How can people believe Peter is the rock but still not be Catholic?

[willi8]

Hi, willi8,

I ended my response yesterday a bit early… meant to include this in it…

In sticking with this thread concerning Peter being the rock… what do Mormons believe about the Apostles - and Peter in particular (specific to Matt 16:18) when Christ founding His Church on this sinful, boastful, cowardly, loud-mouth, sometimes inept, fisherman?

Best wishes,

Mormons believe that the Apostles were special witnesses of Christ. They were ordained and given authority to heal the sick, cast out deamons, and teach and spread the Gospel to all the nations of the earth. We do agree that Peter was left the keys to head the Lord’s established church in His abscence. Was Peter and the rest of the Apostles perfect…Of course not. they were human and had their own weaknesses from time to time. They were men of faith and conviction, but they were still men. The only difference, I think, is that we don’t believe that Peter held absolute power and authority (Primacy). Christ seems to recognize a special relationship to three Apostles, that of Peter, James, and John. These three are on the scene at key moments in the NT like the Transfiguration, the healing of Jairus’ daughter, and in Gethsemane. These three continued to stand out after the Lord’s ascension when dealing with church affairs at the council in Jerusalem. Paul called them the pillars of the church. I believe that this might be a difference, but I’m not sure. Maybe you could help clarify this point for me…Thanks

 

[JRKH]

Mormons believe that the Apostles were special witnesses of Christ. They were ordained and given authority to heal the sick, cast out deamons, and teach and spread the Gospel to all the nations of the earth. We do agree that Peter was left the keys to head the Lord’s established church in His abscence. Was Peter and the rest of the Apostles perfect…Of course not. they were human and had their own weaknesses from time to time. They were men of faith and conviction, but they were still men. **The only difference, I think, is that we don’t believe that Peter held absolute power and authority (Primacy). **Christ seems to recognize a special relationship to three Apostles, that of Peter, James, and John. These three are on the scene at key moments in the NT like the Transfiguration, the healing of Jairus’ daughter, and in Gethsemane. These three continued to stand out after the Lord’s ascension when dealing with church affairs at the council in Jerusalem. Paul called them the pillars of the church. I believe that this might be a difference, but I’m not sure. Maybe you could help clarify this point for me…Thanks

It seems odd that, on the one hand you accept that Christ gave Peter the Keys to the Kingdom, yet deny that he gave him absolute authority.

You understand that giving keys was a sign a king would use to establish a stewardship yes? Also this was before the day of “constitutional monarchies”, which means that, in Jesus time, a King had absolute authority. When a King had to be absent for an extended period he would appoint a Steward and give the steward the keys to the kingdom. The Steward, by virtue of that appointment had absolute authority to act in the Kings name. Jesus reinforced this idea with the passage about binding and loosing.

The Person selected by the King would be the one he trusted the most. The one who the King believed would rule and judge most like himself. Obviously if a steward acted wrongly or failed in his duty to the King, He would be dealt with harshly by the King on his return. Likewise, if a Steward were to die before theKings return, members of the Kings inner circle would select another to fill the vacancy. All these things in the Gospel and early Church are based upon the common political structures known at the time.

I apologize if I am repeating things that you already know, but I would like to hear how you can see Jesus as making Peter the Head of the Church but not Give Him Authority.

Peace
James

 

[tqualey]

Hi, willi8,

I’ll try with a clarification, but I want you to know that one of the more challenging aspects of following James on a post is coming up with something he didn’t say…

Seriously, when I read your post, willi8, I was amazed at the distinction that was being made: the Keys as a symbol of authority being given, but the actual authority of Christ not being given.

Remember, Christ is speaking before a group of twelve guys who were primarily fishermen … this was not a group of graduate philosophers that roamed away from Athens! At one time I tried to rank order the Apostles based on what I considered intellect – and never got very far (some of them did not have any recorded statements!) The brightest was probably Matthew (tax collectors at that time had to keep a lot in their heads if they were going to put anything in their pockets) probably followed by Phillip (his quip about “…200 days wages…” (John 6:5-7) always made me wonder if he was not an accountant!) Ah, but then it is a toss up, put Andrew 3rd (he showed the little boy with the loves and fishes to Christ – well, at least Andrew didn’t stop the little boy from coming to Christ!) James could place 4th and who would go 5th? John? You see, it gets muddled quickly! But there was never any doubt in my mind where Peter went: 12th!

Don’t get me wrong, Peter was a great guy, I’m sure, but he did have his faults, didn’t have much imagination, shot his mouth off at every opportunity, cowardly, quick with the sword, slow to evaluate actions – but, he loved Christ more then the other 11. And Christ knew that. So, how do you think Christ could play a ‘game’ with Peter by giving him the Keys (and all that this symbol meant as explained by James in the previous post) but deny Peter the reality of what this symbol meant? Such behavior would not mak any sense. Additionally, there is nothing in the recorded life of Christ to make anyone think Christ was given to playing such ‘games’. Christ’s behaviors are uniformly consistent – He is the ultimate Man of Principle.

When you identified that the Apostles were ordained and given authority to do various tasks, we need to identify what was the significance of this ordination.

In Luke 9:1-2 we see where Christ sent the 12 out to proclaim the Kingdom after giving them power over demons. And after all of the activities listed by Luke in Chapter 9, we go to Chapter 10 and find 72 individuals being sent out in pairs (36 groups?) to prepare the areas where Jesus intended to visit. There appears to be a difference in mission: proclaiming the Kingdom vs. preparing the way for a visit, although both groups had power over demons (Luke 10:17) . Was there a difference because of ordination? Maybe. But, I tend to think of the ordination of the Apostles happening at the Last Supper where Jesus, having just consecrated the ordinary unleavened bread and table wine into His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity gave the Apostles the authority to do this over and over again (Luke 22:19). As I appreciate the situation, all the Apostles were given the same authority to consecrate bread and wine into Jesus Christ – hidden under the appearance of bread and wine. Peter did not have a special authority in this area – just in the leadership, authority and organization of the Church.

Christ was into organization. He organized the way He selected the Apostles, He organized the way He traveled to various areas (going to some, avoiding others), He organized His Prayer Life by making a point of getting away from the crowds and the Apostles to be alone, He organized His miracles to solve problems – providing an abundance of good tasting wine to a wedding party about to crash, feeding the multitudes who were hungry (even having them cooperate by agreeing to sit in groups of 50’s), returning life to the dead (widow’s son, Martha & Mary’s brother), casting out demons, curing the sick, deaf, lame, blind and doing this in such a way that no one had any doubts that Christ was responsible for the event – none of them just ‘happen’.

Given this track record for organization and problem solving – doesn’t it make sense that Christ would organize His Church around one leader (Peter) with the others to follow his direction? This was the organizational system most familiar to the Apostles. Doesn’t it make sense that Christ meant what He said about, “Not leave(ing) you orphans…” (John 14:18) by providing leadership through Peter after Christ left the earth, and then providing leadership though Linus after Peter died … all the way through providing leadership after John Paul II died with Benedict XVI? It really does all hold together – Peter was given not only the symbol of authority, but the reality of that authority from the Hands of Christ Himself. We must be careful, of trying to reduce to our senses those things that Christ did. Ultimately, none of the miracles ‘make sense’ because each one of them transcends nature. At some point our Faith in the words of Christ and the Chruch He established on Peter must be our strength.

This is same Christ Who knew full well that Peter would deny Christ and would fled from the questions of a servant girl. The same Christ Who knew full well that Peter would then be strengthened and in turn would strengthen his fellow Apostles after the Resurrection.

As a personal note, I teach a Catholic Bible Study Program to prisoners in a local jail on Thursday nights. One of the biggest insights I have experienced is seeing the humanity in all of the men and women that the Bible talks about. Most of them are not larger then life - and most really fall – big time! We see the remorse of some and the defiance of others – actual human traits. We see some courage and a lot of wavering and some startling cowardice. These guys may be a lot of things - but, they are not dull! This is truly a human drama that God has provided for us through the Bible.

I hope this helped in providing you with some clarification on Peter having primacy because of the unique Authority he was given – not because of some outstanding physical or intellectual or moral quality – but, because Christ gave it to him. Period. A Christ who did not want anyone to think that His Church was built on human strength (anyone looking at Peter would surely agree with that! ) – but built on the Power of God working through men.

Best wishes,

 

[willi8]

Tom and James,

I think you misunderstood my post. I believe that Peter was given authority by Jesus to head his church. I just wanted to know if Catholics believed that Peter held the Lords authority exclusively or if some of the Lord’s authority was also given to the rest of the Apostles specifically also James and John?

 

[JRKH]

Tom and James,

I think you misunderstood my post. I believe that Peter was given authority by Jesus to head his church. I just wanted to know if Catholics believed that Peter held the Lords authority exclusively or if some of the Lord’s authority was also given to the rest of the Apostles specifically also James and John?

One of the problems with non-catholics trying to understand Church authority is that so often they make the mistake, as you do, of thinking in absolutes and/or in either/or terms.

A King when leaving a Steward in charge also leaves that steward with his inner circle of advisors. Think of the President’s Cabinet. Here is a group of men, all with specific responsibilities, yet all loyal and answerable to the President. This is similar to the situation with a King’s inner court of advisors. The King, or his steward, carries the ultimate power and authority, but authority from the king can also rest and work through others.

In the case of the Peter and the other apostles, Peter was the leader, but the Lord, in the Holy Spirit worked many wonders through each of them for the Glorification of the Kingdom.
Peter had complete authority given him by Jesus. Peter held the Keys. The Keys symbolize complete authority. This does not mean that the other apostles did not have authority, but Peter held the Steward’s Keys.

does this help?

Peace
James

 

[tqualey]

Hi, willi8,

Personally, I like James’ answer as being right on target. While mine is not necessarily clearer, it comes from a different direction to arrive at the same conclusion. Surely between at least the two of us we have an answer you can work with.

“Authority” is not a black or white type item in the context that you are asking the question.

Christ gave all of the Apostles specific authority (cast out demons, preach the Good News, consecrate bread and wine into His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, forgive the sins of men, baptize all in the name of the Trinity, etc.) but He only put Peter in charge of His Church - and He did this in front of the other Apostles.

If nothing else, this made things much easier for the mother of sons of Zebedee: James and John! (Matt 20:20-28) - after all, the top postion was already taken!

Basically, the ‘buck stops with Peter’ after Christ ascended into heaven. John 21:1-22. It is truly a wonder to witness the Risen Lord - fixing breakfast for the group - and then giving Peter this very special position of authority. Look specifically at verses 15-17

When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” He then said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” (Jesus) said to him, "Feed my sheep.

There can be no confusion here - Christ was a **carpenter **and Peter was a fisherman: there is no record of either of them ever having a flock of physical (4-legged) sheep that followed them around during the public ministry or suddenly appeared on the shore where Christ met the Apostles. By the same token, there can not be any confusion about Christ only speaking to Peter. The command was to FEED…TEND … FEED both the sheep and lambs, the mature and immature, leaders and congregation of Christ’s Church. Only Peter is put in charge - Peter is directly answerable to Christ for the care and feeding of His Church. This relationship exists today - with the Successor of St. Peter: Pope Benedict XVI.

There is no record that I know of specific to James having been given any type of special authority by Christ. John was given Christ’s Mother to care for at the foot of the Cross. Since Jesus was the Only Child of Mary, Jesus was not only providing for His widowed Mother’s welfare - but, also making Mary our Mother, too - with St. John standing in the place of each of us.

As best as I can evaluate the situation, Peter, James and John (three totally different personality types) had a special and unique relationship with Christ contrasted with the other nine Apostles. Only Peter received the special Authority from Christ to lead His Chruch.

Have a great day

 

[willi8]

James and Tom,

I better understand your position concerning Peter and Authority and it seems to fall in line with my own.

Thanks for the reply…Will

 

[tqualey]

Dear guanophone,

I have been re-reading prevous posts. Considering the amount of time that has passed since the last post, I am guessing that this excellent thread has about come to the end.

There have been three take-home messages for me:
1- While the words of Christ are clear, one needs to have an appreciation for the group He was speaking to. In most instances, the Apostles, especially Peter, only really ‘develop’ with the Holy Spirit on Pentecost.

2- The Early Church Fathers provide that link of continuity in the immediate post-apostolic age. Agruments 1500 years later (or more) tend to ignore the writings of these learned and inspired saints.

3- Notwithstanding arguments to the contrary - unless there is a pre-disposition to evaluate the Catholic presentations provided by members of the list - there will be no movement.

As an example, you can ‘throw’ all of the hydrogen and oxygen you want together and still not get any water. It takes a spark to complete this chemical reaction - because without it you just have two gasses. Without cooperating with the Divine Spark, people will persist in down the wrong road.

Best wishes to all

 

[JRKH]

Dear guanophone,

I have been re-reading prevous posts. Considering the amount of time that has passed since the last post, I am guessing that this excellent thread has about come to the end.

There have been three take-home messages for me:
1- While the words of Christ are clear, one needs to have an appreciation for the group He was speaking to. In most instances, the Apostles, especially Peter, only really ‘develop’ with the Holy Spirit on Pentecost.

2- The Early Church Fathers provide that link of continuity in the immediate post-apostolic age. Agruments 1500 years later (or more) tend to ignore the writings of these learned and inspired saints.

3- Notwithstanding arguments to the contrary - unless there is a pre-disposition to evaluate the Catholic presentations provided by members of the list - there will be no movement.

As an example, you can ‘throw’ all of the hydrogen and oxygen you want together and still not get any water. It takes a spark to complete this chemical reaction - because without it you just have two gasses. Without cooperating with the Divine Spark, people will persist in down the wrong road.

Best wishes to all

Tom,
This is a very nice summation. I especially like your example. Nice analogy

Peace
James

 

[willi8]

James and Tom,

I just wanted to let you know that I finally finished “The Essential Catholic Survival Guide”. Thanks for the recommendation. I thought that it was an overall good book to help clarify some of those “Controversial questions” about Catholic beliefs and doctrine. There were some questionable items, but nothing worth bringing up. One problem I did have with the book, however, was its evaluation of “Mormonism”. It was obvious that they really didn’t understand LDS beliefs and therefore jumped to many conclusions and made erroneous assumptions. Anyways, I read the book to primarily have a better understanding of the Catholic perspective, and in that it was quite helpful…Thanks…Will

 

[NonCatholic]

and why is there no doctrinal unity in this so-called “invisible” church? why did the early church bother to combat heretical movements if doctrinal purity is not an important issue?

Can I see your faith in Christ? Can you see my faith in Christ? Can you read/see my heart? Can I read yours? Can God? Yes, He can and He knows who are the “called” because he determined the “called” before the foundation of the world. (Eternity past) The true church of God is not necessarily known, especially if you are Catholic, because Catholic doctrines teach that if you say you are saved, then you are anathema…kind of a dilemma?

The true church(Ekklesia) is the body/assembly of believers whom God called unto salvation…So the individual member can be seen in the assembly, but not all people in that assembly are necessarily saved. Only the Holy Spirit can confirm that within the believer.

Have you been confirmed by the Holy Spirit who delivers you to Christ unto salvation?

 

[joe370]

Can I see your faith in Christ? Can you see my faith in Christ? Can you read/see my heart? Can I read yours? Can God? Yes, He can and He knows who are the “called” because he determined the “called” before the foundation of the world. (Eternity past) The true church of God is not necessarily known, especially if you are Catholic, because Catholic doctrines teach that if you say you are saved, then you are anathema…kind of a dilemma?

Show me in the official Catechism of the C.C. where it says, Catholic doctrines teach that if you say you are saved, then you are anathema --and I will renounce Catholicism.

**The true church(Ekklesia) is the body/assembly of believers whom God called unto salvation…
**
So it is not necessary for the Ekklesia established by God 2000 years ago to maintain unity and oneness, to avoid division and dissension? If what you say is true – ALL Christians belong to the same one invisible church, then why are their so many different and unique churches in the world, ALL claiming something the other churches deny; that doesn’t sound like unity and oneness to me.

Jesus’ church, according to your bible, was/is to be one: John 10:16; – there shall be one fold and one shepherd Eph 4:3-6; – one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father Rom 16:17; – avoid those who create dissensions 1 Cor 1:10; – I urge that there be no divisions among you Phil 2:2; – be of same mind, united in heart, thinking one thing Rom 15:5; – God grant you to think in harmony with one another Jn 17:17-23; – I pray that they may be one, as we are one Jn 17: 23; – that they may be brought to perfection as one 1 Cor 12:13; – in one spirit we were baptized into one body Rom 12:5; – we, though many, are one body in Christ Eph 4:4; – one body, one Spirit, called to one hope Col 3:15; – the peace into which you were called in one body.

Outside of the C.C. where can I go to find these hallmarks of Jesus’ established Church 2 thousand years ago? Division runs amok! Everyone using their bible (their sole authority) or deferring to their man-made churches for guidance. (not to impugn their work, just pointing out an obvious fact) If ALL of these protestant/evangelical churches were of the same mind, united in heart, thinking the same thing,(like the C.C.) --thinking in harmony with one another, being one, as Jesus and the Father are one, with one spirit baptized into one body (the church is Jesus’ Body), being one body --then you might have fodder for the theory that all Christians regardless of denominations are Jesus’ One Eklessia.

So the individual member can be seen in the assembly, but not all people in that assembly are necessarily saved. Only the Holy Spirit can confirm that within the believer.

Did any of the protestant churches in the world today exist when Jesus made a promise to His One Church to send the Holy Spirit to guide and protect the deposit of faith --in perpetuity? The oldest protestant church can only be traced back to the reformers in the 16th century and their beliefs had more in common with the C.C. than any of the protestant/evangelical churches we see today.

Martin Luther had the same beliefs vis-a-vis the Blessed Mother Mary that the C.C. does; Martin Luther believed in the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist…
The bible says:

• “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. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector."* Matthew 18:15-17

Jesus clearly had in mind, one visible church working in the world. In the current protestant situation, this can’t hold up – the sinner can pick another denomination rather than succumb to the church’s authority.

Your Bible clearly condemns the divisions of the last few hundred years. Many non-Catholics have suggested that Jesus wouldn’t care about various denominations, etc. but the Bible clearly teaches otherwise.

John 17:20-21.* “I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word [ed. note: through the written and spoken word of the apostles] that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me and I in thee, that they may also be in us, so that the world may believe that thou has sent me.”*…

 

[joe370]

Jesus is clearly indicating that some will not believe in Jesus if the Church is not one and unified. How many have fallen away over this issue? And yet protestants contend that it does not matter --It matters! I have agnostic and atheist friends who actually try and use this lack of unity in Christianity, and they too might have fodder for their argument if it wasn’t for the C.C. which cannot fail, because God will never let that happen, because the Holy Spirit is the protector of the Deposit of Faith!

Do you believe what your Bible says vis-a-vis Jesus’ One Apostolic Church, where division and dissension are enthusiastically frowned upon by are One Savior, the Savior of His created Church, His Mystical Body, the House of the Living God and the Pillar and Foundation of Truth.

How can any church built 1600 hundred years or more after Jesus’ One church, claim to be the foundation of Truth, when that foundation was formed over a thousand years prior to the Church built by Jesus Christ?

Every kingdom divided against itself is destroyed, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand. Matt 12:25

Matt 16:18-- John 17:20-23, Acts 4:32, Rom 13:13, Rom 16:17, 1 Cor 1:10-13, 1 Cor 3:3-4, 1 Cor 10:17, 1 Cor 11:18-19, 1 Cor 12:12-27, 1 Cor 14:33, 2 Cor 12:2, Gal 5:19-21, Eph 4:3-6, Phil 1:27, Phil 2:2-3, 1 Tim 6:3-5, Titus 3:9-10, James 3:16, and 2 Pet 2:1.

Jesus built His Church on solid kepha and said nothing would vanquish it, and binds the whole thing together, with an unbreakable cornerstone of which Daniel prophesied --Himself! When God builds something and says it will never fail, we should ALL be inclined to believe Him.

*Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it. *

 

[joe370]

How can any church built 1600 hundred years or more after Jesus’ One church, claim to be the foundation of Truth, when that foundation was formed over a thousand years prior to the Church built by Jesus Christ?

Oops --I meant to say after the Church built by Jesus Christ!

 

[JRKH]

Can I see your faith in Christ? Can you see my faith in Christ? Can you read/see my heart? Can I read yours? Can God? Yes, He can and He knows who are the “called” because he determined the “called” before the foundation of the world. (Eternity past) The true church of God is not necessarily known, especially if you are Catholic, because Catholic doctrines teach that if you say you are saved, then you are anathema…kind of a dilemma?

The true church(Ekklesia) is the body/assembly of believers whom God called unto salvation…So the individual member can be seen in the assembly, but not all people in that assembly are necessarily saved. Only the Holy Spirit can confirm that within the believer.

Have you been confirmed by the Holy Spirit who delivers you to Christ unto salvation?

Here we see a common misconception and confusion of ideas.
First is the idea of the "True Church’ being made up of the “Body of believers”. This is not precisely correct. What is being described is not the Church which Christ founded, but rather the collection of the elect who will be in heaven. It is NOT the Church as Christ instituted it.

The Church that Christ founded is something quite different. Christ obviously intended for His Church to be Visible and authoritative.

Christ’s instruction of what to do about a brother who “sins” against us:

Matthew 18: 15-18
15 "If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. 16 "But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. 17 "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church (Singular); and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18 "Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.

In your post you want to tell us that the “Church” not an “institution” but the entire body of believers. If this were so then “Taking it to the Church” would be completed in step two where “Two or three witnesses” are called upon and no third step would be required. But Christ did establish a third step, telling His disciples to submit such obstinate disputes to “The Church’ for resolution and that they must accept The Church’s judgment as final. Without this ability and authority to resolve doctrinal issues, the Church would have swiftly collapsed into chaos.

The Church Founded by Christ is not simply a mystical – ethereal collection of believers, though certainly that is what makes up the Church. Rather it is an institution of God, given to us for Guidance. No different than the system set–up in the OT of Priests and Elders teaching and enforcing the Law from the temple.

The great example in the Bible of the idea of Authority and taking it to the Church is the Council of Jerusalem in Acts. If the Church was a “body of believers” and not an “institution” then why did Paul feel the need to bring the issue of Mosaic Law, which was disturbing the Church at Antioch, to the Apostles (Church Leadership). It was because Jesus told them to “Tell it to the Church”.

Once at the Council, things did not run all that smoothly, there was much debate until Peter Spoke and quieted it. Even once the decision had been made in Council it is logical to assume that there were varying degrees of “acceptance” among the individuals who debated so forcefully earlier. This would only be human nature. However All of them accepted the decision of the Council and submitted their own misgivings to the authority of the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Here we see a clear cut example of the Early Church in authoritative action and placing a decree upon the entire Christian Church.

So tell me, If I as a Catholic Christian, sin (doctrinally) against you, a non-catholic Christian. How do we resolve our dispute? We must necessarily assume that we have already discussed the matter between us and consulted the Bible. Further, we have brought in several “witnesses so that each fact is confirmed”. However since we have BOTH brought witnesses, we are still at an impasse. Did Jesus tell us to just go our seperate ways? Did Paul just allow the Church in Antioch to split into those enforcing Mosaic Law and those who chose not to?
No - No - No. In each of these cases it was, and is, necessary to have a clear, visible and authoritative body to settle the dispute. And for those who are ruled in error, Christian Humility requires that they submit their personal will and opinion to that of the Church as Guided by the Holy Spirit.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Continued from above

This Church is not simply a mystical – ethereal collection of believers, though certainly that is what makes up the Church, it is an institution of God given to us for Guidance. No different than the system set –up in the OT of Priests and Elders teaching and enforcing the Law from the temple.

The great example in the Bible of the idea of Authority and taking it to the Church is the Council of Jerusalem in Acts. If the Church was a “body of believers” and not an “institution” then why did Paul feel the need to bring the issue of ----- to the Apostles (Church Leadership). It was because Jesus told them to “Tell it to the Church”.

Once at the Council, things did not run all that smoothly, there was much debate until Peter Spoke and quieted it. Even once the decision had been made in Council it is logical to assume that there were varying degrees of “acceptance” among the individuals who debated so forcefully earlier. This would only be human nature. However All of them accepted the decision of the Council and submitted their own misgivings to the authority of the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

To me, these GOSPEL passages are powerful and conclusive evidence of the Authority of The Catholic Church since it is the Catholic Church that is the oldest and is traceable to the Apostles.

---

These are crystal clear passages. In addition it is important to recognize that, for 1500 years the Catholic Church held this same view. While there may have been struggles within the Church, there was never a denial of the Church’s authority. Only the Temporal Structure and Form of that authority was debated. It was not until the Protestant Reformation that the Idea of am “Ethereal church” was taught.

Peace
James

 

[NonCatholic]

First, God’s “elect” is the true church, both in Heaven and presently on earth. It is invisible only in the sense that, as I stated before, in any given Congregation, there are those that are saved and those that aren’t, tares among the wheat. In a visible sense, those that are wheat can be seen and heard.

Second, below are excerpts from the Council of Trent concerning “Justification”, which is the equivalent to “salvation”.

DECLARATIONS OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT

Source:wayoflife.org/fbns/trent.htm

SIXTH SESSION, CANONS CONCERNING JUSTIFICATION: “If anyone says that the justice received is not preserved and also not increased before God through good works, but that those works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not the cause of its increase, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons Concerning Justification, Canon 24).

Sanctification is the ongoing process of bring a Christian to the likeness of Christ as evident through good works, to which God saved un unto good works.

What this is saying is that justification is part of sanctification. The problem, as I see it, is the Bible teaches that Justification occurs at the moment of Salvation, “justified/saved before the Lord for the forgiveness of sins because of the Lord’s work on the cross”.

SIXTH SESSION, CANONS CONCERNING JUSTIFICATION: “If anyone says that the Catholic doctrine of justification as set forth by the holy council in the present decree, derogates in some respect from the glory of God or the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ, and does not rather illustrate the truth of our faith and no less the glory of God and of Christ Jesus, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons Concerning Justification, Canon 33).

Off course it takes away from the Glory of God in salvation. It does illustrate the truth of “our” faith.

What does the Bible say? Romans 8:29-30 tells us the sanctification process…the justification to the glorification…point A (justification) through to point B (glorification), in between A and B is the process, which is sanctification.

 

[Randy_Carson]

What does the Bible say? Romans 8:29-30 tells us the sanctification process…the justification to the glorification…point A (justification) through to point B (glorification), in between A and B is the process, which is sanctification.

Salvation is a process and consists of:

1. Redemption
2. Forgiveness
3. Sanctification
4. Justification

Each of these can be demonstrated from scripture and reason to be a process and not a one-time event. I refer you to the following article taken from Jimmy Akin’s excellent book, The Salvation Controversy:

SALVATION PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE
By James Akin
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/PASTPRES.htm

Mr. Akin provides ample scriptural evidence to support “justification as a process”.

 

[NonCatholic]

James Akin:

The same idea of salvation as something that is taking place presently is found in the writings of the St. Paul as well, for example, in Philippians 2:12 he states,

“Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling”

Salvation in the Bible is therefore also a process which is still being worked out in the life of the believer’s life. And it is a process which will not be finally completed until the Last Day, as is indicated by St. Paul in the following passages:

Source:ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/PASTPRES.htm

First , this is describing sanctification, not justification/salvation.

Second, Mr. Aktins misses Paul’s point entirely.

Third, Paul says to these Philippian believers, you’ve got to work out your salvation. You say, “Now what does this mean?”
Lots of people have been very disturbed by that statement. Some people think that mean work for your salvation. Some people think it means work at your salvation. Some people might think it means work up your salvation. But salvation is not by works, is it? You can’t work at it. You can’t work for it. You can’t work it up. “For by grace are you saved through faith, that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God not of…what?..works lest any man should boast,” Ephesians 2:8 and 9. Romans 3:21 to 24, very clear, “The deeds of the law don’t justify anybody but righteousness comes by grace.” No, you don’t work for your salvation. There is no salvation by works. So he’s not saying,
Work for …work at…work up your salvation, he’s saying, “Work out.”

What does he mean? And what he is saying is this, the salvation that is in you needs to be brought out all the way to its fulfillment, to its fullness. It really is a command for sustained effort and diligence in working out what has already been planted within. Day-to-day holy living, that’s the idea

 

[Randy_Carson]

Source:ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/PASTPRES.htm

First , this is describing sanctification, not justification/salvation.

Second, Mr. Aktins misses Paul’s point entirely.

I’m guessing you don’t know Jimmy Akin.

No one has ever acused him of missing ANYTHING before…at least not accurately.

You might want to pick up a copy of The Salvation Controversy and read it carefully.

C. Sanctification

Evangelicals often place a great deal of emphasis on sanctification as a present process which Christians undergo. However, many in the Wesleyan tradition (Methodism, Holiness churches, the Church of the Nazarene, and some Pentecostal churches) tend to emphasize sanctification as a single event which occurs in the life of the believer. Both groups are correct in this. Sanctification is both a process and an event in our lives.
First, let us look at verses which indicate sanctification as a past event in the Christian’s life:

“And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.” (1Corinthians 6:11)

“By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.” (Hebrews 10:10)

“Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace?” (Hebrews 10:29)
These verses indicate the occurrence of sanctification as a past event in the life of the believer. But it is not only a past event, but also a present, ongoing process, as the following verses indicate:

"Finally then, brethren, we urge and exhort in the Lord Jesus that you should abound more and more, just as you received from us how you ought to walk and to please God … For this is … your sanctification: that you should abstain from sexual immorality … " (1Thessalonians 4:1, 3)

“Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely; and may your whole spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (1Thessalonians 5:23)

“For both He who sanctifies and those who are being sanctified are all of one, for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brethren” (Hebrews 2:11)

“For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.” (Hebrews 10:14)

(In addition to these passages, see 12:2, 13:14, 2 Corinthians 4:16, and Ephesians 4:21-25.)

There is therefore abundant reason to say that sanctification is an
ongoing process as well as a past event in the life of the believer.

But what about sanctification as a future event in the life of the believer? It is harder to come up with verses for this kind of sanctification, but that such sanctification exists may be easily deduced.

We know from various places in Scripture that we continue to stumble and sin all the way through the rest of this life, but we also know that we will not sin after we have been made perfect either at the Last Day or at our deaths, whichever comes first.

Therefore, when that event occurs, we will be made holy in the sense that we no longer sin at all, and since sanctification is being made holy, when this even occurs we will be sanctified.

Therefore, there is a future event of sanctification in the life of the believer as well as a past and a present sanctification.

(cont.)