Faith entrusted only to Catholic hierarchy

  • Thread starter Thread starter MarcoPolo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MarcoPolo

Guest
What is a succinct way to explain to a skeptic Protestant that Jesus entrusted the faith to the ordained ministers that were succeeded by the Catholic hierarchy today? And that only the Catholic Church bears this gift of the Spirit to preserve the faith without error?
 
If you can disprove their doctrine of Sola Scriptura by showing that Protestants have not “preserved the faith without error”, then it becomes apparent that a central teaching authority is of absolute necessity and the only church left standing is the CC-it’s her or nothing. Anyway, that’s how it worked for me but I’m not sure if “succinct” can have anything to do with it.
 
MarcoPolo said:
What is a succinct way to explain to a skeptic Protestant that Jesus entrusted the faith to the ordained ministers that were succeeded by the Catholic hierarchy today? And that only the Catholic Church bears this gift of the Spirit to preserve the faith without error?
Click to expand...
That is not an accurate statement about the Catholic Faith.

The Faith is entrusted to all the people of God. And the Magisterium is not exercised by all ordained ministers, but only by the Pope and the Bishops. The Magisterium can teach infallibly, but also non-infalliby, so that error is possible, to a limited extent.
 
Ron_Conte said:
The Magisterium can teach infallibly, but also non-infalliby, so that error is possible, to a limited extent.
Click to expand...
Ok, then from there, what is the best way to show that only the Catholic Church’s Magisterium has this charism?
 
The Holy Spirit leads the whole Church, even the laity’s “sensu fidei.” We all have a duty to defend and proclaim the truth entrusted to us. But, the spirit gives different charisms to different members of the Body–some are appointed teachers. The Holy Spirit leads the Church into all truth, but He also appoints men bishops to lead the Church. This is not a contradiction, but rather the Spirit leads the Church into all truth by way of the bishops, who themselves are obliged to follow their chief, the Bishop of Rome, unto whom Christ entrusted the entire Church.

It also bears pointing out that the Spirit leads, but He does not carry. The fact that debate arises does not means the Spirit has left the Church, but rather through the debate she is led to a definitive answer which is always true. Thus, at the Council of Jerusalem, the Apostles debated whether or not it was true that Gentiles should be accepted. Only after listening to the debate for a while does Peter rise up and proclaim the definitive and true answer. Then they say, “it has seemed right to the Holy Spirit and to us.” Thus, it was the Holy Spirit who led them to the right answer which was ultimately proclaimed by Peter.

Obviously, groups that denied the teaching of the Apostles were not guided by the same Spirit they were. The same can be said for non-Catholic communities who deny the truth taught by the Spirit to Christ’s Church.
 
Genesis315 said:
The Holy Spirit leads the whole Church, even the laity’s “sensu fidei.” We all have a duty to defend and proclaim the truth entrusted to us. But, the spirit gives different charisms to different members of the Body–some are appointed teachers. The Holy Spirit leads the Church into all truth, but He also appoints men bishops to lead the Church. This is not a contradiction, but rather the Spirit leads the Church into all truth by way of the bishops, who themselves are obliged to follow their chief, the Bishop of Rome, unto whom Christ entrusted the entire Church.

It also bears pointing out that the Spirit leads, but He does not carry. The fact that debate arises does not means the Spirit has left the Church, but rather through the debate she is led to a definitive answer which is always true. Thus, at the Council of Jerusalem, the Apostles debated whether or not it was true that Gentiles should be accepted. Only after listening to the debate for a while does Peter rise up and proclaim the definitive and true answer. Then they say, “it has seemed right to the Holy Spirit and to us.” Thus, it was the Holy Spirit who led them to the right answer which was ultimately proclaimed by Peter.

Obviously, groups that denied the teaching of the Apostles were not guided by the same Spirit they were. The same can be said for non-Catholic communities who deny the truth taught by the Spirit to Christ’s Church.
Click to expand...
I get that, but how do you explain to a Protestant that this charism exists only with the Catholic Church today. He is willing to grant that this charism exists, although he rejects Peter.

I find it difficult to explain succinctly because he has to take the time to study who has apostolic succession.
 
MarcoPolo said:
I get that, but how do you explain to a Protestant that this charism exists only with the Catholic Church today. He is willing to grant that this charism exists, although he rejects Peter.

I find it difficult to explain succinctly because he has to take the time to study who has apostolic succession.
Click to expand...
If he rejects the authority of the Church in teaching revealed truth yet still believes that such authority exists somewhere, then who does he think has it and what is his basis for that belief?
 
Alindawyl said:
If he rejects the authority of the Church in teaching revealed truth yet still believes that such authority exists somewhere, then who does he think has it and what is his basis for that belief?
Click to expand...
His position is easy to debunk. I’m not worried about that. He has the view of some mishmash of authority specific to no denomination, essentially making his authority unidentifiable.
 
If someone’s mind isn’t open, it’s like pushing a rope. I wish I had more success stories than I do.

When given a chance, I try to walk though Church history. If someone be reasonable, I don’t see how the only two left standing are Catholics and Orthodox.

To come to a different conclusion, one has to assert something akin to a magisterium but with no historical precedent beyond 1500 for some and the early 20th century for others.

Some version of “God told us” is always the answer.

Today, there’s an awful thing afoot that truth gets pushed aside for what trips my trigger. Many folk won’t even entertain truth. We get into the “my truth” “your truth” thing.

Lastly, there’s tons of folk who aren’t anti-Catholic, but whose religious upbringing of old or recent vintage leaves them with what notions they have. They’ve not done something that looks like thorough digging. And the internet is a lousy way to go about it.

I favor a dreary encyclopedia.
 
2 Pet 1 :20 and 21 tells us that we are NOT to personally interpret scripture- it actually refutes sola scriptura. And scriptures declares the hierarchy of Church authority in a multitude of places. I did a study on it personally using Scott Hahns salvationhistory.com. Memorizing a few key scriptures is the best way to answer the sola scriptura folk.👍
 
MarcoPolo said:
I find it difficult to explain succinctly because he has to take the time to study who has apostolic succession.
Click to expand...
As St. Paul said, how can a man preach, unless he be sent? St. Ireneaus in the second century used Apostolic succession and the authority of the successors of Peter specifically to prove that the Catholic Church proclaimed the authentic faith, whereas the various sects of his day (mostly Gnostics) did not.
 
Ignatius’ writings are full of examples of a church design that the RCC still shares today.

I think reading “Upon this Rock” by Stephen Ray is a good start to bring the ECFs to the tables as well.
 
His change of heart probably wouldn’t come in a sudden dramatic fashion anyway and only the HS can enlighten us on these matters of faith but the seed I’d plant would be in the form of the question, If the “church is the pillar and foundation of truth” as per 1 Tim. 3:15, then what is the Church and what is the truth? The disagreement among “churches” with no direct historical connection to the beginning of Christianity and with a reliance on scripture mainly as their authority on these matters render the Protestant position untenable, making the Catholic/Orthodox the only viable claimants to the title “Church”.
 
Thanks all. I have used the “it’s down to the Catholics and Orthodox” before, maybe it’s time to just lay that out with some really early ECFs on succession. I don’t plan to spend much time with him, because as some of you have noticed, his mind is hardly open, if at all.
:o
 
MarcoPolo said:
I get that, but how do you explain to a Protestant that this charism exists only with the Catholic Church today. He is willing to grant that this charism exists, although he rejects Peter.

I find it difficult to explain succinctly because he has to take the time to study who has apostolic succession.
Click to expand...
**Successors of the Apostles **
By Jimmy Akin
catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0107bt.asp
 
maryrev12 said:
2 Pet 1 :20 and 21 tells us that we are NOT to personally interpret scripture- it actually refutes sola scriptura. And scriptures declares the hierarchy of Church authority in a multitude of places. I did a study on it personally using Scott Hahns salvationhistory.com. Memorizing a few key scriptures is the best way to answer the sola scriptura folk.👍
Click to expand...
And the Eunuch from Ethiopia in Acts seeking enlightenment on the Scriptures about Jesus (the OT to our literal minded Protestant brothers and sisters).

The fact that the Church thrived without a canon (which was only for a ‘rule’ to the liturgy and not for devotional study and personal interpretation) for close to 380 years shows the Apostolic authority of our Bishops and Popes.

I hope this helps

Robert
 
Something that I think is extremely important is the issue of where did we get Scripture. The Catholic Church only decided definitively on the canon of scripture at the Council of Trent in the 1500s during the Reformation (although it had been in non-definitive use since at least 393 in the Synod of Hippo under St. Augustine en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon Martin Luther wanted to exclude quite a few books, including Revelations and others. So how can we just believe in Sola Scriptura without believing in the Catholic Church? Did the Bible come from the sky? No, the Church was established by Christ and that is why they have the authority to declare what is Scripture and what is not. Haven’t read the Church fathers though to confirm this. :o

In some schools now they are reading other excluded gospels like the Gospel of St. Peter. What is the Protestant justification for not including these gospels?

*Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with Thee. Blessed art Thou among women and blessed is the fruit of Thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. Amen. *

Come Holy Spirit, come by means of the powerful intercession of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, your well beloved spouse. Come Holy Spirit, come by means of the powerful intercession of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, your well beloved spouse. Come Holy Spirit, come by means of the powerful intercession of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, your well beloved spouse.

For the sake of his sorrowful passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world! For the sake of his sorrowful passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world! For the sake of his sorrowful passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world!

O Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee!
Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us!

*Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with Thee. Blessed art Thou among women and blessed is the fruit of Thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. Amen. *
 
The Church reaffirmed the canon at the Council of Trent to make a point to the defecting nationalistic-religion movements then taking place.

The Catholic and Orthodox have never had a problem with the canon (decreed by Pope Damasus I in 382) as a “rule” for what liturgical practices the churches should follow.

The Bible was never meant to be a personal how-to book for Christianity. That is a Protestant take (17th century and beyond). So no one thought it pertinent to go beyond St Damasus’ listing until those pesky secular humanists and budding nation/realms saw money in benefices and offices and clerical appointments (not to forget those abbeys and lands that Henry the VIII drooled over).

Merry Christmas

Robert
 
MarcoPolo said:
What is a succinct way to explain to a skeptic Protestant that Jesus entrusted the faith to the ordained ministers that were succeeded by the Catholic hierarchy today? And that only the Catholic Church bears this gift of the Spirit to preserve the faith without error?
Click to expand...
The bottom-line argument is that Peter went to Rome, and died there. Upon his death arose the papacy, and headquarters of the Christian world, which was in the process of spreading throughout the Empire. If Christ had not designated Peter as the ‘stone upon which the church would be built’, the Catholic argument for apostolic succession would be greatly weakened, if not non-existent. It all comes down to Peter going to Rome. QUO VADIS!!!
 
This is what I ended up posting…it was as brief as I could make it. There’s so much info. one could use!! 🙂

…Perhaps you believe the Church authorities who have the guarantee of the Spirit either do not exist or are unidentifiable. Neither option is rational.

I know we have gone over the Scriptures of the Spirit promising to guide the Church in truth. And we have gone over the typology of the Old Covenant ministerial priesthood fulfilled in the New. And others have pointed out the infallibility of Catholic bishops who identified the NT canon at the Council of Rome under Pope Damasus, ca 382, and if you doubt that council’s validity, then Hippo and Carthage in the following decade. We have shown that succession bears with it an entrusting and that ordination passes on the Spirit. (2 Tim 1:13-14, 1 Col 1:24-25, 1 Tim 3:15, et al.) We have shown that the episcopacy is an office, not dying with its occupants, of which the OT ministers were but a shadow.

The early Church recognized this succession coming from the apostles. They recognized that authentic teaching only came from those successors. Irenaeus smote Gnosticism largely in part due to the reality of Apostolic succession and the truth proceeding only from those who taught with this guarantee:

*It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and {to demonstrate} the succession of these men to our own times…hat tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also {by pointing out} the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those {faithful men} who exist everywhere. (read more on Irenaeus defending against heresy by showing who had authentic succession and who didn’t).
*The only plausible, reasonable claim to the authentic guarantee of the Spirit through the apostolic-appointed leaders of the Church can be made by either the Catholics or the Orthodox. That’s it. No other church can legitimately make the claim to succession that these two can. Anything less is based on unfamiliarity with Scripture and the early Church. One must do his history homework to see what is there to be seen.

This is as brief an explanation (for which there are volumes of additional information pointing to the same conclusion) I can muster for the lurkers out there. May God have mercy on us all.

God bless, and Merry Christmas everyone. 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top