Perogatives Of The Apostles

[dairygirl4u2c]

so catholic and prots tend to agree the apostles were infallible. cathos say the bishop of rome got teh perogatorives of peter. why didn't the bishop of X get the perogatives from the other apostles as sucessors, eg alexadria, i think, and st. mark. obviously theydt all get the perogatives as they disagree.

(i actually disagree with everything here, i'm just curious of responses)

[Didymus]

I would think they did, but everything needing clarification or settlement went back to Rome, because it was the center of the Church, and thus the place for the Vicar.

Edited February 23, 2007 by Didymus

[dairygirl4u2c]

how can you say they did? (i think you meant they got the perogatives fm the apostles) that would mean they are infallible. if they are infallible, and the pope is infallible, then they shouldn't be disagreeing.

[Aloysius]

the individual apostles were not infallible. there is no Christian I've ever heard of who thought they were. when they gathered in a council (ie the Council of Jerusalem) their decisions were infallible. St. Peter was infallible when he bound the entire Church in a matter of faith or morals; but when he had bad attitudes about jews and gentiles St. Paul had to correct him.

I'm sure you could find a list if you searched; the different patriarchs are successors to the different specific apostles. but Christ only gave Peter the keys individually; Christ only gave Peter the power to bind and loose individually; Christ only made Peter the Rock. Christ gave the rest of the apostles the keys collectively; and that is why we say that when all the bishops teach universally through the history of the Church and everywhere on a matter of faith or morals, they are infallible. and when all the bishops throughout the world gather in a Council they are infallible on faith and morals as well.

the entire college of bishops shares the keys to the Kingdom. but Peter has them directly.

[RezaMikhaeil]

I dont remember Protestants every believing that the Apostles were infalliable ever... I often like to discuss the early church with Apostles and their answer is the same, "even if the Apostles believed that the Eucharist was literal, doesn't mean that they weren't wrong".

Reza

[dairygirl4u2c]

I didn't think they thought the councils were infallible, except the mainline protestants like lutherans etc. i'm talking about the non-denoms.
So what do you call the letters and such in the bible? Do you say they are exceptions to the council rule because it's the bible?
I always thought protestants thought they were infallible... now that I think about it, I think it's when they wrote they thought that. Ya know I'm not sure exactly...

[Aloysius]

the scriptures weren't really written by the Apostles... well, it wasn't a pre-requisite. not all of the new testament is written by apostles... namely the gospels of John Mark and St. Luke.

the gospels are the inspired inerrant word of God; the infallible part being when the Church picks which ones are inspired and which ones are not. inerrant is much different than inspired; the promise of inerrancy is not found in the scriptures; it is the promise of infallibility found in the scriptures which makes us sure that it was infallible when the Church said these books are inspired and inerrant in what they intend to say.

the protestants don't believe any of the Apostles had the charism of infallibility, or that they as a whole in a council had the charism of infallibility; all protestants believe is that the writers of the New Testament were inspired; they vary on what they mean by "inspired"... the Catholic view is that they were inspired and inerrant in everything that they meant to say; the more liberal sides would say it's all inerrant on some spiritual metaphorical level; the more fundamentalist sides would say it's all inerrant whether or not the writer intended it (and therefore, they can sift through and find the secret messages that the author himself didn't even know he was making because it's in some complex mathematical code)

the office of Bishop is not an office of successor to the authors of scripture, though. it is the office of successor to the Apostles with all their teaching authority... no one is the successor to John Mark, he was just St. Peter's secretary... but John Mark's writings were inerrant and inspired.