Authority of the Church

[anon52328184]

this is a reply to old scholar. so your faith is pentacostal?

i don’t know very much about pentecostals? most protestant churches have communion once a month.

i have even heard that a lot of protestant churches are beginning to say the creeds like the apostle’s creed. by this, i mean the evangelical or megachurches - not like the Lutheran or episcopal.

maybe some are beginning to see the truth and are trying to backtrack and incorporate some of the ways of the Catholic faith into their services.

 

[BRB]

this is a reply to old scholar. so your faith is pentacostal?

i have even heard that a lot of protestant churches are beginning to say the creeds like the apostle’s creed. maybe some are beginning to see the truth and are trying to backtrack and incorporate some of the ways of the Catholic faith into their services.

O.S. … is this the case … You are Pentecostal / Assembly of God ??

I hope this is the case. I was converted by 2 Pentecostal brethren many years ago. I love the Hillsong Assembly church’s Praise music.

Its been said [by Catholics] that Pentecostals who convert to Catholicism make the most outstanding members [disciples] they encounter in the faith. They also know their bible by heart.

Please verify your church for us …

Also, the Baptist churches say the Apostle Creed … and have for many years.

 

[Mea_Culpa]

The great apostasy began when Rome took over the church and started allowing a mere man to control it.

There have been Popes since the martyrdom of Peter. Who controls your Church?

The problem is that one pope would declare one thing and another pope would come along and say he was wrong and change it. Council after council had to be called to attempt to reconcile it but in most cases, they just made it worse.

How about some examples of doctrines in faith and morals that one Pope declared and then another Pope changed.

Most all the churches that call themselves Protestant and the Baptists, who do call them selves Protestant, agree on the basic points of the gospel as taught by the apostles and only disagree on disciplinary things. Some believe on OSAS and others believe you can lose your salvation. They do not differ nearly as far as the RCC changes Scripture and creates doctrines. And there are only about 6 or 8 different denonminations—just many different churches who use a different name.

How does the Catholic Church change Scripture? The Catholic Church is where Scripture comes from. The Protestants are the ones who changed it, to fit their ideologies. All the parishes in the Catholic Church believe the same thing. Protestants are splintered into thousands of little sects because they don’t have the Magisterium and they can’t agree on anything. Why not tell us what sect you belong to?

 

[Old_Scholar]

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.

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…

 

[Old_Scholar]

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

I have been to quite a few masses…

 

[Old_Scholar]

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.

You can simply check your own church’s history.

Two early popes condemned withholding the cup, (Pope Leo I [died 461 AD] and Pope Gelasius [died 496 Ad]; but in the 12th century the practice was begun, and formally approved by the Catholic Council of Constance in 1415 AD. So for the first 1000 years, the Catholics in the Pews drink the cup, then the Pope changed this apostolic tradition.

I’m not sure when those few churches who allow the laity to drink from the cup first started doing it or whether it is sanctioned by the RCC but I know a few do allow it.

 

[Old_Scholar]

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.

**In some respects you are right. It was members of the church who wrote the Bible, circulated it and preached from it. The Catholic Church formally canonized it in the 4th century but it had been in circulation and used long before that; ever since it was written actually. It was because of many spurious writings and heretical sects arising that it was necessary to canonize the Scriptures. They are still the same books the Christian Church uses today. Just remember that in those days the Roman Catholic Church as we know it today did not exist. It only came under the control of Rome in the 5th century; starting with Constance in the 4th century.

You are wrong however on the popes. The first pope to claim authority over the church was Stephen and no one paid him any attention. Gregory refused to take the authority because he knew it was wrong but the next time the post was offered, it was taken and that was in the 6th century.**

 

[Old_Scholar]

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…

The RCC had nothing to do with canonizing the Scriptures. The RCC did not exist then. Oh there was a church in Rome alright but it was the same as all the other churches and had no more authority than the others.

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?

Those were lists of books the people I listed wanted to include in the canon. Most Christians will tell you that God canonized the Bible, the church simply confirmed it for their own use.

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.

Spurious refers to an article or writing that is lacking authenticity or validity in essence or origin; not genuine; false.

The author of the writings attributed to Ignatius and Clement are not known. They are believed to be written by them but it has not been proven and many think they were written much later than they lived. Also, unlike the New Testament we have, they lack the possibility of inspiration and only repeat what has been said in the books chosen as authentic for the Bible.

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

But that’s not what Canon means as pertaining to religion.

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.

The Didache makes no claim of inspiration and is spurious. Most scholars date the Didache as late as the third century and as early as late in the first century. It is not believed to have been written by any of the apostles. It was lost and found again in the 19th century. The copies we have of Clement came from the same finding.

Most scholars agree that the Didache was in four parts and were recomposed by someone much later as one book. 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.

 

[Old_Scholar]

This is a funny post. You want to detail some of the RCC teachings that they deny? You want to really delve into what they say about the Eucharist to find out that what your church teaches is nothing like what the early church taught?

**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.

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

 

[Old_Scholar]

Oh really? Let’s check that out and see what the New Testament and Ignatius say and compare them to see if what you assert is true.

1st Corinthians 10:16-17

“16 The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord? 17 For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread.”

1st Corinthians 11:23-30

"23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. 24 And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. 25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.

26 For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. 27 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. 30 Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep. "

If there is no real presence in the Eucharist, then how can St.Paul warn us not to take it unworthily lest we become guilty of the body and blood of the Lord? That “spiritualization” makes complete nonsense not only of the 6th chapter of John, but of 1st Corinthians 10:16-17 “16 The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord? 17 For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread.”

Now, how can one become guilty of the body and blood of the Lord IF THAT BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD IS NOT REALLY THERE? Now if I make a symbol of a person and then I decide to do bad things to that symbol. I may indeed be guilty of abusing that symbol of the person, but am I guilty of his body and blood? Silly question…of course not! Why? BECAUSE THAT PERSON IS NOT REALLY PRESENT IN THAT SYMBOL is he?
There is the the whole case for why the Eucharist really is the presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ…body and blood, soul and divinity.

In addition to these passages of the New Testament I would also like to add this very clear quote from St. Ignatius of Antioch, who was a close friend and disciple of St. John the evangelist , the bishop of Antioch and a martyr for the faith.

CHAP. VII.–LET US STAND ALOOF FROM SUCH HERETICS.

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer,(7) because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death(11) in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect,(13) that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of(15) them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion[of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved.(16) But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.
LINK
Precisely! Exactly what happened about 500 years ago IMO.

**If you really believe you are drinking Christ’s blood, then you are violating a commandment of God.

Why don’t you read Matthew 26:29 and see if Christ says it is actually His blood?**

 

[Old_Scholar]

this is a reply to Old Scholar. at your protestant church how often do you have communion? do you see the small cracker and the grape juice as a symbol of the body and blood of Jesus?
i have attended protestant communions before and it is really missing the reverence it deserves. to me, it has no meaning whatsoever.

I don’t know what kind of church you visited but I can assure you I have never been to a church that did not make certain the sacrament of communion was a very sincere remembrance of Christ’s commandment.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Have you ever been to any of the 100’s or 1000’s of the Masses throughout the United States. A vast majority distribute the Eucharist under both species.

But it is important to note: His precious Body and His precious Blood are re-united in His Resurrection. Either Species contains both the Body and the Blood. You can’t separate them, no matter how hard you try.

**I know you keep saying that but Christ told us to **eat the bread ****AND drink the wine…The body is not in the wine and the blood is not in the bread. That’s just something taught differently than the Scriptures teach.

 

[Old_Scholar]

NotWorthy:
The Church has taught from the beginning that Jesus is truly Present in the Eucharist, not in some symbolic way that many faiths profess.
I know of no Church that forbids this, and doesn’t practice it. You may be going back several decades my friend, but everywhere I go, it’s offered under both species.

I certainly would agree that Christ is present, but the wine is not actually His blood and the bread is not actually His body. When He told the disciples to do that in remembrance of Him, he then said He would not drink of the fruit of the vine until He could do it with them in His kingdom. He didn’t want us to confuse ourselves.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Thru Adam/Eve for sure … and hopefully Christ & the New Eve ??

Tell us about your church. Are you fearful to reveal it ? Trace your church’s ‘roots’ for us back to the earliest post-Pentecostal period.

We will read and consider with open mind. Give weblinks, books, writings, etc. Give us the written evidence, and tell of the oral traditions of your church. If your church has the Truth … don’t keep its LIGHT covered from us, or it will be taken from you.

My church goes back to the apostles and you only have to possess a proper Bible in order to see what we believe. Not one of the so-called “modern” ones though.

 

[Old_Scholar]

this is a reply to old scholar. so your faith is pentacostal?

i don’t know very much about pentecostals? most protestant churches have communion once a month.

i have even heard that a lot of protestant churches are beginning to say the creeds like the apostle’s creed. by this, i mean the evangelical or megachurches - not like the Lutheran or episcopal.

maybe some are beginning to see the truth and are trying to backtrack and incorporate some of the ways of the Catholic faith into their services.

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

 

[anon52328184]

for some reason old scholar, i don’t think you have ever told us what your church is. you mentioned pentecostal the other day and i asked if that is your faith, but you didn’t answer. why don’t you want to reveal what church you belong to?

 

[Old_Scholar]

O.S. … is this the case … You are Pentecostal / Assembly of God ??

I hope this is the case. I was converted by 2 Pentecostal brethren many years ago. I love the Hillsong Assembly church’s Praise music.

Its been said [by Catholics] that Pentecostals who convert to Catholicism make the most outstanding members [disciples] they encounter in the faith. They also know their bible by heart.

Please verify your church for us …

Also, the Baptist churches say the Apostle Creed … and have for many years.

I have never been to a Baptist Church that said the Apostles Creed. Their Creed is the Bible, and I have been to many.

 

[Old_Scholar]

There have been Popes since the martyrdom of Peter. Who controls your Church?

My church has Christ as the Head.

How about some examples of doctrines in faith and morals that one Pope declared and then another Pope changed.

I’ll give you a few:

Pope Benedict XVI, in 2006 reversed long-standing the Catholic doctrine of Limbo, Limbus Infantium, by declaring it false. He said that children who die without being baptized can go to heaven—not remain in Limbo.

It was Pope Pius X (1903-1914), who in his Catechism declared the Limbo to be a place where the unbaptised “do not have the joy of God but neither do they suffer…they do not deserve Paradise, but neither do they deserve Hell or Purgatory”.

This came after many years of discussion about the fate of children. For the first 1200 years, Catholics taught that babies who died without being baptized went to hell and it was the teaching of Thomas Aquinas and Augustine that kept this subject on a hot burner.

Many in the church however, wonder how a long-standing doctrine can be changed by a pope since their belief does not allow such changes. Usually when a pope changes a doctrine, it is said that he “further defined” it and did not change it.

Another change that had been confirmed by many popes was the claim that salvation is impossible outside the Roman Catholic Church.

As you no doubt know, now the popes say that salvation is possible outside the Roman Catholic Church. This started changing with Pope Pius XII has been confirmed by later popes. One of the principal documents of the Second Vatican Council was the Lumen Gentium. This acknowledged that the Holy Spirit was active in the Christian Churches and communities separated from the Roman Catholic Church. It calls for unity amongst all Christians.

In 1955 Pope Pius XII made several changes to the General Roman Calendar and those changes only lasted four years because Pope John XXIII altered those changes. Maybe this was not a matter of faith and morals but it involves the feasts of the Saints and is very important to the faith.

Another important change was made by Pope Benedict when he changed the way popes were elected. Pope John Paul II had set up a definitive method to assure a deadlock could not happen but Pope Benedict changed Pope John Paul II’s plan.

Pope Pius approved a doctrine of Catholic participation in political democracy, saying Catholics should not participate and Pope John Paul II changed that doctrine in favor of political Democracy for Catholics.

Pope Nicholas I, in the ninth century, issued an order **banning the eating of meat on Friday. ** He declared it a mortal sin to eat meat on Friday. Then in 1966, Pope Paul VI authorized church officials to modify the abstinence of meat requirement, abolishing the ban on eating meat on Friday. All Catholics for hundreds of years had been taught it was a mortal sin to eat meat on Friday and that they would go to hell if that sin remained un-absolved. I wonder about all those people who went to hell for eating meat on Friday. Did the Pope get them out? Maybe it’s like the babies who went to hell prior to the twelfth century when they died.

In 1998, Pope John Paul II apologized to the Jewish people for the church’s past action against them. There are detractors in the Jewish community however that believe the Vatican still teaches antisemitism and remembers that Pope Benedict XVI was a member of Hitler Youth, a paramilitary organization of the German Nazi Party.

Pope John XXIII opened the Ecumenical Council, Vatican II, and insisted the mass continue to be given in Latin. When Pope John XXIII died prior to the end of the council, Pope Paul VI saw to it that the churches began giving the mass in the vernacular.

I could probably find more but those came to mind without much thought.

How does the Catholic Church change Scripture? The Catholic Church is where Scripture comes from. The Protestants are the ones who changed it, to fit their ideologies. All the parishes in the Catholic Church believe the same thing. Protestants are splintered into thousands of little sects because they don’t have the Magisterium and they can’t agree on anything. Why not tell us what sect you belong to?

 

[anon52328184]

O.S. still not answering the question!! i know you are not pentacostal, but what are you?

you have all the information on our religion to attack us, but you cleverly reveal very little about yourself. i find that a little unfair.
especially since you seem to find such glee in attacking the catholic church.

 

[Mea_Culpa]

Here’s a truth about a couple of Old Scholar’s lies, from INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION

THE HOPE OF SALVATION FOR INFANTS
WHO DIE WITHOUT BEING BAPTISED*

Quoted by Somebody who doesn’t know what they’re talking about

I’ll give you a few:

Pope Benedict XVI, in 2006 reversed long-standing the Catholic doctrine of Limbo, Limbus Infantium, by declaring it false. He said that children who die without being baptized can go to heaven—not remain in Limbo.

This theory, elaborated by theologians beginning in the Middle Ages, never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium, even if that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary teaching up until the Second Vatican Council. It remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis. However, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992), the theory of limbo is not mentioned. Rather, the Catechism teaches that infants who die without baptism are entrusted by the Church to the mercy of God, as is shown in the specific funeral rite for such children.

Another change that had been confirmed by many popes was the claim that salvation is impossible outside the Roman Catholic Church.

As you no doubt know, now the popes say that salvation is possible outside the Roman Catholic Church. This started changing with Pope Pius XII has been confirmed by later popes. One of the principal documents of the Second Vatican Council was the Lumen Gentium. This acknowledged that the Holy Spirit was active in the Christian Churches and communities separated from the Roman Catholic Church. It calls for unity amongst all Christians.

1. Catholic tradition has constantly affirmed that the Church is necessary for salvation as the historical mediation of the redemptive work of Jesus Christ. This conviction found its classical expression in the adage of St. Cyprian: “Salus extra Ecclesiam non est”.[87] The Second Vatican Council has reiterated this faith conviction: “Basing itself on Scripture and tradition, it [the Council] teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism (cf. Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5), and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it, or to remain in it” (LG 14). The Council expounded the mystery of the Church at length: “The Church, in Christ, is in the nature of [a] sacrament - a sign and instrument, that is, of communion with God and of the unity among all men” (LG 1); “Just as Christ carried out the work of redemption in poverty and oppression, so the Church is called to follow the same path if she is to communicate the fruits of salvation to men” (LG 8). “Rising from the dead (cf. Rom 6:9) he [Christ] sent his life-giving Spirit upon his disciples and through him set up his Body which is the Church as the universal sacrament of salvation” (LG 48). What is striking in these quotations is the universal extent of the Church’s mediating role in ministering God’s salvation: “the unity among all men”, “salvation of [all] men”, “universal sacrament of salvation”.
2. In the face of new problems and situations and of an exclusive interpretation of the adage: “salus extra ecclesiam non est”,[88] the magisterium, in recent times, has articulated a more nuanced understanding as to the manner in which a saving relationship with the Church can be realized. The Allocution of Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quadam (1854) clearly states the issues involved: “It must, of course, be held as a matter of faith that outside the apostolic Roman Church no one can be saved, that the Church is the only ark of salvation, and that whoever does not enter it, will perish in the flood. On the other hand, it must likewise be held as certain that those who live in ignorance of the true religion, if such ignorance be invincible (Old Scholar), are not subject to any guilt in this matter before the eyes of the Lord”.[89]
3. The Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston (1949) offers further specifications. “To gain eternal salvation, it is not always required that a person be incorporated in reality (reapse) as a member of the Church, but it is necessary that one belong to it at least in desire and longing (voto et desiderio). It is not always necessary that this desire be explicit as it is with catechumens. When one is invincibly ignorant (as Old Scholar is), God also accepts an implicit desire, so called because it is contained in the good disposition of soul by which a person wants his or her will to be conformed to God’s will”.[90]
4. The universal salvific will of God, realized through Jesus Christ, in the Holy Spirit, which includes the Church as the universal sacrament of salvation, finds expression in Vatican II: “All men are called to this Catholic unity which prefigures and promotes universal peace. And in different ways to it belong, or are related: all the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ and finally all mankind called by God’s grace to salvation” (LG 13). That the unique and universal mediation of Jesus Christ is realized in the context of a relationship with the Church is further reiterated by the post-Conciliar papal magisterium. Speaking of those who have not had the opportunity to come to know or accept Gospel revelation – even in their case, the encyclical Redemptoris Missio has this to say: “Salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace … which has a mysterious relationship to the Church”.[91]