Church made up of "all believers regardless of denomination?"

[peary]

You’re assuming the clarification has been made. Even if it was we can’t assume it was understood correctly and then in turn taught infallibly. If the church was ever to be found in error she would never admit it because it would then become a house of cards. The church was never deemed to be infallible in her teachings. Just that the gates of hell would not prevail. Christ surely knew that there would be corruption. Corruption leads to fallible teachings. It is when we see through the fallible teachings that we (the church) stay grounded in our Faith to Christ. If we allow the fallible teachings to drive us away then satan has won.

PEACE

**That is why we have Faith, even in Christ’s Church. You can’t ‘get’ Faith and you can’t ‘do’ Faith. It is a gift. It is also a gift to understand that the Church is directly guided by the Holy Spirit; therefore, what the Church teaches through the pope and magisterium together cannot err in either the whole of the Faith or in moral teachings.

Yes, Christ knew that there would be corruption in the Church because of human nature. However, He also promised to send the Holy Spirit to clarify, to teach, and to protect the Church from erroneous and wrong teachings. To counter otherwise is to call Christ a liar. Those who have left the sacramental life of the Church for whatever personal reasons they may have have done so to their own detriment. In effect, they do not take Christ at His word and are in that crowd so aptly described in John 6:66.**

 

[mozart-250]

Chellow:
I see by your yub you agree with what I stated, but don’t you see if the Church has the power to bind and to loosen whatsoever on earth and heaven, that’s the greatest authority that God can give to the Church (Matthew 16:19). With this authority the Church can rule with an ion rod (Psa 2:9).
Actually I do not necessarily agree with what you have written. Then again I don’t necessarily disagree. Matthew 16 is subject to different interpretations. I don’t want to get into Bible verse slinging. So for the sake of argument I was granting what you were saying for now.

I only want to address the assertion that that takes one from believing the Bible is historically accurate to believing the Bible is God’s inspired Word based on seeing that God established a church that is incapable of being in error.

I just don’t see why someone who comes initially to the Bible without any preconceptions will necessarily conclude that Christ established a church that is “incapable of being incorrect”. They have to make the leap from “binding and loosing” and “gates of hell will not prevail” to “incapable of being incorrect”. I just don’t see what is in that text to cause an impartial reader to make that leap.

An impartial reader in my mind is more likely to conclude from reading the text that Christ established an authoritative church. However there is a world of difference between being authoritative and being incapable of being incorrect.

I also don’t see why an impartial reader will necessarily conclude that this authoritative church must necessarily be found in one and only one denomination.

 

[Harpazo]

.
I also don’t see why an impartial reader will necessarily conclude that this authoritative church must necessarily be found in one and only one denomination.

Why would “the Church” be comprised of various belief systems?

Wouldn’t that contradict the whole idea of a Church, especially one that clearly Christ is founding that verse? Think about it, the Episcopalians differ theologically from the Wesleyans, the Baptists differ from the Presbyterians, and the AoG differ from the Campbellites (Disciples of Christ denom.). Each says something different as to what the essential beliefs are. No denomination agrees on what these essentials are, nor does the Bible say what they are.

Christ is not divided.

Alaha minokhoun
Andrew

 

[mozart-250]

Why would “the Church” be comprised of various belief systems?

Wouldn’t that contradict the whole idea of a Church, especially one that clearly Christ is founding that verse? Think about it, the Episcopalians differ theologically from the Wesleyans, the Baptists differ from the Presbyterians, and the AoG differ from the Campbellites (Disciples of Christ denom.). Each says something different as to what the essential beliefs are. No denomination agrees on what these essentials are, nor does the Bible say what they are.

Christ is not divided.

Alaha minokhoun
Andrew

I see what you are saying…somewhat. I can understand someone asking the silly question on why so many denominations. I can even see somebody opening the Bible and seeing a disconnect between what God had in mind and the way it is.

But remember the article I am commenting on. The cited article claims that an impartial reader (not steeped in anybody’s dogma) reading the Bible only as a historically accurate document, must conclude that Christ established a church that is incapable of being incorrect. Furthermore this reader must conclude that only one denomination out there (of the 5,678,456,236…hey if Catholics can exaggerate with 30,000 I can exaggerate more…denominations out there) is this church. Finally this reader must conclude that this church is the Catholic denomination.

Now I could conduct an experiment by asking all of the non-Christians on this forum whether they can draw these conclusions from this passage in Matthew. I will bet that nobody will make those conclusions. The leap is just too great.

Even if the reader asks the same questions you raise.

An impartial reader (by that I mean someone exploring the Bible for the first time without any preconceptions and biases) might ask the silly question why all the denominations. He also might see a discrepancy between what God designed in Scripture and what is out there.

That having been said…back to the point that I was making…that hardly makes the leap of the reader concluding that one denomination out there (to the exclusion of all others) must be incapable of being incorrect based only on believing the Bible as a historical book only (which is the point the cited link tried to make).

 

[Deacon110]

Shlomo!

At first it might look like that passage is against Christ given the keys to solely Peter, but you must take it into context with the verses before and after it. Christ gave St. Peter the eminent power over the Church and He also gave power to the apostles as well. You have to also look into the totality of the New Testament as well. Here’s what I said on another post:

If you notice, in St. Matthew 18:18, the keys are given to the other Apostles.

Alaha Minokhoun
Andrew

What is Shlomo by the way??
Your intepretation is too shallow here. He was teaching the Apostles but you have to relate it to the context of the story he was telling. Jesus wasn’t teaching this lesson to the Apostles so it would apply only to them. He fully expected the Apostles to turn around and teach this very lesson to us all. So imagine Peter sitting with us and saying this is what Jesus taught. The singular and plural as you state would then be directed to the individuals that were being taught. Why else would this story be in the Gospels if it didn’t apply to everyone within the church? That makes no sense. Jesus is frequently teaching the Apostles and those very same lessons apply to us all.

Look at the very next verse:

21 Then Peter came up and said to him, “Lord, how often will my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? As many as seven times?” 22 Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you seven times, but seventy times seven.

So was Jesus just telling Peter to forgive seventy times seven? Everyone else has to forgive only once. Peter is the only one in the whole universe that has to forgive seventy times seven. That would make no sense. This obviously applies to us all. Just as everything Jesus taught to the Apostles. We have to imagine the Apostles turning around and teaching us the very same thing. Once you put it in this perspective the Bible makes more sense. This is the very reason Jesus later tells the Apostles that he will leave them the helper in the Holy Spirit. So that when they went out to teach they would remember all the things Jesus taught them so they could teach us.

John 14:25 “These things I have spoken to you while I am still with you. 26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.

Hope this helps.

PEACE

 

[VWcrazy]

No. The Church is not made up of various denominations. There is only one Church established by Christ.

 

[Deacon110]

That is why we have Faith, even in Christ’s Church. You can’t ‘get’ Faith and you can’t ‘do’ Faith. It is a gift. It is also a gift to understand that the Church is directly guided by the Holy Spirit; therefore, what the Church teaches through the pope and magisterium together cannot err in either the whole of the Faith or in moral teachings.

I have Faith in the church. But I’m also aware that the church is made up of humans and humans can error or become corrupt. The implication you make here is the Holy Spirit will only teach to the Pope and Magisterium. That’s what the gnostics thought as well. The Holy Spirit guides us all. Suggesting that the Holy Spirit will only speak to the Pope and Magisterium places boundaries around GOD. Then if the Magisterium and Pope are corrupting the teachings the whole church is taken down the wrong path. Can you see the logic in that? The whole suffers because of a tiny part. I doubt that’s how Jesus intended it and in fact it is for this reason I believe the Bible has survived. So we may measure the teachings of the church against scripture. Read Timothy 2:3

16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God [2] may be competent, equipped for every good work.

GOD gave us the Bible as a measuring stick so that we may know when our church leaders are teaching in error.

We need to have Faith in the church but not blind Faith in the church leaders. I only have complete blind Faith in GOD and Jesus. Leaders can fail us and history has shown that especially within the church.

Yes, Christ knew that there would be corruption in the Church because of human nature. However, He also promised to send the Holy Spirit to clarify, to teach, and to protect the Church from erroneous and wrong teachings.

That’s not what Christ promised in the Bible.

John 14:26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.

Jesus doesn’t say The Holy Spirit will protect us from teaching in error or corrupting the teachings. Jesus also doesn’t say the Holy Spirit will only teach the Pope and Magisterium. The Holy Spirit will teach and bring to remembrance Jesus teachings. HE can reveal something to the Pope or you or me, but then it is up to you, me, or the Pope to turn around and teach it to someone else. If we choose to corrupt that teaching the Holy Spirit won’t stop us. That’s called free will. And it is for this very reason I again call your attention to 2 Timothy 3 above and stress the importance of having the Bible.

To counter otherwise is to call Christ a liar.

Definitely not calling Christ a liar for sure. I’m clarifying what Christ actually said. The problem is you’ve added to his words.

Those who have left the sacramental life of the Church for whatever personal reasons they may have have done so to their own detriment. In effect, they do not take Christ at His word and are in that crowd so aptly described in John 6:66.

I certainly take Christ at HIS word which is why I believe the Holy Spirit will guide me. I have a choice though to listen to HIM or not. If I decide not to listen I’m not going to say Christ lied to me because the Holy Spirit didn’t keep me from error.

PEACE

 

[Harpazo]

What is Shlomo by the way??
Your intepretation is too shallow here. He was teaching the Apostles but you have to relate it to the context of the story he was telling. Jesus wasn’t teaching this lesson to the Apostles so it would apply only to them. He fully expected the Apostles to turn around and teach this very lesson to us all. So imagine Peter sitting with us and saying this is what Jesus taught. The singular and plural as you state would then be directed to the individuals that were being taught. Why else would this story be in the Gospels if it didn’t apply to everyone within the church? That makes no sense. Jesus is frequently teaching the Apostles and those very same lessons apply to us all.

In you’re opinion it’s shallow. I cannot see your interpretation at all in this verse. Christ is telling the Apostles they have the power to bind and loose, loose and bind. Where does it say “This is also for anyone who believes in me?” I can’t see it there, why are you saying it is?

Look at the very next verse:

21 Then Peter came up and said to him, “Lord, how often will my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? As many as seven times?” 22 Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you seven times, but seventy times seven.

So was Jesus just telling Peter to forgive seventy times seven? Everyone else has to forgive only once. Peter is the only one in the whole universe that has to forgive seventy times seven. That would make no sense. This obviously applies to us all. Just as everything Jesus taught to the Apostles. We have to imagine the Apostles turning around and teaching us the very same thing. Once you put it in this perspective the Bible makes more sense. This is the very reason Jesus later tells the Apostles that he will leave them the helper in the Holy Spirit. So that when they went out to teach they would remember all the things Jesus taught them so they could teach us.

John 14:25 “These things I have spoken to you while I am still with you. 26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.

Hope this helps.

PEACE

“Shlomo” is Syriac (language Christ spoke) for “peace.” It’s related to “Shalom” in Hebrew and “Salaam” in Arabic.

No doubt the Seventy times seven applies to everyone, but it’s crystal clear that Christ is only addressing St. Peter and His Apostles with binding and loosing.

Not everything that Christ taught the Apostles applies to the individual layman. That would be almost blasphemous for a Catholic to say that about a layman could do what Christ commanded in John 6:54 or John 20:22-23. You have to have Christ’s Apostles and their successors do what he is commanding of them. Most of what Christ commands of anyone in the Gospels is to His Apostles, no doubt there. However, there are certain parts of Christ’s mandates that they themselves teach to the Christian to imitate, and there are things that only the Apostles and their successors can do.

Alaha minokhoun
Andrew

 

[Chellow]

I see what you are saying…somewhat. I can understand someone asking the silly question on why so many denominations. I can even see somebody opening the Bible and seeing a disconnect between what God had in mind and the way it is.

But remember the article I am commenting on. The cited article claims that an impartial reader (not steeped in anybody’s dogma) reading the Bible only as a historically accurate document, must conclude that Christ established a church that is incapable of being incorrect. Furthermore this reader must conclude that only one denomination out there (of the 5,678,456,236…hey if Catholics can exaggerate with 30,000 I can exaggerate more…denominations out there) is this church. Finally this reader must conclude that this church is the Catholic denomination.

Now I could conduct an experiment by asking all of the non-Christians on this forum whether they can draw these conclusions from this passage in Matthew. I will bet that nobody will make those conclusions. The leap is just too great.

Even if the reader asks the same questions you raise.

An impartial reader (by that I mean someone exploring the Bible for the first time without any preconceptions and biases) might ask the silly question why all the denominations. He also might see a discrepancy between what God designed in Scripture and what is out there.

That having been said…back to the point that I was making…that hardly makes the leap of the reader concluding that one denomination out there (to the exclusion of all others) must be incapable of being incorrect based only on believing the Bible as a historical book only (which is the point the cited link tried to make).

It’s true an impartial reader that only uses the bible to try to determine which Church Christ founded Would not find his answer by the scripture along. In order to find the Church founded by Christ that reader would have to access non bias historical resource, because all denomination if not claim to be the Church founded by Christ.

That impartial reader must also be called by the Father to come to Christ, because it’s he whom
draws us to Christ Jn 6:44. When the reader is drawn to Christ and accepts scripture he is
drawn to an understanding that God is perfect (Matt 5:48), and that in perfection their is no division.

We are told by Scripture that the Holy Spirit guides the Church (Jn 14:16, 26). I believe that Holy Spirit been part of the Trinity Can not spread imperfection or division and their can not be and their should not be 5,678,456,236.9 denominations all been guided by the Holy Spirit teaching different dogmas. So we have to believe with a perfect God their must be one Church only one denomination with the authority that I believe is given to the Church in (Mt 16:18) “binding and loosing”.

 

[Deacon110]

In you’re opinion it’s shallow. I cannot see your interpretation at all in this verse. Christ is telling the Apostles they have the power to bind and loose, loose and bind. Where does it say “This is also for anyone who believes in me?” I can’t see it there, why are you saying it is?

I apologize this has to be in 2 posts.

I think you’re misunderstanding my explanation so let me take another shot at it for you. Hopefully this will help you out.

Let’s start first with binding and loosing because this concept is often misunderstood. A Jewish Rabbi explained this to me once and it made a whole lot more sense when I encountered it in the Bible. Basically a Jewish Rabbi is looked upon as being the expert for GOD’s law. So when there was confusion on applying the law a Rabbi would often be seeked out to make a ruling. Case in point. A Jewish person is walking through the parking lot at Walmart and finds 100 dollars. They’re not sure if keeping the money would constitute stealing or not. So they go to a Rabbi and ask for help. The Rabbi says you have to turn that money into Walmart in an attempt to find the rightful owner. For if you keep it without doing that first you are stealing. The Rabbi just bound that person to GOD’s law of thou shall not steal. He could have loosened the law there and said well, keep half and donate the other half to charity. Or donate the whole thing. But the point is if the person keeps the 100 dollars for themselves after the Rabbi bound them to the law then they have sinned. It is not only bound here but now it is bound in heaven.

So if you relate this concept of binding and loosing to our story in Matthew 18, it’s easier to understand how and who Jesus was extending this power to. It certainly wasn’t just the Apostles. Now keep in mind Jesus usually had large crowds surrounding him when he taught so it makes sense that others heard this story as well. At the top of Matthew 18, he tells us that the disciples came to him. The disciples at this time were not just the Apostles anymore. Jesus had many disciples following HIM by this time because of all the Miracles he had performed and because he taught so much. We see this in the beginning of Matthew 18 when they ask who is the greatest in the Kingdom of GOD. Jesus calls a child to HIM and then proceeds to pick him/her up. So obviously other people were around including children. This wasn’t an isolated conversation with the Apostles. This was a whole sequence of teachings Jesus was revealing to whomever was there. It starts at the top of Matthew 18 and we keep reading into Matthew 19. Notice in Matthew 19 we encounter when the people started to bring their children to Jesus so he may lay HIS hands on them. And continues well into Matthew 20. So Jesus was busy.

So let’s take a closer look at the story Jesus tells:

**Matthew 18:15 “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. **

Jesus is addressing this to everyone. He’s not just telling the Apostles how to handle if someone sins against them personally. This is a univeral teaching. Notice the generic use of “your brother against you”. That you could be me or you, or it could be anybody. Next verse:

**Matthew 18:16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. **

Now Jesus is telling them how to handle the situation if “your brother” does not listen. Jesus wants 2 or 3 people to be able to hear the evidence so that they may make a ruling and hopefully "your brother will listen to them. Next verse:

**Matthew 18:17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. **

Now Jesus is saying if he won’t listen to the witnesses, then take it to the church. Next verse:

Matthew 18: 17 contd… And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to “you” (again this is me, you or anybody) as a Gentile and a tax collector.

Now read carefully, Jesus is saying if your brother refuses to listen to even the church, treat him as a Gentile or Tax Collector. So this whole time Jesus is giving instructions to the person that has been sinned against. This is you or me or the guy next door. Then notice immediately what Jesus tells me, you or the guy next door.

Matthew 18: 18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed [6] in heaven.

So now Jesus is back outside the church because the sinner wouldn’t listen to them either. Now he basically says, however YOU (you, me, anyone), decides to handle it, however we bind or loose it on earth, it is also now bound or loosed in Heaven.

So obviously Jesus here is not addressing this to the Apostles personally. That would make no sense. He’s giving instructions on how he wants a victim of sin to handle it, and then confirming the power of binding and loosing to them. This makes even more sense when in the very next verse Peter asks “How many times do I forgive my brother”. We know Jesus response to that. That response is also directed to everyone (you and me). These are universal teachings Jesus is making. If you relate the plural and singulars you noted they make more sense as well.

Contd… below

 

[Deacon110]

“Shlomo” is Syriac (language Christ spoke) for “peace.” It’s related to “Shalom” in Hebrew and “Salaam” in Arabic.

Cool. Then Shlomo to you my Brother.

No doubt the Seventy times seven applies to everyone, but it’s crystal clear that Christ is only addressing St. Peter and His Apostles with binding and loosing.

I think I explained this pretty well above. Clearly he is not. This is a very misunderstood teaching.

Not everything that Christ taught the Apostles applies to the individual layman. That would be almost blasphemous for a Catholic to say that about a layman could do what Christ commanded in John 6:54 or John 20:22-23.

John 6:54 is a poor example because Christ is not commissioning anyone to do anything here. He’s telling all of us to feed on HIS Flesh, but not physically. He’s not saying come up and take a bite out of my arm. You have to keep reading:

John 6:60 When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

What is Jesus saying here? All along in John 6 Jesus is stressing the point of believing in HIM. Re-read it and you’ll see what I mean. But the Jews want bread, they want a sign, they’re not getting who he is yet and they certainly are not getting this cannabalistic teaching he seems to be implying. So Jesus finally says OK, how about if you saw me ascend to where I was before. Meaning if you saw ME ascend into Heaven would you then believe who I AM?? This is so brilliant. He then clarifies this cannabalistic teaching by saying:

John 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

Now it makes more sense. Jesus doesn’t want them to fill themselves with physical bread. He says their ancestors ate the manna and still died. He wants them to fill themselves with HIS spirit. HOW?? By believing. Not by eating HIS physical flesh. I know this is what we’re taught in Catholic School or maybe in your case RCI classes. But it’s flat out wrong. I’m sure you will disagree with me so we can just leave it at that.

With regard to John 20, again this is another poor example. Jesus gives the power of the Holy Spirit to us all. He also gives us all the power to forgive. Not forgive sin itself. Only GOD can do that. But all one needs to do is read the Our Father. Forgive us as we forgive those who sin against us. Then immediately read the next passage after Jesus gives us the Lord’s prayer:

Matthew 6:14 For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, 15 but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

So really a Priest can’t forgive anything. Only GOD can. This is another Roman Catholic teaching that you will probably disagree with me on so we can leave it at that. We’d end up debating all day with the same outcome

You have to have Christ’s Apostles and their successors do what he is commanding of them. Most of what Christ commands of anyone in the Gospels is to His Apostles, no doubt there. However, there are certain parts of Christ’s mandates that they themselves teach to the Christian to imitate, and there are things that only the Apostles and their successors can do.

Again I disagree with you. Jesus was teaching behavior he wanted within HIS church. Paul give’s us an outline of the qualifications for Elders, Deacons, and Bishops. He in no way mentions that they are supposed to be doing all these things you mention. But again we’ll probably agree to disagree But re-read the letters to Timothy and Titus, then tell me where Paul states that they perform confession. Actually show me in the Bible anywhere where any of the Apostles were taking confession. It’s just not taught that way. It’s taught to repent to GOD.

Shlomo Brother.

Alaha minokhoun
Andrew

 

[De_Maria]

This was written by bengal_fan in another post and I wanted to discuss this further.

How does this view hold up against history and Scripture & Tradition? Many Fathers and Doctors of the Church, both East and West, taught nothing close to this, and in fact taught contrary to this belief. It was not taught for at least 1500 (maybe more) since Our Lord ascended to Heaven.

So for the Protestants that profess this, why? This sounds like a tradition of men to me.

How can such a thing be taken seriously with each denomination believing something different from the next? I know the over-played response of “well, we all believe in the essentials right?”

Nay! No two denominations can completely agree on what the essentials actually are, can they? I can’t seem to find in Protestant history where these essentials were defined, or more importantly in Sacred Scripture, where most, if not all Protestants go for the basis of their faith.

Alaha minokhoun
Andrew

Actually it is from Scripture AND the Catholic Church acknowledges that She is their Church also. Even though they reject Her.

Here is the Scripture:

Matthew 13 *24 Another parable he proposed to them, saying: The kingdom of heaven is likened to a man that sowed good seeds in his field. **25 But while men were asleep, his enemy came and oversowed cockle among the wheat and went his way. * *26 And when the blade was sprung up, and had brought forth fruit, then appeared also the cockle. **27 And the servants of the goodman of the house coming said to him: Sir, didst thou not sow good seed in thy field? whence then hath it cockle? *28 And he said to them: An enemy hath done this. And the servants said to him: Wilt thou that we go and gather it up? 29 And he said: No, lest perhaps gathering up the cockle, you root up the wheat also together with it. *30 Suffer both to grow until the harvest, and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers: Gather up first the cockle, and bind it into bundles to burn, but the wheat gather ye into my barn. *

The Kingdom of Heaven is, of course, the Church. The cockle represents those who believe imperfectly and even those who deny the truths of the Church. Some will burn in hell, most in purgatory.

And here is the teaching from the Catechism which acknowledges that all the baptized are brothers in Christ.

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . **All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

**Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[peary]

I have Faith in the church. But I’m also aware that the church is made up of humans and humans can error or become corrupt. The implication you make here is the Holy Spirit will only teach to the Pope and Magisterium. That’s what the gnostics thought as well. The Holy Spirit guides us all. Suggesting that the Holy Spirit will only speak to the Pope and Magisterium places boundaries around GOD. Then if the Magisterium and Pope are corrupting the teachings the whole church is taken down the wrong path. Can you see the logic in that? The whole suffers because of a tiny part. I doubt that’s how Jesus intended it and in fact it is for this reason I believe the Bible has survived. So we may measure the teachings of the church against scripture. Read Timothy 2:3

16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God [2] may be competent, equipped for every good work.

GOD gave us the Bible as a measuring stick so that we may know when our church leaders are teaching in error.

We need to have Faith in the church but not blind Faith in the church leaders. I only have complete blind Faith in GOD and Jesus. Leaders can fail us and history has shown that especially within the church.

That’s not what Christ promised in the Bible.

John 14:26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.

Jesus doesn’t say The Holy Spirit will protect us from teaching in error or corrupting the teachings. Jesus also doesn’t say the Holy Spirit will only teach the Pope and Magisterium. The Holy Spirit will teach and bring to remembrance Jesus teachings. HE can reveal something to the Pope or you or me, but then it is up to you, me, or the Pope to turn around and teach it to someone else. If we choose to corrupt that teaching the Holy Spirit won’t stop us. That’s called free will. And it is for this very reason I again call your attention to 2 Timothy 3 above and stress the importance of having the Bible.

Definitely not calling Christ a liar for sure. I’m clarifying what Christ actually said. The problem is you’ve added to his words.

I certainly take Christ at HIS word which is why I believe the Holy Spirit will guide me. I have a choice though to listen to HIM or not. If I decide not to listen I’m not going to say Christ lied to me because the Holy Spirit didn’t keep me from error.

PEACE

**No, that is not exactly what I was saying. I am not saying that the pope *together with the bishops *are the ONLY ones that the Holy Spirit teaches within the Church. What I AM saying is that, as the body of Apostolic successors, they are GUIDED by the Holy Spirit to keep the Faith pure and unadulterated as well as to teach moral and ethical Truth.

The Holy Spirit also teaches and guides us as well, but we are in subordination to the will of God through His Church. The Holy Spirit will NEVER EVER lead anyone away from the Church for any reason but will foster and deepen our Faith in Christ. The lives of the saints attest to that, and that is why it is important to read about them and how the Spirit has worked within them.

And I think you need to see God’s relationship to His Church in a different perspective: it is not we who have put boundaries around God; rather, it is GOD who has set boundaries around Himself by establishing His Church in the world. We as the body of Christ have been commissioned to continue His work in the world through Christ. Those are the boundaries that God has chosen to work in the world. We all have different roles in thisope, cardinals, bishops, priests, deacons, lay people, etc. Although it appears hierarchical, it is, more correctly, all interrelated and works as a well-oiled engine (or should) in the whole. And the whole is greater than the sum of all its parts.

All Church teachings with regard to the Faith are firmly rooted in Scripture, in doctrinal development from Scripture, and from natural law. The Church’s Scriptures cannot be divorced from the Church because it is the Church that has the authority to interpret its own scriptures. Why are the Scriptures inspired? Why do we consider them the word of God? Because the Church has taught us so. The Church has found them worthy as the inspired word of God.

Irregardless of whether or not the leadership may be corrupt or not, the Faith is taught; the Faith is passed down from one generation to the next; Christ is present in His Church yesterday, today and forever. You are forgetting that Jesus even used Judas to spread the word of God throughout Galilee and through Judas God even manifested Himself in forgiveness and in healing to others, as did the other apostles. For the most part, God seems to choose sinners to spread His word because it is through the weaknesses of sinners that these become his or her greatest strength. I know very few “holier than thou’s” who have been as proficient in spreading the word of God among humankind as sinners have been able to do!**

 

[SyCarl]

So you are insinuating the Church is not telling the truth of it’s authority?

My am not insinuating that the Church is not telling the truth. Being mistaken about its authority is not the same as not telling the truth as it sees it. I know Catholics cannot accept the Church as being capable of mistakes on matters such as this but then that is a reason I am not Catholic.

 

[Chellow]

My am not insinuating that the Church is not telling the truth. Being mistaken about its authority is not the same as not telling the truth as it sees it. I know Catholics cannot accept the Church as being capable of mistakes on matters such as this but then that is a reason I am not Catholic.

So you don’t deny that the Apostles had the powers of infallibility, only that it’s not proven by line of succession it’s obtained. I can’t prove it nether but I think it’s inferred in Jn 14:18 where Christ states he will leave us the Holy Sprit and not leave us orphans. I believe we all have the power of infallibility, including Protestant minister can be guided by the Holy Sprit and be infallible the question is can he or I prove it, I don’t think so.

The power of binding and loosening (Matthew 16:19) is not the power of infallibility that’s the power of authority, the power to say I’m speaking infallibly, your sins are forgiven, you shall listen to no other teacher, you shall obey the Catholic Church. To have that power, that authority, from God you don’t have to prove your speaking infallibly, you just have to say so.

 

[Lapell]

Shlomo!

At first it might look like that passage is against Christ given the keys to solely Peter, but you must take it into context with the verses before and after it. Christ gave St. Peter the eminent power over the Church and He also gave power to the apostles as well. You have to also look into the totality of the New Testament as well. Here’s what I said on another post:

If you notice, in St. Matthew 18:18, the keys are given to the other Apostles.

Alaha Minokhoun
Andrew

Well, the power of binding and loosing is shared by all the Apostles, but only Peter and his legitimate successors were given the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. They are not the same thing!

 

[Erich]

I think Paul explains this best:

2 Timothy 3:15 You have been taught the holy Scriptures from childhood, and they have given you the wisdom to receive the salvation that comes by trusting in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right. 17 God uses it to prepare and equip his people to do every good work.

Realize what you’re saying here… Paul is referring to the Scriptures which Timothy has been taught from childhood. A good part of the New Testament hadn’t even been written yet at the time Paul wrote this (and the parts of the New Testament which had been written hadn’t yet been assembled into the canon we know today). So if this particular passage proves anything, it proves too much (i.e. it proves that the New Testament is not only not necessary, it is also not useful)!

I also notice that you start quoting at verse 15. But what about verse 14: “But you must remain faithful to the things you have been taught. You know they are true, for you know you can trust those who taught you.” Nothing there about Scripture at all; rather, it is a direct appeal to apostolic tradition, the oral teaching which the apostle Paul had given Timothy (and which, in 2 Tim. 2:2, he expects Timothy to “entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.”

That’s four generations of apostolic tradition… Paul, Timothy, those Timothy teaches, and those they teach.

 

[Erich]

I just don’t get how a non-Catholic can read the Bible as a historical document and believe on the basis of the Bible alone that Jesus Christ founded a church that was incapable of being incorrect.

Did you read the linked articles in their entirety, or just the parts I excerpted? In particular, did you see the following:

From Proving Inspiration:

Christ said he would found a Church. Both the Bible (still taken as *merely a historical *book, not yet as an inspired one) and other ancient works attest to the fact that Christ established a Church with the rudiments of what we see in the Catholic Church today—papacy, hierarchy, priesthood, sacraments, and teaching authority.

From Scripture and Tradition:

Jesus told his disciples: “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me” (Luke 10:16). The Church, in the persons of the apostles, was given the authority to teach by Christ; the Church would be his representative. He commissioned them, saying, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations” (Matt. 28:19).

And how was this to be done? By preaching, by oral instruction: “So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ” (Rom. 10:17). The Church would always be the living teacher. It is a mistake to limit “Christ’s word” to the written word only or to suggest that all his teachings were reduced to writing. The Bible nowhere supports either notion.

Further, it is clear that the oral teaching of Christ would last until the end of time. “’But the word of the Lord abides for ever.’ That word is the good news which was preached to you” (1 Pet. 1:25). Note that the word has been “preached”—that is, communicated orally. This would endure. It would not be
supplanted by a written record like the Bible (supplemented, yes, but not supplanted), and would continue to have its own authority.

This is made clear when the apostle Paul tells Timothy: “[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). Here we see the first few links in the chain of apostolic tradition that has been passed down intact from the apostles to our own day. Paul instructed Timothy to pass on the oral teachings (traditions) that he had received from the apostle. He was to give these to men who would be able to teach others, thus perpetuating the chain. Paul gave this instruction not long before his death (2 Tim. 4:6–8), as a reminder to Timothy of how he should conduct his ministry.
…
After all, Christ promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church (Matt. 16:18) and the New Testament itself declares the Church to be “the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15).

Or, in other words, incapable of being incorrect.

 

[Erich]

Paul is saying that you can’t confess Jesus to be your savior unless you know about him. So in order to know about HIM someone has to go and physically tell them. He’s not using the word sent to confirm authority.

When I first provided a link to By What Authority in post #41 on this thread, it was with the assumption that the link would be followed and the entire article (not just the summary bits quoted later in this thread) would be read. But, it looks like more context is needed, so here it is:

What is a “pastor?” The word is from the Latin, in fact, and it means - quite simply - “shepherd.” If you call yourself a pastor, you are claiming to be a shepherd of God’s flock.

The term “pastor” is also interwoven with the biblical term “overseer,” or “elder” - in the Greek, episkopos, or “bishop.” We see this in St. Paul’s farewell discourse to the elders of Ephesus:
“Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own Son.” (Acts 20:28) There is the connection: the “episkopoi” of the church at Ephesus have guardianship over “the flock” of God’s people.

Further, to be a “pastor” (shepherd, overseer, elder) is also to be an “ambassador” for Christ (c.f. 2 Cor. 5:18ff).

This is no light responsibility, and Scripture tells us that this position is never self-appointed. That is, no man can merely take it upon himself, of his own initiative, to start shepherding God’s flock:
“And one does not take the honor upon himself, but he is called by God, just as Aaron was.” (Heb. 5:4) Now, the astute reader will note that the above passage is referring specifically to the office of High Priest. Some may object that it only this highest of offices that cannot be self-appointed. But this is false, since this passage speaks of pastors as well as the High Priest. Am I reading too much into this passage? No, for we see that, just as a “pastor” is a shepherd of God’s flock, so the priests and High Priest are also shepherds of God’s flock:
“The word of the LORD came to me: ‘Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel, prophesy, and say to them, even to the shepherds, Thus says the Lord GOD: Ho, shepherds of Israel who have been feeding yourselves! Should not shepherds feed the sheep?’” (Ezek. 34:1-2) Here Ezekiel rebukes the priests of Israel, and explicitly calls them “shepherds.” We can see the connection with the title of “pastor” simply by examining the Latin Vulgate text of this same passage:
“fili hominis propheta de pastoribus Israhel propheta et dices pastoribus haec dicit Dominus Deus vae pastoribus Israhel qui pascebant semet ipsos nonne greges pascuntur a pastoribus.” Thus, when Heb. 5:4 addresses the office of High Priest, it is the office of High Shepherd, High Pastoribus. Clearly, the restriction of Heb. 5:4 applies to all “shepherds,” all “priests,” all “pastors”: the office, because of its solemn duties and grave responsibilities (James 3:1), cannot be taken upon oneself, but rather, one must be called to this office by God.

The same, of course, goes for “ambassadors.” The dictionary defines the word to mean, an “authorized messenger or representative” - thus, an ambassador must be sent. In fact, the word “apostle” is Greek for “sent one.” To this we can add the words of St. Paul, who says that preachers must be “sent.” (Rom. 10:15)

Now, what does “to be sent” mean, except that someone in authority over you has conferred the privilege and authority upon you? In fact, it goes without saying that the one who confers the authority must be superior in authority to the one being commissioned, since no one can confer that which he does not possess himself.

 

[Erich]

Our Elders appoint our head Pastor. What qualities do we use? The same ones Paul outlined in HIS letter. Where do we get those? The Bible.

and who appointed your Elders?

By your statement here you are saying that every church in the world had leaders who were appointed by a higher authority.

I’m saying they’re supposed to.