces his Koran.
The Protestant takes your advice to “Listen to what God has told us in His Word and accept Him at His word” and embraces his shorter version of the Old Testament.
Sorry, but apart from the testimony of an infallible Church, you have no way of determining that one holy book is any more special than any other…Bible, Koran, Book of Mormon…they’re all the same and make similar claims.
Apart from what the Apostles taught in this regard in the pages of scripture, we have the following evidence of the early Church’s doctrine:
ECF’s on Confession to a Priest
Origen
“[The repentant sinner] does not shrink from declaring his sin to a priest of the Lord." (Homilies on Leviticus, [AD 244]).
Cyprian of Carthage
“Finally, of how much greater faith and more salutary fear are they who…confess to the priests of God in a straightforward manner and in sorrow, making an open declaration of conscience” (The Lapsed, [AD 251]).
**Firmilian **
“But what is his error and how great his blindness…who does not remain on the foundation of the one true Church which was founded upon the rock by Christ, can be learned from this, which Christ said to Peter alone, ‘Whatever things you shall bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth, they shall also be loosed in heaven’; and by this, again in the Gospel, when Christ breathed upon the apostles alone, saying to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive any man his sins they shall be forgiven, and if you retain any man’s sins they shall be retained.’ The power of forgiving sins was given to the apostles and the churches which these men, sent by Christ, established and to the bishops who succeeded them by being ordained in their place” (Epistle to Cyprian 75:16 [Inter A.D. 255-256]).
Aphraates
“If anyone uncovers his wound before you, give him the remedy of repentance. And he that is ashamed to make known his weakness, encourage him so that he will not hide it from you. And when he has revealed it to you, do not make it public” (Treatises 7:4, [ca. 300’s]).
Basil the Great
“It is necessary to confess our sins to those to whom the dispensation of God’s mysteries is entrusted. Those doing penance of old are found to have done it before the saints. It is written in the Gospel that they confessed their sins to John the Baptist [Matt. 3:6], but in Acts [19:18] they confessed to the apostles” (Rules Briefly Treated 288 [A.D. 374]).
John Chrysostom
“Priests have received a power which God has given neither to angels nor to archangels. It was said to them: ‘Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose, shall be loosed.’ Temporal rulers have indeed the power of binding; but they can only bind the body. Priests, in contrast, can bind with a bond which pertains to the soul itself and transcends the very heavens. Did [God] not give them all the powers of heaven? ‘Whose sins you shall forgive,’ he says, ‘they are forgiven them; whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.’ What greater power is there than this? The Father has given all judgment to the Son. And now I see the Son placing all this power in the hands of men [Matt. 10:40; John 20:21–23]. They are raised to this dignity as if they were already gathered up to heaven” (The Priesthood 3:5 [A.D. 387]).
**Gregory I **
“The disciples receive as their lot the preeminence of celestial judgment, so that, in God’s stead, they retain sins for some and for some they forgive them [John 20:22-23]. . . . Certainly it is now the bishops who hold their place in the Church. They receive the authority of binding and loosing, who have as their lot a degree of governing. It is a magnificent honor, but that honor carries with it a heavy burden.”(Homilies on the Gospels 2:26:4 [A.D. 590-591]).
Gee, we have something like that concerning infant baptism, and that has not prevented non-Catholics from continuing to deny that sacrament.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
And I just showed in posts #112 & 113 that you are wrong. Go back and read them.
Correct. Because I understand why the Church is infallible, I can accept the rest of its teaching in this (or any other) matter.
Please demonstrate from scripture where Jesus gave a key each of the other eleven. And before you begin to type too quickly, consider the following:
Luther on the Keys
“So we stand here and with open mouth stare heavenward and invent still other keys. Yet Christ says very clearly in Matthew 16:19 that He will give the keys to Peter. He does not say He has two kinds of keys, but He gives to Peter the keys He Himself has, and no others. It is as if He were saying: why are you staring heavenward in search of the keys? Do you not understand I gave them to Peter? They are indeed the keys of Heaven, but they are not found in Heaven. I left them on earth. Don’t look for them in Heaven or anywhere else except in Peter’s mouth where I have placed them. Peter’s mouth is My mouth, and his tongue is My key case. His office is My office, his binding and loosing are My binding and loosing.” (*Martin Luther, The Keys, in Conrad Bergendoff, ed. trans. Earl Beyer and Conrad Bergendoff, Luthers Works, vol. 40, Philadelphia: Fortress, 1958, p. 365-366.) *
Wow. What a misunderstanding you have. Infallibility does not apply to “behavior”.
However, just to correct your misunderstanding of Galatians 2:11, let me present you with an…um…“alternative” view of this situation, okay?
On Peter, Paul and Hypocrisy
In their effort to deny the primacy of Peter and the doctrine of papal infallibility, many non-Catholics point to Paul’s rebuke of Peter over the issue of eating with Gentiles as recorded in the Paul’s Letter to the Galatians.
Galatians 2:11-14
11When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. 14When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?
In this passage, we see that Paul opposed Peter for not practicing what he preached. Although Peter may have been wrong to draw back from eating with the Gentile believers, we must note that is apparently James, and not Peter, who was the leader of the “circumcision group” in Jerusalem. Thus, those who assert that it was James, and not Peter, who was the real leader of the Church must answer for this error. However, Peter’s actions do not constitute formal teaching, and the doctrine of infallibility does not apply to Peter’s private opinions or behavior. Therefore, this passage does nothing to disprove either Peter’s primacy or the doctrine of papal infallibility. Peter, like his successors, was not above reproach nor impeccable.
(cont.)
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
However, it must also be noted that Paul was not above taking prudent measures out of fear of those who held to the tradition of circumcision, either. One such measure is found in the following passage:
Acts 16:1-3
1He came to Derbe and then to Lystra, where a disciple named Timothy lived, whose mother was a Jewess and a believer, but whose father was a Greek. 2The brothers at Lystra and Iconium spoke well of him. 3Paul wanted to take him along on the journey, so he circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in that area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.
Paul wrote that “circumcision means nothing” (1 Corinthians 7:19, Galatians 6:15). Moreover, in the same letter in which Paul accused Peter of hypocrisy and boasted of having opposed Peter to his face, he writes the following:
Galatians 5:2-3
2Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law.
Imagine how Timothy must have felt when he first heard these words. He had let himself be circumcised by the very man who condemned the practice. Was Christ of no value to Timothy at all as a result of being circumcised?
This was not the only time that Paul had acted out of fear of the Jews. Later in the book of Acts, we find the following:
Acts 21:17-26
17When we arrived at Jerusalem, the brothers received us warmly. 18The next day Paul and the rest of us went to see James, and all the elders were present. 19Paul greeted them and reported in detail what God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. 20When they heard this, they praised God. Then they said to Paul: “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. 21They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs. 22What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come, 23so do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have made a vow. 24Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everybody will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law. 25As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.” 26The next day Paul took the men and purified himself along with them. Then he went to the temple to give notice of the date when the days of purification would end and the offering would be made for each of them.
Clearly, the brothers in Jerusalem were concerned that some harm might come to Paul from those who knew that Paul taught against circumcision. Paul agreed to purify himself according to Jewish customs and to pay the expenses of those who were purified along with him rather than openly admit that circumcision was of no value. Was this a wise course of action? Assuredly as subsequent events indicate.
However, it cannot be denied that Paul was preaching one thing (at least in private to Gentile Christians) while practicing another—the very thing he accused Peter of doing.
(cont.)
Acts 16:1-3
1He came to Derbe and then to Lystra, where a disciple named Timothy lived, whose mother was a Jewess and a believer, but whose father was a Greek. 2The brothers at Lystra and Iconium spoke well of him. 3Paul wanted to take him along on the journey, so he circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in that area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.
Paul wrote that “circumcision means nothing” (1 Corinthians 7:19, Galatians 6:15). Moreover, in the same letter in which Paul accused Peter of hypocrisy and boasted of having opposed Peter to his face, he writes the following:
Galatians 5:2-3
2Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law.
Imagine how Timothy must have felt when he first heard these words. He had let himself be circumcised by the very man who condemned the practice. Was Christ of no value to Timothy at all as a result of being circumcised?
This was not the only time that Paul had acted out of fear of the Jews. Later in the book of Acts, we find the following:
Acts 21:17-26
17When we arrived at Jerusalem, the brothers received us warmly. 18The next day Paul and the rest of us went to see James, and all the elders were present. 19Paul greeted them and reported in detail what God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. 20When they heard this, they praised God. Then they said to Paul: “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. 21They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs. 22What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come, 23so do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have made a vow. 24Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everybody will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law. 25As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.” 26The next day Paul took the men and purified himself along with them. Then he went to the temple to give notice of the date when the days of purification would end and the offering would be made for each of them.
Clearly, the brothers in Jerusalem were concerned that some harm might come to Paul from those who knew that Paul taught against circumcision. Paul agreed to purify himself according to Jewish customs and to pay the expenses of those who were purified along with him rather than openly admit that circumcision was of no value. Was this a wise course of action? Assuredly as subsequent events indicate.
However, it cannot be denied that Paul was preaching one thing (at least in private to Gentile Christians) while practicing another—the very thing he accused Peter of doing.
(cont.)
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
The Bishop of Rome today is not an apostle. However, he is infallible when teaching ex cathedra.
God prevents the Pope and the Catholic Church from formally teaching error in matters of faith and morals. If you are in agreement with this definition, then we are done. I’m not saying you BELIEVE it - just that you agree with the definition of infallibility.
I believe I already provided a list of verses supporting this position.
The argument shows that a few believers gathered together may be part of the Church, but they are not the Church by any stretch of the imagination. I’m sure we agree on this.
Why do you think that the qualifications of the Bishop of Rome would be any different from those needed to be the Bishop of any other Diocese?
S
Solus_Christus
Guest
Randy, this is your argument: 1) Christ is telling the disciples that whatever they bind/loose on earth God will also bind/loose in Heaven 2) God would not bind/loose in error 3) Therefore the disciples (and by extension the Church) is infallible.
What I am saying is that by this same kind of logic, John 14:14 would seem to suggest Christians are infallible in their prayers. Observe how the same logic would apply in this case: 1) Christ is telling His followers that whatever they ask in his name He will do 2) Christ would not do anything that is in error 3) Therefore, Christians must be infallible in their prayers.
Of course, neither one of us agree with this conclusion, but you see how I have used your logical argument to infer infallibility just as you have. My challenge to you, therefore, is to explain why the inconsistent application of this logic (you deny its use here in John 14:14, but insist on its use in Matthew 16:18). Since infallibility is not mentioned in either place we have to use human reasoning to infer it, but I am saying that the human reasoning is wrong.
As a Catholic you assume that big “C” Church must necessarily mean the RCC. There is nothing here, however, to preclude Christ from using the term in a general sense, as in the “invisible” (small “c” catholic) Church. In fact, this is what He had to have intended since the RCC did not even exist as an entity at that point (because the schism with the eastern church had not happened). Once again, I know you do not accept this. But, if we do accept this, then we are relieved of having to infer infallibility into texts where it does not exist through selective application of suspect reasoning.
The answer to your question (and all of the other questions in your response), then, is that, yes, there may be many small “c” churches that fall into such a degree of error that they become apostates and are no longer a part of the big “C” Church, but the big “C” Church will prevail nonetheless because Christ said it would.
Does this necessitate that all of the small “c” churches within the big “C” Church agree on every single doctrinal issue? There is nothing in the New Testament that says all Christians must be uniform in their doctrine. In fact, the entire chapter of Romans 14 is about tolerance of a brother who has different doctrines about things like fasting and the observance of holy days. As the saying goes: “Unity on the essentials, liberty on the non-essentials, and charity in all things.” What are the essentials? Well, clearly anything the Bible spells out plainly. For instance, the doctrine that man is sinful is essential and is clearly communicated from cover to cover of the Bible. The fact that Christ came as a remedy for that sin is also communicated from cover to cover. That Christ will come again is clearly stated without the need for inconsistently applied inferences. Do we have to confess to a priest? Well, it’s not clearly communicated in Scripture, so it would fall in the non-essential bucket.
- Status