Church "authority"

[joe370]

Augustus24;10461231]Hello.

You cannot. The Catholic understanding of the Eucharist is extra biblical.

That is my point. According to you… To me scripture is very clear about the Eucharist. We will both quote scripture to support our interpretation and both claim that we are correct; that is called private interpretation, (sola scriptura) something found nowhere in the bible. Of course, at this point, I have no idea what your church believes about the Eucharist. Perhaps you will share church affiliation with me…

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.

The word accidents is not found in the NT just as sola scriptura or Trinity is not. The holy Eucharist is not summed up as “accidents.” What the CC believes today about the Eucharist, is exactly what the CC believed in the latter part of the 1st century.

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

Many non-Catholics would not agree with you, at all. They believe the Eucharist to be merely a symbolic meal, as opposed to the real presence. Why should those non-Catholics trust your view and not their own? After all, as you both say: scripture is your only authority, and yet scripture fails to settle the matter for people like you (one non-Catholic) and my non-Catholic sister. She says: I know I am right about the symbolic interpretation for I am guided by the Holy Spirit…Do you believe the same?

 

[joe370]

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.

With the exception of the “Catholic” denomination and all of the Protestant denominations? OK. Sounds good. Same approach I took long ago as a fomer non-Catholic. Please identify Jesus’ one historical church found in the world today and again, exclude all of those man-made denominations? I am looking for the church (Jesus said - “I will build my church…”) founded by Jesus on Pentecost, still existing in the world today!

 

[Augustus24]

Originally Posted by Augustus24;10458861

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?

Hello.

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.

Peter recognizes that Paul was writing scripture.

“He (Paul) writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.”

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?

It may have been read, but it was not considered scripture. When Athanasius composed his list of the 27 NT books he left it out, and that was 15 years before Pope Damasus and the Council of Rome. No Pope or magisterium was necessary to tell him either way.

Again,who determined what constituted scripture or not?

The church simply recognizes the word of God. The sheep know the shepherds voice. The NT was accepted prior to any Pope or Magisterium declaring it so.

 

[Augustus24]

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

I don’t belong to any particular denomination at this point. I am considering Lutheranism or Anglicanism at this point, but Reformed is on the table as well.

 

[joe370]

I don’t belong to any particular denomination at this point. I am considering Lutheranism or Anglicanism at this point, but Reformed is on the table as well.

In each case you will be deferring to the authority of the church in terms of the discernment of truth, and that is very scriptural:

“Have confidence in your leaders and submit to their authority, because they keep watch over you as those who must give an account. Do this so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no benefit to you.”

Hebrews 13

 

[pablope]

And what has been fed is not mythology also? Why do you the RCC is a denomination?

From 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.

Constance, or Konstanz, is a city in Germany where your denomination decided to hold a council.

So what if a council did that? Was what the council did have papal approval? Was it an ecumenical council?

Looks like you are latching youself and your claim to one council.

Why? It would simply be a diversion. The Eastern Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, Orthodox Tewahedo church, Armenian Apostolic Syriac Orthodox, can all trace their lineage to an apostle and you reject or ignore their claims, so why would you suddenly take mine seriously?

You made a claim…and you were asked to provide proof…so now It would be diversion…or is it because you cannot provide one…so now you are evading…

It goes to prove that what you are adhering to know is indeed a denomination…that cannot be traced to any Apostolic origin…it misses one of the ancient marks of the true church…that of it being apostolic.

And again, can you provide the document form the Vatican that rejects the claim of the above you mention?

May you have been fed mythology…the CC does recognize the apostolic lineage of the Eastern Churches…that could prove their apostolic line.

 

[Augustus24]

That is my point. According to you… To me scripture is very clear about the Eucharist. We will both quote scripture to support our interpretation and both claim that we are correct; that is called private interpretation, (sola scriptura) something found nowhere in the bible. Of course, at this point, I have no idea what your church believes about the Eucharist. Perhaps you will share church affiliation with me…

The word accidents is not found in the NT just as sola scriptura or Trinity is not. The holy Eucharist is not summed up as “accidents.” What the CC believes today about the Eucharist, is exactly what the CC believed in the latter part of the 1st century.

Many non-Catholics would not agree with you, at all. They believe the Eucharist to be merely a symbolic meal, as opposed to the real presence. Why should those non-Catholics trust your view and not their own? After all, as you both say: scripture is your only authority, and yet scripture fails to settle the matter for people like you (one non-Catholic) and my non-Catholic sister. She says: I know I am right about the symbolic interpretation for I am guided by the Holy Spirit…Do you believe the same?

Hello Joe.

That is my point. According to you… To me scripture is very clear about the Eucharist. We will both quote scripture to support our interpretation and both claim that we are correct; that is called private interpretation, (sola scriptura) something found nowhere in the bible. Of course, at this point, I have no idea what your church believes about the Eucharist. Perhaps you will share church affiliation with me…

Did you use your private interpretation to decide that the Catholic Church has the true interpretation, if not what did you use?

The word accidents is not found in the NT just as sola scriptura or Trinity is not. The holy Eucharist is not summed up as “accidents.”

Sola Scriptura and the Trinity are taught in scripture. The transubstantiation theory regarding substance and accidents and medieval alchemy is not. Paul and Jesus both declare the Eucharist to be bread even after the consecration, they make no mention of Jesus’ body under the appearance of bread. Also they mention no change at all. The transubstantiation theory adds to words of Jesus and Paul.

What the CC believes today about the Eucharist, is exactly what the CC believed in the latter part of the 1st century.

That’s not true. No 1st century father ever mentioned “substance” or “accidents” in relating to the Eucharist. In fact it would take another couple hundred years for that doctrine to be invented. Even after, the Eastern Orthodox had never heard of it and have deemed it an errant view of the Eucharist. That’s because the Transubstantiation theory represents a breach from prior teaching, not a continuation of it.

Many non-Catholics would not agree with you, at all. They believe the Eucharist to be merely a symbolic meal, as opposed to the real presence. Why should those non-Catholics trust your view and not their own? After all, as you both say: scripture is your only authority, and yet scripture fails to settle the matter for people like you (one non-Catholic) and my non-Catholic sister. She says: I know I am right about the symbolic interpretation for I am guided by the Holy Spirit…Do you believe the same?

Indeed. The protestants who hold to the symbol only theory fall into the same error as the Catholic church does, only on the other side of the same coin. They, like the Catholic Church say that Jesus and Paul couldn’t have actually meant what they said, and add words. Where the Catholic Church adds “is changed into” where Jesus simply says “is”, the symbolic only view adds “is representative of”, both are adding to the words of Jesus and Paul hence rejecting Sola Scriptura, and believing extra biblical doctrine. I simply take Jesus and Paul at what they said.

 

[Augustus24]

In each case you will be deferring to the authority of the church in terms of the discernment of truth, and that is very scriptural:

“Have confidence in your leaders and submit to their authority, because they keep watch over you as those who must give an account. Do this so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no benefit to you.”

Hebrews 13

That’s true to a point. I accept that God ordained leaders in the church to teach. What I reject is that those leaders can declare themselves the voice of God on Earth, are Infallible, can declare and invent extra biblical teaching then bind the conscience of all Christians to that extra biblical teaching under penalty of eternal damnation. If one of said leaders is to go outside the scriptures, at best that teaching is pious opinion, and not binding on any Christian.

 

[joe370]

pablope

And what has been fed is not mythology also? Why do you the RCC is a denomination?

I have learned to be OK with non-Catholics e.g. family members, referring to the CC as a denomination, just as long as they embrace the fact that the **CC was founded by God. **What makes no sense to me is saying - if it’s not found in the bible it is not to be believed - because nowhere in the bible is the word, denomination, to be found. What ya gonna do…

 

[pablope]

Hello.

Peter recognizes that Paul was writing scripture.

 

[Augustus24]

And what has been fed is not mythology also? Why do you the RCC is a denomination?

So what if a council did that? Was what the council did have papal approval? Was it an ecumenical council?

Looks like you are latching youself and your claim to one council.

You made a claim…and you were asked to provide proof…so now It would be diversion…or is it because you cannot provide one…so now you are evading…

It goes to prove that what you are adhering to know is indeed a denomination…that cannot be traced to any Apostolic origin…it misses one of the ancient marks of the true church…that of it being apostolic.

And again, can you provide the document form the Vatican that rejects the claim of the above you mention?

May you have been fed mythology…the CC does recognize the apostolic lineage of the Eastern Churches…that could prove their apostolic line.

And what has been fed is not mythology also? Why do you the RCC is a denomination?

So what if a council did that? Was what the council did have papal approval? Was it an ecumenical council?

Looks like you are latching youself and your claim to one council.

Your claim was that protestants invented the term “Roman” to refer to your church. That’s patently false as your church called itself Roman at least 100 years prior to the Reformation, as I have shown. And the Council of Constance did have Papal approval, and your church considers it the 16th Ecumenical Council.

You made a claim…and you were asked to provide proof…so now It would be diversion…or is it because you cannot provide one…so now you are evading.

I cannot since I am not a member of any denomination at this point.

It goes to prove that what you are adhering to know is indeed a denomination…that cannot be traced to any Apostolic origin…it misses one of the ancient marks of the true church…that of it being apostolic.

And again, can you provide the document form the Vatican that rejects the claim of the above you mention?

May you have been fed mythology…the CC does recognize the apostolic lineage of the Eastern Churches…that could prove their apostolic line.

Anglicans and Lutherans can trace their line back to the Apostles but you dont consider them apostolic. Apostolic-ness has no baring on whether a Church is the “one true Church or not” because those other apostolic churches roundly reject your denomination’s claims to sole complete jurisdiction over all churches everywhere.

 

[pablope]

That’s true to a point. I accept that God ordained leaders in the church to teach. What I reject is that those leaders can declare themselves the voice of God on Earth, are Infallible, can declare and invent extra biblical teaching then bind the conscience of all Christians to that extra biblical teaching under penalty of eternal damnation. If one of said leaders is to go outside the scriptures, at best that teaching is pious opinion, and not binding on any Christian.

Again…back to the question you evaded…who decides what is biblical and extra biblical?

Do you believe and listen to what your pastor tells you every Sunday?

What you stated here…QUOTE]are Infallible, can declare and invent extra biblical teaching then bind the conscience of all Christians to that extra biblical teaching under penalty of eternal damnation. …isn’t this opinion too?..

But why do you believe your opinion?

 

[Augustus24]

I have learned to be OK with non-Catholics e.g. family members, referring to the CC as a denomination, just as long as they embrace the fact that the **CC was founded by God. **What makes no sense to me is saying - if it’s not found in the bible it is not to be believed - because nowhere in the bible is the word, denomination, to be found. What ya gonna do…

Hello Joe.

What makes no sense to me is saying - if it’s not found in the bible it is not to be believed

That doesn’t make sense to me either, and I have never made any such claim.

What I do say is that if there is a doctrine that is not found in the bible, its not binding on all Christianity.

 

[pablope]

Your claim was that protestants invented the term “Roman” to refer to your church. That’s patently false as your church called itself Roman at least 100 years prior to the Reformation, as I have shown. And the Council of Constance did have Papal approval, and your church considers it the 16th Ecumenical Council.

Fair enough.

I cannot since I am not a member of any denomination at this point.

 

[joe370]

Augustus24;10462727]Hello Joe.

That doesn’t make sense to me either, and I have never made any such claim.

What I do say is that if there is a doctrine that is not found in the bible, its not binding on all Christianity.

Hey brother. One thing that occurred to me long ago: the bible, nowhere, tells us that every doctrine that is to be believed, must be found in the bible e.g. the Trinity is not explicitly found within the pages of the holy Bible. I believe you and I are in agreement - right?

 

[joe370]

That’s true to a point. I accept that God ordained leaders in the church to teach. What I reject is that those leaders can declare themselves the voice of God on Earth, are Infallible, can declare and invent extra biblical teaching then bind the conscience of all Christians to that extra biblical teaching under penalty of eternal damnation. If one of said leaders is to go outside the scriptures, at best that teaching is pious opinion, and not binding on any Christian.

Hmm…I think I understand: you do not believe that the Holy Spirit continues to ineffably guide Jesus’ one church into all truth i.e. that ended with the apostles? The following passages seem to challenge your personal claim, but then again, that is just my personal claim/interpretation, and I am keenly aware that the following verses do not apply to me and therefore conclude that I am not qualified to discern the truth vis-a-vis the matter. Who is, if it’s not me, you, Pablope or any other Christian, regardless of denomination?

And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever…

“I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

 

[joe370]

Hello Joe.

That doesn’t make sense to me either, and I have never made any such claim.

What I do say is that if there is a doctrine that is not found in the bible, its not binding on all Christianity.

Mormons would agree with you e.g. the Trinity. They believe that the Trinitarian dogma is found nowhere within the pages of scripture, and they would be right - and therefore is not binding on all Christianity e.g. them.

Nowhere does the bible tell us that the Father and the Holy Spirit are one, or that the Holy Spirit and Jesus are one - one of the reasons why it was challenged (and quashed by the CC) by certain Catholics in the 4th century. Again, thank God for church authority!!!

 

[Augustus24]

Mormons would agree with you e.g. the Trinity. They believe that the Trinitarian dogma is found nowhere within the pages of scripture, and they would be right - and therefore is not binding on all Christianity e.g. them.

Nowhere does the bible tell us that the Father and the Holy Spirit are one, or that the Holy Spirit and Jesus are one - one of the reasons why it was challenged (and quashed by the CC) by certain Catholics in the 4th century. Again, thank God for church authority!!!

Hello Joe.

Mormons would agree with you e.g. the Trinity.

They would be wrong. The Trinity is clearly taught in scripture.

Nowhere does the bible tell us that the Father and the Holy Spirit are one, or that the Holy Spirit and Jesus are one - one of the reasons why it was challenged (and quashed by the CC) by certain Catholics in the 4th century. Again, thank God for church authority!

I believe you are speaking about the Council of Nicaea. The Nicaean Creed is consistent with scripture, and all its doctrine is normed by scripture. Ergo, there is no new doctrine being promoted, or extra biblical doctrine. Again the bishops present could only define what had already been taught by scripture, and that’s the extent of their authority.

 

[Augustus24]

Hmm…I think I understand: you do not believe that the Holy Spirit continues to ineffably guide Jesus’ one church into all truth i.e. that ended with the apostles? The following passages seem to challenge your personal claim, but then again, that is just my personal claim/interpretation, and I am keenly aware that the following verses do not apply to me and therefore conclude that I am not qualified to discern the truth vis-a-vis the matter. Who is, if it’s not me, you, Pablope or any other Christian, regardless of denomination?

And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever…

“I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

Hello Joe, you said:

Hmm…I think I understand: you do not believe that the Holy Spirit continues to ineffably guide Jesus’ one church into all truth i.e. that ended with the apostles?

I don’t believe that at all. I believe that the Holy Spirit continues to guide the church, however the Holy Spirit does not inspire men who claim to be the voice of God to bind all Christians to extra biblical doctrine under penalty of eternal damnation.

 

[joe370]

Augustus24;10463266]Hello Joe.

They would be wrong. The Trinity is clearly taught in scripture.

Hmm…I do not see it explicitly spelled out in scripture. I see where the Father and the Son are one, but as I mentioned before, I do not see where scripture calls the Father and the Holy Spirit one, or the Son and the Holy Spirit as one. Perhaps you could illustrate?

believe you are speaking about the Council of Nicaea. The Nicaean Creed is consistent with scripture, and all its doctrine is normed by scripture.

OK. You and I (me as a former non-Catholic that is) claim that all doctrine is normed by scripture, and yet we competely disagree on what scripture says about the Eucharist. Who can settle the matter for us, in light of the fact that we disagree, and the norm is not helping?