Authority of the Church

[Old_Scholar]

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.

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…

 

[anon52328184]

you say than that Christ set up one church, then why are there over 30,000 denominations. is that what Christ wanted? at present, we all are NOT one church.

i am not sure what you mean by not allowing the laity to drink of the cup.

 

[Old_Scholar]

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.

**Actually Stephen was the first one to attempt to claim authority for the pope but no one paid him any attention and his claims of papal authority died. **

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

Her is the quotation from Irenæus:

“And Irenaeus Bp. of Lyons, to Victor Bp. of Rome, concerning Florinus, a presbyter, who was a partisan of the error of Valentinus, and published an abominable book, thus wrote.” Here is the Roberts-Donaldson translation in Ante-Nicene Fathers, volume one (fragment LI).਀㰀倀㸀 “Now, however, inasmuch as the books of these men may possibly have escaped your observation, but have come under our notice, I call your attention to them, that for the sake of your reputation you may expel these writings from among you, as bringing disgrace upon you, since their author boasts himself as being one of your company. For they constitute a stumbling-block to many, who simply and unreservedly receive, as coming from a presbyter, the blasphemy which they utter against God. Just [consider] the writer of these things, how by means of them he does not injure assistants [in divine service] only, who happen to be prepared in mind for blasphemies against God, but also damages those among us, since by his books he imbues their minds with false doctrines concerning God.”

Certainly this letter is not considering Victor anything but a presbyter, as was Irenæus, and not a pope in charge of anyone except his flock. Irenæus is warning him that blasphemy is being created. That doesn’t seem to me to be bowing to any special authority.

Augustine wrote much more scathing letters to the Bishop of Rome when he was trying to claim authority as well.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Old Scholar
i am not criticizing you for your choice to be a protestant.
right now i am watching the pioneer commemoration day event with the osmonds. there are so many people in the audience.
the mormon tabernacle choir is singing. now, i don’t agree with joseph smith, but these people all seem to have a deep love for Jesus as i am sure you do also. what about the mormons or the 7th day adventists? do you put them in the same category as the catholics? just wondering.

I have had the privilege, along with my spouse, of watching the Mormon Choir sing in the tabernacle in Salt Lake City…they are fantastic…I have also been to the Joseph Smith memorial, thought it was great, but my biggest thrill was in Omaha at a museum, at the winter quarters, about the Mormons heading west and looking at what they actually had to do in order to get there. Amazing! I have also camped in the same spot that Brigham Young did when he sent the party into the valley of the great salt lake. The story of how they got to Salt Lake is fascinating to me.

Regardless of what you believe about the Mormons, you must say that their perservance is very good about their beliefs. I am not a Mormon however…I just think their story is great.

As I have already stated here, I place them in the same category, since they use the book of Mormon, with those who put their faith and authority in the Watchtower and those who put their faith and authority in the Pope and Magesterium.

Christ only established one church, consisting of all His believers, and there are members in those three groups as well as probably every other group that believes the gospel. That is Biblical.

http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/spezial/Sarge/SLK.gif

 

[Old_Scholar]

How about, in some of them you don’t have to believe in God to be ordained. How’s that for a change. The “changes” you listed for the Catholic Church were matters of discipline, not dogma. Priestly celibacy is a discipline, and can be changed. Not ordaining women to the priesthood is a defined dogma and is not subject to change.

So I guess your answer is "none?"

These people are not Catholics. Anyone involved in these “ordinations” has excommunicated themselves.

Not so! Check out this site.

You still haven’t told us what church you are a member of. If I had to guess, I’d say Mormon, but not mainstream Mormon, probably one of the polygamist sects. I say this because of your belief in the “Great Apostasy” and your wildly untrue characterizations about what the Catholic Church is all about.

I belong to the church Christ Himself established…

 

[Old_Scholar]

Believe me, Mormons do not have a monopoly on the “Great Apostasy”. Its become such a convenient alibi, that numerous other faiths have latched onto it, such as the Church of Christ. Its sort of like the “Trail of Blood” theory, if it implicates the falsity of the Catholic Church, then its got to be true, even if there’s no proof to verify it!

Actually there is no proof of most of the RCC claims…at least no Biblical proof. History proves what I have said about the beginning of the RCC, the pope and his claims. I don’t have to prove that. Any library will refute those claims in its history section.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Old Scholar - please forgive me for appearing to be confrontational,
i haven’t read that many of your posts, but i can see that you definitely have issues with the Pope and the Catholic church.
how do you think the world would be different today if the Catholic church had never existed?

My issues are not with the members of the RC—just with the authority claimed by the pope and the church. I believe the world would be a much better place if Rome had not taken control of the church with their false belief system and doctrines. Had the reformation actually reformed the church and took it back to its roots, we would all be members and much better off…that is my opinion.

enjoy your week at the beach.

It was fabulous. The water was fine, the waves were great, the sun was there most of the time and as always the restaurants were fantastic. You can get actual *fresh caught *seafood there at the restaurants—not that frozen stuff. I had lobster, crab, dolphin(I’m sorry, mahi, mahi now), shrimp, oysters and everything fresh, even the lobster fresh from the Keys. Didn’t go fishing however—mostly lots of rest + the beach…

what faith do you practice?

While I do not observe the Sabbath religiously, I do not work then, or anytime else actually, but reflect on life, God, family, and recreate as much as I can. To me that is resting…

i attend mass saturday evening, does that count as Sabbath to you? or since it is a 5pm mass is that too late to count as the Sabbath. sometimes, i also attend a Sunday morning mass and sometimes i attend mass during the week. that is what i like about the Catholic church, i can meet Him any day of the week to receive Holy Communion. i don’t have to limit going to church to one day of the week to meet Him. i also visit the adoration chapels near my home and pray at home and ready my Catholic books and when i go to bed at night i am so thankful for the Pope, who is our spiritual shepherd here on earth.

**One thing nice about the Catholic Church is that they are open every day. Do you get to drink from the cup during the Eucharist? Most do not get to fully participate and I always wonder why they don’t? Christ commanded it and we should all do it faithfully and completely.

I believe God is with me all the time so I don’t have to go anywhere to seek Him. He promised He would be with me and I know He is. My life is too full, plentiful and enjoyable for Him to not be with me. He has blessed us greatly—all 25 of us!(+ 2 enroute)**

 

[Old_Scholar]

That is painting with a VERY broad brush. It seems you are quite biased towards the Mormons and JW’s. We are called to not be lukewarm for our faith…Rev 3:16 “So, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew you out of my mouth.” I take my faith in Christ VERY seriously.

I have no doubt there are many Christians in the JWs as well as the Mormons. In fact I meet very often on Saturday with two JWs who visit me often and discuss Scripture. Eventually I will get them to accept the truth.

The reason we worship on Sunday and not Saturday is because our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ was resurrected on Sunday. Wouldn’t it make sense to worship the risen Lord on the day He was risen? For Catholics though, Mass is every single day. If you have the time, you could attend Mass every day of the week even though Holy Obligation is only on Sunday because of the aforementioned reason. But I am sure you would like some scripture to go along with this reasoning and here ya go! Acts 20:7 “On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the morrow; and he prolonged his speech until midnight.”

**You are incorrect when you say Christ was resurrected on Sunday. He was found to be gone at daybreak on Sunday but according to the Bible, he was resurrected on what we would call Saturday night—just after the Sabbath ended at 6 PM.

If you will read the Bible, you will find that Christ always observed the Sabbath, not Sunday as did the apostles, even after the resurrection. Paul was in the temple every Sabbath as was Peter. There is no record of any of them not observing the Sabbath.**

For one to be a Christian, you should be baptized in trinatarian form…Look at Matthew 28:18-20…Believe Jesus Christ is God…John 3:16…Repent from your sins…Luke 13:3…and confess Jesus as Lord Romans 10:9-10. Faith alone doesn’t cut it…I’m not implying that you believe in that but for the benefit of those out there that do…Even St. Paul wasn’t sure he was saved…He said, Php 2:12 “Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.”

I can give you several Scriptures that say that faith alone and nothing is necessary for salvation. There are no verses that say that works are necessary—none.

It isnt as much that we have to rely on the church to tell us what it says. It is just that there are so many different interpretations out there that we need to know what the TRUE interpretation of certain verses are and that can only be found in the church that was given the Authority by Jesus Christ Himself (Matthew 16:18).

Anytime any church strays from Scripture, then it is teaching falsely. Scripture is not difficult to interpret. It usually interprets itself, one only has to look for the truth to find it.

Show me at least one inkling of historical proof that “everything was fine…then Rome got too involved.” Peter was given the Keys and then eventually He went to Rome to help Paul preach to the Gentiles. Unfortunately they both met their demise in Rome but, from that time forward, all the Popes from St. Peter to the present Pope have all resided in Rome. Maybe you can go into more detail what exactly you mean by Rome getting too involved as well.

**There is no record of Peter ever being in Rome. Perhaps he was but we have no historical record of him ever being there. And as for the popes, for 70 years, there was no pope anywhere, and for 40 years the pope was in France and at one time there were three popes, so there is no succession of popes. Certainly not from Rome. Even the RCC can’t agree on the first few lists of popes.

What I mean by Rome getting involved is that when Constantine started the state control of the church, he introduced paganistic rituals into it. In addition, from his time on, many false teachings started being introduced into the church, such as: purgatory, Mariolatry, prayer to the dead, and many more non-Biblical teachings. The early church leaders such as: Clement of Rome, Clement of Alexandria, Barnabas, Mathetes, Polycarp, Ignatius, Irenæus, and many others, would cringe if they could see what the RCC is like today.**

Have fun at the beach. I await your response upon your return. God bless.

**It was a great time at the beach—it always is and we enjoy it. We should just stay at the Condo all summer but other family members want to use it as well, so we indulge them.

In Christ…CR**

 

[BRB]

Irenæus doesn’t mention any primacy either. Because of the fact that Rome was the center of the world at that time, he says that the gospel taught there should be the same everywhere. No primacy mentioned here.

This is rich … OS quoting CF’s and historians to disprove the RCC and Peter’s primacy

OS … I love your zeal and passion, but you don’t have all the facts linked together to prove your case.

Tell us about the roots and primacy of your Church ?

 

[Old_Scholar]

I’m not OS but I think I’d like to take a crack at this one If the Catholic church never existed, then the church wouldn’t exist. Mat 16:18 “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.” There is only ONE church that Peter is the rock of and that is Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic church. No Catholic church, no Authority from Jesus Christ Himself, there would be nothing for reformers to reform from.

**You are partially correct, except that the rock Christ built his church on was the faith Peter showed. Christ is the rock and it was the faith of Peter—not Peter. Read the early church fathers on this subject.

I agree there is only one church. Scripture tells us that all believers are members of the body of Christ and Christ is the head. Therefore, all believers make up the Church of Christ or the Church of God, whichever you prefer. Some of them belong to the Catholic Church and others belong to the other churches. But there is only one Church of Crhist. At the time the church was started, the term Catholic meant universal and today it has come to mean the Roman Catholic Church but that is incorrect. Its true meaning is still universal.

Christ did not establish any organization of churches or any heirocracy. His church consists of people, believers, not buildings or organizations. All those are man made and not God made.

I have stated before, there are members of His church in every denomination and group that wants to differentiate itself by giving it another name than Christ’s Church. I can provide Scripture that proves that.**

I’m interested to hear this answer as well. It says in his profile that he is “non-catholic, non-protestant.” That really doesn’t leave very many other churches other than Mormons and JW’s.

That is what is so great about the Catholic church. You don’t have to wait a whole week to worship God one day. You can do it every single day! That’s the way the Apostles wanted it…Act 2:42 “And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. Act 2:46 And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they partook of food with glad and generous hearts.” Yes we should all be thankful for the Pope. Without the Authority passed down to him by St. Peter who received the awesome grace of Authority by Jesus Christ Himself, the Catholic church would be nothing more than another denomination and would have never lasted 2000 years. It is only through Christ’s divine powers that His church has withstood time and MANY humanly errors. Remember that the church is never sinful but the people inside it are! Just my :twocents:

 

[Old_Scholar]

“As I said, here in the 4th century was when it first started. Yet no primacy established, just cooperation by all”

Scholar old or new, I am not, but if I am not mistaken, I have noticed the Popes ask for “cooperation” from the Bishops including the present times. Even the Pope cannot make one do what one doesn’t wish to do. He cannot order anyone. In the early Church, Peter was accorded deferential respect because of his close relationship with Christ. Letters were written to Peter by other Bishops defering to his adv ice and decisions. Perhaps the title Supreme Authority and Pope were not in the linguistic ability of the clergy of the early church, but the respect given to Peter is an indication he held a higher role in the Church than other Bishops.

Can you provide any Scriptures that show Peter had any special authority or standing?

 

[Old_Scholar]

you say than that Christ set up one church, then why are there over 30,000 denominations. is that what Christ wanted? at present, we all are NOT one church.

i am not sure what you mean by not allowing the laity to drink of the cup.

In most RCC churches, only the priests drink from the cup. The laity only gets the bread…

 

[BRB]

Old Scholar is becoming more and more Catholic. He has abandoned *sola scriptura *and is now looking to the Church Fathers. Many a protestant has started their journey to the Catholic faith in this way.

Exactly … if he will read history with an open mind, history will make the case.

History will show his church is devoid of legitimate lineage … except thru early roots of Catholicism.

Yes, heretical sects with early roots exist … but, they had major problems with sacred scripture and often wrote their own canon.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Posts 151 and 152

As young as you seem to be, you probably don’t kow what it was like in the country as far as religion was concerned before the Bible and God was taken out of the public schools. If you will research the history, you will find that all the problems you mentioned, started in the 1960s when the Bible was banned from public schools. Check the statistics. The next big thing was Roe v Wade. Since there have been 56,000,000 babies killed legitimately by abortion. It’s sad for those who remember what it was once like to live in the USA.

Prior to the 1960s no one ever took their car keys out of the car. Homes were never locked. People were trusted because if some one ever committed a crime, they were punished and it didn’t happen often. A different world!!!

 

[curtishouse29]

Can you provide any Scriptures that show Peter had any special authority or standing?

Joh 21:15 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.”
Joh 21:16 A second time he said to him, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.”
Joh 21:17 He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” And he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep.

As you can see, Jesus appointed none other than St. Peter to “feed His sheep.” If that isn’t special Authority or standing, I don’t know what is.

Also look at how many times Peter is mentioned in the NT. Peter is mentioned 155 times and, COMBINED, the rest of the Apostles are only mentioned 130 times! One final point…When the Apostles are written about, Peter is always mentioned first except for 1Cor 3:22 and Gal 2:9 (If you read those verses, it is obvious why). If you just read the Bible objectively, you will see exactly what St. Peter was and that is the rock of the church that Christ established! (Matthew 16:18)

 

[curtishouse29]

One thing nice about the Catholic Church is that they are open every day. Do you get to drink from the cup during the Eucharist? Most do not get to fully participate and I always wonder why they don’t? Christ commanded it and we should all do it faithfully and completely.

No I am not allowed to partake in the Holy Eucharist yet. I have not been to First Confession yet so I still have mortal sins that need to be absolved. The reason that not everybody can partake in the Eucharist is because you need to be in a state of grace (no Mortal sins) and believe what the Scriptures say regarding the Real Presence (John 6). Here is what the Sacred Scriptures have to say about this matter.

1Co 11:27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.
1Co 11:28 Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
1Co 11:29 For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.

 

[curtishouse29]

In most RCC churches, only the priests drink from the cup. The laity only gets the bread…

Not at my parish…Have you been to Mass before or just read about what exactly happens during Mass?

 

[Church_Militant]

In most RCC churches, only the priests drink from the cup. The laity only gets the bread…

And you have statistics to support this statement?

I think you are dead wrong on this one. I know you are so far as my parish is concerned. Most of us take the Precious Blood from a chalice.

I don’t think you can provide any stats to support your remark.

 

[curtishouse29]

Actually there is no proof of most of the RCC claims…at least no Biblical proof. History proves what I have said about the beginning of the RCC, the pope and his claims. I don’t have to prove that. Any library will refute those claims in its history section.

By the time the Bible as you know it today was canonized, the church was on about its 38th Pope. The church produced the Bible; not the other way around.

 

[NotWorthy]

Your definition of “Canon” must be a special definition of the RCC only.

Well, since the RCC was the first to canonize the Scriptures AND… since the RCC is the only one with the authority to canonize the Scriptures…

In fact, it is defined as:

“The books of the Bible recognized by any Christian Church as genuine and inspired, officially recognized as sacred books, the body of rules, principles, or standards accepted as axiomatic and universally binding on Christians. Once a Canon has been declared, it is closed and not subject to any additions or deletions.”

Your history of the Canon should tell you that We have much more evidence that a list of New Testament books existed long before any evidence of any one called a pope existed, and hundreds of years before the church became the Roman Catholic Church, with a pope as leader.

The list you provide just shows that these people’s opinions of the canons are as such. For if it is closed and not subject to addition or deletion, then how could there be more than one canon?

While a few of the books were not accepted ab all until later, they were certainly all in circulation and the 27 we have today were already accepted by most from very early on.

While some of the books you mentioned, and others, were often read in the churches from time to time, they were never accepted as authoritative or inspired and were read the same way we read them today, for historical and reading purposes—not for anything authoritative because they are spurious.

Define Spurious. There’s no evidence that the Epistles of St. Clement or Ignatius are spurious. Yet they were read in the Liturgy, because several regions of the Church thought they were Scriptural.

It was because of such books as these that the church decided to declare an official Canon that everyone would agree on and of course, it was the 27 books already accepted, nothing else. All the leaders of the churches that were truly Christian Churches used the same 27 books and the disagreements were mostly from those who were attempting to change the gospel. The 27 books we have today were always the ones most believed and taught from. Where do you see the early church leaders quoting from the apocryphal books or any of the others not accepted?

I don’t know enough about their writings. I simply know that these books were read in the Liturgy. That’s what Canonical meant.

While there may be a few quotes, it is said that the writings of the early church leaders have fully constituted the New Testament in their writings and if you read their writings you will virtually all the New Testatmen there, word for word, as they quoted it.

OK. That does not mean that the Shepherd of Hermas was spurious or that the Church didn’t use it for instruction.

The Didache is an example of a book that is quite often quoted and used. It was considered inspired, and there was never any indication that it was spurious.