Church "authority"

[pablope]

They reject your denomination’s canon as incomplete.

How…where is their highest bishop’s declaration they reject it? So far…you not produced a document they declare it so.

 

[Publisher]

I always read how the Protestant Bible is missing books, how many Catholics actually study those extra books in their canon? I dare say about as much as I do…hardly ever…even though those books as well as others are in my volume of scripture.

The value in those 7 books is of little worth from what I’ve experienced…most Catholics know they have the extra books…but very few use those books…of course my experience is very limited…I love Wisdom…but really find nothing except historical value in them…I doubt too many Catholics would miss the extra 7 books they make such a fuss about if they weren’t there…I would even dare say most Catholics have never read them…let alone know of their content…

 

[pablope]

The protestant reformers, your forbears…broke away from the RCC…so your distinctive teachings are deriviatives of the teachings of the RCC…so what does that make your protestant teachings…derivatives of derivatives?

Your denomination has been calling itself “Roman” for centuries, even prior to the Protestant Reformation. For example From the 5th Lateran Council in 1512:

Accordingly, in this second session lawfully assembled in the holy Spirit, after mature deliberation held by us with our venerable brothers, the cardinals of the holy Roman church

…

And the Council of Constance in 1414:

We have therefore come together with our venerable brothers, cardinals of the holy Roman church, and our court to this city of Constance at the appointed time.

Context…context…the protestants attached the term Roman to the CC…as sort of a derogative name for the CC.

Roman here, means the church at Rome…where they gathered.

Sure, but would it matter at all? The Oriental Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, Armenian Apostolic, Orthodox Tewahedo church can all trace their lineage back to an apostle, and they readily reject the claims of jurisdiction of the Roman bishop.

I am not talking about the authority or jurisdiction here…you were asked if you could trace your denom’s lineage back 2000 years…you are evading…August…

This was the question asked you[SIGN]…"Quote:
Is your church 2000 years old? Can your church trace its history back 2000 years?

Yes, of course. [/SIGN]

So…where is the lineage? What does it matter…one of the marks of the true church is it is apostolic…as stated by the creeds of Christianity…lack of apostolic lineage means it was founded my a man…not an apostle.

So how about it…where is your apostolic lineage?

 

[pablope]

They reject your denomination’s canon as incomplete.

How about answering the questions posed to you in post 95?

 

[pablope]

No, the apostles writing the NT clearly acknowledged to each other that they were writing down scripture

.

How? The Apostles went to different areas and where did Jesus tell them to write anything down?

How were they able to communicate with each other then? Do you think all them knew how to write?

So? They taught people who later wrote it down.

So…it was not the Apostles then? but your reply is confusing…you stated the apostles writing the NT acknowledged each other…you have not explained how they acknowledged each other…can you explain further?

And how do you know that those they taught wrote everything down?

You said:

but he is simply incorrect, the church (I assume he means the Catholic Church) is not the judge, nor is it higher then the scriptures as a judge is higher in authority in a courtroom then a witness. I fact, it is the opposite, the scriptures are higher then the church, the church can only serve the scriptures, not the other way around.

In the council of Jerusalem, they appealed to Amos to norm their new teaching regarding the believing gentiles. Circumcision was not required because it was not part of the new covenant.

I asked:

How do you know he is incorrect? What is your basis?

Who made the decision not to require circumcision-Scriptures (which) or the Church?

Where does it say in the Bible that Scriptures are higher than the Church?

Because of history.

How does history tell you Shea is incorrect? What if the history you read is wrong?

Let me ask you…who made the dogmatic pronouncement in the Council…Peter or James?

History doesnt attest that the bishop of Rome had the authority of complete jurisdiction over the whole church, infallible on faith and morals, and all christians ought be submissive to him under penalty of mortal sin.

Why don’t you start a thread on this.

This teaching as well as many other Catholic distinctives took centuries to develop. That’s why none of the other sees went along with Rome in the split.

Why don’t you read more history regarding the Great Schism. The bishop of Constantinople wanted to be pope…but the Bishop of Rome would have none of it…so the split.

The church during that time of the council of Jerusalem wasn’t the Catholic denomination.

You should get your facts straight. The CC is not a denomination.

Protestants denominated from the CC during the reformation…from which you belong to one of now, several thousands.

The scriptures record that the new covenant does not require circumcision. The apostles affirmed that teaching using scripture.

After the fact…the none requirement of gentile circumcision was because of Peter’s dogmatic declaration…which was recorded after it happened.

How and which Scripture did they use?

Peter stands up…7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them:

and makes his declaration…9 He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”

Without citing any prophet or scripture…but what has been revealed to him.

The church was “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15) in the sense of upholding, defending, and proclaiming the truth (1 Thess. 1:5-9; Phil. 1:7). The authority to reveal, change, or legislate for God was never in the church. The authority was in the inspired men who revealed God’s will by first speaking to the people and then by writing the Scriptures.

Wait a minute…so now you are discounting SS? But then again…how do you know which Scriptures they wrote? And who are those who wrote it?

And where they not part of a Church?

Peter stood up and spoke only as a fellow elder of the church, not as a pope, or infallible overlord. James had the last word, and the decision was his.

Peter was the only Apostle whose name was changed…which to those of the times…meant when a name is changed, there is a change in authority. Those in attendance understood that…Peter was the head Apostle…and it was whom Jesus solely prayed for to strengthen his brethen…among other biblical proofs.

Again, the dogmatic declaration was made by Peter. James followed with the implementing guideline for Jerusalem, of which he was the bishop. Which is what is practiced in the CC…the Bishop of Romes makes the declaration, and the local bishops implement the declaration, which is what James was doing.

 

[joe370]

To what degree does your church have authority to command you?

What is the source of this authority?

Hmm…Well, if scripture alone is the Protestant’s only authority (few exceptions of course, as is the case with the Lutheran Church e.g. JonNC) then the church has no authority to speak definitively regarding doctrinal truth. The only source of authority, I am told by non-catholics (not including the eastern orthodox churches) is the holy Bible. Moreover, no sola scriptura advocate (by his/her own admission) can infallibly interpret the infallible Bible i.e. truth regarding things like the Eucharist being merely symbolic or a genuine sacrifice is not knowable.

 

[joe370]

My church has authority to command me only by the scriptures. If their command is unbiblical, then I am not bound to obey it.

Who decides if your church is teaching something unbiblical, and how can you know if that person is right, with certainty?

 

[joe370]

Hey Augustus24.

But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
The church, not the Roman Catholic denomination.

The church, **not the Roman Catholic denomination. **

So, not the Catholic Church or any of the Protestant Churches - correct? Let’s leave all of those churches out of the discussion. Now, please identify Jesus’ one church, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth?

 

[joe370]

Augustus24

So, God conveys what he desires, to you and I and all the people of the earth through the scriptures. And, God decides what is and is not biblical through the scriptures?

How can I know that I am right to embrace the catholic understanding of the Eucharist? Can I trust my personal interpretation of scripture, which would mean that the typical Protestant interpretation of the Eucharist is wrong?

 

[Bella92]

To what degree does your church have authority to command you?

What is the source of this authority?

The source is men who think they’re speaking for God. When I sat and thought about all the Catholic stuff I had to endure growing up and where it came from, I realised it all came from a group of men who thought they were talking for God and still think they do. God doesn’t think me spending the night with a woman is an abomination or disordered or whatever they want to call it. God isn’t going to send me to hell because I had sex with a woman. God made me the way I am and loves me the way I am. So although I never converted to another faith so I suppose in a way I’m still a catholic, I don’t think the church has any authority to command me because I don’t think the church is speaking for God or what God wants.

 

[Augustus24]

The protestant reformers, your forbears…broke away from the RCC…so your distinctive teachings are deriviatives of the teachings of the RCC…so what does that make your protestant teachings…derivatives of derivatives?

Context…context…the protestants attached the term Roman to the CC…as sort of a derogative name for the CC.

Roman here, means the church at Rome…where they gathered.

I am not talking about the authority or jurisdiction here…you were asked if you could trace your denom’s lineage back 2000 years…you are evading…August…

This was the question asked you[SIGN]…"Quote:
Is your church 2000 years old? Can your church trace its history back 2000 years?

Yes, of course. [/SIGN]

So…where is the lineage? What does it matter…one of the marks of the true church is it is apostolic…as stated by the creeds of Christianity…lack of apostolic lineage means it was founded my a man…not an apostle.

So how about it…where is your apostolic lineage?

The protestant reformers, your forbears…broke away from the RCC…so your distinctive teachings are deriviatives of the teachings of the RCC…so what does that make your protestant teachings…derivatives of derivatives?

The protestant reformers went back to what the scriptures and the early church was teaching. It was largely a regressive movement, that’s why they rejected all the added Catholic doctrines.

Context…context…the protestants attached the term Roman to the CC…as sort of a derogative name for the CC.

Roman here, means the church at Rome…where they gathered.

Not true. Constance is in Germany, its clear they weren’t using the name “Roman” for the location. They were using “Roman” for the whole church. Hence, your denomination called itself Roman at least 100 years prior to the Protestant Reformation.

 

[Augustus24]

Who decides if your church is teaching something unbiblical, and how can you know if that person is right, with certainty?

Can you give me an example of something my church might be teaching that’s unbiblical?

 

[Augustus24]

How can I know that I am right to embrace the catholic understanding of the Eucharist?

Hello.

You cannot. The Catholic understanding of the Eucharist is extra biblical. The Apostles never taught about the Eucharist using Aristotelian and medieval alchemical forms and accidents and substance. That’s why no other ancient see accepts the Catholic understanding.

Can I trust my personal interpretation of scripture, which would mean that the typical Protestant interpretation of the Eucharist is wrong?

Go with what the scriptures say, in this case the Real Presence is taught, but nothing about forms, substance, or accidents.

 

[Augustus24]

Hey Augustus24.

So, not the Catholic Church or any of the Protestant Churches - correct? Let’s leave all of those churches out of the discussion. Now, please identify Jesus’ one church, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth?

Hello Joe.

All those denominations took centuries to develop. Jesus’ one church which is the church of the living God is all the called out ones everywhere, not corresponding to any denominational name.

 

[pablope]

Can you give me an example of something my church might be teaching that’s unbiblical?

Augustus…Joe and I practically asked the same question…we did not ask for your church’s teaching…here is your original statement:

Originally Posted by Augustus24
My church has authority to command me only by the scriptures. If their command is unbiblical, then I am not bound to obey it.

So the question is…Originally Posted by joe370
Who decides if your church is teaching something unbiblical, and how can you know if that person is right, with certainty?

And how do you know if something is unbiblical or not?

 

[pablope]

The protestant reformers went back to what the scriptures and the early church was teaching. It was largely a regressive movement, that’s why they rejected all the added Catholic doctrines.

Oh really…like what? Since it will off topic…why don’t you start threads on these.

Not true. Constance is in Germany, its clear they weren’t using the name “Roman” for the location. They were using “Roman” for the whole church. Hence, your denomination called itself Roman at least 100 years prior to the Protestant Reformation.

 

[Augustus24]

Oh really…like what? Since it will off topic…why don’t you start threads on these.

 

[Nicea325]

I always read how the Protestant Bible is missing books, how many Catholics actually study those extra books in their canon? I dare say about as much as I do…hardly ever…even though those books as well as others are in my volume of scripture.

The value in those 7 books is of little worth from what I’ve experienced…most Catholics know they have the extra books…but very few use those books…of course my experience is very limited…I love Wisdom…but really find nothing except historical value in them…I doubt too many Catholics would miss the extra 7 books they make such a fuss about if they weren’t there…I would even dare say most Catholics have never read them…let alone know of their content…

And you base all of this on…? How do you know most Catholics have not read them ?Have you taken a world-wide survey?

 

[Nicea325]

Originally Posted by Augustus24;10458861

Hello.

No, the apostles writing the NT clearly acknowledged to each other that they were writing down scripture

Really? Show us one verse where the Apostles knew what they wrote was scripture? Where does Paul clearly say: What I have written down is sacred scripture.

Clement’s letter to the Corinthians was read out-loud at Sunday servcies for centuries because it was acknowledged as scripture. Why isn’t it in our Bibles,if according to you the canon is not doctrine? Again,who determined what constituted scripture or not?

Where do they announce it or declare it?

 

[joe370]

Can you give me an example of something my church might be teaching that’s unbiblical?

Well, first you will have to let me know which church you belong to…