How to resolve this dilemma?

[Nick_Jones]

Let’s say that you want to become part of the body of Christ, but you don’t know which so-called “church” is the real one. To further complicate matters, a Catholic friend tells you that Matthew 16:18 clearly says that Peter was the first pope in a long unbroken chain of succession. When you ask your friend why it matters if you are a Catholic or a Protestant, your friend tells you that it makes all the difference in the world, since as individuals, we are not really capable of correctly interpreting the bible. Your friend refers you to this:

Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent
The Fourth Session

Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,—in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, —wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,—whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,—hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published. Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries, and be punished with the penalties by law established.

---

At this point, if you believe Trent, you are completely unable to verify the claim that Matt. 16:18 says that Peter was the first pope because you now understand that correct interpretation of the Scriptures is not a matter of private judgment. So how should you verify that the Catholic Church is the one established by Christ and the apostles?

 

[Tomster]

Let’s say that you want to become part of the body of Christ, but you don’t know which so-called “church” is the real one. To further complicate matters, a Catholic friend tells you that Matthew 16:18 clearly says that Peter was the first pope in a long unbroken chain of succession. When you ask your friend why it matters if you are a Catholic or a Protestant, your friend tells you that it makes all the difference in the world, since as individuals, we are not really capable of correctly interpreting the bible. Your friend refers you to this:

Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent
The Fourth Session

Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,—in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, —wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,—whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,—hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published. Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries, and be punished with the penalties by law established.

---

At this point, if you believe Trent, you are completely unable to verify the claim that Matt. 16:18 says that Peter was the first pope because you now understand that correct interpretation of the Scriptures is not a matter of private judgment. So how should you verify that the Catholic Church is the one established by Christ and the apostles?

We believe and confess that Christ Himself (Matthew 16:18) conferred upon Peter the privilege of acting as His representative in governing His Church, and as this office is essential to the continued existence of the Church the privilege must pass on to legitimate successors.

Further, we believe that the supreme teaching office in the Church, the pillar and ground of truth (1 Timothy 3:15) must be infallible (Luke 22:31, etc.)

 

[Tom]

Let’s say that you want to become part of the body of Christ, but you don’t know which so-called “church” is the real one. To further complicate matters, a Catholic friend tells you that Matthew 16:18 clearly says that Peter was the first pope in a long unbroken chain of succession. When you ask your friend why it matters if you are a Catholic or a Protestant, your friend tells you that it makes all the difference in the world, since as individuals, we are not really capable of correctly interpreting the bible. Your friend refers you to this:

Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent
The Fourth Session

Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,—in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, —wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,—whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,—hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published. Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries, and be punished with the penalties by law established.

---

At this point, if you believe Trent, you are completely unable to verify the claim that Matt. 16:18 says that Peter was the first pope because you now understand that correct interpretation of the Scriptures is not a matter of private judgment. So how should you verify that the Catholic Church is the one established by Christ and the apostles?

This does not say you can’t interpret Scripture, it says when you find a conflict in your interpretation and the Church you are to believe and teach the Church. You should also seek understanding of why you are wrong. The Church does not say what every vewrse of Scripture means, actually they define very few.
Read your source:
in order to restrain petulant spirits (are you a petulant spirit)
wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church, (if you’re not in disagreement to the Church there isn’t a problem)
So what’s the problem? Can you understand Scripture? Of course!

 

[Nick_Jones]

We believe and confess that Christ Himself (Matthew 16:18) conferred upon Peter the privilege of acting as His representative in governing His Church, and as this office is essential to the continued existence of the Church the privilege must pass on to legitimate successors.

Further, we believe that the supreme teaching office in the Church, the pillar and ground of truth (1 Timothy 3:15) must be infallible (Luke 22:31, etc.)

The question is, WHY do you believe this? Is it only because Rome says so? Why do you choose to believe Rome and not the Mormon Church or the JW Church?

 

[davidv]

The question is, WHY do you believe this? Is it only because Rome says so? Why do you choose to believe Rome and not the Mormon Church or the JW Church?

1. Rome, Italy has nothing to do with anything in this regard.
2. I believe what the Catholic Church teaches because it is what I was taught while I was growing. Since that time, no alternate teaching has proven any of what I was taught to be wrong. As I have studied scripture and attempted to apply it my life, the correctness of the Church teachings are continually reinforced.

 

[Nick_Jones]

This does not say you can’t interpret Scripture, it says when you find a conflict in your interpretation and the Church you are to believe and teach the Church.

Which church? There are many institutions that are claiming to be the church. Was your decision to trust in Rome an arbitrary decision, or did you make a reasoned decision to place your trust in Rome?

You should also seek understanding of why you are wrong.

How would you know who is wrong (and why) if you are not able to reliably interpret the bible?

The Church does not say what every vewrse of Scripture means, actually they define very few.
Read your source:
in order to restrain petulant spirits (are you a petulant spirit)
wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church, (if you’re not in disagreement to the Church there isn’t a problem)
So what’s the problem? Can you understand Scripture? Of course!

Here you are just telling us that, as long as we agree with Rome’s interpretation of Scripture, there is no problem; everything is fine. But you haven’t even begun to explain how you came to know that Rome ought to be trusted as our infallible teaching authority.

 

[teadough]

Which church? There are many institutions that are claiming to be the church. Was your decision to trust in Rome an arbitrary decision, or did you make a reasoned decision to place your trust in Rome?

How would you know who is wrong (and why) if you are not able to reliably interpret the bible?

Here you are just telling us that, as long as we agree with Rome’s interpretation of Scripture, there is no problem; everything is fine. But You haven’t even begun to explain how you came to know that Rome ought to be trusted as our infallible teaching authority.

Nice “bait and switch” thread:thumbsup:

 

[Nick_Jones]

1. Rome, Italy has nothing to do with anything in this regard.
2. I believe what the Catholic Church teaches because it is what I was taught while I was growing. Since that time, no alternate teaching has proven any of what I was taught to be wrong. As I have studied scripture and attempted to apply it my life, the correctness of the Church teachings are continually reinforced.

1. Are you suggesting that the Eastern Orthodox Church is equally part of holy mother church?
2. If you had grown up in the Mormon or JW church, is it possible that you’d say exactly the same thing–that no alternate teaching has proven that anything you were taught was wrong?

 

[davidv]

1. Are you suggesting that the Eastern Orthodox Church is equally part of holy mother church?

Why do you think I did?

If by Eastern Orthodox you mean Non-Catholic Orthodox, No. Since they reject the authority of the Pope.

1. If you had grown up in the Mormon or JW church, is it possible that you’d say exactly the same thing–that no alternate teaching has proven that anything you were taught was wrong?/

Certainly. What’s the point?

 

[Thing]

Which church? There are many institutions that are claiming to be the church. Was your decision to trust in Rome an arbitrary decision, or did you make a reasoned decision to place your trust in Rome?

How would you know who is wrong (and why) if you are not able to reliably interpret the bible?

Here you are just telling us that, as long as we agree with Rome’s interpretation of Scripture, there is no problem; everything is fine. But You haven’t even begun to explain how you came to know that Rome ought to be trusted as our infallible teaching authority.

Did someone say in 33AD that He would build His church and that it would last, under His protection, until the end of time?

Where were the JW, Morman, etc. organizations in 33AD, 100AD, 1000AD, …

Thats why continuity is important, only the Catholic Church has a proven historical past all the way back 2000 years. And thats how you know its the original and trustworthy church you’re looking for.

 

[Nick_Jones]

Did someone say in 33AD that He would build His church and that it would last, under His protection, until the end of time?

Where were the JW, Morman, etc. organizations in 33AD, 100AD, 1000AD, …

Thats why continuity is important, only the Catholic Church has a proven historical past all the way back 2000 years. And thats how you know its the original and trustworthy church you’re looking for.

Is it possible that some church other than the RCC has existed since the apostles were given the authority to teach?

 

[davidv]

Is it possible that some church other than the RCC has existed since the apostles were given the authority to teach?

“some church other” - Like Lutheran? Morman?

Its not clear what you are asking.

 

[Thing]

Is it possible that some church other than the RCC has existed since the apostles were given the authority to teach?

We know the Apostles Church has survived, as it is historical, and prophetic.
As for ‘other churches’, imagine if they had survived and taught the same as the Apostles church - why they would then be Catholic too, if they did not teach the same as the Apostles Church the Apostles themselves would tell you what they are.

 

[Chez_Moi]

The Catholic Church is the fullness of Christianity …like the truths of HOW Christianity started and such…

…but…I don’t think it contains the fullness of Truth.

 

[davidv]

The Catholic Church is the fullness of Christianity …like the truths of HOW Christianity started and such…

…but…I don’t think it contains the fullness of Truth.

Why not?

 

[anthony022071]

The question is, WHY do you believe this? Is it only because Rome says so?

“If anyone disobey the things which have been said by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger.” Pope Clement of Rome,
1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 1,59:1 (c. A.D. 96).

“Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that 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.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:2 (A.D. 180).

“And he says to him again after the resurrection, ‘Feed my sheep.’ It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church’s) oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly should we hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be the one and undivided.” Cyprian, The Unity of the Church, 4-5 (A.D. 251-256).

“Philip, presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See, said: There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: Our holy and most blessed Pope Celestine the bishop is according to due order his successor and holds his place…Accordingly the decision of all churches is firm, for the priests of the eastern and western churches are present…Wherefore Nestorius knows that he is alienated from the communion of the priests of the Catholic Church.” Council of Ephesus, Session III (A.D. 431).

 

[sandusky]

“If anyone disobey the things which have been said by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger.” Pope Clement of Rome,
1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 1,59:1 (c. A.D. 96).

“Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that 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.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:2 (A.D. 180).

“And he says to him again after the resurrection, ‘Feed my sheep.’ It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church’s) oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly should we hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be the one and undivided.” Cyprian, The Unity of the Church, 4-5 (A.D. 251-256).

That seems to be a “yes” answer to the question? Is it?

 

[Chez_Moi]

Why not?

What is truth? Just like that Pilate dude said in John’s gospel.

So I, too, repeat the same darn verbatim words that guy said approx. 2,000 years ago: What is truth?

What is truth is right! Truth is a rare thing in my opinion.

I was reading something what a rabbi said when he was asked about truth/religion or something. His response was something like if you’re in a majority group/religion, check your theology.

And to think about it, he does have a point there.

 

[teadough]

.

I was reading something what a rabbi said when he was asked about truth/religion or something. His response was something like if you’re in a majority group/religion, check your theology.

And to think about it, he does have a point there.

That statement does make one think for a second. Is he saying this is good or bad? If I was in a minority I would check my theology and my motives. Everyone is claiming to have the right path but only one has stood the test of time and is still growing. Sure,there will be some pruning here and there but that is expected. The Protestant sect has so many wonderful people but the “mixed bag” of theology is too rampant. I don’t know how I did not notice that as being a problem. Oh,wait…I did That’s why I converted.

 

[Chez_Moi]

. Is he saying this is good or bad? :

Only you can figure that out for yourself.