R
RyanL
Guest
On the heals of what Tyler has written, I offer you this two word challenge (which may be more appropriate for another thread):
“Prove it.”
God Bless,
RyanL
- Status
“Prove it.”
God Bless,
RyanL
P
Pythagoras
Guest
Acts 15 only proves that the Church has more jurisdiction than the scriptures (circumcission). Truly the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth and not the bible. Acts 15 only proves the authority of the Church over scripture interpretation
A
Angainor
Guest
I think you answered your own question. The traditions handed down to Paul’s flock constitute the Gospel. I find it hard to believe that the Apostles handed down the “Living Magisterium” to his flock. What the Apostles handed down to his flock is not “Living” at all. The Apostles handed down a fixed set of traditions. That is my major objection, that Catholicism thinks it can “grow” tradition in a “living” way, and do it authoritatively.
L
linus
Guest
Excellent response!!! “Traditions” by definition are those teachings which were handed down BY THE APOSTLES. In other words, true Christian “traditions” must be the teachings of the original Apostles. Yet we know historically that teachings such as the Marian doctrines, Purgatory, praying to saints, etc. were all later developments having no roots in APOSTOLIC “tradition.”
And if one states they were, then I must respond with, “prove it.”
T
twf
Guest
Angainor: You did not answer my question, nor any of my points. How do you know that the Gospel you profess is identical to the Traditions Paul handed down?
No, we do not grow Traditions. The Catholic Faith can be found in the New Testament and in the writings of the Early Fathers (demonstrating the apostolic origin of these teachings)…at least in ‘seed’ form. We do believe that the Holy Spirit guides the Church down through the centuries, bringing us to a deeper understanding of certain doctrines, but we can not add or take away from the Faith. The deposit of Faith was entrusted to the bishops by the Apostles, and has been faithfully preserved down through the centuries.
No, we do not grow Traditions. The Catholic Faith can be found in the New Testament and in the writings of the Early Fathers (demonstrating the apostolic origin of these teachings)…at least in ‘seed’ form. We do believe that the Holy Spirit guides the Church down through the centuries, bringing us to a deeper understanding of certain doctrines, but we can not add or take away from the Faith. The deposit of Faith was entrusted to the bishops by the Apostles, and has been faithfully preserved down through the centuries.
T
TNT
Guest
- Actually, ONE of those Living Magisterium pronouncements is “there shall be 27 inspired books composing the New Testament”. Likewise there shall NOT be 26 or less, nor shall there be 28 books or more. “Not only that but the Book of Hebrews, 3John, 2Peter, and the Apocalypse of John shall be included.”
All of this was “unheard of” before 367ad. Imagine, the Apostles telling the Church what Books, if any at all, being inspired and composing a “NEW” testament. It didn’t happen. Yet you bet your spiritual life on on those “non-Apostle” teachings of a Living Magisterium!
Not only that, but that “Living Magisterium” preserved those books via endless copies since we have no original manuscripts. Where were the protestants or “other true churches” doing the work of decision and preservation for say, 1000 years? If the Catholic Church was NOT the true Church, then WHO was preserving the integrity of the 27 “books” for 1000 years?
I want names, dates, places. - RE: Acts 15:
What I am looking for is an INFALLIBLE interpretation of that chapter…from a protestant that is not in agreement with the Catholic interpretation. Will you be the one to give it? Since there are disagreements about its interpretation on this thread, then:
A. All are incorrect.
B. One is correct and the others opposed to it are incorrect.
Being incorrect does not edify unto salvation. - Now the truth of the matter is:
The Church existed LONG before the 27 books She proclaimed.
The difference in Catholic vs Protestant re. the Bibles is this:
The Catholic Church of Christ is the judge of Her doctrine. Her Bible is a Truthful WITNESS to Her doctrine WHERE the Bible so testifies.She Speaks at all times to edify (as in “Living”).
The Protestant has thrown out the Judge (the Catholic Church of Christ- “Pillar and ground of the Truth”) and installed the witness (Bible after 400 ad) as the judge. The problem they created is that their new judge cannot speak or correct misinterpretations. That is, it is a “MUTE” judge on matters of interpretation. This makes it a certainty that private interpretation is really the “Living Magisterium” of Protestantism.
L
LSK
Guest
St. Peter as the spiritual leader acted as the head of the Church - what we now acknowledge as Catholics to be the role of the ‘father’, or Papa, or Pope.
Thank you for pointing out why St. Peter is considered by Catholics to be the first Pope. Good Job!
Thank you for pointing out why St. Peter is considered by Catholics to be the first Pope. Good Job!
A
Angainor
Guest
Jesus was the last human being to know his profession of the gospel was identical to the true gospel. The rest of us seek the true gospel using the tools given to us. Those tools include faith and prayer.
Put yourself in the shoes of a bishop. How do they know the Gospel they profess is the true Gospel? It’s faith. Faith that the gospel was handed down through bishops, and faith that you are one of those bishops.
That is remarkably similar to my understanding. I would add that it was not without its bumps in the road. As with any human endeavor, people get off-track and need a kick from the Holy Spirit to get back on the right path.
A
Angainor
Guest
I am grateful for the Church for preserving the New Testament. We have a common heritage. I don’t mark the official split between Protestants and Catholicism until 1521. That is the year the Pope refused to follow Peter’s example in Acts 15 by talking through disagreements between Church leaders.
Good luck to you in trying to find a Protestant to make an infallible declaration of anything. We know we are fallible.
You are right about A or B. It is a good thing we don’t have to rely on being edified unto salvation. The path to salvation is not through edification. If it was, then those with child-like faith would never make it.
Bless you, but you have absolutely no idea what you are saying. We know the judge. John 5:27
P
Philthy
Guest
Not really - each letter of the NT letters reveals corrections and admonitions to the local church in areas where they were going astray
The fact that all decided neither confirms nor negates the concept of Peter (and subsequently the Chair of Peter) as holding ultimate authority in the Church on earth - so what exactly is your point?
There is no mention of the presence or absence of final authority in Acts. Your claim that Peter was not the final authority is conjecture. Authority is not addressed in the biblical account, however one can logically conclude that Paul and Barnabas did not have it and felt it resided in Jerusalem, or that they could obtain it there(Acts 15:2). It can be further inferred that Paul and Barnabas, even after the decision was made by the council, still lacked the authority to declare the decision - they had to take a letter from the council back with them as testimony.(Acts 15:20)
The term “gospel” is a very poor choice of words to convey the means they used to make their determination. They were guided by the Holy Spirit, their intellect, and OT Scripture (Acts 15:28).
In any event, once again, this neither confirms nor denies Peter’s final authority.
The fact that Peter did not “plant a flag in the ground” neither confirms nor negates the concept of Peter (and subsequently the Chair of Peter) as holding ultimate authority in the Church on earth. It simply records his behavior in this particular instance without, of necessity, implicating whether he is simply “one of the boys” or actually a tactful and considerate leader. You simply cannot determine that from the text - so what exactly is your point? And think about it, why would he"plant a flag in the ground"? There was no disagreement with his opinion - they accepted it. And I am not even saying that they accepted it BECAUSE it was his opinion. All I am saying is that there was no reason for him to be condescending.
I like your analysis, but your underlying theological inclinations slanted your conclusions towards your bias.
that would never happen to me
phil
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, let me say again, one of the strongest arguments in favor of the authority of Peter and the Apostolic Succession, is – it works!
For two thousand years, the Catholic Church has taught a consistent, coherent message. In less than a quarter of that time, Protestantism has split, fragmented, and re-fragmented – until now there are tens of thousands of Protestant denominations, all different and all proclaiming that they have the truth.
A second, almost equally powerful argument is to ask “Que bono?” Who would benefit from denying the authority of Peter? The most obvious persons would be the Catholic Bishops themselves – yet from earliest times, they submitted to the authority of Peter’s successors.
Those two points – a consistent message over thousands of years, and the constant submission of the Bishops – tell us the Church is right.
For two thousand years, the Catholic Church has taught a consistent, coherent message. In less than a quarter of that time, Protestantism has split, fragmented, and re-fragmented – until now there are tens of thousands of Protestant denominations, all different and all proclaiming that they have the truth.
A second, almost equally powerful argument is to ask “Que bono?” Who would benefit from denying the authority of Peter? The most obvious persons would be the Catholic Bishops themselves – yet from earliest times, they submitted to the authority of Peter’s successors.
Those two points – a consistent message over thousands of years, and the constant submission of the Bishops – tell us the Church is right.
P
puzzleannie
Guest
if by gospel you mean the good news of salvation preached by Jesus Christ and fulfilled in his saving action, okay, if you mean a book, no, it had not yet been written, so the elders did not base their decision on sola scriptura.
T
TNT
Guest
Really?
John 5:27:
And he hath given him power to do judgment, because he is the Son of man.
So, when did “HIM” pass judgement on your interpretation of Acts 15??? What exactly did “HIM” say to you about your interpretation. A quote from “HIM” to you would suffice.
You might consider this:
Matthew 10 :40 He that receiveth you, receiveth me: and he that receiveth me, receiveth him that sent me.
Sounds an awful lot like your Jn 5:27 Judge is sending you humans that speak FOR Him.
Apparently 1Tim 3:15:
but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.
has no place in judging your “interpretation”.
For certain, ONE of us has “no idea”.
Like I said. The protestant MUST make himself the judge of his own interpretation as he has overthrown the “pillar and support” of the truth as the judge of his wayward ideas. He’s all alone with a mute book. He is his own living magisterium, except you of course, who, like every other protestant thinks God is whispering in his ear via (Jn 5:27!) as to the correct interpretation, which, your disclaimer notwithstanding, makes you the infallible arbiter.
BTW:
In following you reasonings on Acts 15, you sound more like an Eastern Orthodox than a 16th cent protestant…until your last post to me.
Finally, a Muslim or pagan often has “child-like faith”. He still needs edification unto salvation.
T
TNT
Guest
I really can’t see how you can say that in sincerity. You already denied the concept of a Living Magisterium.
How a pope or his minions handles any one heretic has not a thing to do with his authority.
Somewhere, Peter had someone and his wife sent to the next world immediately JUST for telling a lie!!
So, what do you think about a pope following Peter’s example here today?6 And the young men rising up, removed him, and carrying him out, buried him. 7 And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what had happened, came in. 8 And Peter said to her: Tell me, woman, whether you sold the land for so much? And she said: Yea, for so much. 9 And Peter said unto her: Why have you agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? Behold the feet of them who have buried thy husband are at the door, and they shall carry thee out. 10 Immediately she fell down before his feet, and gave up the ghost. And the young men coming in, found her dead: and carried her out, and buried her by her husband.
would we then lose the whole True Church?
In my opinion, the pope looking into Luther was WAAAAY to patient before taking action.
A
Angainor
Guest
I understood this text to be one that Catholics use to support Peter’s authority.
One could also logically conclude that Barnabas and Paul’s reason for traveling to Jerusalem was to get the leaders there to call off the Judean Christians that were going around telling Christians they needed to be circumcised. Naturally the Jewish Christians from Judea would sooner respect a request to stop from leaders in Jerusalem than from Antioch. If Jewish Christians told them the Gentiles need not be circumcised there wasn’t much arguing after that.
Testimony that said they all agreed. Barnabas and Paul were sent to make the case against mandatory circumcision and the letter said basically, “Yes, we agree.” I don’t think a “decision” was made. Really the just came to a conclusion.
A
Angainor
Guest
vern humphrey:
That’s just it, it didn’t work. There was a Protestant Reformation. The people could not be held together by authority.
A
Angainor
Guest
Really? That is very interesting. I don’t know anything at all about Eastern Orthodox. Do you think I would fit in? I mean, other than they probably don’t speak English.
A
Angainor
Guest
I don’t know if my analysis is correct. I believe I will find out someday, when I meet the judge.
But I don’t think I’m alone at all! There is the Church of the living God, the pillar and support of truth. I think our disagreement is the boundaries of that Church.
The wrong child-like faith. That won’t help them.
A
Angainor
Guest
Was Luther accused of lying (at the time of his excommunication)? If anything Luther was too honest for the Pope. The Pope wanted him to recant, to falsely deny his own conscience.
C
Catholic_Dude
Guest
How about Acts 10 where the Gentiles were OFFICIALLY accpeted at the hands of St Peter.
44 While Peter was yet speaking these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them that heard the word. 45 And the faithful of the circumcision, who came with Peter, were astonished,** for that the grace of the Holy Ghost was poured out upon the Gentiles also.** 46 For they heard them speaking with tongues, and magnifying God. 47 Then Peter answered: Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost, as well as we? 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Then they desired him to tarry with them some days.
44 While Peter was yet speaking these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them that heard the word. 45 And the faithful of the circumcision, who came with Peter, were astonished,** for that the grace of the Holy Ghost was poured out upon the Gentiles also.** 46 For they heard them speaking with tongues, and magnifying God. 47 Then Peter answered: Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost, as well as we? 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Then they desired him to tarry with them some days.
- Status