Can anyone start a church, and call it the church founded by Jesus Christ?

[elvisman]

Well it was Jesus that said it’s better to remove a part of the body that is offensive, than to let the rest of the body go to hell. Again the Reformers were not separating themselves from Christs Body. Today, the vast majority of Christains that are in the Protestant denominations are there to worship Jesus and have little regard for what happened in the Reformation. I personally know of very few Protestants that are anti-Catholic and very few Catholics that are anti-Protestant. Most of the people that I know feel that were on the same team.

Apparently, you haven’t been around much. There is a HUGE percentage of Protestants that are anti-Catholic. You will see this simply by visiting most Evangelical, SDA or Fundamentalist websites, which usually have Catholic “outreach” links.

The entire reason for the Protestant Revolt was anti-Catholic sentiment.

See, there you go again, making the assertion that I’m not a member of the Catholic Church, which I can assure you that I am. Our difference is that you don’t believe that all the believers in Jesus are part of the Body of Christ, and I do.

And that is precisely why you are not in full communion with the Church – because you reject the very Doctrines of the Church. You cannot have your cake and eat it, too – which is what you’re trying to do. You** refuse**** to accept the Church’s declarations about our separate Protestant brethren. Read Dominus Iesus. Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church.**

Finally, I would direct you back to Luke 10:16:**
"Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me and whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me."

 

[rainman10]

Well actually there is. Jesus said that if a part of the body was offensive, then it would be better to remove that part, than to let the rest of the body go to hell. From what I’ve read about church history, the Reformers were separating themselves from what they saw as a politically corrupted system and not from the Body of Christ. From what the history books say, the Reformers viewed themselves as leaving a a portion of the Body that was corrupt and sending the rest of the Body to hell.

**Yes it would be better to remove THAT BAD PART. But the part they removed was themselves, they detached themselves from the Body and left the Body and kept the part. Where does the Bible teach us that if there are bad people in the Church, we should leave the Church and start our own? Although there were bad things being done by the people of the Church, the Church kept its teachings consistent and it always has. **

 

[Mikeoffaith]

Jesus established ONE Church - not two, not ten, *not *ten thousand.
What part of ONE do you not grasp?

I just want to make sure that this is exactly what you mean. I can say that there is ONE church that is not necessarily realized in ONE physical entity in Rome. Or you could even argue that based on the words you use that there is really only ONE CHURCH and that would be only St. Peter’s in Rome and that all other buildings are less than, much like the Temple in Jerusalem.

 

[Mikeoffaith]

Your idea of the Church radically differs from how Paul understood the Bride of Christ to be. He belonged to a church that simply was “one institution” with a centralized hierarchical structure. The first private individuals to have formed their own Christian sects or “institutions” shortly after his death were the heretical Gnostics whom early Church Fathers denounced and soundly refuted in their apologetical works. These bishops of the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, moreover, testify to the fact that by early on all of orthodox Christendom (The Patriarchates of the Catholic Church) had known that Peter and his valid successors in the episcopate at Rome held a place of primacy in the Church.

Primacy yes, autocracy no. Canon 6 First Ecumenical Council of Nicea; Acts 15 Council of Jerusalem.

 

[elvisman]

I just want to make sure that this is exactly what you mean. I can say that there is ONE church that is not necessarily realized in ONE physical entity in Rome. Or you could even argue that based on the words you use that there is really only ONE CHURCH and that would be only St. Peter’s in Rome and that all other buildings are less than, much like the Temple in Jerusalem.

Physical buildings are simply venues for the Church. They have nothing to do with what is considered to be “The Church”.

Jesus prayed fervently for Unity of his Church in John 17.
Paul said to maintain everything just as he (they) taught, whether it be written or by oral statement (2 Thess 2:15, 2 Thess. 3:6, 1 Cor. 11:2).

---

He also said to beware of factions and to avoid them (1 Cor. 10:13). He said in verse 10:
"I urge you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose."

There is only ONE Church established by Christ. All other denominations are not Churches in the deeper sense of the word. Rather, they are ecclesial communities (Dominus Iesus) because they only possess a partial truth. Eph. 1:22-23 tells us that the Church is the fullness of that truth.

 

[John1]

Sorry, but that’s a cop-out.

I asked you to show me a BIBLICAL precedent for what the Reformers did. You are simply comparing what they did with another wrong perpetrated by the Orthodox 500 years earlier.
Show me where the BIBLE tells us to leave when we disagree.

It wasn’t a cop-out, I just gave you a historical precedent that was set long before the Reformers were even born. As far a a Biblical precedent, you can’t be serious, Jesus Himself preached against the corrupt human institution that the church had become! I guess Jesus would have been considered a Reformer!

The lesson of the eye being gouged out or the hand being cut off has nothing to do with the Body of Christ. Jesus was using hyperbole** to show the severity of sin – NOT telling the crowd to break off when they disagreed with the Body at large – which is what the Reformers did.**

I think that there was more to the “body” meteaphor, on a deeper level. I don’t think Jesus was saying that it was okay to separate simply because you disagree however. The Bible was much to say about marriage and separation, you could apply most to temporal situation alone, but I think they have a much deeper meaning. St. Paul says that if you see anyone who calls himself a brother, taking part in any one of a series of sins that he lists, that you should have nothing to do with them.

In Acts 9:4-5, Jesus equated the Church with his very self. Eph. 1:22-23, Paul says that the CHURCH is the fullness of Christ, who fills things in every way.

I agree with all the Biblical verses that you list!

Of his Church, Jesus said:
Luke 10:16
Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me and whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.
**So, when the Reformers left the Church – they left the FULLNESS of Christ to follow **their flawed version of a partial truth.

You’re equating the church at the time of the Reformers, with the Church at the time of the Apostles. That would be like comparing the church at the time of David, with the Church just prior to the birth of Jesus. The church that Jesus founded was and is made up of everyone that confesses that Jesus is the Christ, just as Peter did, and has faith in Jesus. Jesus prayed for His Apostles, disciplels, and everyone who comes to believe in Him through the Apostles. If you think about it, all believers have come to blieve in Jesus through the original Apostles in one way or another. Anyone, even if they only have the writings of the Apostles in the Bible, and have come to believe in Jesus, are included in that prayer.

 

[Gregory_I]

This is very simple. “They who went out from us were never a part of us.”

Simply start at the death of the Apostle John, watch the Teachings of the CHurch Fathers, and see who starts doing the Leaving. The “Trunk” is the Church Christ established. and SORRY, that is the Catholic Church. History and common sense bear witness.

I admit it takes alot of studying, but hey, if the Truth is worth it…do it.

 

[John1]

Apparently, you haven’t been around much. There is a HUGE percentage of Protestants that are anti-Catholic. You will see this simply by visiting most Evangelical, SDA or Fundamentalist websites, which usually have Catholic “outreach” links.

I realize that there are a lot of websites out there that are either anti-Catholic or anti-Protestant, but what I wrote was that I didn’t know anyone personally that have expressed either of those views]Well I do personally know of a Jehovah Witness that expressed both of those views to me, but other than that no one. Now I have heard and read both of those opinions from various sources. I wonder, if the Christ, via the Holy Spirit, is present in the Catholic Church and the same thing applies in the some of the Protestant communities, then wouldn’t that mean that anyone espousing either of those views would be by definition anti-Christ!"]]

The entire reason for the Protestant Revolt was anti-Catholic sentiment.

Was it really anti-Catholic sentiment? I think that they still considered themselves Catholic Christians, but I could be wrong. Do you have any historical reference that shows that they were against Catholic Christians? What were they against exactly? How does that effect Protestant Christians today?Quote:

Originally Posted by John1
See, there you go again, making the assertion that I’m not a member of the Catholic Church, which I can assure you that I am. Our difference is that you don’t believe that all the believers in Jesus are part of the Body of Christ, and I do.

And that is precisely why you are not in full communion with the Church – because you reject the very Doctrines of the Church. You cannot have your cake and eat it, too – which is what you’re trying to do. You refuse to accept the Church’s declarations about our separate Protestant brethren. Read Dominus Iesus. Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

I’ve read both! Have you read through Vatican II, especially the parts about Christian unity and Christian freedom? Have you read Unitatis Redintegratio as I suggested earlier? It seems like I accept the Doctines of Catholic church and you don’t!

Finally, I would direct you back to Luke 10:16:
“Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me and whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.”

Again, I agree completely with the Bible verse you quoted. Now I would refer you to 1 John 1 sin. ] and 1 John 2 9 Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates a brother or sister** is still in the darkness. 10 Anyone who loves their brother and sister[c] lives in the light, and there is nothing in them to make them stumble. 11 But anyone who hates a brother or sister is in the darkness and walks around in the darkness. They do not know where they are going, because the darkness has blinded them. 19 This is how we know that we belong to the truth and how we set our hearts at rest in his presence: 20 If our hearts condemn us, we know that God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything. 21 Dear friends, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God 22 and receive from him anything we ask, because we keep his commands and do what pleases him. 23 And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us. 24 The one who keeps God’s commands lives in him, and he in them. And this is how we know that he lives in us: We know it by the Spirit he gave us.

** and finally 1 John 319 This is how we know that we belong to the truth and how we set our hearts at rest in his presence: 20 If our hearts condemn us, we know that God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything. 21 Dear friends, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God 22 and receive from him anything we ask, because we keep his commands and do what pleases him. 23 And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us. 24 The one who keeps God’s commands lives in him, and he in them. And this is how we know that he lives in us: We know it by the Spirit he gave us.

Peace be with you!

 

[John1]

**Yes it would be better to remove THAT BAD PART. But the part they removed was themselves, they detached themselves from the Body and left the Body and kept the part. Where does the Bible teach us that if there are bad people in the Church, we should leave the Church and start our own? Although there were bad things being done by the people of the Church, the Church kept its teachings consistent and it always has. **

Hi Rainman,

In a sense that exactly what Jesus was doing. When He saw how corrupt His Fathers House had become, he established His Church, and anyone who has faith in Christ are members. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that we should leave and start our own Church, and I don’t think that was the objective of the Reformers. I’m not agreeing with what they did, but I don’t know exactly what caused them to feel that they had to reform the church.

 

[rainman10]

Hi Rainman,

In a sense that exactly what Jesus was doing. When He saw how corrupt His Fathers House had become, he established His Church, and anyone who has faith in Christ are members. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that we should leave and start our own Church, and I don’t think that was the objective of the Reformers. I’m not agreeing with what they did, but I don’t know exactly what caused them to feel that they had to reform the church.

I am not sure I agree with your statement. Yes, you must have faith in Christ, but that is not all there is to it. You, also, have to follow ALL of Christ’s teachings, one does not get to pick an chose which ones to follow. And how does one know what His teachings are? Through His Church that he established and gave authority to and sent the Holy Ghost to guide it. Not Luther’s church, or Calvin’s or Zwingli’s or any other man’s church, ONLY Jesus Christ’s Church. There is no denying that there were problems with some of the people in the Church, but the Church itself has stayed true since its inception, never changing, always teaching truth.

As far as the reformers, what their objective was, we don’t really know. But we do know that you do not reform something by starting something new and teaching something different. I can understand they wanted to fix wrongs that were being committed by church members, but then they took it a step further and started to try to change the Church’s Doctrines…that is where they went wrong. At that point they were not reforming, they were starting their own churches.

 

[elvisman]

It wasn’t a cop-out, I just gave you a historical precedent that was set long before the Reformers were even born. As far a a Biblical precedent, you can’t be serious, Jesus Himself preached against the corrupt human institution that the church had become! I guess Jesus would have been considered a Reformer!

Show me the chapter and verse where Jesus preached againstthe Church and I will leave the Catholic Church today and become a Protestant.

You have my solemn word on that.

I think that there was more to the “body” meteaphor, on a deeper level. I don’t think Jesus was saying that it was okay to separate simply because you disagree however. The Bible was much to say about marriage and separation, you could apply most to temporal situation alone, but I think they have a much deeper meaning. St. Paul says that if you see anyone who calls himself a brother, taking part in any one of a series of sins that he lists, that you should have nothing to do with them.

And Paul was right. BUT he was speaking about individuals – NOT about leaving the Church, which he himself called the Fullness of Christ (1 Eph. 22-23) and the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim. 3:15).

The fullness of Christ and the pillar and foundation of truth CANNOT fall into error. For you to even imply that is to say that Christ himself is in error.

I challenge you to produce one single doctrinal error that the Church ever declared - just ONE, and I will leave the Church today and become Protestant.

I agree with all the Biblical verses that you list!

No you don’t.
If you did – you wouldn’t advocate leaving the Church for ANY reason.

You’re equating the church at the time of the Reformers, with the Church at the time of the Apostles. That would be like comparing the church at the time of David, with the Church just prior to the birth of Jesus. The church that Jesus founded was and is made up of everyone that confesses that Jesus is the Christ, just as Peter did, and has faith in Jesus. Jesus prayed for His Apostles, disciplels, and everyone who comes to believe in Him through the Apostles. If you think about it, all believers have come to blieve in Jesus through the original Apostles in one way or another. Anyone, even if they only have the writings of the Apostles in the Bible, and have come to believe in Jesus, are included in that prayer.

**Wrong. **
The Church consists of those who are baptized into it and follow its teachings (Luke 10:16, 2 Thess. 2:15).

Remember – even the demons believe in Jesus and tremble (James 2:19). Are THEY part of the Church?

WHERE do you get your ideas from? CERTAINLY not from Christ’s Church or the Bible.

 

[elvisman]

Apparently, you haven’t been around much. There is a HUGE percentage of Protestants that are anti-Catholic. You will see this simply by visiting most Evangelical, SDA or Fundamentalist websites, which usually have Catholic “outreach” links.

I realize that there are a lot of websites out there that are either anti-Catholic or anti-Protestant, but what I wrote was that I didn’t know anyone personally that have expressed either of those views

Well I do personally know of a Jehovah Witness that expressed both of those views to me, but other than that no one. Now I have heard and read both of those opinions from various sources. I wonder, if the Christ, via the Holy Spirit, is present in the Catholic Church and the same thing applies in the some of the Protestant communities, then wouldn’t that mean that anyone espousing either of those views would be by definition anti-Christ!"]
John – it’s not that Christ doesn’t work through Protestant communities. God can work from ANY human source – even evil ones like Pharoah.

---

**The problem is that there is only ONE full truth and that is Christ and his Church (Eph. 1:22-23, 1 Tim. 3:15). There is no other. IF Protestantism is fully true – which version do we follow? There are literally tens of thousands of flavors to choose from – each with their own interpretation of the “truth”. WHO is right?
Tell me.
**

Was it really anti-Catholic sentiment? I think that they still considered themselves Catholic Christians, but I could be wrong. Do you have any historical reference that shows that they were against Catholic Christians? What were they against exactly? How does that effect Protestant Christians today?

**John – you make all sorts **of comments in defense of the divorce that is Protestantism, but you don’t seem to have any idea how it all started.

**I suggest you do some historical research **before you continue defending this ecclesial divorce, and STILL refer to yourself as “Catholic” – because the evidence shows that you’re not.

 

[elvisman]

See, there you go again, making the assertion that I’m not a member of the Catholic Church, which I can assure you that I am. Our difference is that you don’t believe that all the believers in Jesus are part of the Body of Christ, and I do.

They are separated members of the Body of Christ – that is, self-divorced from the Body.

I’ve read both! Have you read through Vatican II, especially the parts about Christian unity and Christian freedom? Have you read Unitatis Redintegratio as I suggested earlier? It seems like I accept the Doctines of Catholic church and you don’t!
IF you have read the Catechism, Dominus Iesus or any other document Pre or Post Vatican II you would not be saying the things you are saying.

---

**The reason so many Traditionalist Catholics are bitter about Vatican II is precisely because of “Catholics” like yourself who took it upon themselves to distort and pervert its teachings and declarations. Remember – the Church does not and CANNOT make doctrinal errors because it is guided by the Holy Spirit to ALL truth (John 16:12-15).

You make it sound like Vatican II completely changed Catholic doctrines regarding Protestantism. It DIDN’T. What it DID do was reach out to our SEPARATED brothers in an effort to widen the door back home to the Church.**

John1:

Again, I agree completely with the Bible verse you quoted. Now I would refer you to 1 John 1

5 This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. 6 If we claim to have fellowship with him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live out the truth. 7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all** sin. ]** and 1 John 2 9 Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates a brother or sister** is still in the darkness. 10 Anyone who loves their brother and sister[c] lives in the light, and there is nothing in them to make them stumble. 11 But anyone who hates a brother or sister is in the darkness and walks around in the darkness. They do not know where they are going, because the darkness has blinded them. 19 This is how we know that we belong to the truth and how we set our hearts at rest in his presence: 20 If our hearts condemn us, we know that God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything. 21 Dear friends, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God 22 and receive from him anything we ask, because we keep his commands and do what pleases him. 23 And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us. 24 The one who keeps God’s commands lives in him, and he in them. And this is how we know that he lives in us: We know it by the Spirit he gave us. **

and finally 1 John 319
This is how we know that we belong to the truth and how we set our hearts at rest in his presence: 20 If our hearts condemn us, we know that God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything. 21 Dear friends, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God 22 and receive from him anything we ask, because we keep his commands and do what pleases him. 23 And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us. 24 The one who keeps God’s commands lives in him, and he in them. And this is how we know that he lives in us: We know it by the Spirit he gave us.

Peace be with you!
John – You MUST take ALL of Scripture in context, not just selected verses.
There are other chapters and verses that say we must:
- Be baptized (Matt. 28:19-20, John 3:5, Rom. 2:29, Col. 2:12-17, 1 Peter 3:21**)**
- Pick up our cross daily to follow him (Matt. 16:24, Luke 9:23)
- Do works of mercy and charity (Matt. 19:21, 25:31–46, Luke 18:22)
**- Do the will of the Father **(Matt. 7:2****1)
- Die and be buried with him through Baptism (Rom. 6:1-11)
- We must suffer with Christ (Matt. 10:38, 16:24, Mark 8:34, John 12:24, Rom. 8:17, 2 Cor. 1:5-7, Eph. 3:13, Phil. 1:29, 2 Tim. 1:8, 1 Peter 2:19-21, 4:1-2)

---

You cannot simply disregard the WHOLE of Scripture for a few verses taken out of context. ALL Scripture must harmonize with itself or it is all a lie. You’ve chosen to believe the lie.

 

[Mikeoffaith]

Physical buildings are simply venues for the Church. They have nothing to do with what is considered to be “The Church”.

Jesus prayed fervently for Unity of his Church in John 17.

And who doesn’t pray fervently for the Unity of the Church?

Paul said to maintain everything just as he (they) taught, whether it be written or by oral statement (2 Thess 2:15, 2 Thess. 3:6, 1 Cor. 11:2).

He also said to beware of factions and to avoid them (1 Cor. 10:13). He said in verse 10: “I urge you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose.”

Paul also said, “I, therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” Eph 4:1-3

There is only ONE Church established by Christ. All other denominations are not Churches in the deeper sense of the word. Rather, they are ecclesial communities (Dominus Iesus) because they only possess a partial truth. Eph. 1:22-23 tells us that the Church is the fullness of that truth.

My translation says: “God has put all things under the authority of Christ and has made Him head over all things for the benefit of the church. And the church is His body; it is made full and complete by Christ, who fills ALL things EVERYWHERE with himself.”

In all places where you have quoted Paul, I don’t see where Paul tells us that God made Peter head of all things. And I refer you to Luke 22:25-26. And you are trying to convince me that where I go is not Church by pulling out one of the Bishop of Rome’s documents? If I don’t accept his authority, why am I going to accept his opinion. I could just as easily quote Luther’s Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope, and somehow I don’t think you would believe that the Pope and the Antichrist are one in the same for me having quoted it.

 

[schaick]

I have been gone for some time - trying to catch up on the thread I saw something that caught my eye. The mention of verse I have seen Catholics use before in defense of Papal infallibility, the Catholic Church being the only container of all the parts of Christs body.

Luke 10
16 “Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me; but whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

Look who HE is talking to in that verse:
1 After this the Lord appointed seventy-two others and sent them two by two ahead of him to every town and place where he was about to go. 2 He told them, “The harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few. Ask the Lord of the harvest, therefore, to send out workers into his harvest field.

The Apostles in writing Scripture, putting GOD’s Word in hard copy have given us a direct line to what Jesus wanted the 72 to preach “to every town”.

By listening to Scripture we are listening to GOD.

 

[fbl9]

Look who HE is talking to in that verse:

The Apostles in writing Scripture, putting GOD’s Word in hard copy have given us a direct line to what Jesus wanted the 72 to preach “to every town”.

By listening to Scripture we are listening to GOD.

Yes look to whom He is speaking to refering to the other gospels. Jesus is speaking to the apostle’s and who ever reject the Apostle’s teaching are rejecting His Church.

The Christ told them to go preach the “kingdom of God is a thand” and to do works of healing.

By the same token by listening to His Church we are listening to Him as well.

 

[elvisman]

And who doesn’t pray fervently for the Unity of the Church?

Paul said to maintain everything just as he (they) taught, whether it be written or by oral statement (2 Thess 2:15, 2 Thess. 3:6, 1 Cor. 11:2).

He also said to beware of factions and to avoid them (1 Cor. 10:13). He said in verse 10: “I urge you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose.”

Paul also said, “I, therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” Eph 4:1-3
Anybody who maintains that tens of thousands of splintered sects with differing doctrines is what God wants doesn’t really seek the unity of the Body that Christ so fervently prayed for in John 17.

---

The verses you furnished above only serve to bolster the position that Protestantism with all of its different flavors is wrong.

My translation says: “God has put all things under the authority of Christ and has made Him head over all things for the benefit of the church. And the church is His body; it is made full and complete by Christ, who fills ALL things EVERYWHERE with himself.”

In all places where you have quoted Paul, I don’t see where Paul tells us that God made Peter head of all things. And I refer you to Luke 22:25-26. And you are trying to convince me that where I go is not Church by pulling out one of the Bishop of Rome’s documents? If I don’t accept his authority, why am I going to accept his opinion. I could just as easily quote Luther’s Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope, and somehow I don’t think you would believe that the Pope and the Antichrist are one in the same for me having quoted it.

Christ IS the head of all things and he made Peter his prime minister (Matt. 16:16-19, Luke 22:31-32, John 21:15-18). He gave him the keys to the kingdom which you cannot possibly understand unless you first understand the Davidic Kingdom as spoken of in Isaiah 22:20-24 and the story of Eliakim.

 

[schaick]

Yes look to whom He is speaking to refering to the other gospels. Jesus is speaking to the apostle’s and who ever reject the Apostle’s teaching are rejecting His Church.

The Christ told them to go preach the “kingdom of God is a thand” and to do works of healing.

By the same token by listening to His Church we are listening to Him as well.

Yes, HIS Church being all those called out to follow HIM. All those baptized into the one body:

1 Corinthians 12
13 For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.

 

[Good_Fella]

Primacy yes, autocracy no. Canon 6 First Ecumenical Council of Nicea; Acts 15 Council of Jerusalem.

Our Lord constituted Peter as head of his Church and bestowed on him certain prerogatives that were not granted to the other apostles. Peter is the rock of the Church on whom it will be built. This is what Jesus intended to tell Peter Cepha] when he changed his name from Simon after this apostle alone infallibly pronounced that Jesus was the Son of the living God. Our heavenly Father personally granted this revelation only to Peter to signify his appointment as the Vicar of Christ on earth. Peter was not impeccable, so on the occasions he did fall our Lord called him by his original name. But in the capacity of chief shepherd and in the official exercise of his divine office, he is addressed as Peter, the foundation on which the Church shall be built (cf. Mt 16: 16-19; Jn 21:15-17). Thus it had to be Peter who was the first to speak for the apostles after the Holy Spirit descended on them at Pentecost (Acts 2:14), and soon after it was this apostle who was the first to preach repentance and baptism in the name of our Lord (Acts 2:38). Peter was the one among all the apostles who had the prerogative of initiating the selection of a successor to Judas (Acts 1:15), and it was he who declared the first anathema, on this occasion against Ananias and Sapphira, which was ratified by God (Acts 5:3). Finally, Peter exercised his prerogative of binding and loosing when he passed judgment on Simon’s pursuit of gaining authority through the laying on of hands (Acts 8: 20-23).

**Primacy, yes; autocracy or democracy, no! **

In ecumenical or general councils the bishops (successors to the apostles) gather from all over the world under the leadership and guidance of the pope (successor to the apostle Peter) to exercise the teaching authority of the Church in matters of faith and morals. Nothing is finally decided unless the supreme pontiff approves, whether he is physically presiding over a council or not. It has been that way since apostolic time. There is nothing despotic about this arrangement, for the pope has been commissioned by Christ to serve as his vicar on earth.

It is no coincidence that the Scriptures only record the personal conversations between Jesus and Peter at crucial moments. This says a lot for Peter and our Lord’s intentions for him.

“I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers.”
Luke 22, 32

"This is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter."
Tertullian, Demurrer Against the Heretics 32:2 [A.D. 200]

"If any bishop loses judgment in some case [decided by his fellow bishops] and still believes that he has not a bad but a good case, in order that the case may be judged anew…let us honour the memory of the apostle Peter by having those who have given the judgment write to (Pope) Julius, Bishop of Rome, so that if it seem proper he may himself send arbiters and the judgment may be made again by the bishops of the neighbouring provinces."
Council of Sardica, Canon 3 [A.D. 342]

PAX :heaven:

 

[elvisman]

I have been gone for some time - trying to catch up on the thread I saw something that caught my eye. The mention of verse I have seen Catholics use before in defense of Papal infallibility, the Catholic Church being the only container of all the parts of Christs body.

Luke 10
16 “Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me; but whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

Look who HE is talking to in that verse:
1 After this the Lord appointed seventy-two others and sent them two by two ahead of him to every town and place where he was about to go. 2 He told them, “The harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few. Ask the Lord of the harvest, therefore, to send out workers into his harvest field.

The Apostles in writing Scripture, putting GOD’s Word in hard copy have given us a direct line to what Jesus wanted the 72 to preach “to every town”.

By listening to Scripture we are listening to GOD.

And by listening to his Church we are listening to God. Don’t forget - even the BIBLE says that the Scriptures don’t contain all that Jesus taught or did. John 21:25 tells us that the world couldn’t contain all of the books that would have described what he did. Acts 1:1-3 tells us that he spoke to them about the Kingdom of God and left instructions to his Apostles before ascending to heaven.

Tell me - can you give me a list of those instructions or tell me the other things he mentioned about the Kingdom of God? Where can I find that in the Bible?

And, contrary to your claim, Luke 10:16 isn’t the only place you will find information about infallibility and authority. Matt. 16:18-19, Matt 18:15-18, Johon 16:12-15 and John 20:21-23 are but a few other places you will find that Jesus gave complete and total earthly authority to his Church. He even went so far as to say that the decisions the Church made would be ordained in heaven as well as on earth.

I don’t remember Jesus giving that authority to one single other entity or “denomination”.

Finally - the decision made that the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15:28 specifically states: "It is the decision of the holy Spirit and of us not to place on you any burden beyond these necessities."
It doesn’t say that the Scriptures made the decision. The NT hadn’t even been written and compiled yet.