Authority of the Catholic Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jimmy_B
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jimmy_B

Guest
Authority of the Catholic Church

Matthew 16:17,18
Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
Matthew 18:17,18
If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector. Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Matthew 28:18-20
Then Jesus approached and said to them, “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.”
John 20:21-24
(Jesus) said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained…”
1 Corinthians 11:23-28
For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup.
Luke 10:16
“Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.”
　
SAINT IRENAEUS (115 AD)
Bishop of Lyons and Father of the Church

Early Christian writings of Saint Irenaeus
　
Book V.
“…Then I have pointed out the truth, and shown the preaching of the Church, which the prophets proclaimed (as I have already demonstrated), but which Christ brought to perfection, and the apostles have handed down, from whom the Church, receiving [these truths], and throughout all the world alone preserving them in their integrity (bene), has transmitted them to her sons.”
Your Thoughts?
 
Pope Saint Clement I (The Fourth Catholic Pope)
Philippians 4:3
Yes, and I ask you also, my true yokemate, to help them, for they have struggled at my side in promoting the gospel, along with Clement and my other co-workers, whose names are in the book of life.

(Early Christian Writings online)
　
Clement of Rome, First Epistle (95 or 96 C.E.)
1Clem prologue:1
The Church of God which sojourneth in Rome to the Church of God which sojourneth in Corinth, to them which are called and sanctified by the will of God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Grace to you and peace from Almighty God through Jesus Christ be multiplied.

(Early Christian Writings online)
　
The Didache
The Lord’s Teaching Through the Twelve Apostles to the Nations.
Chapter 9. The Eucharist

“…so let Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom; for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever…”

(Early Christian Writings online)
  • Believed to be from the first Apostolic Council (c.50 C.E.), described in Acts 15:30.
Acts 15:30
And so they were sent on their journey. Upon their arrival in Antioch they called the assembly together and delivered the letter.
 
Here is the List of Catholic Popes in chronological order, from Saint Peter (the 1st Pope) to Pope Benedict XVI.

The Catholic Church‘s, Apostolic Secession is the “un-broken chain”, all the way back to the Apostles and Jesus Christ.
 
The Church’s Authority and the Authority of Saint Peter, the first Catholic Pope.
**
The story of Ananias and Sapphira
**
Acts 5:1-11
A man named Ananias, however, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property. He retained for himself, with his wife’s knowledge, some of the purchase price, took the remainder, and put it at the feet of the apostles. But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart so that you lied to the holy Spirit and retained part of the price of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain yours? And when it was sold, was it not still under your control? Why did you contrive this deed? You have lied not to human beings, but to God.” When Ananias heard these words, he fell down and breathed his last, and great fear came upon all who heard of it. The young men came and wrapped him up, then carried him out and buried him. After an interval of about three hours, his wife came in, unaware of what had happened. Peter said to her, “Tell me, did you sell the land for this amount?” She answered, “Yes, for that amount.” Then Peter said to her, “Why did you agree to test the Spirit of the Lord? Listen, the footsteps of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out.” At once, she fell down at his feet and breathed her last. When the young men entered they found her dead, so they carried her out and buried her beside her husband. And great fear came upon the whole church and upon all who heard of these things.
Now that I have provided evidence, in the last few posts for the Catholic Church’s Authority…

What is the Protestant, non-Catholic Christian response?
 
You ask for Protestant responses Jimmy B but as a Catholic I find the attempts to prove an unbroken line of Popes from Peter onwards a little difficult to swallow. There are gaps, there was the Avignon diversion and I believe our Orthodox friends have their own take on things in which we Catholics broke away leaving the Orthodox as the true inheritors of Peter’s mantle.

But even if the proof were incontovertible, what difference does it make? We could have handed the title down in unbroken sequence and yet have gone seriously wrong in belief along the way. I believe that is the view of many Protestants. It is present day teaching and observance that are important not one-upmanship over who is the true successor of Peter.
 
gallowglass said:
You ask for Protestant responses Jimmy B but as a Catholic I find the attempts to prove an unbroken line of Popes from Peter onwards a little difficult to swallow. There are gaps, there was the Avignon diversion and I believe our Orthodox friends have their own take on things in which we Catholics broke away leaving the Orthodox as the true inheritors of Peter’s mantle.

But even if the proof were incontovertible, what difference does it make? We could have handed the title down in unbroken sequence and yet have gone seriously wrong in belief along the way. I believe that is the view of many Protestants. It is present day teaching and observance that are important not one-upmanship over who is the true successor of Peter.
Click to expand...
“My daddy’s bigger than your daddy”

I don’t begrudge Catholics their Pope or their authority over their adherents in any way. More power to you, if that is what you seek!
 
QUOTE=gallowglass;6616676]You ask for Protestant responses Jimmy B but as a Catholic I find the attempts to prove an unbroken line of Popes from Peter onwards a little difficult to swallow. There are gaps, there was the Avignon diversion and I believe our Orthodox friends have their own take on things in which we Catholics broke away leaving the Orthodox as the true inheritors of Peter’s mantle.
Click to expand...
But even if the proof were incontovertible, what difference does it make? We could have handed the title down in unbroken sequence and yet have gone seriously wrong in belief along the way. I believe that is the view of many Protestants. It is present day teaching and observance that are important not one-upmanship over who is the true successor of Peter.
Click to expand...
It appears you have succumbed to an unbelievers attempt to discredit the Words of Jesus Christ. There are no gaps gallowglass; it is unbroken succession from present day Pope to St. Peter. Scripture and Apostolic Tradition, Apostolic Popes, and Saints all attest to this Apostolic Succession. What you have heard are what you claim a diversion to the Truth of succession to the apostles.

AM aware of disproved deceptions and diversionary arguments to this Catholic Apostolic succession of Faith according the Words of Jesus Christ and historical facts. Yes there have been attempts by the enemy that serpent to break up the succession but have never prevailed.

Please enlighten us with your Avignon argument, and or the false argument of Antioch, the excommunicated Pope Honorius I are all diversions that have been refuted by Apostolic successful succession to St.Peter. There is nothing new under the sun here.

The problem those who oppose or doubt the Apostolic succession fall victim to the deceiver to doubt the scriptures and the teachings of Jesus Christ, that Jesus will never leave Peter. To doubt the words of Jesus Christ is to believe another gospel from men not God and fall victim to the fallacies of man’s argument to doubt God.

You see the founder of the Catholic Church is Jesus himself. That is the point to this discussion proven through Apostolic succession. Every Protestant church including Orthodox separated from the Pope all began with the pride of a man. This is historical fact. Non catholic christian communities have splintered from protestantism which began my men such as Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, King Henry VIII etc.

Prove another Church community being the body of Christ having unbroken succession to the original Apostles of Jesus Christ other than the Catholic Church, and you would of exposed a Liar.

Peace be with you
 
Gabriel_of_12 said:
It appears you have succumbed to an unbelievers attempt to discredit the Words of Jesus Christ. There are no gaps gallowglass; it is unbroken succession from present day Pope to St. Peter. Scripture and Apostolic Tradition, Apostolic Popes, and Saints all attest to this Apostolic Succession. What you have heard are what you claim a diversion to the Truth of succession to the apostles.

AM aware of disproved deceptions and diversionary arguments to this Catholic Apostolic succession of Faith according the Words of Jesus Christ and historical facts. Yes there have been attempts by the enemy that serpent to break up the succession but have never prevailed.

Please enlighten us with your Avignon argument, and or the false argument of Antioch, the excommunicated Pope Honorius I are all diversions that have been refuted by Apostolic successful succession to St.Peter. There is nothing new under the sun here.

The problem those who oppose or doubt the Apostolic succession fall victim to the deceiver to doubt the scriptures and the teachings of Jesus Christ, that Jesus will never leave Peter. To doubt the words of Jesus Christ is to believe another gospel from men not God and fall victim to the fallacies of man’s argument to doubt God.

You see the founder of the Catholic Church is Jesus himself. That is the point to this discussion proven through Apostolic succession. Every Protestant church including Orthodox separated from the Pope all began with the pride of a man. This is historical fact. Non catholic christian communities have splintered from protestantism which began my men such as Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, King Henry VIII etc.

Prove another Church community being the body of Christ having unbroken succession to the original Apostles of Jesus Christ other than the Catholic Church, and you would of exposed a Liar.

Peace be with you
Click to expand...
This is what is dismaying to many Christians: angry, self-righteous arguing over whose hierarchy back through time is more legitimate. The next step is fighting over it. Then killing over it when it is mixed with racial or nationalistic tensions.

Protestants don’t deny the apostolic line. Protestants don’t deny the importance of Peter and the Eucharist. And all human institutions have been marred by pride, and continue to be today. We must all work against against pride.
 
gallowglass said:
You ask for Protestant responses Jimmy B but as a Catholic I find the attempts to prove an unbroken line of Popes from Peter onwards a little difficult to swallow. There are gaps, there was the Avignon diversion and I believe our Orthodox friends have their own take on things in which we Catholics broke away leaving the Orthodox as the true inheritors of Peter’s mantle.

But even if the proof were incontovertible, what difference does it make? We could have handed the title down in unbroken sequence and yet have gone seriously wrong in belief along the way. I believe that is the view of many Protestants. It is present day teaching and observance that are important not one-upmanship over who is the true successor of Peter.
Click to expand...
Hello gallowglass,

Thank you for your post.

If we believe what Jesus Christ said in Matthew 16:18, that “upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it”, then it’s not possible to “have gone seriously wrong in belief along the way”, especially when it’s comes to the issues of faith and morals.

As for my Orthodox brothers, if it is true that “the true inheritors of Peter’s mantle” were the Orthodox, then why do they not accept the Supremacy of the Pope, the Bishop of Rome, where Saint Peter is buried (under St. Peters Basilica). And, why do the Orthodox have a problem with the Nicene Creed and the “Filique” (“and the Son”) portion of the Creed, which was added in the fourth century and is self -evident in Christianity.

Continued on next post -
 
gallowglass said:
You ask for Protestant responses Jimmy B but as a Catholic I find the attempts to prove an unbroken line of Popes from Peter onwards a little difficult to swallow. There are gaps, there was the Avignon diversion and I believe our Orthodox friends have their own take on things in which we Catholics broke away leaving the Orthodox as the true inheritors of Peter’s mantle.

But even if the proof were incontovertible, what difference does it make? We could have handed the title down in unbroken sequence and yet have gone seriously wrong in belief along the way. I believe that is the view of many Protestants. It is present day teaching and observance that are important not one-upmanship over who is the true successor of Peter.
Click to expand...
Continued from last post -

A core belief in Christianity is that we believe in the Holy Trinity and that God is three persons, one God, all parts equal. We also believe that Christ was fully human, while at the same time, fully divine and that as John wrote - “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.” (John 1:1.2 /See: John 1:1-14)
　
Continued on next post -
 
gallowglass said:
You ask for Protestant responses Jimmy B but as a Catholic I find the attempts to prove an unbroken line of Popes from Peter onwards a little difficult to swallow. There are gaps, there was the Avignon diversion and I believe our Orthodox friends have their own take on things in which we Catholics broke away leaving the Orthodox as the true inheritors of Peter’s mantle.

But even if the proof were incontovertible, what difference does it make? We could have handed the title down in unbroken sequence and yet have gone seriously wrong in belief along the way. I believe that is the view of many Protestants. It is present day teaching and observance that are important not one-upmanship over who is the true successor of Peter.
Click to expand...
Continued from last post -
“The rejection of the Filioque, or the double Procession of the from the Father and , and the denial of the of the constitute even today the principal of the .”

(New Advent, online Catholic Encyclopedia, more here)
Click to expand...
Continued on next post -
 
gallowglass said:
You ask for Protestant responses Jimmy B… .
Click to expand...
Continued from last post -
“As to the , the writers call the the of the (Galatians 4:6), the of (Romans 8:9), the of (Philippians 1:19), just as they call Him the of the Father (Matthew 10:20) and the (1 Corinthians 2:11). Hence they attribute to the the same relation to the as to the Father. Again, according to , the sends the (Luke 24:49; John 15:26; 16:7; 20:22; Acts 2:33; Titus 3:6), just as the Father sends the Son (Romans 3:3; etc.), and as the Father sends the (John 14:26).”

(New Advent, online Catholic Encyclopedia, more here)
Click to expand...
The Filioque -

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son, He is worshiped and glorified.
Click to expand...
Nicene Creed Apostles Creed

The Eastern Orthodox Church today is part of the Catholic Church and one day will be in complete agreement with the Roman Catholic Church.

Your thought?
 
larkin31 said:
This is what is dismaying to many Christians: angry, self-righteous arguing over whose hierarchy back through time is more legitimate.
Click to expand...
Larkin, you may want to keep an eye out for a book being released in June called “Mere Churchianity” by the late, great Michael Spencer (aka the Internet Monk) (who passed away during Holy Week). It deals very much with this exact issue: how the quarrels and disagreements among Christians look to people outside the Church.

Here’s a link to the first chapter which was released last week - enjoy! multnomahemails.com/wbmlt/pdf/SneakPeek_Mere%20Churchianity.pdf

(Note this is a PDF file - if you’d prefer, just bookmark the link at Amazon and keep an eye out for it.)
 
Jimmy_B said:
As for my Orthodox brothers, if it is true that “the true inheritors of Peter’s mantle” were the Orthodox, then why do they not accept the Supremacy of the Pope, the Bishop of Rome, where Saint Peter is buried (under St. Peters Basilica). And, why do the Orthodox have a problem with the Nicene Creed and the “Filique” (“and the Son”) portion of the Creed, which was added in the fourth century and is self -evident in Christianity.

Continued on next post -
Click to expand...
Christ is risen!

The Orthodox do not accept the Supremacy of the Pope because it was never a doctrine of the undivided Church. It came about in the late Middle Ages. If this was the power of the Pope of Rome in the first millenium, then the Patriarch of Constantinople would have taken that power for himself after the schism when he became the primus inter pares for the Orthodox; yet, he didn’t.

Not sure what you’re talking about St. Peter’s burial place. I hear of Orthodox going there all the time to venerate his relics (and those of St. Paul). In fact, the Russian Orthodox have a cathedral in Rome.

The filioque is another whole set of problems. The Ecumenical Council of Constantinople and the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus anathematized anyone who would add to the Creed. Rome simply did not have the authority to do so. When they did, the Orthodox see Rome as removing itself from Orthodoxy.

In Christ,
Andrew
 
theistgal said:
larkin31;6617419:
This is what is dismaying to many Christians: angry, self–righteous arguing over whose hierarchy back through time is more legitimate.
Click to expand...
Larkin, you may want to keep an eye out for a book being released in June called “Mere Churchianity” by the late, great Michael Spencer (aka the Internet Monk) (who passed away during Holy Week). It deals very much with this exact issue: how the quarrels and disagreements among Christians look to people outside the Church.

Here’s a link to the first chapter which was released last week - enjoy! multnomahemails.com/wbmlt/pdf/SneakPeek_Mere%20Churchianity.pdf

(Note this is a PDF file - if you’d prefer, just bookmark the link at Amazon and keep an eye out for it.)
Click to expand...
theistgal,

The sentence that jumped out at me was in the letter from the girl that worked at Dairy Queen:
Christians like you have convinced me that God is a myth, an excuse used by religious people to mistreat others.
Click to expand...
The author seems like a very honest individual. I’m impressed. Thanks very much for the link. 🙂

Appreciatively,
Mick
👍
 
Jimmy_B said:
Your Thoughts?
Click to expand...
My thoughts run along the lines of wondering what would be the result if all the Non–Catholics on the planet woke up tomorrow morning and concluded that their doctrinal tenets and theological ideas were wayward and then publicly apologized to the Catholic Church for their sustained silliness over the centuries. I guess we’d all be formally forgiven and invited to be “in communion” with the Catholic Church? I’m not certain that this would constitute an improvement to the current situation in Christendom. What do you think?

Curiously,
Mick
👍
 
Harpazo said:
Christ is risen!

…The filioque is another whole set of problems. The Ecumenical Council of Constantinople and the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus anathematized anyone who would add to the Creed. Rome simply did not have the authority to do so. When they did, the Orthodox see Rome as removing itself from Orthodoxy.

In Christ,
Andrew
Click to expand...
Hello Andrew,

This is an interesting post.

If Rome (the Church), did not have the authority to “add to the Creed”, then where did the Church get the authority to create the Creed in the first place?

The Creed in not found in the Bible. it is our Confession of Faith, based on Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition.

The Creed came from the first Apostles and from Ecumenical Councils.

Using your exegesis, were did the early Church have the have authority to collect, organize, translate and complete an authorized version of the Bible?

Where did the Church derive their authority in any ecumenical counsels, to address any issue for that matter?

The Catholic Church still accepts and teaches the original Apostles Creed. The Nicene Creed, which is recited during Mass, is actually a different prayer, because it was created out of an Ecumenical Council.

Bishops today are the descendants of our first twelve Apostles, and Ecumenical Councils go back to the beginning of Christianity.

The Orthodox Church is in error regarding the Creed, Papal Supremacy and Papal Infallibility and there is clear evidence, traditionally, historically and biblically to prove this point

I’m sorry that we disagree on these points.

Thank you for your post.

Your Thought?
 
Jimmy_B said:
Hello Andrew,

This is an interesting post.

If Rome (the Church), did not have the authority to “add to the Creed”, then where did the Church get the authority to create the Creed in the first place?

The Creed in not found in the Bible. it is our Confession of Faith, based on Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition.

The Creed came from the first Apostles and from Ecumenical Councils.

Using your exegesis, were did the early Church have the have authority to collect, organize, translate and complete an authorized version of the Bible?

Where did the Church derive their authority in any ecumenical counsels, to address any issue for that matter?

The Catholic Church still accepts and teaches the original Apostles Creed. The Nicene Creed, which is recited during Mass, is actually a different prayer, because it was created out of an Ecumenical Council.

Bishops today are the descendants of our first twelve Apostles, and Ecumenical Councils go back to the beginning of Christianity.

The Orthodox Church is in error regarding the Creed, Papal Supremacy and Papal Infallibility and there is clear evidence, traditionally, historically and biblically to prove this point

I’m sorry that we disagree on these points.

Thank you for your post.

Your Thought?
Click to expand...
The Creed was the result of two Ecumenical Councils (Nicaea I and Constantinople I). Ironically, neither were called by the Pope of Rome, but by Emperors of the Roman Empire. 😉

It was the ENTIRE Church that is responsible for the Creed, not the See of Rome. The Orthodox Church operates today in the same way that the Church did when Rome was in communion with the rest of Orthodoxy.

Of course Roman Catholics see this differently, and I can (and do) respect their opinions even if I disagree. 🙂

In Christ,
Andrew
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top