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

[JohnnyReb]

continued below

James is mindful of the words of our Lord that there should be only one flock and one shepherd (Jn 10:16).

Here is the passage:

15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down** my** life for the sheep. 16 I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. 17 The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again.

Sorry, no Pope or Magisterium there. Just the voice of Jesus. That is what we listen to.

Those Christians who create dissensions and problems by teaching what contravenes what has been proposed by the episcopate of the Church founded on Peter and the Apostles without any divine mandate have separated themselves from the one visible universal Church. Those members who took it upon themselves to propound doctrines with absolutely no divine authority certainly did not represent another religious institution established by our Lord. Paul himself warns us to avoid those private individuals who create dissension and disrupt the unity of the one true Catholic and Apostolic faith (Rom 16:17).

Paul also tells us that false teachers will come in and lead people astray, he tells us to test everything and hold to which is good. He never tells us to submit our mind and will to one person uncritically.

Do not treat prophecies with contempt 21 but test them all; hold on to what is good, 22 reject every kind of evil

Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

Luke appealed to both sacred and oral tradition as the basis of his gospel (Lk 1:1-4) which was written about thirty years after the Church was born on the day of Pentecost. Likewise, so did John when he had to contend with the heretical Docetists who rejected many of the traditional beliefs of the one universal Church. Scripture comes from Tradition and so must be interpreted in light of it by the proper teaching authority of the Church.

Scripture comes from tradition? Really?

16 All Scripture** is God-breathed** and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

21 For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Scripture was given through humans by the Holy Spirit. I don’t discount tradition. Where we disagree about tradition is that I do not believe tradition should be used in its own right to establish a doctrine or dogma. Lighting an advent wreath at Christmas is a tradition, not in the Bible necessarily, but is something that Christians have done for a long time. Its useful for helping us interpret the bible, and reference what Christians have believed, but all doctrines must be rooted in the scriptures.

Although Luke referenced oral and written tradition, the Holy Spirit was guiding him and had his hand in place guiding what ultimately got included. Doesn’t mean the sources were inspiried in and of themselves. If we found a written copy of “Q” somewhere, would the Church include it in the canon?

Therefore, brothers,* stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught***, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours."
2 Thessalonians 2:15

The Thessalonians were warned to guard themselves against the Ebionites ( a Jewish Christian sect: more members who had gone out without any mandate from the apostles, my emphasis) who rejected Paul’s teachings and propounded doctrines of their own which were a fusion of the traditional teachings of the Church and orthodox Judaism. Obviously Paul held a higher regard for tradition than you do, and he certainly regarded Sacred Tradition as belonging to the deposit of faith together with Sacred Scripture.

Key words. Were taught…past tense. At that time, the canon was incomplete. Its pure conjecture to decide what those oral traditions included and what it did not.

 

[SnakeMauler]

OK I’ll bite.
Yes. The Bible does not mame any Christian denomination or Chruch as a “Remnant Church” or “true Chruch.” All denominations and Independent chruches are all founded by men or women. If asked, “what is the Chruch,” the answer would be, Baptist, Catholic, Methodist and so on.
Now how does the Bible define “The Church?” Taken from Storng’s Greek, 1577, :“ekklesia (ek-klay-see’-ah); from a comp. of G1537 and a der. of G2564; a calling out, ie. (concr.) a popular meeting, espec. a religious congregation (Jewish synagogue or Christian community of members on earth or saint’s in heaven or both):–assemble, church.”
Therefore the Christian Church is a group of people that assembles sfor a religious meeting. The Bible never defines the Christian Church as a denomination. The Churches mentioned in the Bible are all called “The Church” that met in one place in the city or in several places in the city. The combined Churches in the world were “The Universal Chruch.” Keep in mind when the word “Church” (ekklesia) is mentioned in the Bible, its a group of Christians meeting together.
All the Churches of the Bible were a “United Church.” There were not denominations. All of the Apostolic Churches were united under their leader, Jesus Christ. The Apostolic Christian church after a time had fragmented into denominations and groups, with some claiming to be the “True Church”
The head of the “Universal Church” is Jesus Christ, not a Pope, Bishop, President, Church Board, or a Prophet or whatever name you use. Christ is the head of the Church not any Church leader.
So my answer is yes.

Sometimes its not just about “how the original greek word literally translates to English,” its about historically what happened right after Jesus. No one’s a church of “the Bible” just because they say they are because the Church itself predates an authoratively canonized Christian New Testament. Think about it. The earliest apostles certainly weren’t “Baptist”, and when they were out preaching in public, I highly doubt they told people who had never heard of Jesus some wierd answer about “all the churches of the world being one regardless of physically who started them and what they believe.”

 

[SnakeMauler]

I dunno if anyone ever tried this. Just think about the word “Catholic” in the English language. It just sounds a little wierd to be called “Lutheran” and be named after a guy who was known to write works such as “On the Jews and their Lies” and “Baptist”, which doesn’t really imply anything.

 

[Good_Fella]

They would argue, they did not leave the church, the church left them and left behind the teachings handed down from the apostles, and the New Testament-which those apostles and their associates left behind.

In apostolic time it was not private individuals, but the Apostles and those whom they had consecrated to the episcopacy and presbytery by the laying on of hands who were appointed as shepherds and guardians of the faith. And it has been that way ever since through apostolic succession.

*“Keep watch over yourselves and over the whole flock of which the Holy Spirit has appointed you overseers, in which you tend the church of God that he acquired with his own blood.”
Acts 20, 28

For this reason, I remind you to stir into flame the gift of God that you have through the imposition of my hands.
2 Timothy 1, 6

“Since therefore I have, in the persons before mentioned, beheld the whole multitude of you in faith and love, I exhort you to study to do all things in harmony, while your bishop presides in the place of God, and your presbyters [priests] in the place of the assembly of the apostles.”
St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Magnesians, 6 [c.A.D. 110]*

Luther and Calvin were not formally ordained by the laying on of hands as bishops by a bishop who can trace his divine office directly back to the apostles in the first place, so they couldn’t have been appointed by the Holy Spirit to “watch over the flock and tend to the Church”. Not even private individuals like Paul of Samosata, the heretical bishop of Antioch, or the heretic Nestorius, the bishop of Constantinople, had the divine authority to challenge the proper teaching authority of the Church - the Pope in union with the college of bishops - and revise the traditional teachings of the Church handed down by the Apostles. Jesus assured the Twelve that he would be with them and their valid successors until the end of time (Mt 28:20) through the Holy Spirit who would guide the Church in all truth in matters of faith and morals (Jn 16:12-13).

Its ironic Luther and Calvin are labelled as those who engage in private interpretation, when the RCC system exempts them from all accountability. In fact, it sets itself up not to be questioned, because in that system, they cannot err when teaching on faith and morals yet Paul warned us that there would be many false teachers amoung us, to test everything, and hold to what is good…

The Universal Magisterium of the Church is not a private entity. It appeals to Scripture in a public capacity guided by the Holy Spirit, not that any Church doctrine has ever been formed by initially gleaning the Scriptures since apostolic time. The Protestant approach to formulating doctrine is the cause of the perpetual disunity of this man-made religious movement. The Second Letter of Peter (3:16) attests to such a consequence with regard to the private interpretation of Scripture.

“Those, therefore, who desert the preaching of the Church, call in question the knowldege of the holy presbyters, not taking into consideration of how much greater consequence is a religious man, even in a private station, than a blasphemous and impudent sophist. Now, such are all the heretics, and those who imagine that they have hit upon something more beyond the truth… It behooves us, therefore, to avoid their doctrines, and take careful heed lest we suffer any injury from them; but flee to the Church and be brought up in her bosom [Sacred Tradition], and be nourished with the Lord’s scriptures.”
St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5, 20:2 [A.D. 180]

The false teachers Paul and Peter warn us about are the heretics of their time (i.e., Docetists and Ebionites) and perhaps those heretics Irenaeus and other Church Fathers had to deal with through the centuries. They certainly cannot include the episcopate of the Church as an entire body (cf. 2 Cor 1: 2I-22). I can’t help but think of the Protestant reformers when I read this excerpt of Irenaeus or Peter’s letter.

don’t know much about this group, but if all that was “wrong” with them was that they preached salvation by grace through faith alone, and they denied that Mary was the Mother of God, there was nothing wrong with them.

To deny that Mary is the Mother of God, is to deny the reality of the Incarnation as preached by the Apostles. Mary conceived and bore the Person of the divine Word who took his human nature and physiology from her. Our Lord was not a divine spirit who only appeared to be a man as the Docetists maintained. In Luke’s gospel, Elizabeth, filled with the Holy Spirit, deferentially cries out and says, “How is it that the mother of my Lord (Adonai) should come to me?” The Hebrew word is used in the Old Testament when referring to YHWH. The Greek translation of the evangelist (Kyrios) conforms to the Hebrew.

The Apostles and the Church Fathers were true to the teachings of our Lord when they preached salvation by grace through faith and good works done in the system of grace as opposed to the law. The Valentians were condemned by the Church for rejecting Apostolic Tradition.

As for Marian doctrine, I actually accept much of it and would disagree with Valentine on that, …but most Marian doctrines were not dogma in the second century either.

Neither were our Trinitarian and Christological doctrines.

PAX :heaven:

 

[JohnnyReb]

I’ll get back to you later today Good Fella. I have CPR training. Fun…and work this evening, so it may be tomorrow. Until then, blessings.

 

[moondweller]

A genuine question for my non-Catholic friends, with absolutely zero flippancy intended: Can anyone (like myself for example) - start a church, just as so many have done for the last 500 years, and call his or her new church the church founded by Jesus Christ?

No “church” organization can boast that they’re, exclusively, the church that Christ founded. Christ’s is presently “building” His church which is made up of all, and only, true believers (Jew and Gentile) since Pentecost.2 Tim 2:19 "Nevertheless, the firm foundation of God stands, having this seal, "The Lord knows those who are His,"

 

[JohnnyReb]

I’m going to try getting this into one post. We’ll see.

In apostolic time it was not private individuals, but the Apostles and those whom they had consecrated to the episcopacy and presbytery by the laying on of hands who were appointed as shepherds and guardians of the faith. And it has been that way ever since through apostolic succession.

“Keep watch over yourselves and over the whole flock of which the Holy Spirit has appointed you overseers, in which you tend the church of God that he acquired with his own blood.”
Acts 20, 28

The irony is if you read further, Paul exhorts:

I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. 30** Even from your own number **men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. 31 So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears.

Paul was not speaking of heretics outside of the church. He was speaking of people even from their own number. That is precisely why church leaders must be held accountable. With an unaccountable system, how is the church supposed to be protected from error? Simply saying the church is protected by the Holy Spirit and cannot err is not only a cop out, but keeps the church from being accountable. In other words, the overseers cannot do their work!

The New Testament often warns us of the danger of false teaching and apostasy (Acts 20:28-30; 2 Tim. 4:2-4; I Tim. 4:1-3).

For this reason, I remind you to stir into flame the gift of God that you have through the imposition of my hands.
2 Timothy 1, 6

 

[JohnnyReb]

The Universal Magisterium of the Church is not a private entity. It appeals to Scripture in a public capacity guided by the Holy Spirit, not that any Church doctrine has ever been formed by initially gleaning the Scriptures since apostolic time. The Protestant approach to formulating doctrine is the cause of the perpetual disunity of this man-made religious movement. The Second Letter of Peter (3:16) attests to such a consequence with regard to the private interpretation of Scripture.

“Those, therefore, who desert the preaching of the Church, call in question the knowldege of the holy presbyters, not taking into consideration of how much greater consequence is a religious man, even in a private station, than a blasphemous and impudent sophist. Now, such are all the heretics, and those who imagine that they have hit upon something more beyond the truth… It behooves us, therefore, to avoid their doctrines, and take careful heed lest we suffer any injury from them; but flee to the Church and be brought up in her bosom [Sacred Tradition], and be nourished with the Lord’s scriptures.”
St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5, 20:2 [A.D. 180]

Sure it is. Here is what the Catechism says:

86 "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith."48

So far so good, right? It is not superior to the Word of God, but its servant.

87 Mindful of Christ’s words to his apostles: “He who hears you, hears me”,49 The faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.

However, the faithful must receive the Church’s teachings with docility. In other words, the Church is not accountable for their own teachings. Sure they are servants of the Word of God, but who interprets the Word of God, (Scripture and Tradition)? Of course the Catholic Magisterium. So they are servants to the Word of God, but as interpreted by them, because they cannot err. This makes the Magisterium the private entity.

The false teachers Paul and Peter warn us about are the heretics of their time (i.e., Docetists and Ebionites) and perhaps those heretics Irenaeus and other Church Fathers had to deal with through the centuries. They certainly cannot include the episcopate of the Church as an entire body (cf. 2 Cor 1: 2I-22). I can’t help but think of the Protestant reformers when I read this excerpt of Irenaeus or Peter’s letter.

You are certainly entitled to your subjective opinion regarding the reformers. Meanwhile, many in the early church taught Sola Fide:

1. Clement of Rome (c. 30–100): And we [Christians], too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
2. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 50–115): His cross, and his death, and his resurrection, and the faith which is through him, are my unpolluted muniments [legal titles]; and in these, through your prayers, I am willing to be justified.
3. Polycarp (c. 69–155): I know that through grace you are saved, not of works, but by the will of God, through Jesus Christ.
4. Justin Martyr (d. 165): No longer by the blood of goats and of sheep, or by the ashes of a heifer . . . are sins purged, but by faith, through the blood of Christ and his death, who died on this very account.
5. Didymus the Blind (c. 313-398): This does not mean that works can be put before faith, because a person is saved by grace, not by works but by faith.
6. Hilary of Poitiers (c 315-67): Wages cannot be considered as a gift, because they are due to work, but God has given free grace to all men by the justification of faith.

To deny that Mary is the Mother of God, is to deny the reality of the Incarnation as preached by the Apostles. Mary conceived and bore the Person of the divine Word who took his human nature and physiology from her. Our Lord was not a divine spirit who only appeared to be a man as the Docetists maintained. In Luke’s gospel, Elizabeth, filled with the Holy Spirit, deferentially cries out and says, “How is it that the mother of my Lord (Adonai) should come to me?” The Hebrew word is used in the Old Testament when referring to YHWH. The Greek translation of the evangelist (Kyrios) conforms to the Hebrew.

The Apostles and the Church Fathers were true to the teachings of our Lord when they preached salvation by grace through faith and good works done in the system of grace as opposed to the law. The Valentians were condemned by the Church for rejecting Apostolic Tradition.

Mary as the Theotokos is found throughout the teachings of the Early Church. You won’t hear me denying Mary is the mother of God. I don’t accept that Marian doctrines should be dogma (part of the Gospel).

FONT=“Book Antiqua”]Neither were our Trinitarian and Christological doctrines.

PAX :heaven:

Well you kind of got me there I will admit, but my way out here is that I do not believe things because they are dogmas, but because they are taught by the Scriptures. The Trinity and the Nature of Christ are. When dealing with those who reject those truths, you and I can appeal to church history to show that early on, the Church affirmed them.

 

[Good_Fella]

Here is what one Roman Catholic Scholar has to say about all that:

“All the essential claims of the modern papacy, it might seem, are contained in this Gospel saying about the Rock, and in Irenaeus’ account of the apostolic pedigree of the early bishops of Rome. Yet matters are not so simple. The popes trace their commission from Christ through Peter, yet for Irenaeus the authority of the Church at Rome came from its foundation by two Apostles, not by one, Peter and Paul not Peter alone. The tradition that Peter and Paul had been put to death at the hands of Nero in Rome about the year AD 64 was universally accepted in the second century, and by the end of that century pilgrims to Rome were being shown the ‘trophies’ of the Apostles, their tombs, or cenotaphs, Peter’s on the Vatican Hill, and Paul’s on the Via Ostiensis, outside the walls on the road to the coast.** Yet on all of this the New Testament is silent. Later legend would fill out the details of Peter’s life and death in Rome….Neither Peter nor Paul founded the Church at Rome, for there were Christians in the city before either of the Apostles set foot there. Nor can we assume, as Irenaeus did, that the Apostles established there a succession of bishops to carry on their work in the city, for all the indications are that there was no single bishop at Rome for almost a century after the deaths of the Apostles.** In fact, where ever we turn, the solid outlines of the petrine succession at Rome seem to blur and dissolve…”

Neither Paul, Acts nor any of the Gospels tells us anything direct about Peter’s death, and none of them even hints that the special role of Peter could be passed on to any single ‘successor’. There is, therefore, nothing approaching a papal theory in the pages of the New Testament

I was debating with myself whether I should comment on such a bald opinion of this so-called Catholic scholar, whoever he is. Would you mind citing his name? I ask because he doesn’t sound very scholarly. Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp who in turn was a disciple of the apostle John. So I would think Irenaeus was well informed, wouldn’t you? And let us not forget that Irenaeus was not the only Church Father who understood the bishop of Rome to be Peter’s successor. Tertullian was a contemporary of Irenaeus, and here’s what he has to say - or should we say “assume” without any ground of support.

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

“Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars of the Church have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours and when he had at length suffered martyrdom departed to the place of glory due to him.”
Clement of Rome, The First Epistle of Clement, 5 [c.A.D. 96]

“The Church of God which sojourns at Rome to the Church of God which sojourns at Corinth…If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by Him [our Lord Jesus Christ] by us [Bishop of Rome], let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger.”
1st Epistle [of Clement] to the Corinthians, 1,59:1 [c.A.D. 96]

"Victor was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter."The Little Labrynth [A.D. 211]

“Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said, 'There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ*…and to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he has sent to supply his place in this holy synod.’”
Acts of the Council (of Ephesus), session 3 [A.D. 431]

He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you now everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep. Amen, amen, I say to you, when you were younger, you used to dress yourself and go where you wanted; but when you grow old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go." He said this signifying by what kind of death he would glorify God. And when he had said this, he said to him, “Follow me.” *
John 21, 17-19*

Peter chose to be hung upside down when he was crucified by the Romans. Paul was beheaded.

If someone could succeed Paul in his divine office, why not also Peter? Paul ordained Timothy as Bishop of Ephesus in A.D. 65 (1 Tim 3:1).

“For this reason I remind you to stir into flame the gift of God that you have through the imposition of my hands.”
Timothy 1, 6

PAX :harp:

 

[JohnnyReb]

I was debating with myself whether I should comment on such a bald opinion of this so-called Catholic scholar, whoever he is. Would you mind citing his name? I ask because he doesn’t sound very scholarly. Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp who in turn was a disciple of the apostle John. So I would think Irenaeus was well informed, wouldn’t you?

Just to be a nice guy, I went back and looked where I got the information. Its secondary information, but the article I quoted claims to use the following source:

Duffy, Eamon. Saints & Sinners: A History of the Popes. Yale University Press, New Haven (CT), 2002

I don’t doubt Ireneaus was well informed. In fact, he as a father of the church, is closer to the wellspring than either you or I are. Like John Wesley, I find their teachings extremely valuable, though not infallible. It seems that Ireneaus sees the church as founded on Peter and Paul, which is different from the Catholic Claim that the Church as built on Peter alone.

As Paul writes in Ephesians:

19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21 In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord.

In other words, the church is built on all Apostles, including Peter but not limited to Peter. There is no doubt in my mind, based on the Church fathers (which you provide some excellent quotes by the way) that Peter played a central role in the early church. Even the Orthodox would note as conflicts would develope, that Peter (and the See of Rome), would exercise a place first among equals.

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

“The Church of God which sojourns at Rome to the Church of God which sojourns at Corinth…If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by Him [our Lord Jesus Christ] by us [Bishop of Rome], let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger.”
1st Epistle [of Clement] to the Corinthians, 1,59:1 [c.A.D. 96]

Its important to keep all of this in its historical context. It was necessary to affirm the gospel message by cross linking what was taught from church to church in a time where Christianity was illegal, and heresy was running wild. So how did early Christians keep the Gospel from corruption? **Ireneaus states: **

It is necessary that every church, that is, the faithful who are everywhere, should agree with this church; in which that tradition which is from the apostles has been preserved by those who are everywhere.

Catholics will say according to Irenaeus, all churches must agree with the See of Rome, so that if you know the faith of Rome, then you know the faith of the Church. If all orthodox churches are NECESSARILY in agreement with Rome, what can that mean except that Rome is infallible?

Perhaps a **different translation **of what Ireneaus taught is more accurate:

For to this church, on account of its stronger pre-eminence, it must needs be that every church resorts (that is to say, the faithful from all quarters); and in this church the tradition that comes from the apostles has ever been preserved by those who come from all quarters.

Or, word for word (and in English word order, not Latin):

For ENIM it must be the case NECESSE EST that every church OMNEM ECCLESIAM (that is, (HOC EST, faithful individuals EOS QUI SUNT FIDELES from every quarter) UNDIQUE) will come together CONVENIRE at this church, AD HANC ECCLESIAM, because of PROPTER (its) more powerful POTENTIOREM pre-eminence, PRINCIPALITATEM, in which (church) IN QUA that which is EA QUAE EST handed down from the apostles AB APOSTOLIS TRADITIO has always been preserved SEMPER CONSERVATA EST by those AB HIS who come from every direction QUI SUNT UNDIQUE

Irenaeus says that every church must CONVENIRE AD Rome. Some persons have translated this as “agree with.” Now, taking the Latin Vulgate as a handy guide to popular Latin usage of the time, we see that (as in classical usage) CONVENIRE CUM normally means “agree with” (Mt 20:13), but that CONVENIRE AD means “resort to” or “assemble at”. It implies physical motion.

In other words, another plausible explaination is that Irenaeus’ plain point is that bishops and presbyters are kept true to the faith they have received from the Apostles not only by continuity with their predecessors, but also by the continual cross-fertilization and cross-checking provided by the network of travel and correspondence among congregations. A system of accountablility.

“Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars of the Church have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours and when he had at length suffered martyrdom departed to the place of glory due to him.”
Clement of Rome, The First Epistle of Clement, 5 [c.A.D. 96]

I’m not doubting Peter was a great Apostle. Paul listed his sufferings too as qualifications of his Apostle status:

Whatever anyone else dares to boast about—I am speaking as a fool—I also dare to boast about. 22 Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they Abraham’s descendants? So am I. 23 Are they servants of Christ? (I am out of my mind to talk like this.) I am more. I have worked much harder, been in prison more frequently, been flogged more severely, and been exposed to death again and again.

 

[JohnnyReb]

"Victor was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter."The Little Labrynth [A.D. 211]

“Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said, 'There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ…and to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he has sent to supply his place in this holy synod.’”
Acts of the Council (of Ephesus), session 3 [A.D. 431]

He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you now everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep. Amen, amen, I say to you, when you were younger, you used to dress yourself and go where you wanted; but when you grow old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go." He said this signifying by what kind of death he would glorify God. And when he had said this, he said to him, “Follow me.” *
John 21, 17-19*

Peter chose to be hung upside down when he was crucified by the Romans. Paul was beheaded.

If someone could succeed Paul in his divine office, why not also Peter? Paul ordained Timothy as Bishop of Ephesus in A.D. 65 (1 Tim 3:1).

“For this reason I remind you to stir into flame the gift of God that you have through the imposition of my hands.”
Timothy 1, 6

PAX :harp:

The Catholic saint Augustine seemed to be confused on the subject of the whether Peter or Jesus was the Rock:* (and frankly I am sure there have been pages after pages of discussion on Catholic answers about this. I’m not sure if would get anywhere ourselves)*

In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: ‘On him as on a rock the Church was built.’… But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed… And so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven…’ But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable (Augustine, Retractations, 1:21 as cited in Cleenewerck L. His Broken Body: Understanding and Healing the Schism Between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches (An Orthodox Perspective). Euclid University Consortium Press, Washington (DC), 2007, p. 302).

Since Augustine was confused, it seems safe to conclude that the idea that Peter must be the Rock was not the universal position at least in the early fifth century.

 

[Good_Fella]

As for disunity in faith in morals, all Christians are united in the Gospel and united in Christ. Let’s take the Nicene Creed. Catholics and Protestants agree on every point, except that which I have highlighted.

Johnny, Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox cannot be united in the Gospel if they fail to agree on all of the articles of faith contained in the Nicene Creed. The Council of Nicea made what is implicitly revealed in the Scriptures an explicit revelation from God which must be assented to by all baptized Christians. Christ intended that a central teaching authority be established on the foundation of Peter and the Apostles to teach, guide, and govern the faithful in matters of faith and morals in strict accordance with God’s word. Without a magisterium, or by rejecting it altogether, people can believe in whatever they wish according to their private interpretations of the Scriptures. But God’s revealed truth is essentially absolute and objective, not subjective and relativistic. And everything God wills to reveal to us as the truth is for the purpose of us knowing and accepting it for the sake of his infinite goodness. One cannot be a true member of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church if he refuses to profess belief in all of the articles of faith found in the Creed. The Church is visibly one body in Christ - not one invisible soul (Eph 1:22-23).

“To sum up all in one word – what the soul is in the body, that are Christians in the world. The soul is dispersed through all the members of the body, and Christians are scattered through all the cities of the world. The soul dwells in the body, yet is not of the body; And Christians dwell in the world, yet are not of the world. The invisible soul is guarded by the visible body, and Christians are known indeed to be in the world, but their godliness remains invisible.”
Letter to Diognetus, 6:1 [A.D. 200]

The author of this letter had only One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church in mind that manifested to the secular world a unity of faith among all true believers and members who adhered to the orthodox teachings of the Church in accord with the deposit of faith. Today non-Christians see Christianity as an ensemble of different churches and a disunity of faith. But the Scriptures are clear: there is only one true Church established by Christ which constitutes a visible unity of faith.

Christians who have severed themselves from the Apostolic Tradition and the historic Christian faith by refusing to accept all the teachings of the Church are not in communion with the Church and remain outside. The concept of an invisible church was developed for the sake of preserving one’s membership. One cannot profess belief in the **One **Holy Catholic Apostolic Church while aware of the unresolvable disunity of faith and morals in Christendom unless he believes in the existence of an invisible church, which you have claimed you do not believe in.

Even your church teaches that Protestant Church have a valid Baptism, and a valid marriage sacrament…

The Catholic Church teaches that all formal marriages are valid and binding for life (Mk 10: 6-9). A divorced Catholic convert from Hinduism cannot remarry in the Church unless he is granted an annulment. But his valid previous marriage outside the Church doesn’t make him a member of it, does it? Is that your point with regard to Protestants?

So you’re comparing Protestants to Docetists now? Not all Protestants reject that the Eucharist is really the blood and body of our Lord…[or] reject the idea of the incarnation either.

But Protestants do not accept all the teachings of the Church handed down to us from the apostles. To begin with, sola fide and sola Scriptura do not belong to the Apostolic Tradition of the Church. None of the Church Fathers taught these alien doctrines, but the contrary.

Protestants and Orthodox… would not accept transubstantiation language either.
Transubstantiation was not declared dogma until the 12th century.

In principle Catholic Christians have believed in the Real Presence of Christ by transubstantiation since apostolic time. Infallible Church teachings do not appear at the moment they are defined as dogma.

Heretics deny the soverreign Lord. That is NOT what Protestants do.

At least not intentionally by rejecting many of the teachings of the Catholic Church.

As a Christian, I listen to the authority of scripture, tradition and reason from the Church in these matters. Christians that accept homosexuality and abortion do the same. Its sad. We’re not entirely in disagreement here.

There will always be disharmony and disunity in Christendom as long as people choose what they want to believe and practice.

Faith is not just mere mental acceptence of intellectual truths. That is not what Protestants teach. Real faith is a living and active faith.

But you deny that we are justified not by faith alone - but by good works done in grace added to our faith. This is a separation from the Apostolic Tradition of the Church.

Pax Christu :harp:

 

[JohnnyReb]

The Council of Nicea made what is implicitly revealed in the Scriptures an explicit revelation from God which must be assented to by all baptized Christians. Christ intended that a central teaching authority be established on the foundation of Peter and the Apostles to teach, guide, and govern the faithful in matters of faith and morals in strict accordance with God’s word.

Like I said before, God never intended his leaders to be beyond accountablility with their words and teachings. Beyond the interpretation of “one holy, catholic and apostolic church” and what that means. The central teaching of Christianity-Romans 10:9-10 and John 3:16. The essence of the Gospel.

Without a magisterium, or by rejecting it altogether, people can believe in whatever they wish according to their private interpretations of the Scriptures. But God’s revealed truth is essentially absolute and objective, not subjective and relativistic. And everything God wills to reveal to us as the truth is for the purpose of us knowing and accepting it for the sake of his infinite goodness

I agree with you 100 percent. I am not sure that Protestant Christians don’t just arbitarily decide what they want to believe and what they don’t. On the contrary they do not cut themselves off from their teachings being tested by others or by a rule outside themselves. They allow their teachings to be examined to see if they conform to God’s word.

The Magisterium decides what it believes it should teach to the faithful and binds it upon them. They are not accountable to anything outside themselves. If Protestants are Sola Scriptura, Catholicism is Sola Ecclesia.

To sum up all in one word – what the soul is in the body, that are Christians in the world. The soul is dispersed through all the members of the body, and Christians are scattered through all the cities of the world. The soul dwells in the body, yet is not of the body; And Christians dwell in the world, yet are not of the world. The invisible soul is guarded by the visible body, and Christians are known indeed to be in the world, but their godliness remains invisible."
Letter to Diognetus, 6:1 [A.D. 200]

Christians who have severed themselves from the Apostolic Tradition and the historic Christian faith by refusing to accept all the teachings of the Church are not in communion with the Church and remain outside. The concept of an invisible church was developed for the sake of preserving one’s membership. One cannot profess belief in the **One **Holy Catholic Apostolic Church while aware of the unresolvable disunity of faith and morals in Christendom unless he believes in the existence of an invisible church, which you have claimed you do not believe in.

That’s not what they believe. We see one body made of different communities that accept the Gospel message. Such thought really overemphasizes the things we are not united in, which are non-essentials, and what we are united in. We all accept the Bible is God’s word. We all believe that salvation is by grace through faith. We all believe in the Trinity, the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ, for our salvation. We all accept the virgin birth.

[But Protestants do not accept all the teachings of the Church handed down to us from the apostles. To begin with, *sola fide

and sola Scriptura do not belong to the Apostolic Tradition of the Church. None of the Church Fathers taught these alien doctrines, but the contrary.

I pointed out previously where the early church taught Sola Fide. Its in the Bible and Apostolic in origin. Just because Rome teaches something does not make it Apostolic. As for Sola Scriptura

Ireneaus:

“We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God,** handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.” [1] **

Cyril of Jerusalem-confirms that his authority as bishop was subject to conformity to the written scriptures in his teachings:

“For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. **Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures.” [5] **

In principle Catholic Christians have believed in the Real Presence of Christ by transubstantiation since apostolic time. Infallible Church teachings do not appear at the moment they are defined as dogma.

I realize this, because the Assumption of Mary was not dogma until 1950, but was believed well before then. Can you show me where transubstantiation was believed in the early church (not just real presence)?

There will always be disharmony and disunity in Christendom as long as people choose what they want to believe and practice.

There will be disagreements. I don’t deny that. Those disagreements are problematic for you guys not us. We say “In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity” Catholicism in its dogmatic nature ever expands the list of “essentials”.

I have enjoyed this discussion. You have challenged me to think and do my homework.

 

[Good_Fella]

16 I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.

Sorry, no Pope or Magisterium there. Just the voice of Jesus. That is what we listen to.

Protestants who believe that divorce and artificial contraception are permissible also claim that the “voice of Jesus” is their sole governing authority and that the Bible is their sole rule of faith. But the consecrated leaders of the episcopate have a share in the teaching authority of Christ and his role as shepherds of the flock until the end of time. Our Lord passed on the authority he received from the Father to his apostles, who in turn transferred their authority invested by Christ to their valid successors through the imposition of hands ad finitum.The Scriptures make it clear, for they reflect what the primitive Church had already traditionally believed before the New Testament was written and the early Church Fathers taught, including those of the first and second centuries who were either ordained by an apostle (Clement of Rome) or a disciple of his (Ignatius of Antioch). Jesus speaks through the Magisterium: the Pope in union with the college of bishops.

*“Whoever will not receive you or listen to your words – go outside that house or town and shake the dust from your feet. Whoever receives you receives me, and whoever receives me receives the one who sent me.”
Matthew 10, 14, 40

“I will give you the keys [divine teaching authority] to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Matthew 16, 19

Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so also I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.”
John 20, 21-23

“He will glorify me, because he will take from what is mine and declare it to you. Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that he will take from what is mine and declare it to you [through the Holy Spirit].”
John 16, 14-15

Keep watch over yourselves and over the whole* flock of which the Holy Spirit has appointed you overseers, in which you tend the church of God that he acquired with his own blood.
Acts 20, 28

But you are fellow citizens with the holy ones and members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the capstone.
Ephesians 2, 20

The word “foundation” indicates that the teaching authority of the Church never died with the assembly of the Apostles or their immediate successors.

Paul also tells us that false teachers will come in and lead people astray, he tells us to test everything and hold to which is good. He never tells us to submit our mind and will to one person uncritically.

Again, these false teachers Paul is referring to would certainly include the Ebionites and Docetists and those members of the church who presumed to spread their own false doctrines without any divine mandate. Paul would certainly exhort us to submit our mind and will to the teachings of Peter and the Apostles, and those men whom they had appointed by the imposition of their hands, without giving any critical thought.

Scripture comes from tradition? Really?

Since many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the events that have been fulfilled among us [Sacred Tradition], just as those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning and ministers of the word have handed them down to us [oral Tradition], I too have decided, after investigating everything anew, to write it down in an orderly sequence for you [Sacred Scripture], most excellent Theophilus, so that you may realize the certainty of the teachings you have received."
Luke 1, 1-4

Although Luke referenced oral and written tradition, the Holy Spirit was guiding him and had his hand in place guiding what ultimately got included. Doesn’t mean the sources were inspiried in and of themselves…

It sounds like you’re suggesting that the sacred and oral traditions which Luke acknowledges in his gospel weren’t formed and transmitted under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. May I remind you that the Church was born on the day of Pentecost (c.A.D. 33) when the Holy Spirit descended on Mary and the Apostles. The Paraclete did not descend when the New Testament began to be written perhaps as early as A.D. 45 with the Letter of James. John 16:12-13 refers to the development of the sacred traditions of the Church and the formulation of doctrines until Christ returns.

The Gospel of Luke as we have it now isn’t self-authenticating. The Catholic Church officially and decidedly sanctioned the authenticity of the gospel in the 4th century, partly because its contents completely conformed with the sacred and oral traditions of the orthodox faith and the Church. Paul’s companion couldn’t have been the author if the text contained gnostic elements as did the apochryphal gospels.

*PAX * :heaven:

 

[Good_Fella]

continued below

Scripture comes from tradition? Really?

16 All Scripture** is God-breathed** and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

21 For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Catholics agree that all Scripture is beneficial and profitable, but where we disagree is the notion that all Scripture is exclusive. The Greek word for “useful” is ophelimos which obviously does not mean exclusive. Further, Paul intended to write in the Greek “every scripture that had been written until then”. Certainly he couldn’t have known that there would definitely be other New Testament books written after he wrote this letter to Timothy, could he? But he was aware of all the traditions that had developed by then and could be recorded. The point is the New Testament wasn’t written to serve as the sole rule of faith. The Church had existed without a written and compiled New Testament for about eighty years and could have continued until the end of this age without it by the guaranty of the Holy Spirit. By the way, good deeds are also useful or profitable to men (Titus 3:8). But we aren’t justified exclusively by good works done in grace, are we? And guess what? The apostle appeals to tradition and the apostolic teaching authority of the Church just before he mentions Scripture.

But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it.*
2 Timothy 3, 14 *

Scripture was given through humans by the Holy Spirit. I don’t discount tradition. Where we disagree about tradition is that I do not believe tradition should be used in its own right to establish a doctrine or dogma. Lighting an advent wreath at Christmas is a tradition, not in the Bible necessarily, but is something that Christians have done for a long time. Its useful for helping us interpret the bible, and reference what Christians have believed, but all doctrines must be rooted in the scriptures.

Lighting an Advent Wreath is a tradition, but in the form of a human custom. The Immaculate Conception belongs to Sacred Tradition: “the deeds wrought by God in the history of salvation.” Of course, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception or even of the two souls, intellects, and wills (human and divine) in Christ would not have been promulgated by the Church if there clearly was no scriptural support. But dogmas are revelations from God made explicit. Scripture is materially sufficient, but formally insufficient. Much of what is written is implicit and ambiguous. So it cannot be used as the sole rule of faith, but must be interpreted in light of Tradition by the appointed teaching authority of Christ’s Church. The authors of the New Testament were uniquely inspired to write their gospels and epistles, but they weren’t enlightened with the full implications of what had been acknowldeged by them to write down in the order that they did. It has taken the Church much time to gradually perceive and grasp the fullness of the depth of the divine mysteries. And for this reason our Lord established a Church on the foundation of his apostles which is to be guided by the Holy Spirit until the end of time. Paul describes the Church as “the way where fools do not err within.”

Key words. Were taught…past tense. At that time, the canon was incomplete. Its pure conjecture to decide what those oral traditions included and what it did not.

I’m sure Paul knew what the orthodox traditions were as opposed to the unorthodox ones of the gnostics.

PAX :harp:

 

[LDSChristian]

Yes you are correct they are still around and look at how many problem they are going through. Now they claim to be Christian but are they really? And there are many other that are still around, remember God does his thing in his own time. It may not be as fast as we want it to be.

All real Christian Churches aer headed by Christ.

They are the head of the congragation not of the Church, Christ is the head of the Church.

Yes, Christ’s church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, is christian. Are we traditional christians that throw out parts of the Bible like others? No. Are we true christians that teach all of the Bible? Yes.

 

[JohnnyReb]

Protestants who believe that divorce and artificial contraception are permissible also claim that the “voice of Jesus” is their sole governing authority and that the Bible is their sole rule of faith.

The Catholic church also teaches divorce is permissible in some cases. They call it “annulments”. Its the same thing called by a different name. As for ABC, that’s a whole other discussion. I’ll leave that alone except to say that ABC is not problematic for non Catholics, and weakens the arguement in Non Catholic eyes and only strengthens it if read through the lens of Catholic teaching about the matter. Hope that makes sense.

Whoever will not receive you or listen to your words – go outside that house or town and shake the dust from your feet. Whoever receives you receives me, and whoever receives me receives the one who sent me."
Matthew 10, 14, 40

Jesus was talking to his Apostles-and you and me, or anyone else who shares the Gospel message. The problem here is that we are both going to read our ecclesiaology into this scripture.

"I will give you the keys [divine teaching authority]

to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
Matthew 16, 19

This is reading your Church’s teaching into scripture.

“He will glorify me, because he will take from what is mine and declare it to you. Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that he will take from what is mine and declare it to you [through the Holy Spirit].”
John 16, 14-15

Keep watch over yourselves and over the whole flock of which the Holy Spirit has appointed you overseers, in which you tend the church of God that he acquired with his own blood.
Acts 20, 28

Something is noticibly absent here, that would be any reference to the Catholic Church. When read through Catholic eyes, I can see where you come to the conclusions you do, when read through non Catholic eyes, I can see where we come to our conclusions. As for John 16:14-15, everything that was taught was included in the pages of New Testament.

But you are fellow citizens with the holy ones and members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the capstone.
Ephesians 2, 20

The word “foundation” indicates that the teaching authority of the Church never died with the assembly of the Apostles or their immediate successors.

Let’s look at what is actually said. The Church is built on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets. No Pope, and its not built on Peter alone. Its built on the Apostles (plural) and Prophets (plural) with Christ as the chief cornerstone. Chief, as in main, most important. More important than Peter or any Apostle or Prophet. Its ironic that I used this scripture to prove myself right just a few posts back, especially because it contradicts Rome’s understanding of Matthew 16:18.

It sounds like you’re suggesting that the sacred and oral traditions which Luke acknowledges in his gospel weren’t formed and transmitted under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. May I remind you that the Church was born on the day of Pentecost (c.A.D. 33) when the Holy Spirit descended on Mary and the Apostles. The Paraclete did not descend when the New Testament began to be written perhaps as early as A.D. 45…

That’s not the point, at least for me. The point is if anything was or is taught that is necessary for salvation that was not included in the pages of the scriptures.

The oral tradition he used ended up in written form in his Gospel. I won’t deny that the Gospel writers didn’t use sources. Luke says so himself. Its conjecture to claim those sources were inspired just because they were used in compiling an inspired book. Again, if Matthew and Luke both used an unknown source (Q for instance) would Q be inspired? Would the Catholic church add it to the canon if we ever found a written copy of Q in a cave somewhere in the middle east?

The Gospel of Luke as we have it now isn’t self-authenticating. The Catholic Church officially and decidedly sanctioned the authenticity of the gospel in the 4th century, partly because its contents completely conformed with the sacred and oral traditions of the orthodox faith and the Church. Paul’s companion couldn’t have been the author if the text contained gnostic elements as did the apochryphal gospels.

*PAX * :heaven:

I agree, its not self authenticating. God sent his Son, his Son sent the Apostles (and sent the Holy Spirit to the Apostles), the Apostles and their associates wrote the pages of scripture. Scripture gets its authority from the Church (universal, but even for the sake for discussion, I will say the Catholic church was instrumental in giving us the New Testament…uh oh I sound very Catholic here, that’s ok) Since scripture is authenticated by the church, and represents its teaching, the church cannot contradict itself by teaching contrary to it. If a Christian contradicts scripture, they have taught in error.

For example, many Christians reject the assumption of Mary because it is based on the idea of Mary being sinless, which in their mind (not necessarily my mind) it contradicts Romans 3:23.

 

[JohnnyReb]

Catholics agree that all Scripture is beneficial and profitable, but where we disagree is the notion that all Scripture is exclusive. The Greek word for “useful” is ophelimos which obviously does not mean exclusive. Further, Paul intended to write in the Greek “every scripture that had been written until then”. Certainly he couldn’t have known that there would definitely be other New Testament books written after he wrote this letter to Timothy, could he? But he was aware of all the traditions that had developed by then and could be recorded. The point is the New Testament wasn’t written to serve as the sole rule of faith.The Church had existed without a written and compiled New Testament for about eighty years and could have continued until the end of this age without it by the guaranty of the Holy Spirit.

2 Tim 3:17 says that the scripture will “equip us for every good work”. It does not say that scripture will “equip us for MOST good works”. It does not say that scripture will “equip us PARTIALLY for good works”.

I propose the following analogy:

The KJV uses the imagery that scripture is able to “fully furnish” us for ever good work. Now imagine you rented an apartment and the ad said it was “fully furnished”. When you move in you know what fully furnished means. It has a bed, a couch, a fridge etc. Everything you need to live. If you walked in and it had not dresser drawers to put your clothes in, you would complain that it was not fully furnished!

The scripture is able to fully furnish us for EVERY GOOD WORK. In other words, there are no good works that the Bible does not discuss. If we abide with scripture, and scripture alone, we don’t have to look to oral church traditions to learn about any other good works.

The Temptation of Jesus:

Jesus defeated the three temptations of the Devil with, “it is written”, not “I say”. Mt 4:1-11

In Matthew 4:1-11, three times Jesus was tempted by the Devil and each time Jesus replied exactly the same three words that defeated the Devil: “it is written” Never did Jesus refer to oral tradition to prove or defend truth.

Jesus made over 100 references to scripture. Jesus never relies upon oral traditions but scripture alone. Here are some examples:

“Have you not read” Matthew 12:3
“have you not read in the Law” Matthew 12:5
“Did you never read in the Scriptures” Matthew 21:42
“What is written in the Law? How does it read to you?” (Luke 10:26)

Jesus said to them, "Is this not the reason you are mistaken, that you do not understand the Scriptures or the power of God? (Mark 12:24)-
But Jesus answered and said to them, "You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God. (Matthew 22:29) These verses equate understanding the scriptures with understanding the work and power of God!

“The Son of Man is to go, just as it is written of Him” There were many oral traditions as to who the messiah was in the Jewish belief system. All were wrong! Some thought he was merely a king, some merely a prophet, some merely a priest! (Matthew 26:24)

"What then is this that is written: ‘The stone which the builders rejected, This became the chief corner stone’? (Luke 20:17)

“How then will the Scriptures be fulfilled, which say that it must happen this way?” (Matthew 26:54)

There are examples of the apostles using Sola Scriptura:

And according to Paul’s custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures (Acts 17:2)

Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so. Therefore many of them believed, along with a number of prominent Greek women and men. (Acts 17:11-12)

“Apollos powerfully refuted the Jews in public, demonstrating by the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ.” (Acts 18:28)

Scriptures were read in the churches every Lord’s Day:

Until I come, give attention to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation and teaching.1(Timothy 4:13)

Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you** may learn not to exceed what is written,** so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other. 1 Corinthians 4:6

“from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” 2 Timothy 3:15

"if indeed you have heard of the stewardship of God’s grace which was given to me for you; that by revelation there was made known to me the mystery, as I wrote before in brief. By referring to this, when you read you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit; Ephesians 3:2-5

“For we write nothing else to you than what you read and understand, and I hope you will understand until the end” 2 Corinthians 1:13

My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. 1 John 2:1

I realize that Catholics hold the scriptures to be very important! I am glad that they do! In the masses I have attended, which is the same as our Anglican services, there is alot of scripture read. I notice that both a Catholic priest and Protestant ministers teach from the Bible, will make references to stories, traditions, etc…I don’t think the disagreements are sharp as some want to make them out to be.

I accept the importance of tradition. Most Anglicans and Wesleyans do. We do disagree on the extent and leve of authority that tradition has.

 

[John1]

John1:

I am sorry,but elvisman has not once twisted your words. I think you simply do not like hearing the facts of what the church truly teaches. Isn’t it amazing how people always seem to get offended by the Truth? Strangely Jesus had the same problem. Finally,God’s Church is not about feelings and emotions,but the TRUTH,plain and simple.

Hi Nicea325,

If you have read through all the post, it’s very apparent that my word were in fact twisted, but wheather or not you believe my words were twisted is really not important. What is important is that you read the Church’s decree on ecumenism, UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO. After reading the Church’s decree on the desire for Christian unity, then you will realize that my position is in line with what the Church truly teaches regarding this topic. In case you don’t have time to read the decree completely, or if you don’t really have any interest in reading it, I will cite various parts.

• The restoration of unity among all Christians is one of the principal concerns of the Second Vatican Council.

*The Sacred Council gladly notes all this. It has already declared its teaching on the Church, and now, moved by a desire for the restoration of unity among all the followers of Christ, it wishes to set before all Catholics the ways and means by which they too can respond to this grace and to this divine call.

*The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect.

*…it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body,(21) and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.(22)

*The brethren divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation.

*It follows that the separated Churches(23) and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.

*The term “ecumenical movement” indicates the initiatives and activities planned and undertaken, according to the various needs of the Church and as opportunities offer, to promote Christian unity. These are: first, every effort to avoid expressions, judgments and actions which do not represent the condition of our separated brethren with truth and fairness and so make mutual relations with them more difficult;

*Catholics, in their ecumenical work, must assuredly be concerned for their separated brethren, praying for them, keeping them informed about the Church, making the first approaches toward them. But their primary duty is to make a careful and honest appraisal of whatever needs to be done or renewed in the Catholic household itself, in order that its life may bear witness more clearly and faithfully to the teachings and institutions which have come to it from Christ through the Apostles.

*In all things let charity prevail. If they are true to this course of action, they will be giving ever better expression to the authentic catholicity and apostolicity of the Church.

*There can be no ecumenism worthy of the name without a change of heart.

*So we humbly beg pardon of God and of our separated brethren, just as we forgive them that trespass against us.

*The way and method in which the Catholic faith is expressed should never become an obstacle to dialogue with our brethren.

If you get a chance, please take the time to read through the decree. Peace be with you and may you have a wonderful Christmas with your friends and family!

 

[Good_Fella]

Paul exhorts:

I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. 30* Even from your own number ***men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. 31 So be on your guard!..

Paul was not speaking of heretics outside of the church. He was speaking of people even from their own number. That is precisely why church leaders must be held accountable. With an unaccountable system, how is the church supposed to be protected from error? Simply saying the church is protected by the Holy Spirit and cannot err is not only a cop out, but keeps the church from being accountable. In other words, the overseers cannot do their work!

Individual bishops or priests, such as Sabellius, Paul of Samosata, Nestorius of Constantinople, Arius, Melitus of Lycopoli, or Martin Luther, are fallible and can err to the extent of preaching heresy. These men do not speak for the Church and so are themselves accountable for their misdeeds. The ecumenical councils (the Pope in union with the college of bishops) that condemned their teachings and reaffirmed the traditional apostolic faith exercised an authortity warranted and protected by the Holy Spirit. We have our Lord’s word that* the gates of hell shall not prevail* over his Church. In this perspective Paul assures us that the Bride of Christ is “holy and without blemish”. Thus, the Arian, Nestorian, and Lutheran churches that exist today are not established by Jesus Christ

"Wherefore it is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are 'in’ the Church…those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the certain gift of truth."
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 26:2

The infallibilty of the Church, and her supernatural safeguard, were prophesied by Isaiah and reaffirmed by the apostle Paul.

A highway will be there, called the holy way; No one unclean may pass over it, nor fools go astray on it.
Isaiah, 35, 8

All your sons shall be taught by the LORD, and great shall be the peace of your children. In justice shall you be established, far from the fear of oppression, where destruction cannot come near you. Should there be any attack, it shall not be of my making; whoever attacks you shall fall before you. Lo, I have created the craftsman who blows on the burning coals and forges weapons at his work…No weapon fashioned against you shall prevail; every tongue you shall prove false that launches an accusation against you. This is the lot of the servants of the LORD, their vindication from me, says the Lord.
Isaiah 54, 13-17

We are taught by Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit, who declares to the Church what truthfully belongs to the Lord. The attacks against the ecclesial traditions of the Church handed down from the Apostles are the making of private individuals who have abused their divine office and mandate by presuming to challenge the proper teaching authority of the Church. But these heretics have been proven false by the Pope in union with the college of bishops in defense of the orthodox faith.

But this I do admit to you, that according to the Way, which they call a sect, I worship the God of our ancestors and I believe everything that is in accordance with the law and written by the prophets.
Acts 24, 14

The New Testament often warns us of the danger of false teaching and apostasy (Acts 20:28-30; 2 Tim. 4:2-4; I Tim. 4:1-3).

Committed by those private individual clerics and theologians who obviously have no divine mandate to preach what contradicts the deposit of faith safeguarded by the Magisterium through the Holy Spirit (Acts 15:27-28; 1 Cor 2:13).

The laying on of hands is practiced in many Protestant circles. Likewise, many Anglicans value apostolic succession.

A Protestant minister or Anglican bishop cannot trace his office directly back to the Apostles. The consecration or ordination is valid only if a Catholic bishop imposes his hands, for a Catholic bishop can trace his office directly back to the Apostles.

… we do not see tradition or any church father as infallible, just helpful. But their words are subject to critique just yours or mine are. If Ignatius is arguing that a bishop or priest should never be questioned, that is scary to me…

The sacred Tradition of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucaharist by transubstantiation is infallible, and so John 6 is infallible. Sacred Scripture is infallible because it is inspired by the same Spirit who has guided the Church in her traditions.

Ignatius means those priests who haven’t broken from the Apostolic Tradition of the “Catholic” Church.

Actually Jesus told the Apostles that he would guide them into all truth. The Catholic Church is not mentioned here…

Looks like the Holy Spirit has abandoned the Church, although Protestants believe they are being led by the Holy Spirit, or the Apostles are still alive somewhere; since Christ promised to be with his Church until the end of time ( Jn 16:12-13; Mt 28:20).

Likewise, it is clear that there were things that Christians would disagree on:

Matters of discipline in the nascent Church.

PAX :heaven: