Biblical Proof of Church Authority...Tell it to the Church

[JonNC]

Okay, I’m curious …
Which parts, specifically, do you believe are in error?

michel

Come on, Michel. You know what we disagree on.
Purgatory (though there are some new and interesting statements that I’m curious about)
Papal infallibility
Justification and Sanctification (though, for me, there seems a narrowing of differences here).
Intercession of saints and the BVM

Jon

 

[cazayoux]

Come on, Michel. You know what we disagree on.
Purgatory (though there are some new and interesting statements that I’m curious about)
Papal infallibility
Justification and Sanctification (though, for me, there seems a narrowing of differences here).
Intercession of saints and the BVM

Jon

Hehehehe … in general, of course I’ve seen the regular list of ‘issues’ on these boards.
However, YOUR journey is unique, so was curious what *you *had as your list.

I’m glad you are on the boards.
I’ve learned a LOT about my faith by coming here.

I grew up Catholic and slipped into non-practicing for years.
I had all of the questions you list above … and then some.
About 10 years ago I decided I needed to learn … and refused to do any little thing until I understood the ‘why’ behind it.
It’s been a great and fulfilling journey.

If you really are still having questions on these issues, I’d suggest John Martignoni’s Bible Christian Society website. Free audio on a myriad of topics, explained in detail and from scripture.

Cheers, brother!

michel

 

[JonNC]

cazayoux;4142203]Hehehehe … in general, of course I’ve seen the regular list of ‘issues’ on these boards.

Sneaky. How did my list compare?

However, YOUR journey is unique, so was curious what *you *had as your list.

Just curious. How does my journey appear unique?

I’m glad you are on the boards.
I’ve learned a LOT about my faith by coming here.

Ditto to you, and so have I.

I grew up Catholic and slipped into non-practicing for years.
I had all of the questions you list above … and then some.
About 10 years ago I decided I needed to learn … and refused to do any little thing until I understood the ‘why’ behind it.
It’s been a great and fulfilling journey.

Which Catholic priest (Sheen?)said a good protestant is better than a poor Catholic? Glad to see you return to your faith.

If you really are still having questions on these issues, I’d suggest John Martignoni’s Bible Christian Society website. Free audio on a myriad of topics, explained in detail and from scripture.

I’ll look into it.

Jon

PS, Sorry, James, for the hijack.

 

[TriuneUnity]

So then we agree that The Leadership of the Church was passed on to those who followed the Original Apostles and that this is the same Church which Christ Promised to Protect and be with until the end of the age.
So if the Church leadership is validly passed on from the Apostles, it is logical to assume that those leaders are equally protected by Christ in areas of faith and morals. (Even if we assume they do not have all the same gifts.)

That’s an assumption that doesn’t follow. The reason the apostles were infallible is because they received direct divine revelation. Since revelation wasn’t given to those who followed the apostles, it doesn’t pass on through the ministry. The teachings of the apostles in Scripture are the only access the Church has to infallible revelation. Hence, the Church only teaches inerrantly when she adheres to that source of revelation.

I really don’t see anything here that I would dispute, ot that would violate a Catholic understanding.
I won’t go any deeper into this because we could get mired in “semantics” (it’s happened to us before), and the issue I’m trying to explore is the Authority of The Church.

How do you mean authority, though? Your OP was directed to the Matt. 18 passage as regards church discipline. How are you also using authority here?

I tend to agree with this, however it is also good to remember that we should be careful about “becoming teachers”

Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment. (James 3:1)
This idea certainly can be applied to our own sense of “personal infallibility”, also known as pride, wouldn’t you say?

Peace
James

Yes, absolutely. Too many soldiers and not enough generals is never a good thing.

 

[Good_Fella]

That’s an assumption that doesn’t follow. The reason the apostles were infallible is because they received direct divine revelation. Since revelation wasn’t given to those who followed the apostles, it doesn’t pass on through the ministry. The teachings of the apostles in Scripture are the only access the Church has to infallible revelation. Hence, the Church only teaches inerrantly when she adheres to that source of revelation.

I don’t recall reading in the scriptures that Jesus commissioned his apostles to write and compile the New Testament. Nor do the scriptures state that the written word is the sole medium of revelation. On the contrary, the scriptures confirm that Tradition is an equal partner with Scripture in the mediation of divine revelation. Our Lord founded his Church on the apostles and their valid successors to ‘preach’ the gospel and administer the sacraments until the end of the age.

And for this reason we too give thanks to God unceasingly, that in receiving the word of God from ‘hearing’ us, you received not a human word, but as it truly is, the word of God, which is now at work in you who believe.
1 Thessalonians 2, 13

Take as your norm the sound words that you ‘heard’ from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. Guard this rich trust with the help of the Holy Spirit that dwells within us.
2 Timothy 1, 13-14

Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by word of mouth or by a letter of ours.
2 Thessalonians 2, 15

The Apostolic Church had been teaching for a century before the NT texts were completed by c.110 A.D. And not everything the apostles orally and explicitly taught was put down in writing. Much of what they did write is implicit and formed from Tradition. Nor did the apostles likely understand the full theological implications of what they wrote. (The teaching of Original Sin, ie., wasn’t precisely clarified and established until the 5th century.) Thus Scripture is formally insufficient. It must be interpreted in light of the Apostolic Tradition from whence it came by those who validly hold the Divine Office originally passed on by the apostles on Christ’s authority.

Paul tells Timothy that “the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth”. Only the teaching office (magisterium) of the Catholic Church has the authority to formulate official doctrines and declare dogmas (The Holy Trinity, etc.) that find implicit or explicit confirmation in the scriptures. If it were not for the Church, we wouldn’t have gained the knowledge of the Trinity, implicitly revealed in Scripture. If we reject the teaching authority of the Catholic Church, then in all honesty we must question the veracity of her Trinitarian and Christological doctrines.Of course, Protestants argue that the scriptures are clear about the Trinity and the hypostatic union of a divine and human nature in the single person of Jesus. But that’s arguing from hindsight bias.

Protestants ignore the fact that the Catholic Church was plagued by twenty forms of major heresies and their variations on account of individuals who presumed that their private interpretation of Scripture was the final authority. Sola Scriptura is the cause of division in Christendom. So Jesus would never have commissioned his apostles to write and compile the New Testament. Instead he founded a Church on his apostles and their valid successors for the sake of a unity of faith. It is more a question of understanding what has been truly revealed.

I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and kingly power: proclaim the word; be persistent whether it is convenient or inconvenient; convince, reprimand, encourage through all patience and teaching. For the time will come when people will not tolerate sound doctrine but, following their own desires and insatiable curiosity, will accumulate teachers and will stop listening to the truth and will be diverted to myths. But you, be self-possessed in all circumstances; put up with hardship; perform the work of an evangelist; fulfill your ministry. For I am already being poured out like a libation, and the time of my departure is at hand.
2 Timothy 4, 1-6

“We are not to credit these men, nor go out from the first and ecclesiastical tradition; nor to believe otherwise than as the churches of God have by succession transmitted to us.”
Origen, Commentary on Matthew [post A.D. 244]

PAX

 

[cazayoux]

Sneaky. How did my list compare?

Shorter than most I’ve seen.
I tend to see quite a few people here with a list of charges against the church that do not come from study, but I assume have to come from others that didn’t understand what the church teaches at all.
I see others come here to ask ‘why’ for this doctrine or that.
I think all of the discussion, though, is helpful to me.
It helps me to not be afraid to talk to people about Jesus and how we are saved through him.

A few months ago I was visited by Mormons.
A few weeks ago I was visited (twice) by JWs.
Because of these boards, I was able to have great discussions and show, from scripture, why I have hope in Jesus, in God Himself.

Just curious. How does my journey appear unique?

Just stating that all of our journeys are our own.
I do not know, specifically, about your journey.
I’m just recognizing that you have a background that is unique to you.

Which Catholic priest (Sheen?)said a good protestant is better than a poor Catholic? Glad to see you return to your faith.

Not sure who said it, but I agree.
I had a friend that left the Catholic faith because he married a Methodist girl.
It was in the Methodist church that he started paying attention to Christ … prayer … bible study … participating in the community.
I told him that I thought that whatever brought him to the bible in his journey was a fantastic thing.
I never brought up theology with him, because I didn’t want to stifle his zeal.
However, he started listening to Catholic radio on his own … and is now back in the Catholic Church (with his marriage blessed even).
Point is … he was a better Christian as a Methodist than he was before.

To tie this back into the topic of this thread…
From study of scripture, he now believes that the Catholic Church is the one, visible, apostolic, authoritative community that Jesus founded.

Don’t forget to check out the Bible Christian Society if you’re interested in the ‘why’ from scripture for Catholic teachings.
I listen to John’s talks with a pen and paper so I can follow up.
His talk called “One Church” is relevant to this discussion.

Maybe I’ll paste my notes from that talk here.

Cheers!

michel

 

[cazayoux]

Don’t forget to check out the Bible Christian Society if you’re interested in the ‘why’ from scripture for Catholic teachings.
I listen to John’s talks with a pen and paper so I can follow up.
His talk called “One Church” is relevant to this discussion.

Maybe I’ll paste my notes from that talk here.

Cheers!

michel

Notes from John Martignoni’s “One Church”…
(still better to listen for yourself though)

Church Authority: A quick guide for those with a couple of minutes

---

Jesus founded ONE church

Matt 16:18
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

(Peter is the kepha upon which Christ builds His church) … not churches

Acts 4:32
The community of believers was of one heart and mind, and no one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they had everything in common.

1 Cor 1:10
agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you

Jesus established an authoritative church
John 8:32 “and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
John 14:6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way and the truth 5 and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
John 18:37 “…Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice.”
John 17:17 “Consecrate them in the truth. Your word is truth.”

We need to KNOW the truth … where do we find it?

1 Tim 3:15 the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.
(What IS the pillar and foundation of truth? … not the bible, but the church)

Matt 18:15-17 … If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church.

This also means we need to be able to FIND that church. It cannot be an invisible church. If the church were considered any group of believers, then ‘going to the church’ would have been fulfilled by bring two or three with you.

Eph 1:22-23 …the church, which is his body

The church is the fullness of Christ, his body

Eph 5:23 Christ is head of the church, he himself the savior of the body

Remember that the bible has authority BECAUSE the church has authority. Remember that the bible is a Catholic book. If the Church does not have authority, then the bible does not have authority. We believe that the bible is the inspired, inerrant word of God. HOW do we know this. The bible’s table of contents is not part of the inspired text itself. Some other authoritative source created the canon; the Church!
Every Christian that accepts the 27 books of the new testament that the Catholic Church decided up on in the late 4th century agrees with Catholics regarding the authority of the church … whether they realize it or not… and most don’t.
Most people don’t think about where the bible comes from or why we think it’s true.

Jesus established a visible church
John 17:20-23 that the world may know … that they may see

If it was an invisible church, how would we go to it to resolve issues? It had to be a church that we could go to to KNOW the truth.

THAT authority is apostolic
creed … We believe in one, holy, Catholic and apostolic church.
Matt 28:18-19 “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to” Jesus
John 20:21 “As the Father has sent me, so I send you” (THAT authority given to the apostles … all authority in heaven and on earth)
Luke 10:16 “he who hears you hears me, he who rejects you reject me, And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me”

But that was when Jesus was alive … what assurance do we have that this is still true … that the apostles still had authority after Jesus was in heaven?

John 14:16-17 “And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate 8 to be with you always, the Spirit of truth, 9 which the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows it. But you know it, because it remains with you, and will be in you.

The apostles received the spirit of truth … the Holy Spirit

John 14: 26 The Advocate, the holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name–he will teach you everything and remind you of all that (I) told you

John 16:13 But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth.

So the apostles were able to teach without error, with the charism (gift) of infallibility

THAT church is infallible on teachings of faith and morals

What does ‘infallible’ mean in the Catholic church.
It does not mean that they cannot commit a sin.
It does not mean that they can never make a mistake
It does not mean that they always teach what they should, they might remain silent.
Infallible simply means that the God will prevent that person from teaching error in the area of faith and morals.

Acts 8:30-31 Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?”
He replied, “How can I, unless someone instructs me?”

we need a guide
wouldn’t God give us an infallible guide?

1 John 4:6 We belong to God, and anyone who knows God listens to us, while anyone who does not belong to God refuses to hear us. This is how we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of deceit.

a person of God will listen to John and others, the leaders of the Church

1 Peter 1:12 announced to you by those who preached the good news to you (through) the holy Spirit sent from heaven

the apostles taught with authority.

i know what some might be thinking: “that was then, those same apostles aren’t alive today. that authority is gone or no longer necessary.”

… to be continue …

 

[cazayoux]

RECAP:
Jesus founded ONE church that is authoritative. The church is a visible church with doctrinal unity. The authority of the church is apostolic in nature – It comes from God the Father, through Jesus Christ, through the apostles, guided by the Holy Spirit. Apostolic authority is an authority characterized by the gift (charism) of infallibility in the areas of faith and morals. Apostolic authority, the authority of Christ Himself, does not die with the apostles, but rather is passed on to the bishops, the successors of the apostles, through the formal laying on of hands.

With this knowledge and understanding that the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church founded by Jesus is authoritative, infallible, and alive through succession … which church would that be?
Only the Catholic Church can trace that visible, authoritative succession back to the first apostles

---

whew … okay … those are my notes from John Martignoni’s “One Church” talk.

Please read in full
As well, don’t read just the snipits of scripture I copied, but get the context by reading the whole chapter.

This talk has been EXTREMELY helpful to me in my journey.

michel

 

[JRKH]

RECAP:
Jesus founded ONE church that is authoritative. The church is a visible church with doctrinal unity. The authority of the church is apostolic in nature – It comes from God the Father, through Jesus Christ, through the apostles, guided by the Holy Spirit. Apostolic authority is an authority characterized by the gift (charism) of infallibility in the areas of faith and morals. Apostolic authority, the authority of Christ Himself, does not die with the apostles, but rather is passed on to the bishops, the successors of the apostles, through the formal laying on of hands.

With this knowledge and understanding that the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church founded by Jesus is authoritative, infallible, and alive through succession … which church would that be?
Only the Catholic Church can trace that visible, authoritative succession back to the first apostles

---

whew … okay … those are my notes from John Martignoni’s “One Church” talk.

Please read in full
As well, don’t read just the snipits of scripture I copied, but get the context by reading the whole chapter.

This talk has been EXTREMELY helpful to me in my journey.

michel

Michel,
Thanks for these notes.

Peace
James

 

[TriuneUnity]

RECAP:
Jesus founded ONE church that is authoritative. The church is a visible church with doctrinal unity. The authority of the church is apostolic in nature – It comes from God the Father, through Jesus Christ, through the apostles, guided by the Holy Spirit. Apostolic authority is an authority characterized by the gift (charism) of infallibility in the areas of faith and morals. Apostolic authority, the authority of Christ Himself, does not die with the apostles, but rather is passed on to the bishops, the successors of the apostles, through the formal laying on of hands.

With this knowledge and understanding that the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church founded by Jesus is authoritative, infallible, and alive through succession … which church would that be?

The Orthodox! At least that’s what they say. Of course, they would fit all of Martigoni’s criteria above in their own view.

“The authority of Christ Himself.” Doesn’t that give you an insight into why Protestants find Catholic apologists to be downright scary sometimes? At least the amateur ones.

 

[JRKH]

Christ did promise to be with His Church and guide it, but that doesn’t answer the question. If human sin and error in the middle ages undermined the CC, I might say that Christ preserved His Church in confessional Lutheranism. He stands by and guides His Church, now in the form of “evangelical catholicism”.
And if confessioanl Lutheranism falls into error, He will preserve and guide His Church elsewhere. Therefore, and in this way,
“Evils may befall the Church, but God does not abandon His promise.”

I know I’m getting back to this late, but better late than never.

You say “IF error undermined the Church”, but that never happened because it could not.
IF Christ Established A Single Authoritative Church, (…I will Build My Church… (singlular)) and
If That Church Authority can be gone to, (…Go and Tell it to The Church…) and
If Christ prayed for unity among the Faithful, and
If Jesus instructed the faithful to obey their leaders, even if the leaders are sinners, (…all that they tell you, do and observe" because “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat”. (Matthew 23:2-3)) and
If He promised to be with The Church until the end of the age, and
If He promised to send the Holy Spirit to Lead His Church into all Truth,
If We are Told by Paul that the Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth…

If Jesus did and said all of these things as part of establishing His Church, then it is impossible to believe that He would abandon that Church over some sinful men. You (or triune, I disremember) commented that I had not proven that the “Catholic” Church under the Pope in Rome is that Church, yet we have a huge body of evidence, including comments made by Martin Luther Himself, that the Catholic Church is indeed that Church. What Protestants, and in particular Lutherens, need to prove is that God DID abandoned the Church in favor of Lutherenism. Christ established His Church on Peter and Holy Scripture tells us so. How do Lutherens establish with an equal pedigree, that Christ Abandoned Rome in favor of Wittenburg?

We can find ample evidence in the Old Testament that God did not abandon the Jews or His covenent with them regardless of How sinful they were. He chastized them, allowed them to be conquered and carried off, but He never abandoned them or his promises to them.
Even when they taught wrong interpretations of the Law, for Which Jesus called the leaders to account, Jesus made the point of telling the faithful to obey their leaders teachings, if not their actions.
If God did not abandon the Jewish people due to sinful men, How can anyone imagine He would abandon His Holy Church due to sinful men.
These are strong indications and evidences for God’s fidelity to His people and His Church, as passed down to us by Holy succession from the Apostles themselves…

I might also say that Christ maintains His promise in a number of Churches, not in the sense that He teaches different truths, but rather with the idea that His people can be lead together by the Holy Spirit at some point in unity.

Jon

This could be acceptable, If Jesus had told the desciples to “Tell it to A Church” instead of “The Church”. “The Church”, is a clear indication of a single authority - Given of God to Govern, Interpret, Teach and Guide the faithful.

I would like to add here that, in retrospect, the experiment of the reformation with Sola Scriptura and the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit to the individual was a noble one. However, it seems to me that the evidence of the last 500 years shows conclusively that it has been a noble failure. Without a clear, visible and unified authority to deal (rightly or wrongly) with issues, the best that can be achieved is a sort of “organized chaos”.
Instead of a clear body of teaching, one is left with, “I believe in the Bible”. Of course what one “believes in the bible” may vary widely.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

The Orthodox! At least that’s what they say. Of course, they would fit all of Martigoni’s criteria above in their own view.

I must say that I find this line a bit annoying. Not because the statement itself is not true, for surely it is, but rather because protestants will toss it out as an example of dis-unity in the ancient Church. But it has no bearing on the actual discussion between Protestants and Catholics.
If Martin Luther had abandoned Rome for Constantinople, that would have been one thing. But that is not what happened. Martin Luther Abandoned Both ancient Churches for something never taught by either one.
I’ve posed this question before, that if ML felt the ancient Church in Rome were corrupt, then why did He not join the Ancient Church in Constantinople?

“The authority of Christ Himself.” Doesn’t that give you an insight into why Protestants find Catholic apologists to be downright scary sometimes? At least the amateur ones.

Why should we fear this term?
The Bible clearly points to the Church Catholic, as it developed from Apostolic times till now. This Church dues indeed have Christ’s own authority and protection.
Christ Gave the Church the authority to bind and loose, which I believe you had a question about, triune, as to the extent of this power. Well the Quote in Matthew 16 and in Matthew 18 is exactly the same:

“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.”

I see no qualification here. I even checked both Young and Green’s literal translations and they use the same term. The Church is given the Broadest latitude by Our Lord in its authority to govern on Earth. He could do this because he knew that He would be Protecting and guiding the Church through the Holy Spirit.

Peace
James

 

[TriuneUnity]

I must say that I find this line a bit annoying. Not because the statement itself is not true, for surely it is, but rather because protestants will toss it out as an example of dis-unity in the ancient Church. But it has no bearing on the actual discussion between Protestants and Catholics.
If Martin Luther had abandoned Rome for Constantinople, that would have been one thing. But that is not what happened. Martin Luther Abandoned Both ancient Churches for something never taught by either one.
I’ve posed this question before, that if ML felt the ancient Church in Rome were corrupt, then why did He not join the Ancient Church in Constantinople?

It isn’t our claim that the Eastern churches are correct over and above Rome, though. So we would have no need to go to Constantinople. Nor is it an issue of disunity. It simply points that competing claims to infallibility among various religious groups; Catholic, Orthodox, Mormon, Jehova’s Witness is no more concrete to us than the attack against Protestants that disunity disprove sola scriptura. Orthodoxy’s claim to be the one, true, infallible church is no less solid than Rome’s claim. So where’s the infallible way to tell which is the infallible church?

Why should we fear this term?
The Bible clearly points to the Church Catholic, as it developed from Apostolic times till now. This Church dues indeed have Christ’s own authority and protection.

We should fear it because Christ is the Church’s master, not His equal. Christ’s words bind my conscience, not the words of ecclesiastical officers who claim His authority. Once the Church puts itself in a position of equal ultimacy with that which has been revealed to her, the result is always bad.

 

[cazayoux]

We should fear it because Christ is the Church’s master, not His equal. Christ’s words bind my conscience, not the words of ecclesiastical officers who claim His authority. Once the Church puts itself in a position of equal ultimacy with that which has been revealed to her, the result is always bad.

We agree that Christ is the Church’s head, not his equal.

Did Jesus found a church?
Did he give it authority?
What authority did he give it?

These are questions I answered within my notes.

You cannot discount all of the scripture provided just because the orthodox would claim the same.

Which scriptural points in the notes are you in disagreement with?

Is your stance,
“I agree completely, but just don’t know whether Catholics or Orthodox meet the scriptural criteria laid out.”

… or …

“Since the Orthodox follow the same logic, the logic doesn’t apply to me.”

So the conversation either goes to vetting Catholic versus Orthodox claims, which we can do, or the conversation goes to vetting the scriptural notes I laid out.

michel

 

[JRKH]

It isn’t our claim that the Eastern churches are correct over and above Rome, though. So we would have no need to go to Constantinople. Nor is it an issue of disunity. It simply points that competing claims to infallibility among various religious groups; Catholic, Orthodox, Mormon, Jehova’s Witness is no more concrete to us than the attack against Protestants that disunity disprove sola scriptura. Orthodoxy’s claim to be the one, true, infallible church is no less solid than Rome’s claim. So where’s the infallible way to tell which is the infallible church?

I suppose I should be angry to see the Catholic and Orthodox included with the JW and Mormons, :bigyikes: but I know what your driving at…
The thing that I am trying to discuss here is not about "infallibility, but Authority. Which Church did Christ Give His Authority to.

We should fear it because Christ is the Church’s master, not His equal.

Of course Christ is Our Master. He is our Dear Lord and Brother. He is our path to Salvation. The Church is His duly instituted, authoritative, and God protected representative on Earth. - Pillar and Foundation, Bind and Loose, Remember?

Christ’s words bind my conscience, not the words of ecclesiastical officers who claim His authority. Once the Church puts itself in a position of equal ultimacy with that which has been revealed to her, the result is always bad.

Unless of course that Church really does Have His Authority, as Christ’s own words attest.
We are both well aware of the historical and verifieable history of the Catholic Church going all the way back to Christ Himself. The teachings of both the Bible and the ECF’s both attest to the development of the early Church towards the form it has today.
What can the Protestant Churches offer that would be equally as compelling.

Peace
James

 

[TriuneUnity]

I suppose I should be angry to see the Catholic and Orthodox included with the JW and Mormons, :bigyikes: but I know what your driving at…
The thing that I am trying to discuss here is not about "infallibility, but Authority. Which Church did Christ Give His Authority to.

Well, of course it wasn’t a comparison of what they teach, but only that they claim to have an infallible entity within their bodies that is the rule of faith for them.

Of course Christ is Our Master. He is our Dear Lord and Brother. He is our path to Salvation. The Church is His duly instituted, authoritative, and God protected representative on Earth. - Pillar and Foundation, Bind and Loose, Remember?

Secondarily, yes, they are His representatives in certain respects; forgiveness of sins in His name, primarily. Notice they are the pillar of truth, but not the truth itself, which is Christ and His gospel.

Unless of course that Church really does Have His Authority, as Christ’s own words attest.
We are both well aware of the historical and verifieable history of the Catholic Church going all the way back to Christ Himself. The teachings of both the Bible and the ECF’s both attest to the development of the early Church towards the form it has today.
What can the Protestant Churches offer that would be equally as compelling.

Peace
James

We are well aware that Rome claims its teachings to go back to the foundation of the church. However, it cannot demonstrate it beyond anachronistic readings into the writings of church fathers. It patently ignores evidence to the contrary when writings are brought forward that go against what it claims to be revealed dogma. Unfortunately, once the sole rule of faith is the Church itself, history doesn’t matter.

What can we offer equally compelling? The apostolic writings themselves; but of course, this usually doesn’t matter either since the Church, by her claims, defines Scripture and tradition anyway.

 

[JonNC]

=JRKH;4145499The thing that I am trying to discuss here is not about "infallibility, but Authority. Which Church did Christ Give His Authority to.

It seems to me that, for Rome, Authority and infallibility are so linked together that it is difficult to separate them, as the highlighted portion of the below shows.

Of course Christ is Our Master. He is our Dear Lord and Brother. He is our path to Salvation. The Church is His duly instituted, authoritative, and God protected representative on Earth. - Pillar and Foundation, Bind and Loose, Remember?

Jon

 

[JRKH]

It seems to me that, for Rome, Authority and infallibility are so linked together that it is difficult to separate them, as the highlighted portion of the below shows.

Of course Christ is Our Master. He is our Dear Lord and Brother. He is our path to Salvation. The Church is His duly instituted, authoritative, and God protected representative on Earth.

Authority and Infalliblility my well be linked but that does not make them the same thing.

Authority grants a power to act in the stead or name of another. That power to act may or may not be an infallible one.
In the case of the Church the analogy is a King and Steward.
The Steward has the King’s power to act and to rule in the King’s stead. If the power is abused, it is not the King’s subjects who will be punished for their obedience, but those who abused the subjects by their acts. Thus can be seen the wisdom of Jesus teaching to the Jews that they obey the teachings of the Elders even if those teachings be in error.

On the other hand, if the subjects rebel against the King’s Steward, even if the Steward is in error, they are still, in essense, rebelling against the King. Now when the king returns, He must deal not only with a poor Steward (if he actually be a poor steward), but with a kingdom in disarray and with far more errors and crimes to be dealt with than if the subjects had remained loyal even to a bad steward.

Infallibility on the other hand means that no error can occur and could be a topic for another exploration. But it does not fit here since I am trying to discuss Authority.

Peace
James

 

[JonNC]

On the other hand, if the subjects rebel against the King’s Steward, even if the Steward is in error, they are still, in essense, rebelling against the King. Now when the king returns, He must deal not only with a poor Steward (if he actually be a poor steward), but with a kingdom in disarray and with far more errors and crimes to be dealt with than if the subjects had remained loyal even to a bad steward.

Infallibility on the other hand means that no error can occur and could be a topic for another exploration. But it does not fit here since I am trying to discuss Authority.

Peace
James

Ok, James. So your point is that no matter how far the steward strays from the wishes of his king, even the writings of his king, his subjects are obligated to endure this poor stewardship?

Or what if the steward misconstrues (let’s say even with good intentions) the scope and extent of the authority expressed by the king?

Jon

 

[JRKH]

Ok, James. So your point is that no matter how far the steward strays from the wishes of his king, even the writings of his king, his subjects are obligated to endure this poor stewardship?

Since it is almost impossible for the subjects to know the “Wishes” of the King, or how the king might act in a given situation, I would say yes, the first obligation of the Kings subject is to obey the Steward.
I realize that this seems quite foreign to Americans, and many others who are use to contitutional, representative forms of Government, but we must remember here that we are not talking about some sort of contitutional monarchy, but rather an absolute ruler.
It is the duty of the King to establish a good, sound government, and to choose Stewards that will operate, to the best of their ability, in the manner the King would wish. However, the fact remains that the King’s subjects need to remain loyal to the King’s duly appointed Steward, or the legal successors of that Steward if the original Steward dies.

Or what if the steward misconstrues (let’s say even with good intentions) the scope and extent of the authority expressed by the king?

Jon

And What if the King’s subjects misconstrue (let’s say even with good intentions) what they believe was an abuse by the Steward and rise in revolt?
How will the King deal with such “dis-obedient” subjects?
Can they stand upon a defence of, “But Lord, we were so sure that your Stewards were wrong.”?

Peace
James