Authority of the Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kendy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Kendy:
I thought the rcc teaches that baptized Christians outside the church could still receive salvation?

Kendy
Click to expand...
That is true. It is called “invincible ignorance”…in other words if other baptized Christians do not know that the Catholic Church is the one true Church, they still have access to Heaven. If other Christians are in the state of Mortal sin…i.e. divorce and remarriage (which happens a lot) but they do not understand that this is greivous, (one Has to Understand and knowingly commit sin for it to be mortal) they still have access.

With knowledge comes responsibility…
 
When you are baptized you become part of the Church whether you know it or not.

I have a post which I think will help on the value of truth which I will try and type up for you, because that is a big part of this issue for you.

God Bless
Scylla
 
Honestly…it would be really scary to be a pastor of a protestant church…to me it feels that way. You are in Charge of teaching everyone in your flock, what God expects of you…what a burden! I think pastors are held accountable moreso than parishoners…I read a scripture that said as much but can’t remember where…point being…Protestant ministers need our prayers!

This really goes along with authority…I promise 😃
 
Sounds like you still have a lot of reading to do. After all of that, the only thing left is: A leap of faith. At some point, you have to jump across the river with your leap of faith, and put it to bed and give it a rest. Rest in the knowledge that Jesus founded a Church to preserve His teachings and you are, at last, a member of it. Imperfect as some of her members are, she’s still here, guiding us as He promised, after 2000 years. Finally, no more endless searching and being blown about by the “winds of many doctrines” as has been quoted. It’s a wonderful feeling and I pray that you truly find it.
 
Truth is central to the issue of authority in the Church, as what is the real value of truth.

A relationship with God depends on what truth He has revealed to us. And we can all agree that truth is unchanging. So in order to follow God faithfully any religion that leads to God must hold to absolute truth, or else they are in some way not being completely true to the Gospel no matter how loving or sincere they are.

“There is another characteristic of truth, which should be examined. Truth MUST be unchanging. Truth can NOT change its value anymore than God can go against His own word or promise. As God is THE source of truth, once God declares something to be true, it is settled forever. Therefore, truth must be consistent, both with regard to itself and with other truths.” V.Lewis

Jesus said a house divided against itself can not stand. If I accept as completely true other denominations regardless of doctrines no matter how small the differences I am ignoring truth. Though this is offensive to some people it must be said. Now I wont say they are wrong, I will just say that they have some of the truth.

Truth should be consistant and should be passed down from God, this leads to how is it passed down? Is it passed down from a Church founded by Jesus or by a Church founded by a person? In a sincere search for truth we should look for a consistant united body of truth, and this is not based on man because man is sinful.

This is why I can look at the Catholic Church and even compare the Pope’s statements with the Church’s belief because he is just a man, my spiritual father who I love but just a man. This is why there can be very sinful hateful Catholics but is this really following the understanding of faith that we should follow or are these just sinful people who say they are Catholic.

I suggest you read Saint Francis De Sales the Catholic Controversy
angelfire.com/ms/seanie/fds/fds_church0.html
It is free here, and about a 15 minute read. You can read it online or copy\paste or print. Very good stuff.

In Christ
Scylla
 
40.png
Kendy:
Hi Hurst,

Couldn’t these passages refer to believers in Christ. I always thought, he that rejected you rejected me would include me as a protestant as I tried to witness to others. Does the Holy Spirit empower all believers, catholic or not?

Certainly, there is evidence of it around us. Am I to believe that Billy Graham has not been called by God to preach the gospel? that he is, in fact, acting contrary to God’s will?

Kendy
Click to expand...
How could these passages refer simply to “believers in Christ” when all non-Catholics reject at least some of what Jesus taught? For example, some reject the Eucharist, believing only in a bread and wine memorial.

I cannot answer you about Billy Graham other than to say, since he is not a Catholic, his Christianity is lacking in some ways. How could the Holy Spirit call him to preach the parts of his belief that are not the truth?

The Catholic Church has the fullness of truth because it has never deviated from what it received from Jesus, only rather, developed our understanding of some things.
 
40.png
hurst:

  1. *]Membership of the Church is necessary for all men for salvation (De fide)

    hurst
Click to expand...

  1. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church, promulgated by HH Pope John Paul II, of happy memory, as a “sure norm” for teaching the faith.

    818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272 819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

    838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist."324

    Protestants who perform Trinitarian water baptism and who profess faith in Christ are joined to the Catholic Church, albeit imperfectly.
 
40.png
Lillith:
That is true. It is called “invincible ignorance”…in other words if other baptized Christians do not know that the Catholic Church is the one true Church, they still have access to Heaven. If other Christians are in the state of Mortal sin…i.e. divorce and remarriage (which happens a lot) but they do not understand that this is greivous, (one Has to Understand and knowingly commit sin for it to be mortal) they still have access.

With knowledge comes responsibility…
Click to expand...
If you read the Catechism, invincible ignorance does not apply to our Orthodox or Protestant brethren. They are covered/discussed pages before “invincible ignorance” and in an entirely different section. In the context employed by the Catechism, invincible ignorance is only addressed concerning those who have never heard of Christ AT ALL, not those who’ve heard and believed and been baptized, but who are not formally Catholic. It is important to remember that the Church distinguishes between formal and material heretics. Martin Luther was a formal heretic, for example, and as such was excommunicated. Lutherans today are material heretics, who “cannot be charged with the sin of serperation.” They’ve never been Catholics in the formal sense, unless they’re former Catholics who’ve left (and indeed, that would be “formal” heresy).
 
40.png
JKirkLVNV:
If you read the Catechism, invincible ignorance does not apply to our Orthodox or Protestant brethren. They are covered/discussed pages before “invincible ignorance” and in an entirely different section. In the context employed by the Catechism, invincible ignorance is only addressed concerning those who have never heard of Christ AT ALL, not those who’ve heard and believed and been baptized, but who are not formally Catholic. It is important to remember that the Church distinguishes between formal and material heretics. Martin Luther was a formal heretic, for example, and as such was excommunicated. Lutherans today are material heretics, who “cannot be charged with the sin of serperation.” They’ve never been Catholics in the formal sense, unless they’re former Catholics who’ve left (and indeed, that would be “formal” heresy).
Click to expand...
Thank you for clearing that up for me…that’s why I’m here…I’ll re-visit the catechism…I must have read too fast and meshed the two together :blessyou:
 
40.png
JKirkLVNV:
In the context employed by the Catechism, invincible ignorance is only addressed concerning those who have never heard of Christ AT ALL, not those who’ve heard and believed and been baptized, but who are not formally Catholic.
Click to expand...
Invincible ignorance could also apply to those who indeed did hear of Christ, but – for various reasons – whose conscience was not convicted of Christ’s messiahship. For instance, if a missionary tells some natives about Christ, while simultaneously stealing food from the tribe, then if the tribe decided to reject the missionary and Christ, because of the crime the missionary did, that tribe could be deemed invincibly ignorant. The tribe was verbally told of Christ, but Christ was not spiritually shared.
 
Here are my top 2 books (assuming you already have an NRSV catholic bible and the catechism).
  1. Born Fundamentist, Born again Catholic - David Currie (theology)
  2. Four Witnesses - Rod Bennett (history)
The burden of proof should fall on the protestant not the Catholic. Ultimately, I’ve found the strongest arguments for Catholicism to be taking a leadership role in the family by being a servant. That is something that can’t be debated. Good luck, you have truth on your side.
 
Kendy, I think you are focusing on the most important issue. If you accept the authority of the Pope and Magisterium, all other issues disappear. If you can’t accept the authority of the Pope and Magisterium, all other issues seem insurmountable.

Others on this thread and other similar threads have done a good job of articulating the Affirmative Position (reasons and rationale for why accepting the Authority is the intention of Christ). I’d like to throw in it from the Negative Position (reasons why rejecting the Authority is contrary to Christ’s intent).

First, if you reject the Pope and Magisterium, on what grounds do you accept the Bible? Remember it was almost 400 years after Christ died that the Pope and Magisterium canonized the Bible (including what is included and rejecting what is not like the Gospel of Thomas among other “scriptures.”). This is a Pope and Magisterium that taught and evangelized from Oral Tradition and rested its standing on Apostolic Succession. This is a Pope and Magisterium that had been saying Mass not only daily since Christ was taken to Heaven but said it daily during the Synod that the Bible was canonized.

Second, if you reject the Pope and Magisterium, what are the practical implications to your ability to understand His revelation to His people? You have to either be your own Magisterium or you have to delegate that to your Pastor. Do you really think that you or your Pastor have sufficient training to inerrantly interpret Holy Scripture verses the Magisterium of the Catholic Church? Remember that the Magisterium is without beginning and end. Not one teaching of the Church taught ex cathedra in 2,000 years has been “reinterpreted”. Compare that to the changing “interpretations” within your denomination over the past 50 years. (Incidentally, I don’t know your denomination but I know of none that hasn’t “modernized” itself with a new understanding of the “truth” that conflicts with its past understanding.

Third, (this is closely related to the second), if you don’t submit to the authority of the Pope and Magisterium, to whom will you submit? I know many will say “The Bible” or “Christ” but that requires you to also interpret what you think is being taught. I don’t know one single person who doesn’t “interpret” according to their self-interest. If you want to have sex 30 days a month w/ your husband, you will interpret that contraception is ok. If you want to have sex with a person of your own gender, you will interpret that homosexuality is ok. If you want to amass a personal fortune, you will rationalize greed. If you like chocolate or alcohol, you will rationalize your excessive indulgence. If you don’t like the smell of the homeless, you will rationalize not ministering to them. In short, your weaknesses will cause you to “interpret” the Bible to mean what you want it to mean. By submitting to the Teachings of the Church, you have no latitude to make the Bible adjust to your “desires”.

Finally, (this is an Affirmative argument 🙂 that I think hasn’t really been articulated at least in this thread) Christ promised us when He ascended to Heaven that “And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.” The Teachings of the Church force you to submit to an interpretation of Scripture that has remained consistent since Christ departed us. Can you think of any other place that He could be with us in a way that has withstood the test of time? You certainly can’t compare it to any denomination that seems to “reinvent” itself with every changing temporal whim?
 
It wasn’t until I started to read the writings of the Early Church Fathers that the I understood the historical evidence supporting the idea that Christ founded one united visible Church on earth.

There is a three volume set of early writings called Faith of the Early Fathers compiled by William Jurgens.

The best book I have read on the subject of the authority Christ gave to Peter is Upon This Rock by Stephen K. Ray.

I am now convinced there is ample evidence supporting the belief that for the first one thousand years of christianity, there was only one united catholic Church, founded by Christ upon the rock of Peter.
Then we had the East/West split. So for the next 1/2 century there were only TWO recognized christians churches.

Then we had the “reformation” that was not a reformation at all. It was a schism. From that point onwards we have had split after split after split.
It just happened again in my hometown…a local non-denominational church has just endured conflict and a split. Part of the congregation has formed another “reformed” church and appointed their own pastor.

I am very comfortable sticking with the Church that has been there from the very beginning, warts and all.
 
40.png
Kendy:
I thought the rcc teaches that baptized Christians outside the church could still receive salvation?
Click to expand...
As St. Augustine says, membership in the Church is primarily by the heart. If there are baptised Christians somewhere, then they are in the Church unless they at some point reject the Church.

Thus, any baptised child is considered Catholic, regardless of the fact that their parents might be protestant or something else. However, after they reach the age of reason, a different logic applies. Adults are capable of rejecting the faith, including those who are nominally Catholic.

hurst
 
40.png
Kendy:
So, I need you to tell me why I should believe in the church’s authority? Why should I overlook all the horrible things that the church has done throughout the centuries (and don’t pretend they haven’t!!)? How can I know that the church has never erred doctrinally or changed its teachings? So, do your thing 👍 .Kendy
Click to expand...
Hi Kendy - Congrats on your kids! 8 of them, eh? Do you already have them, or are you planning for them? Either way, God bless you!

Anyway, I want to take a crack at your authority questions.
So, I need you to tell me why I should believe in the church’s authority?
Click to expand...
For this you need to go to the very beginning. The Bible is the place for this. I know that you will appreciate Biblical truths. I’ll pick out a few passages because there are too many of them for this forum.

Let’s start with Ephesians 2:19-20. Paul here is speaking to the congregation about who they are and how they are part of the church. These verses I mention read “19 Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner*stone,” *KJV

Verse 20 shows what the Catholic Church has been saying since the beginning…built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets.

So, given that the Church has this apostolic foundation, let’s look at what kind of authority the apostles have…

Matthew 28:18-20 reads…
18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”

Jesus’ command here to the apostles is to carry on His work and bring “all nations” to Him. The authority is passed from the Father through Him to the Apostles.

Also, in Matthew 18:17-18 we find authority established to His followers…
17 And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.
18 “Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

I could go on with apostolic authority, but I think you may now get the point. There is much more, too.

So how does this authority move to others and not just stop at the apostles? Let’s look at Acts 1:20. Here, Judas is being replaced by Matthias, a decision made by Peter. (Hold onto that thought!)

Acts 1:20 20 “For it is written in the Book of Psalms:
‘ Let his dwelling place be desolate, And let no one live in it’;a] and, ‘ Let**(“http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts 1:20;&version=50;#fen-NKJV-26938b”)]another take his office.’c]
Footnotes:
**Acts 1:20 Psalm 69:25 **

**Acts 1:20 Psalm 109:8 **

**Acts 1:20 Greek *episkopen, *position of overseer **

Notice the footnotes. The word episkopen is translated in AngloSaxon as BISHOP. (Drop the first “E”, the “K” and last “EN”) So Judas is replaced with someone who will be an “overseer”, or a person with authority. Authority is thus transfered to Matthias, the first BISHOP.

Peter and the apostles acting on the authority granted them by Jesus have replaced Judas with an overseer Bishop, Matthias. They are concerned at this point with only Judas’ replacement. However, Christianity caught fire and spread quickly. Twelve overseers simply is not realistic. So what do they do?
 
Let’s look at Paul. Paul was originally Saul and in Acts Ch. 9:1-9 we see that Jesus came to him in a vision and had him stop persecuting Christians to become one of the greatest of the Christian teachers. But Paul did not receive authority from Jesus dirrectly. He need to obtain it another way. Continuing Acts, we see in vss. 10-19 that Saul (Paul) needed two things to happen: baptism and the “laying on of hands”. (Vss. 12, 17, and 18)

So now with these two things, baptism and “Laying on hands” Paul receives authority to preach in the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 19-22).

So does Paul have authority to do other things? We know that he started church communities in Ephesias, Phillipi and Thesselonia. But, after beginning these churches, who did he leave in authority?

Let’s have a look at Paul’s Second Letter to Timothy, ch1:6…

Therefore I remind you to stir up the gift of God which is in you through the laying on of my hands.

Paul layed hands upon Timothy. So what about this? Timothy is now the Bishop of this church community. We see this in Chapter 4 of the same letter.

1 I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead ata] His appearing and His kingdom: 2 Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; 4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables. 5 But you be watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.

We see here Apostolic succession at work. Authority is being transfered from one Bishop to another through the laying on of hands. The Catholic Church has never altered or veered from this practice. Nor have any of the other earliest churches.

Let’s look at apostolic succession…

Peter’s successors cfpeople.org/Books/Pope/CFPtoc.htm
sor.cua.edu/Patriarchate/PatriarchsChronList.html

Mark’s successors stmarycoptorthodox.org/patriarchs.htm

Andrew’s successors
ec-patr.gr/en/list/default.htm

Apostle Thomas
acns.com/~mm9n/marthoma/marthoma.htm
and AD 52

James, the Lord’s brother
nasrani-patriarchate.org/eng/

You see here apostolic succession, as documented in the Bible still continuing.

Now all that is left is whether or not you accept Peter to be the Head of Christ’s Church here on earth. (Use that thought now!)

I’m tired of writing for now so I’m off. I hope this helps you along your path.

God bless,
Subrosa
 
I guess it’s a little late since you posted yesterday and it would seem that you’re meeting with your pastor today. Go to the home page and download the flyers if you want to get to the heart of the matter.
 
Kendy,
Others have posted such wonderful arguments… I could never complete with what they’ve already said. I just wanted to tell you that I think I know I you feel because I was right where you are about 2 years ago. I felt that God was calling me to the Catholic Church (gasp! Who BECOMES Catholic??!) and I kicked & screamed for months… throwing every arguement for why I shouldn’t right back at Him & everyone on this forum. I struggled a bit with the authority of the Pope - but what I kept coming back to was that nothing that the Pope said could contradict the Bible. Some stuff may not be in the Bible… but nothing could contradict. That was of comfort to me. Whereas as a Protestant, I was taught several things that contradicted the Bible… John ch. 6 - the Real Presence of Jesus in Communion for example. Also - (can’t recall where it is) but the very SCRIPTURAL concept of confessing our sins to those who’ve been given authority over us. Then there was the fact that for centruries & centruries - all Christians WERE Catholic… that was it… no Methodists - no Baptists - no Mormons… if any of those other faiths were 100% correct, why would God have lets hundreds & hundreds of years go by before letting one of those Churches start?

Oh I could go on & on… but bottom line… this is something you - with lots of prayer - need to decide for yourself. It does sort of take a leap of faith. Of course your very loving Christian friends are not going to understand… and neither is your Pastor. If they understood, they too would become Catholic, no? I faced the same thing.

One last thing… maybe you’re thinking (as I did) what the heck am I getting myself into? Why bother… I’m a Christian… good enough. Look at all I have to give up…(friends - church I loved etc.) and for what? Let me just say… IT IS SOOOOOOOO WORTH IT. I am so happy now that I’m on the other side. The peace that comes from being obedient and KNOWING I am right where God wanted me… I wouldn’t trade this for anything.

God Bless you,
CM

P.S. I still love Billy Graham.
PPS. I don’t want 8 kids either! 😛
 
40.png
Orionthehunter:
Third, (this is closely related to the second), if you don’t submit to the authority of the Pope and Magisterium, to whom will you submit? I know many will say “The Bible” or “Christ” but that requires you to also interpret what you think is being taught. I don’t know one single person who doesn’t “interpret” according to their self-interest. If you want to have sex 30 days a month w/ your husband, you will interpret that contraception is ok. If you want to have sex with a person of your own gender, you will interpret that homosexuality is ok. If you want to amass a personal fortune, you will rationalize greed. If you like chocolate or alcohol, you will rationalize your excessive indulgence. If you don’t like the smell of the homeless, you will rationalize not ministering to them. In short, your weaknesses will cause you to “interpret” the Bible to mean what you want it to mean. By submitting to the Teachings of the Church, you have no latitude to make the Bible adjust to your “desires”.
Click to expand...
But if I am really submitted to the Lord and I want nothing more than to be open to God’s will, and I pray fervently daily that His will be done, could the Holy Spirit not guide me to the correct interpretation of scripture outside of the church? Certainly, people can allow self-interest to blind them to the truth and the Holy Spirit, but where was the Holy Spirit during the inquisition? Was that God’s will? Where was the Holy Spirit when the church condemned Galelio (sp)?
40.png
Orionthehunter:
Finally, (this is an Affirmative argument 🙂 that I think hasn’t really been articulated at least in this thread) Christ promised us when He ascended to Heaven that “And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.” The Teachings of the Church force you to submit to an interpretation of Scripture that has remained consistent since Christ departed us. Can you think of any other place that He could be with us in a way that has withstood the test of time? You certainly can’t compare it to any denomination that seems to “reinvent” itself with every changing temporal whim?
Click to expand...
Orion, I don’t know how to respond to that because I don’t know that. After all, that’s my question. Protestants certainly believe that the church has reversed itself. And I frankly, don’t enough about the church’s history to know that.

But anyway, thank you for your response. Your answers were excellent:).

Kendy
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top