How do we know infallibility gets passed down?

jinc1019 · #1 Apr 4, '12, 7:15 pm

I understand the promises made to Peter in Mathew 16 and to the apostles as a whole in Mathew 18, but what I would like someone to explain is the Church teaching behind this concept: When Jesus tells the apostles he will send the Holy Spirit down to them and prevent them from saying untruths and essentially make them unfallible, how do we know He intended that to be passed down through apostolic succession? Protestants argue He was just talking to the apostles alone and not to the Church itself...So how does the Church react to this? I know Jesus says the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church, but that doesn't promise infallibility necessarily. There has to be a better argument than just that. Help on this would be much appreciated!

**1ke** · #2 Apr 4, '12, 7:23 pm

Well, think through it.

How exactly would the Church operate down through time without this charism?

jinc1019 · #3 Apr 4, '12, 7:29 pm

I am not sure I understand your response...Islam has been in existence for well over a thousand years and some branches are still basically the same as when they started...and they obviously do NOT have infallibility on their side. I am not saying the Church isn't infallible by the way, I just want to know what the theological argument is that opposes the claim I mentioned in the original post. What does the Church say when a Protestant says to them, "Jesus was only talking to apostles, not to the Church"?

**1ke** · #4 Apr 4, '12, 7:36 pm

Again, think it through.

Islam has Shiite, Sunni, Sufi, and does NOT have universal, unchanged, uniform teaching. In fact, it has conflicting teachings.

jinc1019 · #5 Apr 4, '12, 7:39 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1ke

Again, think it through.

Islam has Shiite, Sunni, Sufi, and does NOT have universal, unchanged, uniform teaching. In fact, it has conflicting teachings.

Yes I recognize that...but Shiite and Sunni have basically been around since nearly the very beginning...and last I checked, Christianity is not unified either.

SaintPatrick333 · #6 Apr 28, '12, 4:38 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by jinc1019

Yes I recognize that...but Shiite and Sunni have basically been around since nearly the very beginning...and last I checked, Christianity is not unified either.

Islam came after Christianity. And Christianity is unified. There is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church in unity with the Holy Family (it being the body of Christ after all), and then there are schismatics who reject the Church (ie protestants/jews/muslims/non denoms/atheists/agnostics/everything else). Now I'm not saying I feel our protestant brethren are not Christian despite my previous statement, but ultimately the Catholic Church "is" Christianity because that is the way Christ made it. The Bible, a Catholic invention (guided by the Holy Spirit) has been changed countless times by non catholics to reinforce their made up belief system/theology. They are not in communion with what Christ taught.

So I would make the argument that Christianity is in fact united. You either stand with it (Christ's Catholic Church) or against it.

jinc1019 · #7 Apr 4, '12, 7:40 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1ke

Again, think it through.

Islam has Shiite, Sunni, Sufi, and does NOT have universal, unchanged, uniform teaching. In fact, it has conflicting teachings.

You are basically saying that because the Church has survived, they must be infallible...and that is a very poor argument, even if true.

**1ke** · #8 Apr 4, '12, 7:44 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by jinc1019

You are basically saying that because the Church has survived, they must be infallible...and that is a very poor argument, even if true.

No. That is not what I am saying at all. Here is what you propose:

God requires us to keep his commandments. i.e. to know the Truth and follow it. (Jesus is the Way, Truth, and Life)
Yet God provided no way for us to know the Truth today nor anyone beyond the first century.

jinc1019 · #9 Apr 4, '12, 7:58 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1ke

No. That is not what I am saying at all. Here is what you propose:

God requires us to keep his commandments. i.e. to know the Truth and follow it. (Jesus is the Way, Truth, and Life)
Yet God provided no way for us to know the Truth today nor anyone beyond the first century.

I am not saying that at all...I don't know, that's why I asked. But to answer your question: Honestly, would it be so ridiculous if we were all just supposed to live the way Jesus said, the way the apostles said, and then when an issue arises that they didn't address, the Church can address that issue but do it without saying their ruling is infallible? Why is it assumed the Church MUST have all the answers to every question that arises when they admit there are many questions they cannot answer...many mysteries of faith. If they have infallibility, there should be NO mysteries.

**1ke** · #10 Apr 4, '12, 8:00 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by jinc1019

Honestly, would it be so ridiculous if we were all just supposed to live the way Jesus said, the way the apostles said, and then when an issue arises that they didn't address, the Church can address that issue but do it without saying their ruling is infallible?

Yes.

What you are saying is that the Church's teaching can be wrong. That is the opposite of TRUE.

Objective Truth exists, God says we can know it, therefore we must have a WAY to know it.

jinc1019 · #11 Apr 4, '12, 8:41 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1ke

Yes.

What you are saying is that the Church's teaching can be wrong. That is the opposite of TRUE.

Objective Truth exists, God says we can know it, therefore we must have a WAY to know it.

Once again, you are starting with a conclusion and working backwards. I am not saying you are wrong, but if this is the Church answer to this question, then it is INCREDIBLY unpersuasive.

jinc1019 · #12 Apr 4, '12, 8:45 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1ke

Yes.

What you are saying is that the Church's teaching can be wrong. That is the opposite of TRUE.

Objective Truth exists, God says we can know it, therefore we must have a WAY to know it.

I agree with the objective truth statement here....I just want to make that clear. But, again, the Church is the one who teaches they don't know the answer to everything...not me.

Bballer32 · #13 Apr 4, '12, 8:49 pm

Try Isaiah 22:22-24... this explains how the Keys of the Kingdom of David are passed down.

jinc1019 · #14 Apr 4, '12, 8:55 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bballer32

Try Isaiah 22:22-24... this explains how the Keys of the Kingdom of David are passed down.

Another poster actually mentioned this passage as well, can you, or anyone for that matter, explain it a little better. I mean I see the obvious parallels, but I don't see how "Eliakim son of Hilkiah" relates to the Church.

Bballer32 · #15 Apr 5, '12, 7:43 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by jinc1019

Another poster actually mentioned this passage as well, can you, or anyone for that matter, explain it a little better. I mean I see the obvious parallels, but I don't see how "Eliakim son of Hilkiah" relates to the Church.

Here this may help.....

21-I will put your official robe and belt on him and give him all the authority you have had. He will be be like a father to the people of Jerusalem and Judah (here, Jerusalem and Judah are two separate nations. They could both be described as the world or the Church, which Jesus came from Judah and started the Church with Peter.)

22-I will give him complete authority under the king, the descendant of David. He will have the keys of office; what he opens, no one will shut, and what he shuts, no one will open.

Now, at the end of this chapter in verse 25 it says, "The Lord has spoken." This means that the authority is God-given and no one can change it.

Hope this helped a bit..... God Bless