Authority of the Church

[MDK]

**While Luther’s request for reform was eventually called the “Protest” it was actually a request for the Roman Catholic Church to clean its house and put it in order. Eventually it became known as Protestantism of course, but I reject that label. I still say I belong to the original church founded by Christ as we are taught everything the apostles taught and nothing more or less. The Bible does not say there is a supreme leader and I think the papacy has been forced on the people and is not biblical. In addition, it was not even thought of until hundreds of years after Christ. History is very clear about that.

Christ established only one church and all believers are members of that church and I can prove that by Scripture. I don’t need tradition to tell me I am wrong…**

Fair enough for you to reject labels you don’t like. However, if you’re honest, you’ll also reject the label of “original Church founded by Christ” unless you’re in the Catholic Church.

You can “prove” anything you want by quoting Scripture and then misinterpreting it. No one who knows truth will believe it, though… first and foremost, God who is Truth. Lutherans are still protesting the truth to this day… not all of it, nevertheless they do protest the truth and adopt their own misinterpretations as though it were true.

 

[NotWorthy]

It was 1414 A.D. when the laity was forbidden to drink from the cup in the Roman Catholic church. I hear that in some churches now, they are allowing it but I have yet to see it. Strange how they just change what Christ has commanded and don’t even think about it…

Do you have any idea WHY they forbid this? It will help to clarify some things.

 

[NotWorthy]

The Didache makes no claim of inspiration and is spurious. .

Please define spurious.

 

[NotWorthy]

The Didache makes no claim of inspiration and is spurious. …
It is considered apocryphal and was considered so by Athanasius and Rufinius. Although Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria and Origen often used the Didache, most early leaders did not accept it.

Can you name an early leader that did not accept the Didache?

I’ve heard of no one who claimed that its teachings are false, as you indicate, spurious.

 

[NotWorthy]

**None of those I mentioned belonged to the Roman Catholic Church. They were Catholic(Universal) alright but the Roman Catholic Church had not been invented yet.**You can claim this all you wish. I will not accept that, nor will you change it. So be it.

Incidentally, most of those were early leaders of my church as well.

Then why do you reject their teachings on the Eucharist, confession and what-not?

 

[turnorburn]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Did the church then have the authority to commit this as Papal authority

youtube.com/watch?v=Rx8PdvOELvY

 

[Old_Scholar]

what if you are wrong?

Well if I’m wrong, then Christ is as well because He condemns man-made doctrines…

 

[JTBT]

No I am not Pentecostal, and my rule of faith is the Bible.

I know I know, your either Eastern Orthodox, or Coptic … never mind I didn’t see where you said you were Lutheren

 

[Old_Scholar]

There was a Catholic reformation begun before Luther was born. Saint Teresa of Avila and Saint John of the Cross were parts of it, although in the 1500s. And, yes, both of them suffered at the hands of the church. But, like Saint Jerome, they remained in the church. If only Luther’s ego had allowed him patience.

Christ’s peace.

I am well aware of the fact that it started prior to Luther. Problem was that the Roman Church told Luther that if he didn’t swear allegiance to the Church and pope, then he would be killed and he refused. Although he was condemned to death, his church protected him and that’s the only reason he lived.

 

[JTBT]

There was a Catholic reformation begun before Luther was born. Saint Teresa of Avila and Saint John of the Cross were parts of it, although in the 1500s. And, yes, both of them suffered at the hands of the church. But, like Saint Jerome, they remained in the church. If only Luther’s ego had allowed him patience.

Christ’s peace.

Luther didn’t leave the Church he was kicked out. because he challenged the pope, maybe the RCC should have listened to him.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Hi Old Scholar,

I have seen you claim several times on this thread that Peter was never in Rome, never preached in Rome, and never died in Rome. Here are two questions for you.

1. 
   
   *]Can you provide quote from the first five centuries of Christian history that claims Peter died in Jerusalem?
   
   The early church leaders were not inspired and until Irenæus, no one made the claim that Peter was in Rome.
   
   *]Can you provide any Biblical quote that claims Peter died in Jerusalem?
   
   Can you provide any Biblical quote that Peter died in Rome or that he was ever in Rome?
   
   I have another question for you. Based on a few other points, you seem to claim that the Catholic Church teaches and believes that the Pope can contradict scripture.
   1. 
      
      *]Can you provide any authoritative document or quotation from such a document that states this?
      
      From the New Advent site:
      
      “The Vatican Council has defined as “a divinely revealed dogma” that “the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra – that is, when in the exercise of his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians he defines, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the whole Church – is, by reason of the Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining doctrines of faith and morals; and consequently that such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of their own nature (ex sese) and not by reason of the Church’s consent” (Densinger no. 1839 – old no. 1680).”
      
      Now if the pope declared that you must go to church each Wednesday in order to achieve salvation, would you believe him and do just that? Of course you would, even though it isn’t in Scripture.
      
      *]Can you provide any Pope that says this in any document?
      
      I have one final question based on your claim that Catholic cannot receive the wine at the mass.
      
      Can you provide any Church document that forbids Catholics from receiving the Wine at mass?
      
      Gladly…You can find the entire document on the internet and on a Roman Catholic site. They don’t hide how they changed the Scriptures but do it openly:
      
      The cup was withheld from the laity first at the ***Council of Lambeth ***in 1281 A.D., and was allowed in some circumstances when **the laity received juice and the priest alone received wine. ** And then confirmed again and abolished by **the Council of Constance in 1416, forbidding the laity from receiving the cup. **
      
      The Council of Constance called communion of both kinds an error and said priests who administered both kinds (cup and bread) would be punished. Their statement said: “Whereas in several parts of the world, some rashly presumed to assert that all Christians ought to receive the holy sacrament of the eucharist under both species of bread and wine, and that also after supper, or not fasting, contrary to the laudable custom of the church, justly approved of, which they damnably endeavour to reprobate as sacrilegious: hence it is that this holy general Council of Constance, assembled by the Holy Ghost to provide for the salvation of the faithful against this error, declares, decrees, and defines, that although Christ did after supper institute this holy sacrament, and administered it to his disciples in both kinds, of bread and wine, yet this notwithstanding, the laudable authority of the sacred canons, and the approved custom of the church, hath fixed and doth fix, that this sacrament ought not to be consecrated after supper, nor received by the faithful except fasting. And as this custom, for the purpose of avoiding certain dangers and scandals, has been rationally introduced, and that, although this sacrament was received by the faithful under both kinds in the primitive church, it was afterward received in both kinds by the officiating priests, and by the people under the species of bread only, it being believed most certainly, and nothing doubted, that the entire body and blood of Christ are really contained as well under the species of bread as of wine; this, therefore, being approved, it is now made a law. ** Likewise this holy synod decrees and declares, as to this matter, to the reverend fathers in Christ, patriarchs, lords, etc., that they must effectually punish all such as shall transgress this decree, or shall exhort to communicate the people in both kinds.”
      
      The Council of Trent declares: “Although Christ the Lord did in the last supper institute this venerable sacrament of the eucharist in the species of bread and wine, and thus delivered it to the apostles; yet it does not thence follow that all the faithful in Christ are bound by divine statute to receive both kinds.”
      
      “Moreover, the council declares, that though our Redeemer, as has been before said, did, in the last supper, institute this Sacrament in two kinds, and thus delivered it to the apostles, it must neverless be granted, that the true sacrament and Christ, whole and entire, is received in either kind by itself.”
      
      The following canons were also enacted by the council:
      1. “If any one shall say that all and every one of the faithful are obliged by divine precept, or as necessary to salvation, to receive the most holy sacrament of the eucharist under both kinds, let him be accursed.”
      2. “If any one shall say that the holy Catholic Church had no just and reasonable causes to give to the laity, and even to the non-consecrating clergy, for the communion of the eucharist under the species of bread alone, or that it erred therein; let him be accursed.
      3. If any man shall deny that Jesus Christ, the author and fountain of all graces, is received whole and entire under the species of bread alone, because he is not received under both species, according to the institution of Jesus Christ, as some falsely maintain; let him be accursed.
      Notice that they curse you if you don’t accept their teaching but follow the Bible instead.
      
      This is how the RCC changes Scripture to suit their own purposes. Why would any church want to change this sacrament? There is no reason except to please some man who thinks he is God.
      
      …OK. One more.
      
      You also claim that Christians worshiped on Saturday, not Sunday. Can you provide any evidence from the first three or four centuries of Patristic writings that also claims this?
      
      God bless,
      Ut

1. 1. 
      I’ll do better than that; I’ll give you Scriptures that show Christ and the apostles observed the Sabbaths and that it was Christ’s custom and Paul’s custom to do so:
      
      MR 1:21 And they went into Capernaum; and straightway on the sabbath day he(Christ) entered into the synagogue, and taught.
      
      MR 6:2 And when the sabbath day was come, he(Christ) began to teach in the synagogue: and many hearing him were astonished, saying, From whence hath this man these things? and what wisdom is this which is given unto him, that even such mighty works are wrought by his hands?
      
      LU 4:16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his(Christ) custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.
      
      LU 6:6 And it came to pass also on another sabbath, that he(Christ) entered into the synagogue and taught: and there was a man whose right hand was withered.
      
      LU 13:10 And he(Christ) was teaching in one of the synagogues on the sabbath.
      
      AC 13:14 But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and sat down.
      
      AC 13:42 And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath.
      
      AC 16:13 And on the sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted thither
      
      AC 17:2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,
      
      There are others but these came to mind quickly. you will find many more and I am sure if you will take the time to read the early church leaders, you will find they also observed the Sabbath. It was done faithfully until the 4th and 5th century.
      
      God Bless you!

 

[Old_Scholar]

Fair enough for you to reject labels you don’t like. However, if you’re honest, you’ll also reject the label of “original Church founded by Christ” unless you’re in the Catholic Church.

I am in the Catholic Church, the universal church founded by Christ. I am not in the Roman Catholic Church, the church led by a mortal man and not by Christ.

You can “prove” anything you want by quoting Scripture and then misinterpreting it. No one who knows truth will believe it, though… first and foremost, God who is Truth. Lutherans are still protesting the truth to this day… not all of it, nevertheless they do protest the truth and adopt their own misinterpretations as though it were true.

I can give you several things the RCC has changed; in fact read my last post for a good example of how they changed the eucharist.

Can you give me any thing the Lutheran Church teaches that can’t be proven by Scripture?

 

[Old_Scholar]

Do you have any idea WHY they forbid this? It will help to clarify some things.

There is no valid reason to deny Christ’s personal command. He told us how to handle communion and no one should change it. They claimed it was to eliminate errors, yet don’t say what those errors were. It seems to fit a pattern of the RCC—if they don’t like something, change it…

 

[Old_Scholar]

You can claim this all you wish. I will not accept that, nor will you change it. So be it.

Then why do you reject their teachings on the Eucharist, confession and what-not?

Well the early church leaders knew they were not drinking the actual blood of Christ. Irenæus, Theodoret, Athanasius and Augustine all wrote of it. Augustine said:

“**For if the sacraments did not have a certain likeness to the things of which they are the sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all **…Therefore…**in a certain way **the sacrament of the body of Christ is the body of Christ”. **…“You are not going to eat this body which you see, nor are you going to drink the blood which those who crucify me are going to shed. I have given you a sacrament.” **

That’s what it is; a sacrament. I fully believe in the presence of God during the partaking of this sacrament and I believe, as He said, the bread symbolizes the body and the wine the blood. He said do this in remembrance of Me and that’s why we do it. It is not a way to salvation. That is not mentioned but is to be done by believers only because Christ was talking to believers, not because the church has deemed it so.

Christ only gave us two sacraments, the communion and baptism and we should celebrate those as He intended.

You also mentioned confession. I confess my sins daily directly to God and publicly when in church. I confess them to the church however and not to a priest.

 

[Old_Scholar]

http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u298/hogndog/eh_wtf.gif

Did the church then have the authority to commit this as Papal authority

youtube.com/watch?v=Rx8PdvOELvY

The church never had that authority—it was a man-made authority and is shameful…

 

[Old_Scholar]

Luther didn’t leave the Church he was kicked out. because he challenged the pope, maybe the RCC should have listened to him.

Luther was patient for many years. It was after his patience ran out that he wanted the truth know. The church excommunicated him and they were going to burn him at the stake as they had done the others that didn’t agree with them but the church at Whittenberg protected him and they didn’t get to burn him. There were thousands who were burned at the stake because they challenged the pope. I wonder how those popes will fair at the judgment day???

 

[Old_Scholar]

finally caught up and now my swimming pool is calling…can’t resist…later!

 

[anon52328184]

old scholar, there was a time in england when catholics were persecuted also and killed and tortured by the reformers or protestants in england.

 

[Old_Scholar]

old scholar, there was a time in england when catholics were persecuted also and killed and tortured by the reformers or protestants in england.

That’s true but the Roman Catholics are still killing innocents in Ireland. Do you know of the IRA and the RIRA?

Have to get your answer later…pool time…

 

[sodak]

Still attacking the Church, I see.

I seek not to disprove the authority of the pope or the RCC but instead to prove the authority of the Bible. There is no authority given the church or the pope in Scripture, except the church is told to take care of their members and authority is given to the believers to discipline themselves.

If I can only get some to read the Bible and find out what it says, then I feel I have done all I can…

We do read the Bible. And it brings us to the Catholic Church. Deal with it.

All you have to do is read the writings of Ignatius, Barnabas, Justin Martyr, Clement, Polycarp, Cyprian, Tertullian, Irenæus and several others of that time frame, and you will not find any of the doctrines established by the RCC after them. They all taught the New Testament as it is written and I have read nothing they wrote that was not in it. As Christ said when He was here, there will come false teachers teaching doctrines of men…

You tend to do too much cherry picking of people’s writings, and ignoring parts of their writings that come to conclusions that you don’t like. But we’ve been over this ground before.

Don’t accuse me of abandoning Sola Scriptura. I couldn’t as it is the only accurate way to define doctrine and apostolic teaching. It is provable, not like the so-called sacred tradition which you can’t even recite, much less prove it exists.

Not attacking our Church, huh? I’m growing weary of your rants.

Old Scholar believes that if it can’t be found in Scripture, then it is false.

I completely reject this line of thinking.

No I am not Pentecostal, and my rule of faith is the Bible.

Then you better have an iron clad argument proving why YOUR Bible is “The One”. And that you have the authority to interpret it. And that you have correctly interpreted it. In that order.

I have studied the RCC at great length to see why it did not reform when Luther and others tried to get it to. I wish it had…Anyone who knows the history of the RCC knows why it needed reforming so much…

More insults. I know the history of my Church, and you are dead wrong.

I have attacked no one but have been personally attacked by posters on this thread. Not very Christian like either…

You constantly attack our Church, and by extension, all us Catholics.

I’m no longer interested in your half truths and selective quoting of ECF’s. These kinds of arguments are simply wasting our time.

Or perhaps that’s the goal here.