Authority of the Church

[Old_Scholar]

You have now recognized the need for the Magisterium of the Church. Look at what has happened to the protestant sects without it, fracturing into 33,000 little pieces. It’s the Catholic Church, founded by Jesus Christ, that has kept the faith these 2,000 years. That’s why, in 1 Timothy 3:15, St. Paul calls the Church the “pillar and bulwark of the truth.” He nowhere makes that claim for the Bible (which didn’t exist then).

**There are no more divisions in what you call the Protestant faith than there is in the Roman Catholic Church. Look at how many times the RCC has changed their minds. One pope is infallible and then another pope comes along and declares him wrong. One council makes a decision and another changes it. That doesn’t happen with the Protestant faith. At least they are consistent.

All Protestants believe the gospel. All of them observe the Lord’s supper and Baptism as Sacraments. Their basic faith is the same. You do not have the same divisions as the RCC does from one parish to another. One parish allows women to be priests, another allows homosexuals as priests, some follow the Scripture and make sure a priest is married and others forbid it. I could name many more differences, so in that respect, Protestants are no different.**

 

[utunumsint]

**There are no more divisions in what you call the Protestant faith than there is in the Roman Catholic Church. Look at how many times the RCC has changed their minds. One pope is infallible and then another pope comes along and declares him wrong. One council makes a decision and another changes it. That doesn’t happen with the Protestant faith. At least they are consistent.

All Protestants believe the gospel. All of them observe the Lord’s supper and Baptism as Sacraments. Their basic faith is the same. You do not have the same divisions as the RCC does from one parish to another. One parish allows women to be priests, another allows homosexuals as priests, some follow the Scripture and make sure a priest is married and others forbid it. I could name many more differences, so in that respect, Protestants are no different.**

And that about ends my participation in this thread.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Old_Scholar]

What it proves to me is that the conclusions of a local council is not infalible without the authority of the bishop of Rome to support it.

But the truth must be out there somewhere. I do believe that the Bible is that truth, but because you and I can look at the same texts and come out with such different results, there has to be other elements to guide us to the truth. The Holy Spirit is one. The magisterium of the church is another.

God bless Old Scholar.
Ut

And that’s why we continue to study—so that we may find the truth. As long as you believe Scripture I will agree with you. May God Bless you and yours…CR

 

[Old_Scholar]

What is your date for the Great Apostasy?

Also, which churches still teach as the apostles did without changes by man?

**I believe it started with Constantine when he introduced paganism into the church and wanted to control it completely. He was doing what he thought was right for Rome and it may have been, up to a certain point. He was a pagan and only claimed to be a Christian on his deathbed in order to be sure.

It started with him and kept on going from there. It got much worse when the church decided it should control the state and that’s when it got really ugly. Unfortunately that lasted for hundreds of years. One day, I pray, the Catholic Church will return to its roots…

The churches that still teach as the apostles did—the same Sacraments given by God, and none created by man; all those found in the Bible with nothing added. The same gospel as taught by Paul, Peter and the rest and do not allow legalism and hierarchy to interfere with salvation.**

 

[NotWorthy]

**There is no evidence that Peter was ever in Rome…Check the writings of the early church leaders and you will see. I believe you will find out that Linus was ordained as Bishop of Rome by Paul. Later on, Peter says he ordained Clement as the third bishop of Rome. There was no pope then **

Are you serious? No one denied that Peter was in Rome. Even Protestant scholars today admit that this was just wishful thinking on the part of non-Catholic apologists.

 

[anon52328184]

i think old scholar watches too many shows on the history channel.

you keep showing a picture of the Holy Bible, but when Jesus said the words “upon this rock i will build . . .” the Holy Bible was not in existence yet. the scriptures were not compiled for some decades later. what were the people doing in the meantime?

also, the Pope is seen as our spiritual shepherd on earth.

 

[Mea_Culpa]

There are no more divisions in what you call the Protestant faith than there is in the Roman Catholic Church. Look at how many times the RCC has changed their minds. One pope is infallible and then another pope comes along and declares him wrong. One council makes a decision and another changes it. That doesn’t happen with the Protestant faith. At least they are consistent.

HA HA HA! The protestant faith is consistent, like a rock, compared to the capricious nature of the Catholic Church. HA HA HA!

All Protestants believe the gospel. All of them observe the Lord’s supper and Baptism as Sacraments. Their basic faith is the same.

Why do they keep splitting apart then?

You do not have the same divisions as the RCC does from one parish to another. One parish allows women to be priests, another allows homosexuals as priests, some follow the Scripture and make sure a priest is married and others forbid it.

HA HA HA! Have you ever been in a Catholic Church? Which one has women priests? HA HA HA!

I could name many more differences, so in that respect, Protestants are no different.

HA HA HA! Now I get it, this is a joke, right? Nobody could seriously be so ignorant of the Catholic faith and then try to come on a Catholic message board and convince Catholics of the error of their ways based on the fact that some parishes have women priests while others don’t, some allow married priests and others don’t, etc. HA HA HA!

 

[anon52328184]

right, no women priests in the Catholic church. yes, there are a few married priests, but most of these are coming from the anglican faith where priests were allowed to be married. when they decide to become Catholic, they convert and are ordained, but the church allows them to remain married and still be a Catholic priest. if you are ordained as a single man to be a priest, you cannot marry. but if you are ordained as a married man, you are a married priest. these are the minority at this point and time.

and whenever a woman is ordained as a priest, i believe they are excommunicated as well as the person who ordained them.

 

[Mea_Culpa]

Old Scholar believes that if it can’t be found in Scripture, then it is false. That’s Sola Scriptura and the early church agreed with that principle.

That must have been a pretty neat trick, since the canon of the Bible wasn’t established until about 400 by Church Councils at Rome and Hippo. (This is after Constantine, which you say is when the Church went down the wrong road. So, according to you, the Bible is a product of a corrupted Church. Why would you believe in it then?)

Where in Scripture does the doctrine of *sola scriptura *appear? Nowhere, that’s where.

You are right about one thing. I would be a Catholic if many things were changed—back to the early church of the first two centuries. Actually that’s where my church is still today. With the apostolic teachings as instructed by Christ.

What church is that? Christ said in Matthew 5:15 "Nor do men light a lamp and put it under a bushel, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. " I am Catholic and proud of it and proclaim it to the world. Why are you reluctant to claim your church and name it? Please, don’t hide the light under a bushel, put it on the stand so it can shed its light on all of us.

 

[Old_Scholar]

HA HA HA! The protestant faith is consistent, like a rock, compared to the capricious nature of the Catholic Church. HA HA HA!

**Just a few…in 500 A.D. Eucharist changed from weekly to daily.

in 1311 baptism in the Catholic Church was changed from immersion to sprinkling.

In 1416 the Catholic Church began witholding the communion cup from the laity.

in 1818 Marriage to non-Catholics was now allowed.

in 1870 Pope declared infallible…

in 1965 the Roman Church changed its position on salvation outside the church. Now other Christians—non-Catholics—can be saved.

And I forget the year the church withdrew the ban on meat on Fridays. Not too long ago though.

Recently the church declared the doctrine of Limbo was wrong.

I also forget the year the church started doing mass in the vulgar language, but it was not long ago either.

Are these enough for you? What changes in the doctrines of the Protestant churches can you list?**

Why do they keep splitting apart then?

HA HA HA! Have you ever been in a Catholic Church? Which one has women priests? HA HA HA!

Maybe you should broaden your knowledge…Here is the site for women priests in the RCC:

Roman Catholic Priests

HA HA HA! Now I get it, this is a joke, right? Nobody could seriously be so ignorant of the Catholic faith and then try to come on a Catholic message board and convince Catholics of the error of their ways based on the fact that some parishes have women priests while others don’t, some allow married priests and others don’t, etc. HA HA HA!

I know you already know about some priests being married…

 

[Old_Scholar]

That must have been a pretty neat trick, since the canon of the Bible wasn’t established until about 400 by Church Councils at Rome and Hippo. (This is after Constantine, which you say is when the Church went down the wrong road. So, according to you, the Bible is a product of a corrupted Church. Why would you believe in it then?)

You must know the last book in the New Testament was written prior to 100 A.D. and those books were readily available to churches everywhere and in fact the Catholic Church possessed them all. There are lists made for the canon as early as 120 A.D.

Where in Scripture does the doctrine of *sola scriptura *appear? Nowhere, that’s where.

What church is that? Christ said in Matthew 5:15 "Nor do men light a lamp and put it under a bushel, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. " I am Catholic and proud of it and proclaim it to the world. Why are you reluctant to claim your church and name it? Please, don’t hide the light under a bushel, put it on the stand so it can shed its light on all of us.

 

[Old_Scholar]

i think old scholar watches too many shows on the history channel.

you keep showing a picture of the Holy Bible, but when Jesus said the words “upon this rock i will build . . .” the Holy Bible was not in existence yet. the scriptures were not compiled for some decades later. what were the people doing in the meantime?

also, the Pope is seen as our spiritual shepherd on earth.

They did as Paul and Peter told them. They said they were writing everything down so they could remember. Oral revelation left with the last apostle.

 

[curtishouse29]

They did as Paul and Peter told them. They said they were writing everything down so they could remember. Oral revelation left with the last apostle.

Where does it say that in the Bible? In the Bible, it actually says quite the opposite…2Th 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Where does it say that in the Bible? In the Bible, it actually says quite the opposite…2Th 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

That was before he had it all written down. Once written down, there was no need to remember everything taught. You have a record of everything you need to know.

Paul often spoke of what he was writing. It was so that we would have a record of what he taught.

1 Cor 4:14 “I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you.”

He is telling that although he has spoke of these things, he is nonetheless still writing them so that they may be remembered.

1 Cor 14:37 “If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.”

Can Paul be any plainer?

Peter also goes to great length to make sure we have the truth:

2 Peter 1:12 “Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and be established in the present truth.”

He says the same thing as Paul. He knows they know these things but they want them kept in remembrance.

2 Peter 3:14 “Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless. 15) And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as **our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; ** 16) As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. 17) Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.”

Peter certainly wants us to be sure we have it all to keep and be able to check and read. If we have it written down, then we can’t get it wrong.

Even John made it a point to be certain we had the truth:

1 John 1:4 “And **these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full. ** 5) This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. 6) If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth.”

As long as you rely on “word-of-mouth” for your truth, then you can never be sure you have it right. That’s why God gave us the Scriptures—so we wouldn’t have to worry. We are told they are sufficient and we don’t need anything else for our faith or morals.

 

[NotWorthy]

**You must know the last book in the New Testament was written prior to 100 A.D. and those books were readily available to churches everywhere and in fact the Catholic Church possessed them all. There are lists made for the canon as early as 120 A.D.**OS, I hope you know this is an incomplete (and possibly misleading) statement. Those books were readily available to the Church, but that doesn’t mean they were universally accepted, or that they weren’t the only ones that were used by the Church.

Revelation, Hebrews, and the Catholic Letters were a long time coming in the “universally accepted” realm. Other books were accepted in various regions - Clement’s Epistle to Corinth and the Shepherd of Hermas just to name a couple.

BTW, do you understand what the word “Canon” means? It boils down to what books are allowed to be read in the Catholic Liturgy, or what books are allowed to be read in Mass.

The lists you mentioned were many and varied until the 4th century.

 

[anon52328184]

i have a question for Old Scholar. why does the Catholic church bother you so much that you feel you must try to disprove the authority of the Church and the Pope? why can’t you just be protestant and leave well enough alone? if you don’t believe that the Catholic church is the true church, you have the right to your opinion, but why continue to come here and argue the point. why not leave us Catholics to practice our faith the way we want to and follow our beliefs? i attended many protestant churches and i always felt like there was something missing. it didn’t seem complete. even when i was in the anglican communion, there was something not quite right. have you ever attended a Catholic mass?

 

[NotWorthy]

You are right about one thing. I would be a Catholic if many things were changed—back to the early church of the first two centuries. Actually that’s where my church is still today. With the apostolic teachings as instructed by Christ**.**

You ought to be able to produce early Church writings to prove this. Show me 2nd century writings that hold true to the truths that you have today, and show me 2nd century writings that go against what the Catholic Church teaches today.

 

[NotWorthy]

Before Stephen, Victor, another bishop of Rome tried to cut off parishes of Asia with those that agreed with them and wrote many letters excommunicating all there. That didn’t set too well with the bishops and they rebuked Victor. Irenæus was one of them and he sent letters maintaining that the mystery of the resurrection should be observed only on the Lord’s day and that Victor should not cut off churches of God which observed the ancient tradition. This is outlined in the Church History of Eusebius, Book V, Chapter XXIV §§ 9, 10

OK, OS, you can’t have it both ways. You claim that the Pope never claimed authority over other churches till what, the 5th century? And then you show Pope St. Victor trying to ex-communicate the entire Eastern Church - something you can’t do if you don’t claim authority.

2nd, you sort of glossed over Ireneaus’ objections, leading one to think that Ireneaus questioned Victor’s authority to do it. What Ireneaus did, in fact, was question the wisdom of Victor’s decision, not the right to do it. It sounds like Ireneaus knew that Victor had the authority to do it, just not the wisdom to do it wisely.

 

[NotWorthy]

i have a question for Old Scholar. why does the Catholic church bother you so much that you feel you must try to disprove the authority of the Church and the Pope? why can’t you just be protestant and leave well enough alone? if you don’t believe that the Catholic church is the true church, you have the right to your opinion, but why continue to come here and argue the point. why not leave us Catholics to practice our faith the way we want to and follow our beliefs? i attended many protestant churches and i always felt like there was something missing. it didn’t seem complete. even when i was in the anglican communion, there was something not quite right. have you ever attended a Catholic mass?

Let OS ramble on, deborahaz. Sometimes its the best way for us to learn.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Let OS ramble on, deborahaz. Sometimes its the best way for us to learn.

You are very wise!

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