Church Authority: Is it really just a guy in a hat?

[noma]

I believe in the statement Christ gave to Peter, that on this rock He would build His Church. But I think that follows for all believers; that all those in Christ’s Church, who put their faith on Christ, when they speak in accordance with His will, speak without error.

As such, I think there is nothing unique about the Pope, or about any of the Church magisterium. They were right when they spoke with the intentions of Christ. They are wrong about many things now.

So I open up the debate to all of you. Why should I believe that this authority was only for Peter? Granted, it was told only to Peter. St. Paul’s letters were only given to some select church’s. Christ said many things only to a select few. So why believe that the pope is more than a guy in a hat?

 

[fix]

I believe in the statement Christ gave to Peter, that on this rock He would build His Church. But I think that follows for all believers; that all those in Christ’s Church, who put their faith on Christ, when they speak in accordance with His will, speak without error.

As such, I think there is nothing unique about the Pope, or about any of the Church magisterium. They were right when they spoke with the intentions of Christ. They are wrong about many things now.

So I open up the debate to all of you. Why should I believe that this authority was only for Peter? Granted, it was told only to Peter. St. Paul’s letters were only given to some select church’s. Christ said many things only to a select few. So why believe that the pope is more than a guy in a hat?

We each have the authority to bind and loose?

 

[carol_marie]

I believe in the statement Christ gave to Peter, that on this rock He would build His Church. But I think that follows for all believers; that all those in Christ’s Church, who put their faith on Christ, when they speak in accordance with His will, speak without error.

As such, I think there is nothing unique about the Pope, or about any of the Church magisterium. They were right when they spoke with the intentions of Christ. They are wrong about many things now.

So I open up the debate to all of you. Why should I believe that this authority was only for Peter? Granted, it was told only to Peter. St. Paul’s letters were only given to some select church’s. Christ said many things only to a select few. So why believe that the pope is more than a guy in a hat?

OK, have it your way… he’s just a guy in hat without any authority. So WHO has authority then? Me? You? The Mormons? Methodists? Lutherans? Jehovah’s Witnesses? Who? Do we all have authority to decide what’s right & wrong? Because if we all get to decide based on our own gut feelings or what we think the Bible says… that’s going to make for a HUGE hodge podge of differing beliefs. How disorganized!! I seriously don’t think God would do it that way, do you?

 

[noma]

OK, have it your way… he’s just a guy in hat without any authority. So WHO has authority then? Me? You? The Mormons? Methodists? Lutherans? Jehovah’s Witnesses? Who? Do we all have authority to decide what’s right & wrong? Because if we all get to decide based on our own gut feelings or what we think the Bible says… that’s going to make for a HUGE hodge podge of differing beliefs. How disorganized!! I seriously don’t think God would do it that way, do you?

It’s how we do science. We take what we think, and test it against nature.

But ultimately we only have to go by what nature gives us, which is neither very authoritative, nor very obvious.

It is subtle, but it is not malicious.

I think the theological science is the same. We have all those who, praying to understand the will of God to the best of their abilities, read the Scriptures. Some ideas hold water, most do not. And this produces, naturally, different camps. Different denominations. But through all of these, including the Roman Denomination (the Roman, Byzantine, and others who accept the primacy of the pope), have different ideas on how things work (just like traditional big bang and inflation cosmologists), we all agree on the basics: the Nicaean Creed.

How do we know this is what is and what should be? The same way we know Christ spoke to St. Peter. Not though history, not through science, but by faith.

 

[Verita]

I believe in the statement Christ gave to Peter, that on this rock He would build His Church. But I think that follows for all believers; that all those in Christ’s Church, who put their faith on Christ, when they speak in accordance with His will, speak without error.

As such, I think there is nothing unique about the Pope, or about any of the Church magisterium. They were right when they spoke with the intentions of Christ. They are wrong about many things now.

So I open up the debate to all of you. Why should I believe that this authority was only for Peter? Granted, it was told only to Peter. St. Paul’s letters were only given to some select church’s. Christ said many things only to a select few. So why believe that the pope is more than a guy in a hat?

Because Jesus said so. Don’t overlook the part of those crucial verses in Matthew where Jesus gives to Peter and only to Peter the keys of the kingdom. This meant that He effectively made Peter the leader of His kingdom on earth while he went back to Heaven. This position didn’t end with Peter’s death. It was passed on to Peter’s successors. (It wouldn’t have been very nice of Jesus to provide one person to lead the Church after His ascension and then essentially leave them orphans after that one died. Jesus takes care of his sheep.)

Furthermore, Peter and later all of the Apostles (who together formed the first leadership of the Church) were given authority to “bind and loose” and forgive sins. Jesus promised them (and only them) in John that the Spirit would come to lead them into all truth. Jesus didn’t promise that for everyone. The only logical assumption to be made then is that not everyone is lead by the Spirit.

 

[noma]

We each have the authority to bind and loose?

I believe that, when we speak in accord with Christ’s will, all of us have the authority to bind and to loose, for it is Christ binding and Christ loosing. Our power is not really ours, but His.

And how do we know that we have such power? It will be bared out in the Scriptures, in the occurrences in nature, and by the light of reason. Ultimately, we will know the proclamations of God certainly only when we die. We can be know them to a high probability here now. And this only by measuring it with sources of truth: nature, scripture, and reason.

 

[noma]

Because Jesus said so. Don’t overlook the part of those crucial verses in Matthew where Jesus gives to Peter and only to Peter the keys of the kingdom.

Where does it say “To you, and only you, do I give…”? I think it’s more consistant to accept this as a standard carried through to all believers.

We all have the keys to the kingdom, if we are saved by faith.

 

[tee_eff_em]

I believe in the statement Christ gave to Peter, that on this rock He would build His Church. But I think that follows for all believers; that all those in Christ’s Church, who put their faith on Christ, when they speak in accordance with His will, speak without error.

Very tautological. But not very meaningful.

:twocents:
tee

 

[BlazingBolt]

I believe in the statement Christ gave to Peter, that on this rock He would build His Church. But I think that follows for all believers; that all those in Christ’s Church, who put their faith on Christ, when they speak in accordance with His will, speak without error.

As such, I think there is nothing unique about the Pope, or about any of the Church magisterium. They were right when they spoke with the intentions of Christ. They are wrong about many things now.

So I open up the debate to all of you. Why should I believe that this authority was only for Peter? Granted, it was told only to Peter. St. Paul’s letters were only given to some select church’s. Christ said many things only to a select few. So why believe that the pope is more than a guy in a hat?

Many people think they speak in accordance with his will, but how do they know? How can they all be infallible if they contradict each other?

Christ is clearly speaking specifically to Peter:

Matthew 16:18 ‘And I also say to** thee**, that thou art a rock, and upon this rock I will build my assembly, and gates of Hades shall not prevail against it; 19 and I will give to thee the keys of the reign of the heavens, and whatever **thou **mayest bind upon the earth shall be having been bound in the heavens, and whatever thou mayest loose upon the earth shall be having been loosed in the heavens.’

Christ is clearly giving specifically Peter special authority.

Also if you study the early Christians you will find that they all recognized this authority and strived for unity and fought against many heresies.

It was guaranteed by this authority which scriptures were inspired, not everything made it in to the Bible. The Canon of scripture was defined by the Church.

 

[noma]

Very tautological. But not very meaningful.

:twocents:
tee

Only appearantly tautological. And more meaningful than the statement: “we know the Church has such and such authority because Christ says so.”

But Christ says this in Scripture, some claim. How do we know this is the good interpretation? The Church tells us so.

Tautology, or at least the appearance of it, cannot be escaped in matters of faith.

 

[noma]

Many people think they speak in accordance with his will, but how do they know? How can they all be infallible if they contradict each other?

Christ is clearly speaking specifically to Peter:

But does that mean that His giving of powers is only to Peter? Agreed, Peter is the rock on which the Church was built, because he was the first to receive these powers. I think he gave them to all his successors, all the faithful in the world.

Nothing spoken that is aligned with God’s will can contradict anything else likewise spoken.

And as to how we know: Scripture, nature, reason.

 

[BlazingBolt]

But does that mean that His giving of powers is only to Peter? Agreed, Peter is the rock on which the Church was built, because he was the first to receive these powers. I think he gave them to all his successors, all the faithful in the world.

Nothing spoken that is aligned with God’s will can contradict anything else likewise spoken.

And as to how we know: Scripture, nature, reason.

Do you not see how illogical that is? That is like saying Christ came to the earth to tell people to follow their conscience. People don’t agree, some think abortion is OK,etc. etc.

If this was true the Church never would have made it. The early Church was united and recognized this.

 

[catsrus]

originally posted by noma
I think there is nothing unique about the Pope, or about any of the Church magisterium.

Of course you don’t.
You’re anglican.
The head of your church was an overweight King of England that threw a tantram because the Pope (the recognized head of the Holy Church on Earth for over 1500 years) refused to let him dump his wife of 18 years so he could marry his mistress.
Now that’s unique!

 

[noma]

Do you not see how illogical that is? That is like saying Christ came to the earth to tell people to follow their conscience. People don’t agree, some think abortion is OK,etc. etc.

If this was true the Church never would have made it. The early Church was united and recognized this.

I do not see that this is illogical at all. The purpose wasn’t “follow conscience”. It was “follow my will”. How do we know? Make sure that actions do not conflict with nature, reason, or scripture.

Scripture states: do not murder humans
Nature states: an embryo is human to a very early stage
Reason states: The safest course then is to restrict abortions to a state where we know the grouping of cells is not human; which would mean before conception.

Is this certain? No. Is this infallible? No. Is this likely? Very.

When will we know if this was right? Heaven.

This introduces a ton of uncertainty. But it preserves Christs intention best.

Either a measure of faith is needed to accept a claim, or such a thing requires evidence proportional to its claim.

As I have no faith in the magisterium, or its supposed powers, I would need evidence proportional to the claim that it is infallible. Since this is accepting something as being absolutely certain, I would need evidence that would be absolutely certain. Otherwise, the evidence would be insufficient.

I would need a mathematical proof for the primacy of the pope. Or an undeniable proof from the words of Scripture (which I do accept by faith).

 

[Verita]

I believe in the statement Christ gave to Peter, that on this rock He would build His Church. But I think that follows for all believers; that all those in Christ’s Church, who put their faith on Christ, when they speak in accordance with His will, speak without error.

As such, I think there is nothing unique about the Pope, or about any of the Church magisterium. They were right when they spoke with the intentions of Christ. They are wrong about many things now.

So I open up the debate to all of you. Why should I believe that this authority was only for Peter? Granted, it was told only to Peter. St. Paul’s letters were only given to some select church’s. Christ said many things only to a select few. So why believe that the pope is more than a guy in a hat?

As a former protestant, I have come to realize that this attitude is born of rebellion. Those who reject the authority of the Church do so because they don’t want to be told what to do. They want to decide what is right and wrong for themselves. This is relativism. And it can only lead to great evil.

The Church was given to us by Jesus himself to be our authority when he had gone. (Why else would he point to the Church as the arbiter in disputes?) To reject the Church is to reject His gift and to place yourself in horrible danger. Without the guidance of the Church how easy it is to fall into error, as can be seen in many branches of Christianity.

I pity those who do not have the Church’s guidance, who do not partake of this wonderful gift.

 

[noma]

As a former protestant, I have come to realize that this attitude is born of rebellion. Those who reject the authority of the Church do so because they don’t want to be told what to do. They want to decide what is right and wrong for themselves. This is relativism. And it can only lead to great evil.

Actually, I deny that there is a person alive on earth who has this authority. Just like with science, there are no authorities here; only experts.

Scripture is objective. Scripture is absolute. So is nature, and so is reason.

I am not open to relativism. But I also will not accept that the Roman Church has any authority except what Christ has given, and that is the same authority Christ has given for all; the authority to declare his Truth with confidence.

For when we declare the Gospel in Truth, we declare so infallibly. All else is suspect.

 

[noma]

Of course you don’t.
You’re anglican.
The head of your church was an overweight King of England that threw a tantram because the Pope (the recognized head of the Holy Church on Earth for over 1500 years) refused to let him dump his wife of 18 years so he could marry his mistress.
Now that’s unique!

Catsrus. I am sorry if my statements have come off as brash, or insulting. I am hungry for truth, but believe I have found incredible falsehood in the Roman Church.

As my faith in its magisterium has just recently been lost, there is much I have to reconcile, both by myself, with my friends, with a pastor, with my family, and also in the realm of reason.

The same old verses don’t convince me anymore. I read them differently now. I am searching to see if there is any good reason for me to accept with conviction the magisterium again.

But as time passes, this seems less and less likely. My protestant family is making more and more sense.

At the same time, I did not want to offend you, and I apologize to the depth of my heart if I did. I have a deep respect for the Roman Church. It is what I believed for two years, very seriously. It will not be easy to let go. But I think my being honest to myself will result in just such a release.

God’s blessings, and please pray for me. After all, as one interested in the church founded by a fat murdering king, I clearly need all the prayers you can muster.

 

[tee_eff_em]

[Take 2]

I believe in the statement Christ gave to Peter, that on this rock He would build His Church. But I think that follows for all believers; that all those in Christ’s Church, who put their faith on Christ, when they speak in accordance with His will, speak without error.

How is this statement any more meaningful than:

all those outside Christ’s Church, who positively reject Christ, when they speak in accordance with His will, speak without error

?
tee

 

[noma]

[Take 2]

How is this statement any more meaningful than:

all those outside Christ’s Church, who positively reject Christ, when they speak in accordance with His will, speak without error

?
tee

A good and fair point. The difference is that their speaking, though also being infallible, would be accidental. People who repeat what the councils say, parrot them, would, by the Roman Church, be stating infallible things.

But for the purposeful statement of what is infallible, the Gospel of Christ, proclaimed in accordance with the Will of Christ, takes faith. One must believe what one says for one truly (and not accidentally) to say it.

And that faith is the only necessary initiation into the Church of Christ.

 

[steveandersen]

… Why should I believe that this authority was only for Peter? Granted, it was told only to Peter. …

kinda answered your own question there didn’t you?