Did the church lose its authority as Protestants claim? How do we answer that?

[Frankenfurter]

OK, I have tried the simple argument out on some folks that the current Catholic church is indeed the same as it was back when you said it did have authority to interpret scriptures.

I have also asked them to compare their own church to the early Christian church too to see which one is the same.

I am finding that there is simple holes in their understanding.They simple have not thought much about this early church.

So at least, that is an opening.

 

[CarmelJerome]

What authority do they possess to discern that the Church ‘lost’ her authority? The implicit claim is that the Holy Spirit transferred His discernment to those making this assertion - that they possess an absolutely certain knowledge from God that this is so. If they claim absolute certainty, then they claim the power to interpret what God’s movements in His Church are. It is only the same Protestant argument against the very idea of apostolic authority disguised as a concession to the See of Rome ’ s brief possession of it.

 

[dominejesu]

I have had a similar statement said to me by a protestant and even heard a well known
radio and tv independent news sources say that the early church got corrupted in the
time of Constantinople (300AD) and distort his roots and history then they say, that
with the protestants (namely Luther) came to reform the church because it was all
barbarian before that. Little do they know. This would be my response.
The word Catholic means universal.The Catholic Church is the only universal Christian Church that has existed since the time of Jesus. Every other Christian group is an offshoot of the Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox churches broke away from the unity
with the pope in 1054. The Protestant communities were established during the Reformation, which began in 1517. Only the Catholics existed in the 10th, fifth and in the first century, faithfully teaching the doctrines given by Christ to the apostles, omitting nothing even though you may not agree. There is
a 2000 year history despite constant opposition from the world. This is in the
bible and testimony to the Church’s divine origin. It is here today not because of its human origin (sinners) and bad church leader but to the protection of the Holy Spirit. Jesus established only one Church, not a collection of differing churches (Eph 5:23-32) Jesus said there would be both good and bad members in the church John 6:70

For 2000 years the catholic church has carried out this mission, preaching the good news that Christ died for all men and that he wants all of us to be members of his universal family Gal 3:28
The Church Jesus established was known by its most common title, “the Catholic Church,” at least as early as the year 107, when Ignatius of Antioch used that tile to describe the one Church Jesus founded. It went
Back to the time of the apostles.

 

[Incomplete]

For me, it comes down to truth. Either God gave us a way to find truth, or He didn’t. That’s why history is so important.

If we have know way to know truth, it doesn’t matter if you are Protestant or Catholic.

If there is a way to know truth, is it, as Protestants say, because the Holy Spirit teaches each one of us separately? If it is, that doesn’t explain how even Protestants can’t agree among themselves what issues are essential to salvation. It doesn’t explain how my non-denominational friend, who loves God dearly and prays fervently, and my priest, who loves God dearly and prays fervently, could be “led” to different beliefs.

There must be deposit of truth somewhere. Since Catholic dogma hasn’t changed and we were their before Protestants, it would appear that Catholics hold the deposit if truth.

If the Catholic church started with the fullness of truth, then got corrupted and no longer has the fullness of truth, how would anybody know which Protestant church has it? Martin Luther wasn’t the only option during the reformation. How do we know who to believe?

If your Protestant friends are admitting that the Catholic church is the one started by Jesus, they would have to explain, then, how the deposit of faith changed (since our teachings didn’t) and how we would know which of the many Protestant denominations now contain the fullness of truth. Or explain that the God of truth didn’t leave us a way to know.

Note also that Protestants often change denominations if they find something in Scripture that they think is contrary to what their denomination teaches. In other words, many of them seem to think that the authority given by Jesus lies in them as individuals. Yet none of them would claim to have the fullness of truth.

 

[geekborj]

“Authority” when asked this way is related to an Office that a person has. In case of the “authority” to the Church, this is singularly conferred to the Office of Peter (hence the Cathedra/Seat of the Pope, “Holy See”) and to the whole college (collegial body) of bishops in communion with him. It has at least four-fold powers: to govern (tend my sheep), to teach, to feed (feed my lamb/sheep), and to judge (bind-loose)

The proposal that this Office can loss authority is taken from Revelation (e.g. Rev 2:5) depicting that God can remove the “lamp stand” from a Church. This cannot be used against the Universal Church as this is applicable only to the Church locally (e.g. “Church in Ephesus”).

The idea that the Authority vested on the Church in matters of Faith and morals is based on the promise of Jesus that the Holy Spirit will guide her into the fullness of truth and that Jesus Himself (as later known as the Spirit of Christ — the Holy Spirit) both as Comforter and in the Sacraments most especially in the Eucharist is present until the end of times.

Death and the “gates of Hades” cannot also remove that authority to the Office indicating that the death of the first Peter is immaterial, it is the Office of Peter which is not lost by death of the one occupying it. Even the authority of the Seat of Moses is not removed or made non-authoritative until the death of Christ in the Cross.

Thus, the claim that the Catholic Church lost its authority somewhere between the Pentecost and today is absurd and goes against God’s faithfulness and the core of Christian Faith.

 

[TxGodfollower]

The idea that the Authority vested on the Church in matters of Faith and morals is based on the promise of Jesus that the Holy Spirit will guide her into the fullness of truth and that Jesus Himself (as later known as the Spirit of Christ — the Holy Spirit) both as Comforter and in the Sacraments most especially in the Eucharist is present until the end of times.

Death and the “gates of Hades” cannot also remove that authority to the Office indicating that the death of the first Peter is immaterial, it is the Office of Peter which is not lost by death of the one occupying it. Even the authority of the Seat of Moses is not removed or made non-authoritative until the death of Christ in the Cross.

Christ promise was to preserve His Church. His Church would be preserved if it started with group A, but then the leadership of group A got corrupted and group B left. The authority is still there, intact and undefeated.

 

[Frankenfurter]

Christ promise was to preserve His Church. His Church would be preserved if it started with group A, but then the leadership of group A got corrupted and group B left. The authority is still there, intact and undefeated.

Exactly. That is the key argument that I am looking for an answer too.

The answer seems to be that since the church is the same now as it was when it had authority, that there is no good reason to assume the authority has left. Especially since the alternatives are clearly very different than the original church.

But this requires that folks look into what the early church was like.That process takes some time.

 

[TxGodfollower]

Exactly. That is the key argument that I am looking for an answer too.

The answer seems to be that since the church is the same now as it was when it had authority, that there is no good reason to assume the authority has left. Especially since the alternatives are clearly very different than the original church.

But this requires that folks look into what the early church was like.That process takes some time.

I have studied early church history. if I believed that the early church was Catholic, I would be too. I don’t believe the claim that the early church was Catholic.

 

[Abu]

TxGodfollower #68
I don’t believe the claim that the early church was Catholic.

Then the historical reality should be realised as evidently reflected in the clear understanding by the nomenclature employed, as Catholic was first used by St Ignatius of Antioch in his letter to the Smyrneans, A.D. 107, “Where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” It is from the Greek katholike meaning “general” or “universal”. Within 90 years it meant also “orthodox” or faithful to the teachings of Christ. (The Catholic Catechism, Fr John A Hardon, S.J., Doubleday, 1975, p 217).

No other Church has been founded by the Christ, the Son of God, and no other sect or religion has all the marks of Christ’s Church – one, holy, catholic and apostolic.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Glenda, do you think that if your neighbor has trouble with stealing, he should chop off his own hand? Or someone that has trouble with coveting his neighbor’s belongings should gouge out his own eye/eyes? If we really take Christ words seriously in whole, most Christians would be self-mutilated.

Indeed oh so much not to necessarily take literally. Faithful Catholics will of course say the CC tells them what to and what not to. But I see your point.

 

[Sy_Noe]

"And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church,** and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.** I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

That doesn’t work if they believe the rock was not Peter but his profession that Christ was the Son of God the Savior. Or if they believe the Church is the body of believers. Not just the CC. Or if they believe human leaders stray at whatever point and therefore Christ needs to provide reform for exactly that reason. So the gates of Hades don’t end up prevailing. Faith and beliefs can’t really be explained by any certain proof. That’s why they’re called faith beliefs.

 

[dallas123]

I am an active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormon) and I can report what our church teaches regarding what happened to the authority that Christ had in his church that he organized during his ministry.

The apostles received direct revelation from Christ to guide the church when they were upon the earth. As some apostles died, others were ordained to replace them. Eventually all of the apostles were killed because of the wickedness of the people and that meant there were no more apostles to receive revelation or pass on the keys of authority. From that point on, the church began to drift, adopting beliefs that were not part of the original church. The early church fathers were sincere and did the best they could but they were without guidance through revelation. The world evolved into what has been called the “Dark Ages” as a result of a lack of revelation from Christ for guidance.

In 1820, a young man named Joseph Smith prayed in a grove of trees in upstate New York, wanting to know which church he should join. He was visited by God the Father and his son Jesus Christ and was told to join none of them but that he would be an instrument in Gods hand in re-establishing Christ’s original church. Joseph and some of his co-workers later received priesthood authority from John the Baptist, Peter, James and John, Moses, Elijah and other earlier prophets and on April 6, 1830, Christ’s original church was re-established on the earth. I testify to the world that what I have said is true. If anyone reading this would like to know more, I encourage them to contact Mormon missionaries for more information or go to Mormon.org or LDS.org on the internet.

 

[Abu]

Sy Noe #71
That doesn’t work if they believe the rock was not Peter but his profession that Christ was the Son of God the Savior. Or if they believe the Church is the body of believers. Not just the CC. Or if they believe human leaders stray at whatever point and therefore Christ needs to provide reform for exactly that reason. So the gates of Hades don’t end up prevailing.

What is vital is to know what the Christ did and said and the wonders worked by His followers as shown in the Sacred Scriptures.

It is never too late to offer the truths that Christ has proclaimed and to counter the many false beliefs with which so many have been assailed by the confused and detractors.

Peter is the Rock on which Jesus built His Church.

On St Peter, scholarly commentary identifies that Cephas is merely the transliteration of the Aramaic ‘Kepha’ into Greek. Catholicism And Fundamentalism, Karl Keating, 1988, Ignatius, p 207].

“Transliteration” means to represent words in the characters of another alphabet. Convert David B Currie puts it this way: “Kepha] transliterated into English, can be written ‘Cephas’.” Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic, 1996, Ignatius, p 76]. Since “Kepha” is the only Aramaic word for rock, Currie points out that Jesus said: “I tell you that you are Rock (Kepha) and on this Rock (Kepha) I will build my Church.”

“Sur” was the chief biblical word for rock, and the Psalms emphasised that God was the only Rock (sur). “Being closely synonymous with “sur”, the name Kepha could not help but evoke in pious Jews, as all the twelve were, a sentiment of awe and reverence.” And On This Rock, Fr Stanley L Jaki, OSB, 1987, Trinity Communications, p 77].

The Swiss Calvinist biblical scholar, Oscar Cullman, declared …”the Roman Catholic exegesis must be regarded as correct.” (See Peter, Apostle, Disciple, Martyr, 1953, p 18-20). Paul calls Peter “Cephas” quite often.
[Keating, p 208-11].

Answer by Fr. John Echert (EWTN) on 07-19-2003:
Extract:
“The original Aramaic name given to Simon by our Lord was “Cephas” which means rock. The Greek equivalent is “Petra” but since this is a feminine noun in Greek, it is rendered with the masculine ending as “Petros” in the New Testament. Contrary to what some non-Catholics claim, the use of “Petros” does not manifest an intention to regard Peter as a small stone rather than a rock but is simply done in accord with the rules of grammar and convention in the Greek. Such is obvious when we consider that the actual name given him by the Lord, “Cephas,” admits of NO such distinction between a small stone and large rock. To the best of my knowledge and based upon the work of other scholars I have read, I am not aware of another instance of this name in antiquity–certainly it was not commonly known or used. So our Lord was not only creating a new position within the New Covenant people but He appears to have done so with a new name.

“I highly recommend the book *Pope Fiction *by a convert to Catholicism, Steve Madrid, which addresses every imaginable attempt to discredit the papacy.”

 

[Abu]

dallas123 #72
The early church fathers were sincere and did the best they could but they were without guidance through revelation. The world evolved into what has been called the “Dark Ages” as a result of a lack of revelation from Christ for guidance.

At no stage did the Catholic Church change Her teaching and the Revelation from God was complete with the death of the last Apostle. Christ’s Church has Her Tradition, Her Sacred Scripture and Her Magisterium from the Christ, the Son of God.

Dr Thomas E Woods, Jr.:
“Western civilization stands indebted to the Church for the university system, charitable work, international law, the sciences, and, important legal principles. … Western civilization owes far more to the Catholic Church than most people — Catholic included — often realize. … The Church, in fact, built Western civilization.”

Woods breaks the history of the Church and Western civilization into chapters that treat the Church from its beginning through the so-called Dark Ages up to the present day. He demonstrates that Western institutions, though often originating in Athens and Jerusalem, were developed into a Catholic culture in a process that accelerated from the early Middle Ages right up to the time of the Reformation and the Enlightenment.
*The Church and the Market: A Catholic Defense of the Free Economy *(Lanham, Md.; Lexington Books, 2005)].

The “Dark Ages” are pure myth, like so many other slanders that try to discredit Christ and His Church. Still the gullible are unable to see the wood for the trees.

The progress achieved during the “Dark Ages” was not merely technological. Medieval Europe excelled in philosophy and science. The term “Scientific Revolution” is in many ways as misleading as “Dark Ages.” Both were coined to discredit the medieval Church. The notion of a “Scientific Revolution” has been used to claim that science suddenly burst forth when a weakened Christianity could no longer prevent it, and as the recovery of classical learning made it possible. Both claims are as false as those concerning Columbus and the flat earth.
*Catholicism and Science *by Rodney Stark (from Catalyst 9/2004)].
catholicleague.org/research/catholicism_and_science.htm

 

[Sy_Noe]

What is vital is to know what the Christ did and said and the wonders worked by His followers as shown in the Sacred Scriptures.

It is never too late to offer the truths that Christ has proclaimed and to counter the many false beliefs with which so many have been assailed by the confused and detractors.

Peter is the Rock on which Jesus built His Church.

On St Peter, scholarly commentary identifies that Cephas is merely the transliteration of the Aramaic ‘Kepha’ into Greek. Catholicism And Fundamentalism, Karl Keating, 1988, Ignatius, p 207].

“Transliteration” means to represent words in the characters of another alphabet. Convert David B Currie puts it this way: “Kepha] transliterated into English, can be written ‘Cephas’.” Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic, 1996, Ignatius, p 76]. Since “Kepha” is the only Aramaic word for rock, Currie points out that Jesus said: “I tell you that you are Rock (Kepha) and on this Rock (Kepha) I will build my Church.”

“Sur” was the chief biblical word for rock, and the Psalms emphasised that God was the only Rock (sur). “Being closely synonymous with “sur”, the name Kepha could not help but evoke in pious Jews, as all the twelve were, a sentiment of awe and reverence.” And On This Rock, Fr Stanley L Jaki, OSB, 1987, Trinity Communications, p 77].

The Swiss Calvinist biblical scholar, Oscar Cullman, declared …”the Roman Catholic exegesis must be regarded as correct.” (See Peter, Apostle, Disciple, Martyr, 1953, p 18-20). Paul calls Peter “Cephas” quite often.
[Keating, p 208-11].

Answer by Fr. John Echert (EWTN) on 07-19-2003:
Extract:
“The original Aramaic name given to Simon by our Lord was “Cephas” which means rock. The Greek equivalent is “Petra” but since this is a feminine noun in Greek, it is rendered with the masculine ending as “Petros” in the New Testament. Contrary to what some non-Catholics claim, the use of “Petros” does not manifest an intention to regard Peter as a small stone rather than a rock but is simply done in accord with the rules of grammar and convention in the Greek. Such is obvious when we consider that the actual name given him by the Lord, “Cephas,” admits of NO such distinction between a small stone and large rock. To the best of my knowledge and based upon the work of other scholars I have read, I am not aware of another instance of this name in antiquity–certainly it was not commonly known or used. So our Lord was not only creating a new position within the New Covenant people but He appears to have done so with a new name.

“I highly recommend the book *Pope Fiction *by a convert to Catholicism, Steve Madrid, which addresses every imaginable attempt to discredit the papacy.”

As I explained to you on another thread, if one has faith in those Catholic sources

 

[Church_Militant]

As I explained to you on another thread, if one has faith in those Catholic sources

Errant belief does not impair objective truth.

 

[Frankenfurter]

I am an active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormon) and I can report what our church teaches regarding what happened to the authority that Christ had in his church that he organized during his ministry.

The apostles received direct revelation from Christ to guide the church when they were upon the earth. As some apostles died, others were ordained to replace them. Eventually all of the apostles were killed because of the wickedness of the people and that meant there were no more apostles to receive revelation or pass on the keys of authority. From that point on, the church began to drift, adopting beliefs that were not part of the original church. The early church fathers were sincere and did the best they could but they were without guidance through revelation. The world evolved into what has been called the “Dark Ages” as a result of a lack of revelation from Christ for guidance.

In 1820, a young man named Joseph Smith prayed in a grove of trees in upstate New York, wanting to know which church he should join. He was visited by God the Father and his son Jesus Christ and was told to join none of them but that he would be an instrument in Gods hand in re-establishing Christ’s original church. Joseph and some of his co-workers later received priesthood authority from John the Baptist, Peter, James and John, Moses, Elijah and other earlier prophets and on April 6, 1830, Christ’s original church was re-established on the earth. I testify to the world that what I have said is true. If anyone reading this would like to know more, I encourage them to contact Mormon missionaries for more information or go to Mormon.org or LDS.org on the internet.

Thank you for jumping in here to show the point of view I am referring to. It seems that there are/were folks dedicated to the need for reformation out of a sincere belief that the authority of the church really did go away.

Joseph Smith is fascinating. But it always seemed to me that he really wanted to become Catholic. He was immersed in all those Protestant sects that were all changing and claiming they were the new deposit of authority. He just had a bias that the Catholic church COULDN’T be the right one.

So he made up this whole complicated story to create his own religion instead.

 

[jlhargus]

I have studied early church history. if I believed that the early church was Catholic, I would be too. I don’t believe the claim that the early church was Catholic.

Could you then tell us, if not the Catholic Church, what church it is from your reading of history, is it the church you now attend?

 

[jlhargus]

Christ promise was to preserve His Church. His Church would be preserved if it started with group A, but then the leadership of group A got corrupted and group B left. The authority is still there, intact and undefeated.

Then name B and who are the successors of Peter and the apostles and how did that authority pass from A to B when all the leaders of A were so corrupted? If Church A 's leaders could be so corrupted and group B left the Church ,Christ established, then Christ must have been unable to keep His promise the gates of hell shall never prevail against the Church. Also how do you know church B holds the truth. If A can’t then what assurance is there B can or has. How about church c, d, e, f, g, h, I, etc, splitting without end now in the thousands.

 

[Frankenfurter]

I have studied early church history. if I believed that the early church was Catholic, I would be too. I don’t believe the claim that the early church was Catholic.

That’s a new one.

I suppose if one holds an erroneous understanding of what Catholics do today then you will have trouble finding it in the early church. There is an awful amount of misinformation out there.