Authority of the Church

[NotWorthy]

NotWorthy

I also disagree with you.

You wrote:

The UBS dictionary has for PRESBUTEROS:

In English one sees:

However the Greek is MIAS GUNAIKOS ANDRA which means a man of one wife.

So, you’re saying that the bishop HAS to be married? I don’t think that was the case. I understood it to mean that the bishop couldn’t marry again, either after being widowed or divorced, in order to prevent scandal.

 

[Benadam]

In matter of faith and morals, I only pay attention to what Christ has told me in His word; His Scriptures. No one will ever be able to accuse me of following the doctrines of man and not God.

That often said statement always makes me wonder how a person who is bible only, is able to distinguish the inspiration of the Holy Spirit from the the evil or human spirit. How divine revelation is distinguished as well. Since people who believe this way attach meaning to scriptures that place them in opposition.

Given that Jesus taught very few people His doctrins( they can legitimately say they follow doctrins from God not man) and a countless multitude of people are teaching doctrins as coming from God through the words of Scripture how do you distinguish which one’s are from God?

 

[Benadam]

Doesn’t authority require someone to exercise it to be able to claim it exists as an earthly reality? I mean if authority is unable to authorize or be exercised does it really exist?

 

[Old_Scholar]

I already gave it. The quote is a repeat of the quote from post 375. I guess this proves you don’t read my posts.

At any rate, you haven’t given any information to refute it, from official LCMS sources or otherwise.

In post 375 you quoted from Wikipedia for God’s sake. Anyone can write anything they want to on that site. How about going to a real encyclopedia or a church document of the LCMS.

And I have given you an official Lutheran document refuting that…guess you didn’t read it…

 

[Old_Scholar]

Duck and Dodge. You throw out the accusation, and when its refuted, your reply is, “Well, I follow Christ and Christ only”.

My response is,
“Except when…"
“…Christ gives the authority to bind and loose to His Church”
“…Christ tells you to take issues to the Church”
“…Christ tells you to hold on to the Traditions passed on”.
“…Christ gives the Church the authority to forgive sins in His Name”.
"…Christ tells you that the Bread IS His Body and the Wine IS His Blood”.
I could go on for a lot longer.

Oh yeah, you’re the model of obedience.

The authority to bind and loose was given to the church and it is not what you claim it is.

Of course issues within the church should be settled in the church. We have explicit directions for that.

And we keep the traditions passed down, so long as they do not conflict with any matter of faith and morals. The church has many traditions but no ‘sacred tradition.s’

Christ does not give authority to forgive sins. That can be done by God alone.

I do believe the bread is Christ’s body and the wine is His blood. I just don’t believe in transubstantiation as RCC members do. It is still wind and bread when you eat it but it, to a believer, is Christs blood and body. Look at it next time though and see if it is blood and flesh. Of I forgot, Catholics don’t get to fully participate in this sacrament. You rarely, if ever, get the wine…How sad!

 

[Old_Scholar]

So, was the Church a mustard seed or not? The man is still the same person as the child. As the Church grew, do you feel there was a need for servants acting in place of the Bishop?

You can claim this is not necessary, but you can’t deny there were these 3 offices in the first century of the Church, long before the “fifth century inventions” you claim.

There were not 3 offices outlined by Paul

 

[Old_Scholar]

So, you’re saying that the bishop HAS to be married? I don’t think that was the case. I understood it to mean that the bishop couldn’t marry again, either after being widowed or divorced, in order to prevent scandal.

If you read the Bible, it outlines all the qualifications for a bishop or elder. He cannot be taken to drink as well. But I notice a great deal of drinking going on with bishops and priests. I believe the Episcopalians are even worse.

 

[Old_Scholar]

That often said statement always makes me wonder how a person who is bible only, is able to distinguish the inspiration of the Holy Spirit from the the evil or human spirit. How divine revelation is distinguished as well. Since people who believe this way attach meaning to scriptures that place them in opposition.

Given that Jesus taught very few people His doctrins( they can legitimately say they follow doctrins from God not man) and a countless multitude of people are teaching doctrins as coming from God through the words of Scripture how do you distinguish which one’s are from God?

Well if you don’t believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God, then it is hard to say you are a Christian. He gave us all doctrines He wanted us to have. He left out nothing we needed.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Doesn’t authority require someone to exercise it to be able to claim it exists as an earthly reality? I mean if authority is unable to authorize or be exercised does it really exist?

Christ’s written word, the Bible IS the authority. It’s when man starts changing and adding to it that makes it wrong. Not the way it was written.

 

[Benadam]

Christ’s written word, the Bible IS the authority. It’s when man starts changing and adding to it that makes it wrong. Not the way it was written.

Then you don’t believe God’s authority exists on earth? I mean it has no authorized visible manifestation to know it exists if only the symbols that are able to express divine revelation are endowed with it.

 

[Benadam]

Well if you don’t believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God, then it is hard to say you are a Christian. He gave us all doctrines He wanted us to have. He left out nothing we needed.

You know that the scriptures didn’t produce the Church. I know the bible better than the average guy and the idea that Sacred Scripture is the source of faith on earth seems foreign to me.

That the Sacred Scriptures is meant to produce the Church is a reverse reality for me because I see the People of God as making the Word of God visible with their lives and their bodies and Sacred Scripture preserved the Sacred Tradition that preserved the memory of the Word they make visible.

So I see the bible as something that follows and preserves the menmory of Holy lives on earth not visa versa.

 

[NotWorthy]

The authority to bind and loose was given to the church and it is not what you claim it is.

If
a) Jesus gave the Church the Authority to Bind and Loose, and
b) The Jews already had an Authority to Bind and Loose, and
c) No where in New Testament Scripture are there guidelines that restrict the New Church from exercising all the afore-mentioned Jewish Authority, then
d) One would assume that the Catholic Church has the same Authority as the Jewish Authorities did,
e) including any additional authority, such as that given in John chapter 20.

Anything else is un-biblical!

Of course issues within the church should be settled in the church. We have explicit directions for that.

And we keep the traditions passed down, so long as they do not conflict with any matter of faith and morals. The church has many traditions but no 'sacred tradition.s’

Really! Where does it say that?

Christ does not give authority to forgive sins. That can be done by God alone.

Re-read John chapter 20 (do I get a sense of deja-vu?)

I do believe the bread is Christ’s body and the wine is His blood. I just don’t believe in transubstantiation as RCC members do. It is still wind and bread when you eat it but it, to a believer, is Christs blood and body. Look at it next time though and see if it is blood and flesh. Of I forgot, Catholics don’t get to fully participate in this sacrament. You rarely, if ever, get the wine…How sad!

Old Scholar? Just how long is your memory? Ask any Catholics around your home or office if they receive His Precious Blood from the Chalice.

You amaze me with this ridiculous accusation.

For instance, I’ve received the Blood from the Chalice on average 5-6 times a week.

 

[NotWorthy]

There were not 3 offices outlined by Paul

There was no need for three offices.

Let’s look at the time-line.

A) In the early Church, there were only Apostles and a few Disciples, as the Church leaders.
B) The Church (you know, the guys with the Authority to Bind and Loose) realize that there needs to be a new office.
C) Deacons are born to help distribute the food and clothing.

Fast forward to the end of the 1st century.

A) Bishops are head of their local diocese.
B) As the local Churches grew, the Bishop would consecrate the hosts and distribute them through the diocese to be used the following week at Mass.
C) The Bishops realize that the Consecration Ceremony itself should be an integral part of the Mass, hence they (you know, the guys with the Authority to Bind and Loose) decide to use Priests to perform this Sacrament just as they do - In Persona Christ - or “In the person of Christ”.

 

[NotWorthy]

If you read the Bible, it outlines all the qualifications for a bishop or elder. He cannot be taken to drink as well. But I notice a great deal of drinking going on with bishops and priests. I believe the Episcopalians are even worse.

And I see a lot of foolish sniping going on. You really want to ride the moral high-ground, OS? How fast do you think this thread is going to last if you resort to this kind of sniping.

I know priests that are alcoholics and I’ve seen it ruin their lives, as well as those that love them. I ask you to change courses, please, unless you can prove that the Church encourages priests and bishops to be drunks.

 

[NotWorthy]

Well if you don’t believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God, then it is hard to say you are a Christian. He gave us all doctrines He wanted us to have. He left out nothing we needed.

Including the ones that I mentioned about trusting His Bride, the Church.

 

[NotWorthy]

Christ’s written word, the Bible IS the authority. It’s when man starts changing and adding to it that makes it wrong. Not the way it was written.

But, but, but, the Bible… claims that the CHURCH is the authority.

You see, OS, it’s Scriptural!

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Look at it next time though and see if it is blood and flesh. Of I forgot, Catholics don’t get to fully participate in this sacrament. You rarely, if ever, get the wine…How sad!

With eyes of faith, I see His Precious Body and Blood, and I receive both every time I go to Mass at my parish, as do several other Catholics who are on this thread, as do many many Catholics who are not on this thread. Please stop claiming that we are not offered the Precious Blood of Christ, as you are violating Exodus 20:16/Deuteronomy 5:20 when you do so.

 

[NotWorthy]

  			Originally Posted by **Old Scholar** 					[forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=4054734#post4054734) 				
  		* Look at it next time though and see if it is blood and flesh. Of I forgot, Catholics don't get to fully participate in this sacrament. You rarely, if ever, get the wine....How sad!*

I’ve said this before and I say it again. Whether you believe you are doing it symbolically or not, when you separate Jesus’ Body from His Blood, you re-sacrifice Him. So, OS, it is not Catholic that Re-Crucify Christ by displaying the Crucifix, it is those that "symbolically think they eat His Body and drink His Blood separately.

When Catholic partake in the Eucharist, the Host has His Body and Blood at the same time, because we are partaking in His Risen Body. The same thing with the Chalice.

So, it is with irony, that Catholics, who are accused of dwelling too much on His Sacrifice, are the ones that are united in His Resurrected Body.

 

[tm30]

Of I forgot, Catholics don’t get to fully participate in this sacrament. You rarely, if ever, get the wine…How sad!

This is the Ultraquist heresy, which was condemned in…wait for it… 1414…at the Council of Constance.

The substance of the wine cannot be different from the substance of the bread. Both are the body-and-blood of Christ.

 

[NotWorthy]

This is the Ultraquist heresy, which was condemned in…wait for it… 1414…at the Council of Constance.

The substance of the wine cannot be different from the substance of the bread. Both are the body-and-blood of Christ.

Yes, he’s been reminded of this fact. But instead, OS sticks to his guns that no Catholic laity is offered the Chalice in the Mass.

Maybe we should start a poll to see.