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

[JRKH]

This thread is prompted by some discussions on another thread regarding Sola Scriptura.
The passages below seem to me to be a clear demonstration of Christ’s authority and how He passed it on to the Church.
I would be interested in other (supporting or dissenting) views. - BUT only if they are charitable replies.
May God keep us as Christian Brothers.

Christ’s instruction of what to do about a brother who “sins” against us.

Matthew 16: 15-18
15 "If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. 16 "But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. 17 "If he refuses to listen to them, ** it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.** 18 "Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.

Some of our Protestant brothers will want to tell us that the “Church” not an “institution” but the entire body of believers. If this is so then “Taking it to the Church” would be completed in step two where “Two or three witnesses” are called upon and no third step would be required. But Christ did establish a third step, telling His disciples to submit such obstinate disputes to “The Church’ for resolution and that they must accept The Church’s judgment as final.
So how does Christ define His Church?

Matthew 16 18:19
18 "I also say to you that you are Kepha (Rock), and upon this Kepha I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. 19 “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.”

Even a casual reading of this passage shows that Simon (Peter) is named Rock and upon this Rock Jesus institutes His Church with authority to Bind and loose.
But then this begs the question, of Jesus Authority.

Since this passage is given after Jesus Resurrection, it’s safe to say that Jesus Had “The Father’s” ear. In other words His Resurrection was certainly sufficient to Prove His divinity. So Now He has been given Authority in Heaven and Earth. He in turn gave authority to His Church, soon to be founded upon the Rock of Peter (Kepha). This Authority is to Bind, Loose, hold and teach the Truth of the Gospel.

This Church is not a mystical – ethereal collection of believers, though certainly that is what makes up the Church, it is an institution of God given to us for Guidance.

The great example in the Bible of the idea of Authority and taking it to the Church is the Council of Jeruselum in Acts. If the Church was a “body of believers” and not and “institution” then why did Paul feel the need to bring the issue to the Apostles (Church Leadership). It was because Jesus told them to “Tell it to the Church”.
Once at the Council, things did not run all that smoothly, there was much debate until Peter Spoke and quieted it. Even once the decsion had been made in Council it is logical to assume that there were varying degrees of “acceptance” among the individuals. This would only be human nature. However All of the agreed to the decision of the Council and submitted their own misgivings to the authority of the Church.

To me, these GOSPEL passages are powerful and conclusive evidence of the Authority of The Catholic Church since it is the Catholic Church that is the oldest and is traceable to the Apostles.

I would be interested in any CHARITABLE discussion on these points.

Peace
James

 

[JonNC]

QUOTE=JRKH;4133831]This thread is prompted by some discussions on another thread regarding Sola Scriptura.
The passages below seem to me to be a clear demonstration of Christ’s authority and how He passed it on to the Church.
I would be interested in other (supporting or dissenting) views. - BUT only if they are charitable replies.
May God keep us as Christian Brothers.

Christ’s instruction of what to do about a brother who “sins” against us.

Some of our Protestant brothers will want to tell us that the “Church” not an “institution” but the entire body of believers. If this is so then “Taking it to the Church” would be completed in step two where “Two or three witnesses” are called upon and no third step would be required. But Christ did establish a third step, telling His disciples to submit such obstinate disputes to “The Church’ for resolution and that they must accept The Church’s judgment as final.
So how does Christ define His Church?

Even a casual reading of this passage shows that Simon (Peter) is named Rock and upon this Rock Jesus institutes His Church with authority to Bind and loose.
But then this begs the question, of Jesus Authority.

Since this passage is given after Jesus Resurrection, it’s safe to say that Jesus Had “The Father’s” ear. In other words His Resurrection was certainly sufficient to Prove His divinity. So Now He has been given Authority in Heaven and Earth. He in turn gave authority to His Church, soon to be founded upon the Rock of Peter (Kepha). This Authority is to Bind, Loose, hold and teach the Truth of the Gospel.

This Church is not a mystical – ethereal collection of believers, though certainly that is what makes up the Church, it is an institution of God given to us for Guidance.

The great example in the Bible of the idea of Authority and taking it to the Church is the Council of Jeruselum in Acts. If the Church was a “body of believers” and not and “institution” then why did Paul feel the need to bring the issue to the Apostles (Church Leadership). It was because Jesus told them to “Tell it to the Church”.
Once at the Council, things did not run all that smoothly, there was much debate until Peter Spoke and quieted it. Even once the decsion had been made in Council it is logical to assume that there were varying degrees of “acceptance” among the individuals. This would only be human nature. However All of the agreed to the decision of the Council and submitted their own misgivings to the authority of the Church.

To me, these GOSPEL passages are powerful and conclusive evidence of the Authority of The Catholic Church since it is the Catholic Church that is the oldest and is traceable to the Apostles.

I would be interested in any CHARITABLE discussion on these points.

Peace
James

Hi James,
FOr discussion’s sake, let’s agree that Christ gave authority to the Church.
Questions:

1. Why the Catholic Church under the Bishop of Rome? Why not the Orthodox Church?
2. As you might suspect, I believe that the Catholic Church fell into (some) error in the middle ages. Why is it not possible that the Lutheran Church (Evangelical Catholic Church) now holds that mantle of authority because confessional Lutheranism is the Church Catholic - rightly formed?
3. Why can it not be said that the Authority is held by all Christian communities that have a valid trinitarian Baptism, because it is conceivable that all of us have some error in our teaching?

 

[TriuneUnity]

Since this passage is given after Jesus Resurrection, it’s safe to say that Jesus Had “The Father’s” ear. In other words His Resurrection was certainly sufficient to Prove His divinity. So Now He has been given Authority in Heaven and Earth. He in turn gave authority to His Church, soon to be founded upon the Rock of Peter (Kepha). This Authority is to Bind, Loose, hold and teach the Truth of the Gospel.

This Church is not a mystical – ethereal collection of believers, though certainly that is what makes up the Church, it is an institution of God given to us for Guidance.

The great example in the Bible of the idea of Authority and taking it to the Church is the Council of Jeruselum in Acts. If the Church was a “body of believers” and not and “institution” then why did Paul feel the need to bring the issue to the Apostles (Church Leadership). It was because Jesus told them to “Tell it to the Church”.
Once at the Council, things did not run all that smoothly, there was much debate until Peter Spoke and quieted it. Even once the decsion had been made in Council it is logical to assume that there were varying degrees of “acceptance” among the individuals. This would only be human nature. However All of the agreed to the decision of the Council and submitted their own misgivings to the authority of the Church.

To me, these GOSPEL passages are powerful and conclusive evidence of the Authority of The Catholic Church since it is the Catholic Church that is the oldest and is traceable to the Apostles.

I would be interested in any CHARITABLE discussion on these points.

Peace
James

Hi James,
FOr discussion’s sake, let’s agree that Christ gave authority to the Church.
Questions:

1. Why the Catholic Church under the Bishop of Rome? Why not the Orthodox Church?
2. As you might suspect, I believe that the Catholic Church fell into (some) error in the middle ages. Why is it not possible that the Lutheran Church (Evangelical Catholic Church) now holds that mantle of authority because confessional Lutheranism is the Church Catholic - rightly formed?
3. Why can it not be said that the Authority is held by all Christian communities that have a valid trinitarian Baptism, because it is conceivable that all of us have some error in our teaching?

In addition to Jon’s comments above…the passage certainly shows the authority of the church to adjucate in issues of discipline…it goes to a far, far stretch to take that to mean anything having to do with the doctrine of the church as taught by Rome. There is nothing here about infallibility, indefectibility, papal authority, the Magisterium, etc.

 

[JRKH]

Thank you both for your reply.
I’m sorry that I cannot respond right now as my Wife is having a bad day (ALZ).
I’ll try to reapond as soon as I am able.

Peace
James

 

[JonNC]

Thank you both for your reply.
I’m sorry that I cannot respond right now as my Wife is having a bad day (ALZ).
I’ll try to reapond as soon as I am able.

Peace
James

Prayers for your wife, James.
His peace,
Jon

 

[JRKH]

Hi James,
For discussion’s sake, let’s agree that Christ gave authority to the Church.
Questions:

1. Why the Catholic Church under the Bishop of Rome? Why not the Orthodox Church?

A valid observation. Both Catholic and Orthodox can certainly claim valid apostolic succession. The Late Pope John Paul II called the two Churches the “Right and Left Lung” of the the Church. The differences between the two really boil down to specific degrees of authority (small a) among the bishops. (my understanding)
So, under our agreement that Christ did grant authority to the Church, it then begs the question, if Reformers had Problems with Romish Authority and Practice, why did they not simply switch to Orthodox?

1. As you might suspect, I believe that the Catholic Church fell into (some) error in the middle ages. Why is it not possible that the Lutheran Church (Evangelical Catholic Church) now holds that mantle of authority because confessional Lutheranism is the Church Catholic - rightly formed?

For the simple reason that Christ Promised to be with His Church and guide it. That the Gates of Hell would not overpower it.
While I will grant that there were sinful men in the Church (and certainly still are) That is not the same as the Church itself being Corrupted, or abandoned by God. As an example, God allowed teh Jews to be carried off to babylon. But did he abandon them? No He did not. Evils may befall the Church, but God does not abandon His promise.
Finally, if corruption or “error” is possible in a God protected Church, and the Lutherens correctly reformed the church, who will replace the lutherens who now seem to be falling into error on womens and gay issues.
I do not mean this as an attack, but an area for reflection.

1. Why can it not be said that the Authority is held by all Christian communities that have a valid trinitarian Baptism, because it is conceivable that all of us have some error in our teaching?

Because it is not concievable that there is error in the Teaching of Christ’s true and protected Church. The Power to bind and loose remember? Even if a teaching, or practice is later changed it doesn’t necessarily follow that the prior teaching was wrong for those who followed it.

Have to go to mass now, Sorry I can’t be more thorough on this.

Peace
James

 

[TriuneUnity]

For the simple reason that Christ Promised to be with His Church and guide it. That the Gates of Hell would not overpower it.
While I will grant that there were sinful men in the Church (and certainly still are) That is not the same as the Church itself being Corrupted, or abandoned by God. As an example, God allowed teh Jews to be carried off to babylon. But did he abandon them? No He did not. Evils may befall the Church, but God does not abandon His promise.
Finally, if corruption or “error” is possible in a God protected Church, and the Lutherens correctly reformed the church, who will replace the lutherens who now seem to be falling into error on womens and gay issues.
I do not mean this as an attack, but an area for reflection.

It is true that God has promised to guide and protect the true church from falling into final apostasy. While your criticism of the liberal Lutheran churches is valid, they aren’t properly Lutheran churches in that they have abandoned the principles and beliefs of the historic church. But there are millions of Lutherans who remain faithful to it. So again, you must demonstrate that Rome is the church Christ founded over and above what we would consider to be the visible church, which is any congregation that adheres to the doctrines taught in the Lutheran confessions.

 

[JRKH]

In addition to Jon’s comments above…the passage certainly shows the authority of the church to adjucate in issues of discipline…it goes to a far, far stretch to take that to mean anything having to do with the doctrine of the church as taught by Rome. There is nothing here about infallibility, indefectibility, papal authority, the Magisterium, etc.

Fair enough.
I would offer a couple of things as a Guide.

1. If Christ is going to establish a visible, authoritive Church, which He certainly did, and if that Church is going to be representing him for at least 2 millenia, then that Chuch must be able to deal with the many issues arising from a changing world. Thus Christ provided sent His “Holy Spirit” to guide the Church rather than a more limiting “text” or “set of rules”. These exist too of course, but as an aid and grounding point for the spirit rather than a “Lawbook” that might hobble the Working of the Spirit.
2. Christ Told His apostles that there was much more that he wanted to tell them, but couldn’t, which is why He would be sending the Holy Spirit (John 16:12-15) to guide them. “He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you.”
   So it seems that Christ still had (has) things to teach us and tell us through His Authoritative Church, guided by the Holy Spirit. These things certainly could include the items you mention above.
3. When Jesus was teaching in Matthew about the Jewish Law and the interpretations thereof, He sternly reprimanded the Jewish leadership and He did so publicly, but what did He tell the Faithful Jewish “laymen”? He told them, “all that they tell you, do and observe” because “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat”. (Matthew 23:2-3)
   Jesus is saying that the teachings of the Jewish leaders remains binding and valid even though the leaders themselves are sinful men. Jesus thus establishes that, under the Old Conenent, those who “Sit on the seat of Moses” have the power to bind and loose. Under the New covenent, that Power resides in those who sit on the “Chair of Peter”, who was selected by Christ to Lead His Church.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

It is true that God has promised to guide and protect the true church from falling into final apostasy. While your criticism of the liberal Lutheran churches is valid, they aren’t properly Lutheran churches in that they have abandoned the principles and beliefs of the historic church. But there are millions of Lutherans who remain faithful to it.

Thank you for your balanced reply. I was concerned after I posted earlier because I did not want to “flame” anyone. I should have had more trust in my friend TriuneUnity…

Your statement regarding the liberal lutherens is the exact arguments we, as Catholics, would make regarding the Protestant Churches, "They have abandoned the principles and beliefs of the historic church. So you find yourself in a similar position as us. That is defending the “Historical Church” against the incursions of false teachings by liberal, and even heretical elements.
You further say that they aren’t “Properly Lutheren Churches”, but do they still call themselves Lutherens? Can the “Lutheren Authority” either bring them back in line, or cast them out? Can this properly be done by Scripture alone, or would you need recourse to other documents and the traditonal teachings of Luther?
Again I don’t bring this up as a sidebar to the conversation but simply as a point of consideration. I am certainly not well enough versed in the Lutheren issues to validly discuss them.

So again, you must demonstrate that Rome is the church Christ founded over and above what we would consider to be the visible church, which is any congregation that adheres to the doctrines taught in the Lutheran confessions.

I would give two points to this:
First is the obvious point of historical proof through apostolic succession, religious writings etc. that this Church (along with the Orthodox) is the only Church properly tracable to Christ’s own day.

Secondly I, again make recourse to Christ’s own command to “Tell it to the Church” and then accept the Church’s authoritative decision. I understand your statement re: discipline vs. Doctrinal matters since the verse says “If your brother sin against you”, but isn’t teaching a false doctrine sinning aginst your Brother? Do you not use the “principles and beliefs of the historic (Lutheren) church” as foundation for condemning the “Liberal Lutherens”, and declaring them to be “not True Lutherens”? This is a perfect example of “telling it to the Church” and if they refuse to "listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

Did Christ establish a single church? Does the Holy Spirit teach different and sometimes conflicting doctrines to different Groups? When a Christian of denomination “A” “teaches” a false doctrine in discussion with a Christian of denomination “B”, How do they “tell it to the Church” so that they may get a true understanding? They cannot for they do not hold to the same authority. Therefore they cannot obey God’s command and thereby attain resolution that maintains unity and humility.

The only Church which has this type of authority is the Church that is Historically tracable to Christ’s time, has been developed by the Grace of the Holy Spirit and preserved through writing and teaching of the full body of faith and even set the canon of the Bible. This is the Catholic Church.

Peace
James

 

[TriuneUnity]

Thank you for your balanced reply. I was concerned after I posted earlier because I did not want to “flame” anyone. I should have had more trust in my friend TriuneUnity…

Oh, flaming is okay, when it’s bratwurst

Your statement regarding the liberal lutherens is the exact arguments we, as Catholics, would make regarding the Protestant Churches, "They have abandoned the principles and beliefs of the historic church. So you find yourself in a similar position as us. That is defending the “Historical Church” against the incursions of false teachings by liberal, and even heretical elements.

All orthodox Christians in today’s society find themselves fighting against liberal elements. It is not restricted to Protestant denominations.

You further say that they aren’t “Properly Lutheren Churches”, but do they still call themselves Lutherens? Can the “Lutheren Authority” either bring them back in line, or cast them out? Can this properly be done by Scripture alone, or would you need recourse to other documents and the traditonal teachings of Luther?

And Nancy Pelosi calls herself a Catholic. What’s the difference? In the case of radical liberal groups like the ELCA, or the PCUSA on the Reformed side, you most certainly can condemn them by Scripture alone. Scripture is more than sufficient to do this. We can simply add on their violations of our common confessions.

I would give two points to this:
First is the obvious point of historical proof through apostolic succession, religious writings etc. that this Church (along with the Orthodox) is the only Church properly tracable to Christ’s own day.

Only when read through the lens of a presupposition that the early church was anything remotely like the modern Roman Catholic Church. I don’t mean in form of liturgy. I mean in doctrine and teaching. One must engage in anachronism in order to assert that the earliest writers mentioned anything having to do with the modern Roman concepts of the monarchial papacy, the assumption, the immaculate conception, etc. It usually involves massive attempts at taking fathers out of context, or reading their words as if they are writing post-Vatican II.

Secondly I, again make recourse to Christ’s own command to “Tell it to the Church” and then accept the Church’s authoritative decision. I understand your statement re: discipline vs. Doctrinal matters since the verse says “If your brother sin against you”, but isn’t teaching a false doctrine sinning aginst your Brother? Do you not use the “principles and beliefs of the historic (Lutheren) church” as foundation for condemning the “Liberal Lutherens”, and declaring them to be “not True Lutherens”? This is a perfect example of “telling it to the Church” and if they refuse to "listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

None of which requires infallible magisteriums, bishoprics, or apostolic succession. While it proves the church is authoritative, it doesn’t prove the Catholic conception of authority.

Did Christ establish a single church? Does the Holy Spirit teach different and sometimes conflicting doctrines to different Groups? When a Christian of denomination “A” “teaches” a false doctrine in discussion with a Christian of denomination “B”, How do they “tell it to the Church” so that they may get a true understanding? They cannot for they do not hold to the same authority. Therefore they cannot obey God’s command and thereby attain resolution that maintains unity and humility.

Christ did establish a single church with one body of doctrine. The fact of the matter is that authority is never infallible at preventing schisms. Schisms existed long before the Reformation, the Orthodox, back to the earliest days. When these schismatics and heretics were excommunicated, they didn’t repent and throw ashes on themselves. They continued teaching falsehood. The fact of the matter is that if someone in a Lutheran church violates a grave command, they may be excommunicated. This does not require infallibility or apostolic succession to be enacted. It is not our claim that there is mutiple doctrine taught within the Bible.

The only Church which has this type of authority is the Church that is Historically tracable to Christ’s time, has been developed by the Grace of the Holy Spirit and preserved through writing and teaching of the full body of faith and even set the canon of the Bible. This is the Catholic Church.

Peace
James

If that were the case, the non-Protestant churches would still be united. If sola scriptura is blamed for the supposed 30,000 denominations then we must blame papal infallibility, apostolic succession, and the magisterium for the East/West split.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Did Christ establish a single church? Does the Holy Spirit teach different and sometimes conflicting doctrines to different Groups? When a Christian of denomination “A” “teaches” a false doctrine in discussion with a Christian of denomination “B”, How do they “tell it to the Church” so that they may get a true understanding? They cannot for they do not hold to the same authority. Therefore they cannot obey God’s command and thereby attain resolution that maintains unity and humility.

Just to add something here moving on with the beliefs of liberals and schismatics. What has the church done to separate those who are in disagreement over key areas of doctrine? Because Pelosi is fun to pick on, let’s use her. Why hasn’t she been excommunicated? John Kerry? The entire Kennedy family? Giuliani? “Fr.” Andrew Greeley? The priest who gave a Marxist tirade at Obama’s church? What good is authority if it is never exercised?

Pelosi and Kerry received communion at a papal Mass. What more could they possibly due to flaunt the dogmas taught by the Church? Yet I, as a Protestant, should be concerned with their supposed apostolic claims?

 

[JRKH]

Just to add something here moving on with the beliefs of liberals and schismatics. What has the church done to separate those who are in disagreement over key areas of doctrine? Because Pelosi is fun to pick on, let’s use her. Why hasn’t she been excommunicated? John Kerry? The entire Kennedy family? Giuliani? “Fr.” Andrew Greeley? The priest who gave a Marxist tirade at Obama’s church? What good is authority if it is never exercised?

Pelosi and Kerry received communion at a papal Mass. What more could they possibly due to flaunt the dogmas taught by the Church? Yet I, as a Protestant, should be concerned with their supposed apostolic claims?

Well - I do not know what goes on with some of these people or why the Church hasn’t been more forceful with them. As for myself, I must just leave this to The church to deal with for I am in a poor position to judge or comment. I will say that, especially since Vatican II, the Church has tried to be more lenient with dissenters, (but I think some of that may be coming to an end soon)

Of course these poor examples of erzatz catholics should not be looked upon with any greater authority than the erzatz lutherens mentioned earlier. Obviously every church has issues in every day and age.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Oh, flaming is okay, when it’s bratwurst

Quit making me hungry -

All orthodox Christians in today’s society find themselves fighting against liberal elements. It is not restricted to Protestant denominations.

Hear Hear:thumbsup:

And Nancy Pelosi calls herself a Catholic. What’s the difference? In the case of radical liberal groups like the ELCA, or the PCUSA on the Reformed side, you most certainly can condemn them by Scripture alone. Scripture is more than sufficient to do this. We can simply add on their violations of our common confessions.

Well I’ll leave Nancy to the church to deal with (or not)
As to the others, I would think that in order to distance the “Faithful” Lutherens from the Schismatics, the Lutheren Heirarchy would make reference to both, just as the Vatican would in a similar situation.

Only when read through the lens of a presupposition that the early church was anything remotely like the modern Roman Catholic Church. I don’t mean in form of liturgy. I mean in doctrine and teaching. One must engage in anachronism in order to assert that the earliest writers mentioned anything having to do with the modern Roman concepts of the monarchial papacy, the assumption, the immaculate conception, etc. It usually involves massive attempts at taking fathers out of context, or reading their words as if they are writing post-Vatican II.

Well I for one don’t expect the Church of 100 AD to “look anything like” the modern Church. It is sort of like comparing apples and oranges.
The US Federal Government is only 200 some years old, and there is a HUGE difference in how it looks, and how it governs.
In so far as “doctrine and teaching” goes, since we already know that Jesus did not tell the Apostles all that He wanted to, there is certainly room for "New Doctrines and "Teaching. New and Better understanding of revelation, and authoritative answers to new questions and challenges.
The Church Heirarchy, Structure and deposit of faith has evolved for nearly 2000 years. The question is less one of why did it evolve as it did, and more one of why wouldn’t have evolved this way.

None of which requires infallible magisteriums, bishoprics, or apostolic succession. While it proves the church is authoritative, it doesn’t prove the Catholic conception of authority.

If we go back to the line of reasoning, Christ created a church with authority to bind and loose upon Peter and the apostles and we are told to take disagreements to “the Church”. By following The Church and it’s development from a few thousand souls to over a billion, from a loose collection of “missionary” sites to a worldwide interconnected Church, the various developments over the centuries really seem to make much more sense. I don’t really think that I am trying to “prove a Catholic concept of authority”. What I am exploring is the Concept of Authority as taught by Christ Himself.

Christ did establish a single church with one body of doctrine. The fact of the matter is that authority is never infallible at preventing schisms. Schisms existed long before the Reformation, the Orthodox, back to the earliest days.

No argument here. Pride has been a problem from the very beginning.

When these schismatics and heretics were excommunicated, they didn’t repent and throw ashes on themselves. They continued teaching falsehood. The fact of the matter is that if someone in a Lutheran church violates a grave command, they may be excommunicated. This does not require infallibility or apostolic succession to be enacted. It is not our claim that there is mutiple doctrine taught within the Bible.

I was not trying to say that the Lutherens taught multiple doctrines. Sorry if I was not clear. But there are many non-catholic churches teaching quite a variety of doctrines. Those who hold to the “Spiritual Body of Christ” being the definition of “the Church” without an intitutional body, would be hard pressed I think to get passed the “Tell it to the Church” issue.
It appears that Lutherens do not hold to this idea, and have a heirarchy to deal with these issues, and I am glad.

If that were the case, the non-Protestant churches would still be united. If sola scriptura is blamed for the supposed 30,000 denominations then we must blame papal infallibility, apostolic succession, and the magisterium for the East/West split.

My own, uneducated opinion on the east west split is that it had more to do with human pride than with real doctinal issues. It would be easy to find faults on both sides of this issue. But that would be subject for another thread. Fortunately East and West are, even now, in talks to resolve these issues. In so far as this thread is concerned, I would have no problems with lumping “Catholic” and “Orthodox” Churches together as apostolically valid.

My Lady is getting restless, so if I don’t reply later today I’l try to get back tomorrow.

Peace
James

 

[thecourt]

I could site examples – here is one, Martin Luther was kicked out of Catholicism because he was of the belief that Catholicism, apparently as it existed at that time, was not the original Church of Jesus Christ. Subsequently, over time, the Lutheran church came to be. Other founders of the Protestant churches came to be, basically with the same intention, to have on the earth the original Church of Jesus Christ since Catholicism was not it.

I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. We are not protestant in any way, we the restored Church of Jesus Christ.

I have asked previously with no explanation, when for Aaron in scriptures never acquired on his own the priesthood, yet was called of God. Nonetheless, every priest in Catholicism, decided to pursue a “vocation”. The original church created by Jesus Christ had 12 apostles, called by Jesus Christ — how does Catholicism explain a large number of cardinals and bishops and of course the pope whose exceeds 12?

 

[JRKH]

I could site examples – here is one, Martin Luther was kicked out of Catholicism because he was of the belief that Catholicism, apparently as it existed at that time, was not the original Church of Jesus Christ. Subsequently, over time, the Lutheran church came to be. Other founders of the Protestant churches came to be, basically with the same intention, to have on the earth the original Church of Jesus Christ since Catholicism was not it.

And this is the consistant error - this mistaken belief that The Church headed by the Bishop of Rome as Vicar of Christ, is not the original Church founded by Christ. Catholicism is indeed it.

I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. We are not protestant in any way, we the restored Church of Jesus Christ.

You may not be protestant in the strict sense of the Word, but the LDS Church comes out of the same Protestant heritage that other Churches do. Mainly because you make the same mistake that the Catholic Church is not the True Church. I don’t expect you to accept that statement and I will not debate it with you since it would be off topic.

I have asked previously with no explanation, when for Aaron in scriptures never acquired on his own the priesthood, yet was called of God. Nonetheless, every priest in Catholicism, decided to pursue a “vocation”. The original church created by Jesus Christ had 12 apostles, called by Jesus Christ — how does Catholicism explain a large number of cardinals and bishops and of course the pope whose exceeds 12?
First of all, Let me say that Priests generally do not “decide to follow a vocation”, but rather they feel they are called by God into the Priesthood. The things that a man must give up in order to follow this path makes it an unattractive option for most any but those truly called to service.
I don’t really understand your question about the 12 apostles. The number here probably relates somehow to the 12 tribes, but that is only a guess. Besides, Jesus never limited the number of bishops etc. The apostles Chose Barabas as the replacement for Judas, then Jesus picked Paul on the Road to Damascus, so there we have thirteen. Additional men who were teachers in the faith are mentioned in Acts so I don’t see what the number 12 has to do with Jesus Founding a Single Church and Giving that Church His Authority and His protection until the end of the age.
He gave authority to his Church to do what needed to be done. As teh flock grew from 120 in the upper room to over 1 Billion worldwide, so has the numbers of priests, bishops etc.

Peace
James

 

[TriuneUnity]

Well - I do not know what goes on with some of these people or why the Church hasn’t been more forceful with them. As for myself, I must just leave this to The church to deal with for I am in a poor position to judge or comment. I will say that, especially since Vatican II, the Church has tried to be more lenient with dissenters, (but I think some of that may be coming to an end soon)

Of course these poor examples of erzatz catholics should not be looked upon with any greater authority than the erzatz lutherens mentioned earlier. Obviously every church has issues in every day and age.

Peace
James

Understandable James. I only mention it to point out that every church body has errant members. Lutherans are certainly no different. But because a church calls itself Lutheran, doesn’t make it so. A Catholic is defined as one who accepts Catholic teaching without qualification. A Lutheran is one who accepts Lutheran teaching without qualification, etc.

 

[Believe_85]

I could site examples – here is one, Martin Luther was kicked out of Catholicism because he was of the belief that Catholicism, apparently as it existed at that time, was not the original Church of Jesus Christ. Subsequently, over time, the Lutheran church came to be. Other founders of the Protestant churches came to be, basically with the same intention, to have on the earth the original Church of Jesus Christ since Catholicism was not it.

I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. We are not protestant in any way, we the restored Church of Jesus Christ.

I have asked previously with no explanation, when for Aaron in scriptures never acquired on his own the priesthood, yet was called of God. Nonetheless, every priest in Catholicism, decided to pursue a “vocation”. The original church created by Jesus Christ had 12 apostles, called by Jesus Christ — how does Catholicism explain a large number of cardinals and bishops and of course the pope whose exceeds 12?

The Catholic Church has a college of 12 cardinals who work with the Pope much like the LDS Prophet and College of 12. All of the other Catholic bishops are representative leaders for their individual areas. All the ward and regional leaders of the LDS also exceed 12, so to suggest that the regional bishops should only number 12 in an effort to refute the validity of the Catholic heirachy as mirroring the Apostolic is made null by your own argument. Afterall, the LDS church has many regional leaders too.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Well I for one don’t expect the Church of 100 AD to “look anything like” the modern Church. It is sort of like comparing apples and oranges.
The US Federal Government is only 200 some years old, and there is a HUGE difference in how it looks, and how it governs.
In so far as “doctrine and teaching” goes, since we already know that Jesus did not tell the Apostles all that He wanted to, there is certainly room for "New Doctrines and "Teaching. New and Better understanding of revelation, and authoritative answers to new questions and challenges.

This would be an apples to oranges comparison. Granted, the early church didn’t “look” like the modern church. The issue is revealed doctrine, not form. The difference with the U.S. Constitution is that the laws contained therein are not divine and have not been once for all delivered to the saints. A better understanding of revelation is fine but when a tradition or teaching develops to such an extent that it is no longer recognizable from a concrete apostolic testimony, and most importantly, that testimony is not confirmed by the apostles own writings, then you have a problem. As Protestants our contention that such teachings as were promulgated at Vatican I, Trent, various ex cathedra statements are not only opposed to the clear revelation of Scripture but are unknown concepts in the ancient church. It’s fine to say such things may have happened, like the Assumption, it’s another to say you must believe they happened as an article of faith. Such is an authority that no longer serves the Word of God but has usurped it’s authority and has bound the consciences of believers where they have no right to do. That is not authority, it is spiritual tyranny.

If we go back to the line of reasoning, Christ created a church with authority to bind and loose upon Peter and the apostles and we are told to take disagreements to “the Church”.

Binding and loosing is probably a bigger topic than can be addressed in a thread devoted to church authority, but needless to say, the context does not bear out that binding and loosing is the ability to invent new teachings. Rather, it has to do with the proclamation of the gospel and forgiving/remitting sins in Christ’s name.

By following The Church and it’s development from a few thousand souls to over a billion, from a loose collection of “missionary” sites to a worldwide interconnected Church, the various developments over the centuries really seem to make much more sense. I don’t really think that I am trying to “prove a Catholic concept of authority”. What I am exploring is the Concept of Authority as taught by Christ Himself.

That’s fine, but we simply do not agree that the authority that Christ taught is what the modern Roman church teaches.

I was not trying to say that the Lutherens taught multiple doctrines. Sorry if I was not clear. But there are many non-catholic churches teaching quite a variety of doctrines. Those who hold to the “Spiritual Body of Christ” being the definition of “the Church” without an intitutional body, would be hard pressed I think to get passed the “Tell it to the Church” issue.
It appears that Lutherens do not hold to this idea, and have a heirarchy to deal with these issues, and I am glad.

We would consider all other denominations to be heterodox. It goes back to the invisible/visible church doctrine, ultimately. True believers in every Christian church, but only the church which teaches the doctrines of the apostles is an orthodox church.

My own, uneducated opinion on the east west split is that it had more to do with human pride than with real doctinal issues. It would be easy to find faults on both sides of this issue. But that would be subject for another thread. Fortunately East and West are, even now, in talks to resolve these issues. In so far as this thread is concerned, I would have no problems with lumping “Catholic” and “Orthodox” Churches together as apostolically valid.

But there were…papal infallibility, purgatory, etc etc. Too long to go into probably lol

My Lady is getting restless, so if I don’t reply later today I’l try to get back tomorrow.

Peace
James

Prayers abound.

 

[JonNC]

For the simple reason that Christ Promised to be with His Church and guide it. That the Gates of Hell would not overpower it.
While I will grant that there were sinful men in the Church (and certainly still are) That is not the same as the Church itself being Corrupted, or abandoned by God. As an example, God allowed teh Jews to be carried off to babylon. But did he abandon them? No He did not. Evils may befall the Church, but God does not abandon His promise.
Finally, if corruption or “error” is possible in a God protected Church, and the Lutherens correctly reformed the church, who will replace the lutherens who now seem to be falling into error on womens and gay issues.

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 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.

I do not mean this as an attack, but an area for reflection.

I have never seen you attack.

Jon

 

[JRKH]

Understandable James. I only mention it to point out that every church body has errant members. Lutherans are certainly no different. But because a church calls itself Lutheran, doesn’t make it so. A Catholic is defined as one who accepts Catholic teaching without qualification. A Lutheran is one who accepts Lutheran teaching without qualification, etc.