Authority of the Church

[Kendy]

hurst:

As a Protestant taking upon themselves the mission to preach, how do they forgive and retain sins? From what I have seen, they don’t. They merely assert they are forgiven, in Jesus’ name, as though it were automatic. But did John the Baptist automatically allow anyone to receive his baptism of repentance? No.

Matthew 3:7 And seeing many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them: Ye brood of vipers, who hath shewed you to flee from the wrath to come? 8 Bring forth therefore fruit worthy of penance. 9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham for our father. For I tell you that God is able of these stones to raise up children to Abraham. 10 For now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that doth not yield good fruit, shall be cut down, and cast into the fire.

This is just one example of something that not any believer can do.

It would include whoever is sent in His name. The context of one passage shows it is not to anyone.

Luke 10:1 And after these things the Lord appointed also other seventy-two: and he sent them two and two before his face into every city and place whither he himself was to come. 2 And he said to them: The harvest indeed is great, but the labourers are few. Pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he send labourers into his harvest. 3 Go: Behold I send you as lambs among wolves. … 16 He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me. 17 And the seventy-two returned with joy

What applies to any believer is this:

Matthew 10:40 He that receiveth you, receiveth me: and he that receiveth me, receiveth him that sent me. 41 He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet, shall receive the reward of a prophet: and he that receiveth a just man in the name of a just man, shall receive the reward of a just man. 42 And whosoever shall give to drink to one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, amen I say to you, he shall not lose his reward.

Can you please elaborate on why there is a clear distinction you are making here.

hurst:

This is not the same as hearing unto obedience, as shown here

Romans 1:5 By whom we have received grace and apostleship for obedience to the faith, in all nations, for his name;

When he says “we received”, why do Protestants tend to arrogate it to themselves as if it were given to all believers so to act? It is unfounded, because clearly not all have received it.

1 Corinthians 12:29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all doctors?

I am inclined to agree. Certainly, my pastor has a calling that I don’t have and a responsibility that I don’t have.

hurst:

There is clearly an office of ministry that not all believers have

Acts 1:25 To take the place of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas hath by transgression fallen, that he might go to his own place.

Acts 6:2 Then the twelve calling together the multitude of the disciples, said: It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables. 3 Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. 4 But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.

Acts 26:16 But rise up, and stand upon thy feet: for to this end have I appeared to thee, that I may make thee a minister

Col 4:17 And say to Archippus: Take heed to the ministry which thou hast received in the Lord, that thou fulfill it

Instead, they risk falling under this category:

2 Corinthians 11:13 For such false apostles are deceitful workmen, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.

(continued)

 

[Kendy]

hurst:

Who was Jesus speaking to when He said that?

Certainly, as a Church, we do the work of the Lord. But the Church itself has government, for God is a God of order. It is wrong for us to think we can act on our own in the name of Christ. We must be sent. Even after Paul was sent, he went to meet with Peter first.

Besides, if any one had the same authority, they might object to another giving orders, as Paul did:

1 Corinthians 16:1 Now concerning the collections that are made for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, so do ye also.

Titus 1:5 For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and shouldest ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed thee:

Clearly Paul was in charge, and delegated tasks as well. Should another believer start doing things in the name of the general authority they thought Christ gave before He ascended? Not if it conflicts with the government of the visible Church.

hurst

Hurst, good points. I am however wondering about Paul’s authority in relations to Peter. Yes, I know what Jesus said to Peter, but it doesn’t seem like in the book of Acts, everyone is walking around like Peter is in charge. In fact, it seems like Paul was more “everybody’s boss” than Peter?

Kendy

 

[St.Eric]

Kendy:

St. Eric,

I have really searched my heart about this and I don’t think this some rebellion against authority. It’s really about finding the right authority, Godly authority. Because if the rcc does not have Godly authority, then they will lead me away from Christ. But if they do and I know that, then I will submit to it even if I occasionally whine .

Kendy

I understand your yearning for the truth. I had and have the same yearning. What really did it for me was when I looked at the unbroken line of Popes that the church can trace all the way back to St. Peter himself. Everything else is an offshoot. We are the main body- everything else has broken off from the main body. While the main body has remained the same- not bowing to heresy. Even the orthodox church didn’t break off until the 11th century. Up until that point, they too were in communion with Rome. St. Ignatius of Antioch said the head of the church is in Rome.
As far as bad things in history committed *some of the members * *of the church * , it shows a couple of things. 1) yes, there are some bad people in the church , there always will be- The wheat and the chaff are together. 2)It shows that the Pope and all of the members are not impeccable. We can all still sin. I assume you know the difference between infallablity and impeccability. 3) And for me this is the strongest point: the past horros show that the H.S. really is protecting the Church from the gates of Hell. With all of the historical attrocities and past corruption, the church would have surely broken apart if it was a merely human isntitution. The H.S. has kept her alive and has not let evil forces from within or without topple her. think about that one for a while.

 

[Kendy]

Yes, it’s clear that different people have different duties. I think most protestants, besides maybe Quakers, would agree. But I submit to my pastor’s authority because I believe (and he certainly believes) that he has been called to pastor this church.
I certainly believe that the Holy Spirit works through the Hyde Park Vineyard, and if that’s the case does that not legitimate his authority? Is the Holy Spirit contributing to choas?

Kendy

Subrosa:

Hi Kendy -

We all have received the “laying on of hands”, but for different purposes. In the RCC I received the holy Spirit with the laying on of hands. We call this “Confirmation”. This is seperate from “Ordination” in which the laying on of hands acts differently. Different prayers are presented to the holy Spirit in order to obtain these functions.

You must admit that in the Bible the Bishops, Deacons and presbyters have different roles than that of the rest of the congregation. Read James 5:13-15. The presbyters have a specific duty to perform. They must be summoned! Not just anyone can perform thier duties.

Please, show me where just any person at all can perform the duties of Bishop, Deacon or Presbyter.

Subrosa

(I’m off to work now. I’m going to be late! Seeya soon! )

 

[Kendy]

St.Eric:

I understand your yearning for the truth. I had and have the same yearning. What really did it for me was when I looked at the unbroken line of Popes that the church can trace all the way back to St. Peter himself. Everything else is an offshoot. We are the main body- everything else has broken off from the main body. While the main body has remained the same- not bowing to heresy. Even the orthodox church didn’t break off until the 11th century. Up until that point, they too were in communion with Rome. St. Ignatius of Antioch said the head of the church is in Rome.
As far as bad things in history committed *some of the members * *of the church * , it shows a couple of things. 1) yes, there are some bad people in the church , there always will be- The wheat and the chaff are together. 2)It shows that the Pope and all of the members are not impeccable. We can all still sin. I assume you know the difference between infallablity and impeccability. 3) And for me this is the strongest point: the past horros show that the H.S. really is protecting the Church from the gates of Hell. With all of the historical attrocities and past corruption, the church would have surely broken apart if it was a merely human isntitution. The H.S. has kept her alive and has not let evil forces from within or without topple her. think about that one for a while.

But the church certainly has broken apart, even if it’s from the main body. All the protestant denomination is certainly evidence of this. And I think we are all, catholics and protestants, worse off as a result.

Kendy

 

[hurst]

Kendy:

Well, I asked my pastor about this this morning and he said, we should confess to each other (I can’t remember the verse right now). Because we believe in a priesthood of believers, we believe that we should confess our sins to one another.

But that doesn’t answer my scenario of someone refusing to forgive. Did you think about that? Christ gave power to forgive and retain sins. That requires some kind of order among those with that power, to avoid confusion of validity etc.

The verse you are thinking of is:

James 5:16 Confess therefore your sins one to another: and pray one for another, that you may be saved. For the continual prayer of a just man availeth much.

However, that is in the context of prayer over the sick:

James 5:14 Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. 15 And the prayer of faith shall save the sick man: and the Lord shall raise him up: and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him.

Thus, to confess “one to another” may just as well refer to the sick one confessing to the priest.

Other passages:

1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all iniquity.

Acts 19:18 And many of them that believed, came confessing and declaring their deeds.

These don’t necessarily refer to the sacrament of Confession, but appear to be the conscious acknowledgement resulting in repentance.

But the very fact that Christ gave power to forgive sins shows that there is more to it than just the casual interaction between non-ordained believers. However, in the absence of the sacrament, Christ is certainly able to come Himself and bring forgiveness.

hurst

 

[Elzee]

Kendy:

Ok, it has come to my attention, that I am not good at joke telling. I am sorry. the eight kids comment was a joke! I am sorry. It won’t won’t happen again! Please, let it go.

Kendy

Maybe I have a warped sense of humor, but I got a chuckle out of it.
And, I love kids as much as anyone else, am fully committed to the Church and its teachings, but I gotta tell you, the prospect of having 8 kids would scare me too! That doesn’t diminish the fact I believe they’re a gift from God - it just means - whoa! - what a responsibility to be entrusted with!

God bless you Kendy as you continue your journey home (hopefully!). You’re in my prayers.

 

[jdc1084]

We must be sent. Even after Paul was sent, he went to meet with Peter first.

But I thought he went to Peter to ‘scold’ him in a sense.

Galations 2:
[11] But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
[12] For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
[13] And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
[14] But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

I’m not trying to say Peter was bad; but he could slip just like everyone else. Now, I gather that Peter was the first Pope or the person the current Pope is based after. I also gather that today, even if the Pope commits a sin, his interpretations from the Bible are always from God. But if the Pope is based after Peter who did indeed slip up like a normal person, how can we say that the current Pope and the authority that comes with him, is always correct? What is yall’s opinion?

 

[St.Eric]

Kendy:

Yes, it’s clear that different people have different duties. I think most protestants, besides maybe Quakers, would agree. But I submit to my pastor’s authority because I believe (and he certainly believes) that he has been called to pastor this church.
I certainly believe that the Holy Spirit works through the Hyde Park Vineyard, and if that’s the case does that not legitimate his authority? Is the Holy Spirit contributing to choas?

Kendy

I say this with all charity. No the H.S. is not contributing to chaos. God is the author of truth and not confusion. The people who do not beleive in the authority and authenticity are contributing to the chaos. This is exactly where private interepreation of the scriptures leads us- to thousands of denominations all claiming to teach the true bible but when someone disagrees, they splinter off and come up with another denomination.

 

[St.Eric]

Kendy:

But the church certainly has broken apart, even if it’s from the main body. All the protestant denomination is certainly evidence of this. And I think we are all, catholics and protestants, worse off as a result.

Kendy

True we are all worse off. But the main body of the Roman Catholic Church has not changed since the keys were given to Peter. This is precisley the point. This is the one true body that remains unchanged- even with dissenters leaving and trying to start other demoninations.

 

[hurst]

Kendy:

I am however wondering about Paul’s authority in relations to Peter.

It comes directly from Christ

Gal 1:1 Paul, an apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, … 11 For I give you to understand, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. 12 For neither did I receive it of man, nor did I learn it; but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. … 15 But when it pleased him, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace, 16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the Gentiles, immediately I condescended not to flesh and blood. 17 Neither went I to Jerusalem, to the apostles who were before me: but I went into Arabia, and again I returned to Damascus. 18 Then, after three years, I went to Jerusalem, to see Peter, and I tarried with him fifteen days. 19 But other of the apostles I saw none, saving James the brother of the Lord. 20 Now the things which I write to you, behold, before God, I lie not. 21 Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. 22 And I was unknown by face to the churches of Judea, which were in Christ: 23 But they had heard only: He, who persecuted us in times past, doth now preach the faith which once he impugned: 24 And they glorified God in me.

Romans 15:20 And I have so preached this gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man’s foundation.

He was sent to preach to the gentiles. Peter did not do that initially, for they were initially called to the Jews. But as the Jews rejected the Gospel, the way was opened up to the gentiles. and this came to a head when Peter had the vision before meeting with Cornelius.

Kendy:

Yes, I know what Jesus said to Peter, but it doesn’t seem like in the book of Acts, everyone is walking around like Peter is in charge. In fact, it seems like Paul was more “everybody’s boss” than Peter?

That’s because it details so much of Paul’s mission to the gentiles.

Acts 9:15 And the Lord said to him: Go thy way; for this man is to me a vessel of election, to carry my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel. …

Acts 13:45 And the Jews seeing the multitudes, were filled with envy, and contradicted those things which were said by Paul, blaspheming. 46 Then Paul and Barnabas said boldly: To you it behoved us first to speak the word of God: but because you reject it, and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold we turn to the Gentiles. 47 For so the Lord hath commanded us: I have set thee to be the light of the Gentiles; that thou mayest be for salvation unto the utmost part of the earth.

Even today, bishops in charge of dioceses are given a lot of relative automony. But it is one faith. Paul and Peter did not teach a conflicting Gospel.

hurst

 

[hurst]

jdc1084:

But I thought he went to Peter to ‘scold’ him in a sense.

Galations 2:
[11] But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

Before this, Paul went to Peter in Jerusalem

Gal 1:18 Then, after three years, I went to Jerusalem, to see Peter, and I tarried with him fifteen days.

jdc1084:

I’m not trying to say Peter was bad; but he could slip just like everyone else.

True.

jdc1084:

Now, I gather that Peter was the first Pope or the person the current Pope is based after. I also gather that today, even if the Pope commits a sin, his interpretations from the Bible are always from God. But if the Pope is based after Peter who did indeed slip up like a normal person, how can we say that the current Pope and the authority that comes with him, is always correct? What is yall’s opinion?

Because he is only said to be correct when he acts officially, not personally. The Pope is not impeccable.

There is a case where a particular past Pope made a comment in a private letter that exposed him as a heretic. That person acting as Pope was later denounced as a heretic by a later Pope. Yet, none of the official acts or teachings were affected.

hurst

 

[Kendy]

hurst:

But that doesn’t answer my scenario of someone refusing to forgive. Did you think about that? Christ gave power to forgive and retain sins. That requires some kind of order among those with that power, to avoid confusion of validity etc.

The verse you are thinking of is:

James 5:16 Confess therefore your sins one to another: and pray one for another, that you may be saved. For the continual prayer of a just man availeth much.

However, that is in the context of prayer over the sick:

James 5:14 Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. 15 And the prayer of faith shall save the sick man: and the Lord shall raise him up: and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him.

Thus, to confess “one to another” may just as well refer to the sick one confessing to the priest.

Other passages:

1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all iniquity.

Acts 19:18 And many of them that believed, came confessing and declaring their deeds.

These don’t necessarily refer to the sacrament of Confession, but appear to be the conscious acknowledgement resulting in repentance.

But the very fact that Christ gave power to forgive sins shows that there is more to it than just the casual interaction between non-ordained believers. However, in the absence of the sacrament, Christ is certainly able to come Himself and bring forgiveness.

hurst

Can a catholic priest deny someone absolution and if he did, what if I just went to another priest?

Kendy

 

[Kendy]

I am glad I made someone laugh .

Kendy

Elzee:

Maybe I have a warped sense of humor, but I got a chuckle out of it.
And, I love kids as much as anyone else, am fully committed to the Church and its teachings, but I gotta tell you, the prospect of having 8 kids would scare me too! That doesn’t diminish the fact I believe they’re a gift from God - it just means - whoa! - what a responsibility to be entrusted with!

God bless you Kendy as you continue your journey home (hopefully!). You’re in my prayers.

 

[scylla]

Wow Kendy

Your pastor seems like a cool guy, much like my last pastor at Calvary Chapel. I would keep in touch with him as I do with my friend the pastor.

Unfortunately my friend got voted out and no longer is the pastor but is such a kind and good man that I do keep in touch with him.

I am in contact with the current pastor of Calvary Chapel where we used to live, he is a good man too.

Authority is very important or else Jesus was just wasting His time when He established His Church. If there was no way to determine what was absolute truth then Jesus would be misleading us by emphasizing that truth was important.
Because things are either true or they are not true. There is no belief in truth, there are facts, we choose to believe them. But whether or not we believe in facts such is our own choosing, this doesn’t change truth.
This is why different interpretations of the Bible is wrong and we should have one interpretation of the Bible or else we deny some truth, and the fact that there is absolute truth.
The above was a very important part of a conversation I had last night with a Jehovah’s Witness, who insisted their beliefs were only from the Bible and it was clear. This is the very example of how authority is necessary or else his interpretation is just as valid as mine.
(let me stress that I do not believe that one bit but as a rule that is what we are reduced to if we reject authority)

I hope this doesn’t sound harsh I am just trying to illustrate how important truth is.

God Bless
Scylla

 

[RiverRock]

Kendy:

Because if the rcc does not have Godly authority, then they will lead me away from Christ.

Kendy, I have not read every one of your posts, but have you ever been to a Mass? I just cannot fathom how anyone could attend Mass and feel we are being lead FROM Christ. Check out the guy on the wall. Eating his body, drinking his blood, the Mass is one long prayer. It’s all there, as he commanded.

 

[Kendy]

RiverRock:

Kendy, I have not read every one of your posts, but have you ever been to a Mass? I just cannot fathom how anyone could attend Mass and feel we are being lead FROM Christ. Check out the guy on the wall. Eating his body, drinking his blood, the Mass is one long prayer. It’s all there, as he commanded.

I was raised catholic so I have been to many masses.

Kendy

 

[bear06]

Kendy:

Not sure what you are directing me to. I have looked at some of the stuff on the site.

Kendy

If you look at the left side of the screen you’ll see “library”. This contains the CA tracts which are short, concise answers to some of the topics you have mentioned. Usually they are much more coherent than we are!

 

[St.Eric]

Kendy,

Sorry if I am annoying you with all of these posts but I gotta do it. I was thinking this evening that you already accept the authority of the Catholic Church and so does every other bible believing protestant. Truly without the CC there would be no New Testament. If you believe in the NT as the inspired word of God, then you also beleive in the CC authority since without her you would not have a bible. If you are skeptical about the Church’s authority, then you should also be skeptical about the bible and if the books therein are REALLY the right books. After all, a lot of gospels and letters were rejected in the cannon. Who knows, if you don’t buy the Church’s authority, there is a good chance she got the bible wrong and the books therein are the wrong ones.

 

[Subrosa]

Kendy:

Yes, it’s clear that different people have different duties. I think most protestants, besides maybe Quakers, would agree. But I submit to my pastor’s authority because I believe (and he certainly believes) that he has been called to pastor this church.
I certainly believe that the Holy Spirit works through the Hyde Park Vineyard, and if that’s the case does that not legitimate his authority? Is the Holy Spirit contributing to choas?

Kendy

Hi Kendy

I know that you submit to your pastor’s authority, as well you should. But as far as any real authority, APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY is passed on by the laying on of hands, or ordination, by a bishop who has himself received authority in the same manner. This is very clear in scripture.

So your pastor does not have the authority given to the apostles, although he does have the authority that you grant him. Also, you may believe that the holy Spirit is working through him, but how do you know? Has your pastor received the holy spirit by the laying on of hands of a bishop? By what method does he possess the Spirit? Not by baptism. That is not biblical either.

In the bible we see the spirit ariving at Pentacost and entering into the apostles and Mary, Jesus’ mother. They then passed on the spirit by the laying on of hands. Each Christian in the bible was first baptized then received the Spirit by the laying on of hands. That is the method of obtaining the Spirit.

Remember that Paul received the spirit in this very same manner. Only then was he able to start his ministry. This laying on of hands by a bishop is very important. Compare some bible passages…

**Acts 14:23
**So when they had appointed elders in every church, and prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed.

**1 Timothy 4:14
**Do not neglect the gift that is in you, which was given to you by prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the eldership.

**1 Timothy 5:22
**Do not lay hands on anyone hastily, nor share in other people’s sins; keep yourself pure.

Titus 1:5-9
5 For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you— 6 if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination. 7 For a bishop**(“http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=63&chapter=1&version=50#fen-NKJV-29894b”)] must be blameless, as a steward of God, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, 8 but hospitable, a lover of what is good, sober-minded, just, holy, self-controlled, 9 holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict.

b. Titus 1:7 Literally overseer

Kendy, remember in Acts 1:20 when Peter called for a replacement of Judas? They chose Matthias and used the Greek word that means OVERSEER: episkopay. See above in Titus, verse 7 the same word is used. Paul is admonishing Titus on which men should be chosen as BISHOPS. More apostolic succession, more laying on of hands by bishops, more ordinations.

Kendy, there are literally no protestant leaders who have apostolic authority. None. That is the truth. It also answers your question about the authority of the Catholic Church. It has the authority that Jesus gave his apostles because this apostolic succession has never been altered or broken. You see it here in the bible, you see it in the Roman Catholic Church and you see it in the other churches I posted. This is real!

The ONLY reason that your pastor has any authority is because you choose to give it to him.

I’m sorry to be so blunt, but this is the reality of it.

You brother in Christ,
Subrosa