How do we know infallibility gets passed down?

[Trebor135]

Originally Posted by david ruiz

I would hope we all have a pastor and been blessed with teachers and has a local body that has core doctrine

Yes, but--as long as they aren't instructing us to do anything sinful--do your pastor and teachers generally merit the flock's obedience? If someone in your congregation thought artificial contraception was acceptable but the pastor and teachers opposed it strongly, what would you advise that person to do?

Well, the same One is on earth is He not .We are his finger , His hands with the keys, the Church , His body .the Bride

Sure, but in your scheme there's no distinction between clergy and laity. What do you make of the Isaiah 66:18-23 passage I cited in my previous post?

I think I said ,or the Lord, that where two or more are....there is some authority.and He is there .Could two be a church, sure, but it would not be exclusive or separate from other believers

OK, but would they be in a state of sin if they formed their own church after one member of the congregation was excommunicated, refused to reconcile, and brought others of like mind along with him out of the flock of which they had been part?

[tqualey]

Hi, David,

You know, I have been reading a lot of posts - and it seems to me that when a Protestant has apparent difficulty with an argument, they leave the subject matter of the Thread and come up with a totally irrelevant question as if this is going to divert the issue. Now, maybe this was not your intent... but, it does seem to follow a pattern...

First let me answer your question:

"The word "Catholic", meaning "universal", was first applied the Church by St. Ignatius of Antioch in his letter to the Smyrnaeans in 110. It was repeatedly used to describe the "universal" congregation of the believers of the pure Word of Christ in theological works such as St. Augustine of Hippo in his books Confessions in 394 and City of God in 410."


[quote=david ruiz;9204442]

Where does it say anywhere they called themselves "Catholic" ?

And where does it say anywhere they called themselves: Lutheran, Calvinists, Baptists, Anglican, Pentecostal, Church of Christ, Methodists, Unitarian, or non-denominational?

It took at least 1500 years before those names came into being. Who do you think was bringing souls to Christ before Protestants showed up?


Don't see the "Catholic" Church in Jerusalem. It is like you wrote it , "the Church in Jerusalem"

Because durng the 1st Century, there were not 30,000+ groups all claiming to be able infallibly interpret Scripture, and knowing how to get to heaven via a religion made by a man (or woman in some cases) based on the 'traditions of men' - things were really a lot simpler. There was no coufusion as to what Chruch St. Ignatius was talking about.

Besides, guess who was the first group to actually call Ignatius a Saint?

God bless

[david ruiz]

Ran out of time .As for Isaiah,this is endtime. Israel was to be a nation of priests,until they sinned in wilderness and then the levites were selected.Anyways not all jews in end time are sealed ,only 144,000.

[david ruiz]

[quote=tqualey;9204828]Hi,

First let me answer your question:

"The word "Catholic", meaning "universal", was first applied the Church by St. Ignatius of Antioch in his letter to the Smyrnaeans in 110. It was repeatedly used to describe the "universal" congregation of the believers of the pure Word of Christ in theological works such as St. Augustine of Hippo in his books Confessions in 394 and City of God in 410."

Thank-you ,have seen this before .Just don't infer that the Church at Antioch or Corinth was "Catholic" for they were not, except by CC interpretation. They were catholic as in universal. No other denomination does this. By the way it is up to 50,000,and rising. As they say ,there are mistruths and mistruths and statistics.

[Trebor135]

Originally Posted by david ruiz

Ran out of time .As for Isaiah,this is endtime. Israel was to be a nation of priests,until they sinned in wilderness and then the levites were selected.Anyways not all jews in end time are sealed ,only 144,000.

Please slow down--you don't have to reply to my posts straight away: take what time you need. And please use correct punctuation--it makes your writing difficult to follow, especially given that I use a special program, by the name of Jaws, to read and write on the computer.

What in the text points to these things? Isaiah seems to be talking about the New Covenant, not the end of the world. And he doesn't mention that only 144,000 Jews will be saved--that number appears in the book of Revelation, and Jehovah's Witnesses infamously interpret the passage in question as referring to the number of those who will go to heaven.

I find your post very confusing and to consist of an interpretation of Isaiah 66:18-23 that is quite a stretch.

[david ruiz]

Originally Posted by Trebor135;9204804[QUOTE

]Yes, but--as long as they aren't instructing us to do anything sinful--do your pastor and teachers generally merit the flock's obedience? If someone in your congregation thought artificial contraception was acceptable but the pastor and teachers opposed it strongly, what would you advise that person to do?

Listen ,there is variety in all churches ,sometimes in different ways .There are so many kinds of Catholics and so many kinds of protetstants .That they believe ,or are supposed to believe, the same thing or different things still doesn't change that fact.

Sure, but in your scheme there's no distinction between clergy and laity. What do you make of the Isaiah 66:18-23 passage I cited in my previous post?

Again your either /or thinking .So are you saying your experience outside your Church is that there are no pastors,teachers ,prophets and giftings, that is there own ?

OK, but would they be in a state of sin if they formed their own church after one member of the congregation was excommunicated, refused to reconcile, and brought others of like mind along with him out of the flock of which they had been part

?[/quote] I do not hold to infallibilty for every local congregation ,for every matter .I hold that generally some are more closely to the truth,the Spirit's infallible guidance, than others

[tqualey]

Hi, David,

You have missed the point...

If you have seen this before, why is it you are still asking? Is it because you do not believe the answer that has been provided?

This is NOT an inference - just process of elimination to arrive at this quite logical conclusion. There were only three groups from the 1st Century on when the name Catholic was first used: Jews, Greeks (short-hand for all Pagans) and Catholics. That is the whole group! We have already established that the Protestants came 1,500 years later - so they can not be included here. So, we are left with the Catholics.

Of course - you do not have to believe this! But, if you are going to continue to complain about the answers you get, then you have to identify what you think is the correct answer. And this will take some valid historical references.

Now, this is the same group that has given you the Creeds most Protestants claim to believe and the doctrinal Truths that Protestants accepted all came from the Catholics - and this would include the Canon of Scripture. Even in the Protestnt abridged form - there was no change to the New Testament. Now, either the Catholic Church got it right - or everyone has gotten it wrong!

Really, what is your honest question about the first Christians who were the first Catholics?

God bless

[quote=david ruiz;9204858]

Originally Posted by tqualey

[font="Century Gothic"][size="3"][color="Navy"]Hi,
Thank-you ,have seen this before .Just don't infer that the Church at Antioch or Corinth was "Catholic" for they were not, except by CC interpretation. They were catholic as in universal. No other denomination does this. By the way it is up to 50,000,and rising. As they say ,there are mistruths and mistruths and statistics.

[Abu]

david ruiz #154
They were catholic as in universal.

Yes, as St Ignatius of Antioch wrote: “Where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” It was extended throughout the known world. By the end of the second century, “Catholic” meant also “orthodox” or faithful to the teachings of Christ – precisely what all of the aberrations to which david ruiz refers are not. [See The Catholic Catechism, Fr John A Hardon, S.J., 1975, p 217]. That is how the contradictory sects arose to number scores of thousands.

[Trebor135]

Originally Posted by david ruiz

Listen ,there is variety in all churches ,sometimes in different ways .There are so many kinds of Catholics and so many kinds of protetstants .That they believe ,or are supposed to believe, the same thing or different things still doesn't change that fact.

I never disputed that different churches teach different things, even within the same denomination. But the Catholic, Orthodox, and even High-Church Protestant (Anglican, Lutheran, Reformed) communities have a set of doctrines which clergy must generally believe and teach, lest they be removed from their position.

You have completely avoided my questions. I will restate them for your convenience:

As long as they aren't instructing us to do anything sinful, do your pastor and teachers generally merit the flock's obedience? If someone in your congregation thought artificial contraception was acceptable but the pastor and teachers opposed it strongly, what would you advise that person to do?

Again your either /or thinking .So are you saying your experience outside your Church is that there are no pastors,teachers ,prophets and giftings, that is there own ?

That is not my experience. You are the party engaging in either/or thinking. In your scheme, for there to be a distinction between clergy and laity must mean that (1) laity have no role as teachers and prophets, while (2) clergy have unacceptably high, even absolute, power. But I do not believe that a clear distinction between clergy and laity necessarily means that the laity can do nothing and the clergy must do everything.

I do not hold to infallibilty for every local congregation ,for every matter .I hold that generally some are more closely to the truth,the Spirit's infallible guidance, than others

I am not arguing that every congregation is or should be seen as infallible on every matter. I am asking if you believe that the pastor and elders in your local church have actual authority which should generally be followed.


PS: Once again I must beseech you, no disrespect intended, to employ punctuation in accordance with the standard rules of grammar. I must also ask you to be careful to quote other posts correctly: in order to reply to your comments here, I had to copy and paste your post into the text box from the thread, since only one of the paragraphs you had written was appearing.

[onemangang]

Originally Posted by david ruiz

Where does it say anywhere they called themselves "Catholic" ?

If you mean where in the bible does it say they called themselves Catholic, it is right next to where it says free will and Trinity!

Were the Apostles teachings the only teaching that had been made validly conferred by our Lord Jesus Christ?

All those opposed were in disunity and ergo NOT Catholic. If Catholic is to strictly mean universal, could teachings that oppose the doctrines taught by the Apostles be considered catholic (universal)?

Everyone wants to accept catholic, but are starkly opposed to Catholic, big C.
What are the Universal and essential (catholic) doctrines?

Besides you have Ignatius of Antioch, only a generation after the death of St.Peter and only a few years removed from St. John the Apostle speak of the Catholic Church in a past tense form, as the title it was already assumed to be known by the laity.

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans Chapter 8
[B]See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid. [/b]

Look at the relation of the word Presbyter and Priest... (priest is etymologically derived from the Greek presbyteros via the Latin presbyter)

Don't see the "Catholic" Church in Jerusalem. It is like you wrote it , "the Church in Jerusalem"

One in the same the Church big C is Catholic, big C

Does it bother you to be subject ,one to another ? We are just blogging here.

Not at all, but you contradict yourself when you say the term of Conferring Grace is too strong when the conferring is done by a Church, but then you say, OK if I include other "churches"

Originally Posted by david ruiz

Sorry ,I can't help thinking the emphasis is too strongly in Church conferring/dispensing grace .If you mean churches , Catholic, Orthodox ,Protestant, O.K.

Whom is saying otherwise .I am not saying either /or.

OK, then are you saying both? Or neither?

Yes, but the fact remains that means different things/paradigm to different people/bishops teachers....

So Christ founded a Visible Church. Good now we can get somewhere

The Catholic Church was founded by Christ personally. Other than the Eastern Orthodox Churches, every other "church" traces its lineage back to a mere human person such as Martin Luther or John Wesley. The Catholic Church can trace its lineage back to Jesus Christ who appointed St. Peter as the first pope. This line of popes has continued unbroken for almost 2,000 years.

Did Christ give the Apostles Authority to appoint Bishops, Priest, Deacons?

So, how did the Episcopate continue?

The church is catholic (universal) .I'm in there somewhere also.

By virtue of your Baptism!

Ok, this is what I don't understand. The Topic is How do we know infallibility gets passed down I will try to point out that Christianity is a revealed religion and that God has Manifested in the flesh and infallibly chose a Social Order (the Church big C) to infallibly make Himself Present to us! Your entire Apologetic seems to be " No Catholic Church" a rejection of the Catholic Church seems to be the presupposition you start with and spend the whole time trying to refute Her. You seem to have NO answers on How do we know infallibility gets passed down, only that it can not possibly be through the Catholic Church. In my mind, and I do not mean to be rude, you have been woefully inadequate at giving any insight on How do we know infallibility gets passed down?

Do you even believe that Infallibility can be Passed down? Maybe I only pressuposed that you have and in fact don't?

[onemangang]

Originally Posted by david ruiz

1.

Originally Posted by david ruiz

2.

Originally Posted by david ruiz

3.

Originally Posted by david ruiz

4.

Originally Posted by david ruiz

5.

Originally Posted by david ruiz

6.

Originally Posted by david ruiz

7.

Originally Posted by david ruiz

8.

Originally Posted by david ruiz

9.

The one below you posit that infallibility exist, but offer no tenable explanation on How do we know infallibility gets passed down, other than the Spirit will guide to all truth, but offer no explanation on to how.

Originally Posted by david ruiz

10.

Originally Posted by david ruiz

11.

Originally Posted by david ruiz

12.

The Post below you seem to deny Infallibility is possible

Originally Posted by david ruiz

13.

Originally Posted by david ruiz

14.

Originally Posted by david ruiz

15.

More of the same, no answers just a BIG NO CATHOLIC CHURCH and BTW if God is all powerful and Absolute, then is God Absolutely Corrupt, being that you posit Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely?

Originally Posted by david ruiz

16.

Originally Posted by david ruiz

17.

Originally Posted by david ruiz

18.

Originally Posted by david ruiz

19.

Originally Posted by david ruiz

20.

The one you posit below you talk on the Holy Spirit will Honor Christ crucified and risen and coming again, then posit His message is infallible by His unctioning , but as always ,wood ,hay and stubble He also discerns ,whether it come from a Protetstant ,Orthodoxy or Catholicism.

So appearently His Message hasn't been discerned in years infallibly, but once was discerned in the Early Church, by the apostles.OK, too bad you still havent shown How one discerns infallibly or answered How do we know infallibility gets passed down?

Originally Posted by david ruiz

21.

Originally Posted by david ruiz

22.

Here you posit "Peter was the leader,undeniably .But what does that entail ?" And give no perspective afterwards

Originally Posted by david ruiz

23.

Originally Posted by david ruiz

24.

Originally Posted by david ruiz

25.

Originally Posted by david ruiz

26.

Originally Posted by david ruiz

27.

Originally Posted by david ruiz

28.

Originally Posted by david ruiz

29.

Originally Posted by david ruiz

30.

You have posted in this thread 30 times and have essentially said Nothing but, NO to the Catholic Church. That is it, it seems like the entirety of your belief system (and when I say that, I do not mean your faith, but the tradition that you are being taught) is a presupposed NO to Catholicism! You are truly a man in PROTEST

I would like to ask you a simple question " How do we know infallibility gets passed down?"

Now you lost me .There was no monarchal episcopacy ,yet. This has been thoroughly discussed in several other entries just prior There was and is heirarchy as much as in our bodies,Offices yes. Giftings yes Ordinations yes .Heirarchy is a bad word.The council said it's pronouncements were from "the apostles and elders and brethren"

The Council of Trent has defined the Divine institution of the first three grades of the hierarchy of order, i.e. the episcopate, priesthood, and diaconate

It attests to apostles,elders ,bishops ,prophets teachers,healers, giftings .yes.

That were given authority, and through Apostolic Succession, it continues today in the college of Bishops in union with the Pope!

Again, after 30 post I would like to see you provide an answer to this question if you could please "How do we know infallibility gets passed down?"
Instead of the same old saying NO CATHOLICISM, or "first among equals"
Sorry don't mean to be rude, I just don't see any reason to engage in conversations that are just somebody saying, Nope thats not it! Over and over again!

When you enter something other than No Catholicism that is pertinent to the thread on How do we know infallibility gets passed down? I may reply, but until then

Peace be with you!

[tqualey]

Hi, Onemangang,

Wow! This post took you quite a bit of time to write - thanks for taking the time, it certainly puts DR's post in clear focus.

Yes, from providing responses to his one line arguments ("No Catholic") and then waiting to hear something that even vaguely resembeled a logical argument - I have been very disappointed.

Ah... by the way...are you sure it was only 30?

God bless

Originally Posted by onemangang

The one below you posit that infallibility exist, but offer no tenable explanation on How do we know infallibility gets passed down, other than the Spirit will guide to all truth, but offer no explanation on to how.



The Post below you seem to deny Infallibility is possible



More of the same, no answers just a BIG NO CATHOLIC CHURCH and BTW if God is all powerful and Absolute, then is God Absolutely Corrupt, being that you posit Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely?





The one you posit below you talk on the Holy Spirit will Honor Christ crucified and risen and coming again, then posit His message is infallible by His unctioning , but as always ,wood ,hay and stubble He also discerns ,whether it come from a Protetstant ,Orthodoxy or Catholicism.

So appearently His Message hasn't been discerned in years infallibly, but once was discerned in the Early Church, by the apostles.OK, too bad you still havent shown How one discerns infallibly or answered How do we know infallibility gets passed down?


Here you posit "Peter was the leader,undeniably .But what does that entail ?" And give no perspective afterwards









You have posted in this thread 30 times and have essentially said Nothing but, NO to the Catholic Church. That is it, it seems like the entirety of your belief system (and when I say that, I do not mean your faith, but the tradition that you are being taught) is a presupposed NO to Catholicism! You are truly a man in PROTEST

I would like to ask you a simple question " How do we know infallibility gets passed down?"



The Council of Trent has defined the Divine institution of the first three grades of the hierarchy of order, i.e. the episcopate, priesthood, and diaconate



That were given authority, and through Apostolic Succession, it continues today in the college of Bishops in union with the Pope!

Again, after 30 post I would like to see you provide an answer to this question if you could please "How do we know infallibility gets passed down?"
Instead of the same old saying NO CATHOLICISM, or "first among equals"
Sorry don't mean to be rude, I just don't see any reason to engage in conversations that are just somebody saying, Nope thats not it! Over and over again!

When you enter something other than No Catholicism that is pertinent to the thread on How do we know infallibility gets passed down? I may reply, but until then

Peace be with you!

[inkaneer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by AmbroseSJ
Actually we know pretty well who the Apostles chose as their own successors to their various sees.

[quote=david ruiz;9202592]

I was speaking of the apostle Mattias .whom the apostles chose to replace Judas. The book of revelations says the 12 apostles are our foundation .Certainly Judas was not one of those , Yes ,he compiled 50 bibles for Constsnatine.Do not know if he lisst successors of apostles ,certainly may have of several.

I'm sorry but Matthias was not an apostle. Neither was Judas although Judas was called to be an apostle he never became one. The word Apostle means one who is sent forth. To be an apostle of Jesus is one who is sent by Jesus. The scriptures record that Jesus sent forth only eleven apostles. That sending forth occurred at the great commission. Judas was already dead and Matthias had not been selected. When Peter calls for the replacement of Judas it is only for the office which Judas vacated and that was that of bishop. Matthias was a bishop, the first one of many to follow in succession to the apostles. Now if you do not agree with that then consider this. Every christian denomination makes the same claim that there were twelve apostles. But if we count Judas and Matthias then we have thirteen. And what about Paul? The New Testament calls Paul an Apostle of Jesus Christ no less than ten times. So that is fourteen apostles. So which is it? Twelve or fourteen????????? Judas was called by Christ but never sent forth. Matthias was neither called by Christ nor sent forth by Christ. But scripture states that Paul was both called by Christ and sent forth by Christ. Paul is the twelfth apostle.


[quote=david ruiz;9202592]

Perhaps I should have said "a' leader.I did qualify that as first amongst equals and not head bishop.In any group you have dynamics that put forth a spokesman ,a leader and many other qualities (a thinker ,a joker, a doubter etc). This would have happened without any "appointing" by the Lord,which is also debateable.
Not that familiar but i ask when did they believe this ? Certainly not during the apostles time not the first century. . Was it the 3rd century ? or 4th ? Makes a difference. Am slightly aware of this .I beleive the pope wrote this head bishop in Constantinople and rebuked him for thinking that any Christian could be "headbishop" or something, and said the idea of one ruling all christendom was like anti- Christ .Very strange ,coming from a pope ,even one of the most humblest.Just as strange as the Orthodox having "mixed messages as you point out .To me inconsistencies sometimes arise out of fundamental error in the whole idea of papacy. A bit like California, where you can legally kill a "fetus' in abortion, but that same fetus in a mother is now a life and it would be murder to kill the mother and or fetal child (2 counts of murder....strange). As I said ,strange ,arising out of fundamental error that one bishop would rule over all the Body. Well at times,but too inconsistent of an argument .For many they submit to every kind of authority the Lord shows them to be truthful. One more (the pope) is insignificant when compared to all the authority they do submit to . It is quite universal for all the Body to be under submission to their parents,relatives ,(as a child) ,teachers ,pastors ,bishops ,doctors ,police and elected officials ,bosses, one to another, etc etc etc . .It is usually NOT about submitting to authority ,this not recognizing one more bishop as head . It is like Jesus and the Samaritan woman at the well. Is the Lord at this mountain or that mountain ? Neither, for the time is now to worship Him ,follow Him , in truth and in spirit. The whole Body is in this race, and all must answer to One,the holder of the Keys - Jesus (Rev.).

On the contrary the concept of a universal bishop was very much rooted in the first century. The local church in Corinth appealled to the bishop of Rome [Pope Clement I] to settle their crisis despite the fact that the Apostle John was alive and living in Ephesus which was a lot easier to communicate with than Rome. The year is about 80 AD before John is banished to Patmos. In addition there is testimony from very early in the second century [Ignatius of Antioch circa 107-110]. As well as Polycarp [about 155 AD]. These are very significant because both Ignatius and Polycarp were disciples of the Apostle John. The idea of a chief steward is also rooted in the OT church. God always had a human head for His church on earth whether it was Abraham or Moses or the Prophets or the Judges. Was there not many priests in the Temple? And wasn't there one Chief Priest???????????????????

[david ruiz]

[quote]

Originally Posted by inkaneer

Quote:
Originally Posted by AmbroseSJ
'm sorry but Matthias was not an apostle

What is the actual, official CC teaching on Mattias or who is the 12th ? Again I have read Catholics here say Mattias was 12th .

Matthias was neither called by Christ nor sent forth by Christ.

Are you sure ? Does anyone truly follow Jesus whom is not called ? And if so called are they not also commissioned to testify ? The apostles/disciples went out ,two by two etc way before Pentecost . Scripture plainly says, "of these men which have companied all this time from the baptism of John, to his resurrection ,let us ordain one to partake of ministry and apostleship ,from which Judas transgressed..he was numbered with the eleven." Acts 1 20-26.

But scripture states that Paul was both called by Christ and sent forth by Christ. Paul is the twelfth apostle

. I agree

The local church in Corinth appealled to the bishop of Rome [Pope Clement I] to settle their crisis

Well ,I thought it was around 96 A.D. And was the letter sent "to the Church at Rome" ? Did it really say to our "pope" , or even to Bishop Clement ? Was his name even mentioned in the letter to Rome and and the reply back to Corinth ? I thought Rome had many bishops at this time .For sure several generations later the letter is attributed to his writing (but writing for the entire Church), and he later was attributed to be a head bishop there in Rome, though several lists of the first five popes differ slightly.

In addition there is testimony from very early in the second century [Ignatius of Antioch circa 107-110].

Igantius speaks of no headbishop residing in Rome .In fact he talks of, extols other bishops of other city churches ,but zero mention of a head bishop in Rome in his letter to them. I am only going by his 7 accepted letters, not the other 7 that were spurious.

As well as Polycarp

Don't recall studying Polycarp. Further down the road there begins to be evidence of head bishop discussion however .Tertullian ( 250 ? ) says ,on Modesty ch21, "If, because the Lord has said to Peter, upon this rock will I build my church, to thee I give the keys of the heavenly kingdom or, Whatsoever thou shall have bound or loosed in earth, shall be bound or loosed in the heavens, you therefore presume 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 upon Peter ? On thee, not to the Church: and, Whatsoever thou shall have abased or bound, not what they shall have loosed or bound.". I do not suscribe to his arguments/writings ,cause he is all over the place ,first calling the Lord the Rock ,then Peter , and finally only to Peter with no succession of authority, powers, and he did sway towards Montanism at the end . But it does show that there was free discussion on this subject , and such discussion you do not find in first or second centuries .It is neither here nor there , proving nothing.

[onemangang]

Still more of the same david, NO CATHOLICISM!

How about giving us some insight onto "How do we know infallibility gets passed down?"

Or do you not believe infallibility gets passed down?