Who is Your Infallibe Teacher?

[Hesychios]

… I suppose the Roman Catholic response would be that apostolic succession is not a guarantee of right teaching. The Old Catholic denominations and Episcopalians have apostolic succession (through the Dutch Touch of Utrecht) as well as those Lutherans you mentioned. But they are not in communion with Rome…

They do not have apostolic succession.

Actually, according to your church, they do.

Michael,
Does Orthodoxy deny or accept these claims to AS?
Jon

Orthodoxy regards them as irrelevant.

Why is that?

Because they are outside Holy Orthodoxy, which the Holy Spirit established at Pentecost.

Any one bishop who does not teach orthodox Truth and/or does not have an Orthodox flock is not in the Orthodox church. We do not speculate upon their validity. I think some have referred to this as the Cyprianic approach.

Thus, there is no prospect of eastern vaganteism, either.

Those vagantes who claim to have “valid succession” are using a Roman Catholic standard to establish that, which we do not accept. So one might find some such vagantes who claim to be Orthodox, quite often they are former Anglicans or Roman Catholics who have fallen in love with the eastern rites and traditions. We are flattered, but that does not make them Orthodox.

And so ultimately Holy Orthodoxy does not judge non-Orthodox orders and does not expect non-Orthodox to pronounce on Orthodox orders. This is true whether one is Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican etc.

If a consecration is valid, that means the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, has come down upon the candidate through the laying-on of hands. No one, not even a Pope, can prevent that if this is what God wants to do. And if that truly is what God does no man, including no Pope, can have the temerity to call it invalid nor illicit, for no man judges God. This is not magic, like the summoning and dismissing of spirits with special words. This is a holy sacrament of God we are discussing here!

So quite frankly, we do not know what goes on out there beyond the Orthodox communion, the Holy Spirit does what He wills. Better to not judge or opine one way or the other. If churchmen wish to join with Holy Orthodoxy, and they are accepted, they will be received in such a way that we expect the Holy Spirit will make up for any possible deficiencies, although we cannot be sure these might be (or not be).

The fact that the Roman Catholic church thinks Orthodox orders are valid is of no importance to Orthodox. We wonder why they consider it necessary to say such a thing, we never had any doubts at all about it.

Any communion that allows another church to set the standard for it’s own legitimacy has bigger problems than Apostolic Succession.

 

[Hebrew_Student]

ababbidg,

The Council of Hippo and Carthage didn’t determine the Canon, they reaffirmed it. Where are you getting your info from? I have never heard that the Council of Rome didn’t exist and that they taught unorthodox beliefs.

You were the one that said:

The canon of the bible was decided at the Council of Rome in 382 AD and confirmed at the council of Hippo in 393 then the Council of Carthage in 397 and another Council of Carthage in 400 something.

The Catholic and Orthodox Churches had not split yet, it was still one church, called the Catholic Church.

The Eastern Churches say the exact opposite. They say that there was one true church at that time, the Eastern Orthodox Church, Who is right, and why?

Is the Pope Syrian Orthodox? No, therefore papal authority does not support them.

Again, this is a circular argument. They would say that who you call the Pope is an imposter, and does not really sit on the chair of Peter. They would say their bishops sit on the chair of Peter, and hence, they are the ones who should be given the authority you give the Catholic Church.

The mormons and jevohas didn’t exist until the 19th century, so they also couldn’t have made the bible. And Jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail against his church, so their theory of the apostasy holds no water, because this would have to assume that the church did fall.

However, again, you have been trying to argue that you only know that Jesus said those words because of the alleged authority Catholic Church. That is, again, a circular argument, because the authority of the Catholic Church is being challenged by the Mormons, who say that this authority doesn’t hold water precisely because of the apostacy! That is why the argument is circular.

So is the canon of the bible fallible if it was made by a fallible church?

No, actually the canon wasn’t determined by a church. That is the point.

You can tell me that God determined the canon all you want but the point is he had to have told at least one person what that canon is. You have yet to tell me who that is.

Or he could have, as was the case with the Old Testament, lead his people to recognize what the canon was over long periods of time, [rather than telling one person at one particular point in time] so that, eventually, everyone was in agreement.

God Bless,
Adam

 

[Hesychios]

… I suppose the Roman Catholic response would be that apostolic succession is not a guarantee of right teaching. The Old Catholic denominations and Episcopalians have apostolic succession (through the Dutch Touch of Utrecht) as well as those Lutherans you mentioned. But they are not in communion with Rome…

They do not have apostolic succession.

Actually, according to your church, they do.

Michael,
Does Orthodoxy deny or accept these claims to AS?
Jon

Orthodoxy regards them as irrelevant.

Why is that?

Because they are outside Holy Orthodoxy, which the Holy Spirit established at Pentecost.

Any one bishop who does not teach orthodox Truth and/or does not have an Orthodox flock is not in the Orthodox church. We do not speculate upon their validity. I think some have referred to this as the Cyprianic approach.

Thus, there is no prospect of eastern vaganteism, either.

Those vagantes who claim to have “valid succession” are using a Roman Catholic standard to establish that, which we do not accept. So one might find some such vagantes who claim to be Orthodox, quite often they are former Anglicans or Roman Catholics who have fallen in love with the eastern rites and traditions. We are flattered, but that does not make them Orthodox.

And so ultimately Holy Orthodoxy does not judge non-Orthodox orders and does not expect non-Orthodox to pronounce on Orthodox orders. This is true whether one is Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican etc.

If a consecration is valid, that means the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, has come down upon the candidate through the laying-on of hands. No one, not even a Pope, can prevent that if this is what God wants to do. And if that truly is what God does no man, including no Pope, can have the temerity to call it invalid nor illicit, for no man judges God. This is not magic, like the summoning and dismissing of spirits with special words or a formulaic turn of phrase. This is a holy sacrament of God we are discussing here!

So quite frankly, we do not know what goes on out there beyond the Orthodox communion, the Holy Spirit does what He wills. Better to not judge or opine one way or the other. If churchmen wish to join with Holy Orthodoxy, and they are accepted, they will be received in such a way that we expect the Holy Spirit will make up for any possible deficiencies, although we cannot be sure what these might be.

The fact that the Roman Catholic church thinks Orthodox orders are valid is of no importance to Orthodox. We wonder why they consider it necessary to say such a thing, we never had any doubts at all about it.

Any communion that allows another church to set the standard for it’s own legitimacy has bigger problems than Apostolic Succession.

 

[mark_a]

First of all, there is a big question as to whether the council of Rome ever occured.

Source please.

Thanks.

 

[ababbidg]

ababbidg,

You were the one that said:The canon of the bible was decided at the Council of Rome in 382 AD and confirmed at the council of Hippo in 393 then the Council of Carthage in 397 and another Council of Carthage in 400 something

Yes I did, and notice I said confirmed, which could also mean reaffirmed.

The Eastern Churches say the exact opposite. They say that there was one true church at that time, the Eastern Orthodox Church, Who is right, and why?

I’m not too familiar with the history of the Orthodox, so I don’t know. I am, however, familiar with Catholic theology and I agree with it. BTW both orthodox and catholic have a different cannon than protestants. Why are protestants right?

Again, this is a circular argument. They would say that who you call the Pope is an imposter, and does not really sit on the chair of Peter. They would say their bishops sit on the chair of Peter, and hence, they are the ones who should be given the authority you give the Catholic Church.

Once again, I don’t know the history of orthodox that well. I really don’t care though, I agree with Roman Catholic theology. And I have never even seen an orthodox church, I would hope that God would make his church more visible if the orthodox were his true church. And some of the orthodox are in communion with Rome anyway, so they do have apostolic succession.

However, again, you have been trying to argue that you only know that Jesus said those words because of the alleged authority Catholic Church. That is, again, a circular argument, because the authority of the Catholic Church is being challenged by the Mormons, who say that this authority doesn’t hold water precisely because of the apostacy! That is why the argument is circular.

So if someone challenges the catholic church my argument is circular? Athiests challenge that God exists. Does that mean any argument for the existence of God is circular?

No, actually the canon wasn’t determined by a church. That is the point.

Or he could have, as was the case with the Old Testament, lead his people to recognize what the canon was over long periods of time, [rather than telling one person at one particular point in time] so that, eventually, everyone was in agreement.

God Bless,
Adam

As of yet, not everyone is in agreement. Do we not have a canon of the bible yet? How can I believe anything in it if we don’t even know what the true canon is?

 

[JonNC]

=Hesychios;5447741]

And so ultimately Holy Orthodoxy does not judge non-Orthodox orders and does not expect non-Orthodox to pronounce on Orthodox orders. This is true whether one is Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican etc.

If a consecration is valid, that means the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, has come down upon the candidate through the laying-on of hands. No one, not even a Pope, can prevent that if this is what God wants to do. And if that truly is what God does no man, including no Pope, can have the temerity to call it invalid nor illicit, for no man judges God. This is not magic, like the summoning and dismissing of spirits with special words or a formulaic turn of phrase. This is a holy sacrament of God we are discussing here!

So quite frankly, we do not know what goes on out there beyond the Orthodox communion, the Holy Spirit does what He wills. Better to not judge or opine one way or the other. If churchmen wish to join with Holy Orthodoxy, and they are accepted, they will be received in such a way that we expect the Holy Spirit will make up for any possible deficiencies, although we cannot be sure what these might be.

A rerasonable response.

The fact that the Roman Catholic church thinks Orthodox orders are valid is of no importance to Orthodox. We wonder why they consider it necessary to say such a thing, we never had any doubts at all about it.

Perhaps to distinguish between you and us.

Any communion that allows another church to set the standard for it’s own legitimacy has bigger problems than Apostolic Succession.

Indeed, which is why we have no doubt about ours.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

The CAtholic Church was one. Then the Orthodox broke away from the vine. So the Orthodox Church has much truth in it, but not all the truth. Becasue it has seperated itself from the true Church, it is no longer free from error. It has withered since seperated from the true vine.

Withered, huh? If there is an example of “the gates of hell not prevailing…” it is the Russian Orthodox Church, considering what they went through under socialist communism.

I just don’t think triumphalism is helpful ecumenically, nor is it reasonable.

Jon

 

[Hebrew_Student]

Mark a,

source please

thanks

Thank you for pointing that out. It was the council of Jamnia that was referred to.

ababbidg,

As of yet, not everyone is in agreement. Do we not have a canon of the bible yet?

Let me put this another way. God lead his people to give them what he wanted them to have until almost everyone was in agreement. You are right that there are always going to be people who will try to deny the works of God. However, they are going to stand against the clear testimony of what God has already done.

So, again we know the canon because God condescended to man; no infallible church needed.

God Bless,
Adam

 

[SSTeacher]

SSTeacher;5445261:

mark,

In what way do you suppose non–Catholics misunderstand the word “infallible” in relation to the papacy? I reject the whole notion of papal infallibility based upon my understanding of it but I cordially invite you to put forward your

understanding of it with a view to eradicating false ideas in non–Catholic minds.

Respectfully,
Mick
:thumbsup:I see that you are becoming Orthodox. Congratulations! I’m sure your grasp of the Catholic view of papal infallibility is on target.

Just for giggles, though:

Conditions that must be met for a papal teaching to be infallible

• Must teach or in some way clarify
• Can’t contradict previous teachings
• Must involve faith and morals
• To be held by all
• Statement made of his own free will
• He must invoke the full authority of his office

Thanks, mark, for your kind words.

I had in mind that you might possibly enlarge upon the ways in which non–Catholics sometimes misunderstand the word “infallible” in relation to the papacy. Any thoughts?

Cordially,
Mick

 

[ababbidg]

Mark a,

Thank you for pointing that out. It was the council of Jamnia that was referred to.

ababbidg,

Let me put this another way. God lead his people to give them what he wanted them to have until almost everyone was in agreement. You are right that there are always going to be people who will try to deny the works of God. However, they are going to stand against the clear testimony of what God has already done.

So, again we know the canon because God condescended to man; no infallible church needed.

God Bless,
Adam

Well there are more Roman Catholics than all other christians combined, so more people accept that cannon than any other. Wouldn’t that make it the correct cannon by your approach?

 

[Hebrew_Student]

ababbidg,

Well there are more Roman Catholics than all other christians combined, so more people accept that cannon than any other. Wouldn’t that make it the correct cannon by your approach?

Well, I believe that the vast majority of believers had already come to the OT canon long before Jesus even walked the earth. However, with regards to the NT, the fact that the vast majority of all the branches of Christianity accept the 27 books of the NT would be relevant to what I am saying.

 

[Bill_Pick]

The short answer, sadly, is that many modern-day non-Apostolic Christians don’t believe that any infallible teachers or authorities exist in the present day. As if all authoritative teaching froze and died at the death of the Apostle John, and we’ve been left to flounder by ourselves ever since, in direct contradiction of Christ’s promise to be with us until the end of the world.

Since Jesus clearly GAVE His authority to His Apostles (‘just as the Father sent Me, so am I sending you’), and the Apostles are clearly no longer with us, I don’t understand why they think this.

Are we so sophisticated now, and so able to guide ourselves in matters of the sacred, in matters of scripture (where even scripture itself, in the story of Phillip and the Ethiopian, makes plain as day that we CANNOT understand it by ourselves without someone authoritative to explain it to us), that the myriad of fragmented and contradictory denominations are all the ‘work of the Holy Spirit’?

For the first 1500 years we had it right,its the last 500 or so we got it wrong

 

[mark_a]

Thanks, mark, for your kind words.

I had in mind that you might possibly enlarge upon the ways in which non–Catholics sometimes misunderstand the word “infallible” in relation to the papacy. Any thoughts?

Cordially,
Mick

It would probably be easier to list the ways it’s not misunderstood.

It’s easy to see how anyone could misunderstand papal infallibility. Most Catholics probably misunderstand it.

 

[ababbidg]

ababbidg,

Well, I believe that the vast majority of believers had already come to the OT canon long before Jesus even walked the earth. However, with regards to the NT, the fact that the vast majority of all the branches of Christianity accept the 27 books of the NT would be relevant to what I am saying.

Interesting. I never knew Christianity was a democracy.

 

[Bill_Pick]

God left the Church to teach. Who in that Church is your infallible teacher?

Its one of the man made of the 1500

 

[Janet1983]

mark,

In what way do you suppose non–Catholics misunderstand the word “infallible” in relation to the papacy? I reject the whole notion of papal infallibility based upon my understanding of it but I cordially invite you to put forward your understanding of it with a view to eradicating false ideas in non–Catholic minds.

Respectfully,
Mick

Well the pope is said to be infallible when he is speaking “ex cathedra” meaning from the chair. That supposedly makes him infallible in matters of doctrine, faith and morals.

In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a “supernatural sense of faith” the People of God, under the guidance of the Church’s living Magisterium, “unfailingly adheres to this faith.”
Catechism of the Catholic Church #889

“The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals… The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine “for belief as being divinely revealed,” and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions “must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.” This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.
Catechism of the Catholic Church #891

The only problem with this doctrine is that no man is infallible at any time. In fact we are all sinners and nobody is perfect or infallible in any way.
(Romans 3:10; Romans 3:23)
And here is another thing: If the pope is infallible, why was eating meat on a Friday prohibited for the longest time and now it is allowed? You are either right before or after you change your mind…

Apart from that the Catechism also states that the Magisterium is infallible…

The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium’s task to preserve God’s people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church’s shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. The exercise of this charism takes several forms:
Catechism of the Catholic Church #890

The infallibility of the Magisterium of the Pastors extends to all the elements of doctrine, including moral doctrine, without which the saving truths of the faith cannot be preserved, expounded, or observed.
Catechism of the Catholic Church #2051

If it wasn’t that serious it would be funny. These men were and are far from being infallible in anything they declare. If what they tell us goes against scripture (even if it goes along with their strange interpretation) it is WRONG. God did not proclaim them infallible… They themselves and other fallible creatures did.
Throughout scripture we see God using fallible and sinful people. God referred to King David as “a man after mine own heart” (Acts 13:22), yet David was a murderer and an adulterer, among other things.

Even the Apostle Paul did not have the strange pride in himself to declare himself more than he was:
“Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;” Ephesians 3:
The Apostles too were sinners. Nobody would have come up with the idea of infallibility…

Nobody in Scripture, except Jesus, was infallible.
“And being made perfect, he (Jesus) became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;” Hebrews 5:9

Here is some nice to know information: The same Pope who dogmatically defined the infallibility in 1870 wrote the Syllabus Errorum in 1864. According to Catholic teaching the definition as dogma only follows the fact…
The Syllabus defines all those teachings that are declared to be heretical.
Parts of the Syllabus are among others teachings that the church does not sanction today…

1. Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation.—Encyclical “Qui pluribus,” Nov. 9, 1846.
   Syllabus Errorum

I am pretty glad they don’t sanction this anymore:

1. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church.—Encyclical “Noscitis,” Dec. 8, 1849.
   Syllabus Errorum

In the end the first “infallible” pope did write down a list of “heresies” that are considered at least debatable today… Nice…
The subject was and is part of debates… But the connection is pretty interesting though.

 

[Hebrew_Student]

ababbidg,

Interesting. I never knew Christianity was a democracy.

That is somewhat of an oversimplification. You also need to take into account God condescending and leading his people. Ultimately, Christianity is a monarchy, with God as the head. However, this God condescends to his people so that they can understand him. That is one of the fundamental presuppositions of Reformed epistimology.

God Bless,
Adam

 

[ababbidg]

ababbidg,

That is somewhat of an oversimplification. You also need to take into account God condescending and leading his people. Ultimately, Christianity is a monarchy, with God as the head. However, this God condescends to his people so that they can understand him. That is one of the fundamental presuppositions of Reformed epistimology.

God Bless,
Adam

First of all, if God is the only one leading us, why is the old testament canon different between Catholics, Orthodox and other christians? And why all the different interpretations of that scripture? Either God is confused, or not everyone is being guided by the Holy Spirit.

Secondly, as pertaining to the canon being accepted by most people. This was very improbable for most of history, especially in the early church because 1) most people couldn’t read and 2) even if they could, getting the books that were in the bible were be very difficult. They would be very expensive and have to be hand written. Not until around the 15th or 16th century were bibles able to be mass produced. So the large majority of the laity would not be able to have any opinion on the canon of scripture, only clergy and theolgical scholars. The rest of the population would just have to accept the canon that the church told them. And since the only church around at that time was the Catholic church, I believe God guided the Catholic Church in determining what is and is not inspired scripture.

 

[JRKH]

It’not the Pope or the Bishops or even Luther…
The Bible declares that all people are sinners. No one is perfect or infallible in anything:
“For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;” Romans 3:23
“As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:” Romans 3:10

Jesus is the only infallible person who ever lived:
“For he (God) hath made him (Jesus) to be sin for us, who knew no sin…” 2 Corinthians 5:21

Nobody in Scripture, except Jesus, was infallible.

The Bible also says:
Matthew 16: 18-19
18 "I also say to you that you are Kepha (Rock), and upon this Kepha I will build My church (Singular); and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. 19 “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.”

Matthew 18: 15-18
15 "If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. 16 "But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. 17 "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church (Singular); and if he refuses to listen even to the church let him be as a tax collector. 18 "Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven

Please note that these are the only two places in the Gospels where the term Church is used. In both cases it is Jesus talking and in both cases He grants Authority, first to Peter, upon whom Christ builds His Church and then to the rest of the Apostles, the first Bishops of the Church.

Therefore we can see, taken directly from the mouth of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, that the Church CAN infallibly bind and loose “Whatever”.

Peace
James

 

[geometer]

Matthew 18: 15-18
15 "If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. 16 "But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. 17 "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church (Singular); and if he refuses to listen even to the church let him be as a tax collector(???). 18 "Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven

You left out “and a gentile”. Jesus didn’t like gentiles…