I think that protestants have taken the authority

[pablope]

OK… Now we are making some process.

It is part you put in parenthesis that I am really trying to get at. In the old testament there were no successors. Why is assumed that they are needed now?

Really…? Sorry, but you are wrong.

From Numbers 27…

15 Moses said to the LORD, 16 “May the LORD, the God who gives breath to all living things, appoint someone over this community 17 to go out and come in before them, one who will lead them out and bring them in, **so the LORD’s people will not be like sheep without a shepherd.” ** 1

8 So the LORD said to Moses, “Take Joshua son of Nun, a man in whom is the spirit of leadership,[a] and lay your hand on him. 19 Have him stand before Eleazar the priest and the entire assembly and commission him in their presence. 20 Give him some of your authority so the whole Israelite community will obey him. 21 He is to stand before Eleazar the priest, who will obtain decisions for him by inquiring of the Urim before the LORD. At his command he and the entire community of the Israelites will go out, and at his command they will come in.”

22 Moses did as the LORD commanded him. He took Joshua and had him stand before Eleazar the priest and the whole assembly.** 23 Then he laid his hands on him and commissioned him, as the LORD instructed through Moses. **

Verse 23 is the mode of transfer of authority in the OT. The Apostles knew this well and this tradition of laying of hands is carried to this day by the CC.

And here is the example of St. Paul…

Acts 13
1Now there were in the church which was at Antioch, prophets and doctors, among whom was Barnabas, and Simon who was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manahen, who was the foster brother of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.
2And as they were ministering to the Lord, and fasting, the Holy Ghost said to them: Separate me Saul and Barnabas, for the work whereunto I have taken them.

3Then they, fasting and praying, and imposing their hands upon them, sent them away.

In this passage, Paul and Barnabas are laid hands on by the Elders at Antioch…before they go on their first missionary journey.

Both the OT and NT examples show no one appoints oneself, but the HS acts through mediators to send those tasked to be shepherds, by laying hands on them.

 

[TheGreatestLove]

I rest my case:
Below I will post an email I just recently recieved by the same man-that i mentioned in my above post.

Originally Posted by frank maritano
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGreatestLove
Authority to you make that statement? That in fact she is not possessed!

---

(By- Frank Maritano)

my “authority” you question?

26 years as a criminal and forensic expert,

two degrees in criminal justice and forensics

10 years as a paramedic/phyicians assistant

professional training in behavioral science which included training on demonic possession

personal interaction with experts on thr subject in the VATICAN!

What praytell is YOUR "expertise?

---

MY response to your boastful reply:

‘JESUS CHRIST’

according to your response it seems as though you are too self-centered- to understand mine.

Remember only the pure of heart can perform exorcisms

---

(Below is the message I just recieved)
from Frank Maritano

You call me boastful. that is your right. I never claimed to be able to perform exorcisms. but you never advised to to your qualifications. That’s probably why you point finger but can’t account for yourself. Dont bother to reply because i’ll not debase myself to a lower species.

---

Wow ! All I can say is ‘The devil is alive and well’

 

[Anthony_V]

I thought I’d poke my head in and help gain in some traction on this thread. From the original question, we must take the subjective meaning of authority and make it constant so we’re not splitting hairs. The Bible is a Catholic book made for Catholic purposes. As previously said, it was made to be a prayer aid. The point that is sitting uncomfortably between most arguments occurring here is whether the Bible is given a certain authority by a higher authority, or whether it is an expression of authority by a higher authority.

Let’s take a look at the mainstream fundamentalism conviction:
The Bible has authority due to infallible inspiration. This inspiration was given not by the power of the Church, but directly by the power of God himself through the Holy Spirit.

And now the Catholic conviction:
The Bible has no authority, but is rather an expression of the authority of the Church. It was proven as an infallible inspiration by the Church that is under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

The main difference is that there is a constant physical and spiritual medium (Church interprets Holy Spirit for man by Christ-given mission) in Catholic theology, but only a certain physical and constant spiritual medium (Christ interprets Holy Spirit for man, which is all that is needed for salvation) in fundamental theologies.

The precept of Catholicism is that the oneness and universality of the Church is defined by common dogma and doctrine AND the apostolic lineage.

The precept of mainstream fundamentalist is that doctrine is a matter of personal interpretation, and the apostolic lineage is succeeded as per the Gospel, seeing as how the bible would be all that is needed for salvation. Therefore, communion within a church (that’s with a lower case c) has to do with doctrine immediately irrelevant to sola fide, and communion within the Church (with an upper case C) has to do with doctrine immediately relevant to sola fide.

The final determining factor between the two is whether differences in doctrine make two churches with the same dogma still a single Church. It would ease this discussion greatly to have a knowledgeable eastern Catholic act as a mediator. We have two different English languages being spoken here.

 

[TheGreatestLove]

‘When They were hungry, you gave them bread from Heaven. and water from a rock when they were thirsty’

Holy communion: Do this in memory of me.

This is my Body This is my blood- He that believes in me …shall never die…but have everlasting life.

The Lord is everywhere…and the angels are not jealous of holy communion- They are already with HIM!

For the guy above my post- Please Pray for understanding…before laying out a foundation of confusion and inadequacy.

 

[graceandglory]

I think that’s a great question. Many people do elevate the Bible and make it a fourth member of the Trinity. Hmmmm… I’m interested to read what others have to say.

My mega Church pastor used to teach “through the bible.” Around the time I left, I had come to realize that we had been through Isaiah twice, and Acts twice, plus several other books, but hadn’t made it through one of the GOSPELS in the 7 years I attended. Bible study and worship music was more central to their lives than the Gospel of Jesus Christ and learning about HIM. I’m not being critical, I’m just saying what was obvious from someone who was there for 7 years. I knew a lot about a lot of places in the bible. I was steeped in bible memorization. But in these 7 years as a Catholic, I have never felt the “desert” that I would encounter time and time again as a protestant.

 

[Anthony_V]

‘When They were hungry, you gave them bread from Heaven. and water from a rock when they were thirsty’

Holy communion: Do this in memory of me.

This is my Body This is my blood- He that believes in me …shall never die…but have everlasting life.

The Lord is everywhere…and the angels are not jealous of holy communion- They are already with HIM!

For the guy above my post- Please Pray for understanding…before laying out a foundation of confusion and inadequacy.

I apologize for shaking things up a little bit. There was a bit of a stalemate and I was just trying to help.

The quote from my signature can be misleading to those not familiar with the theology. The point is that not even the angels in Heaven cant mingle with Christ in a spiritual and physical manifestation, seeing as how they are only spiritual beings. In addition is the intentions we can place before our Lord at the offertory and when we receive him. Angels can’t make Eucharistic or offertory intentions because they don’t participate in the mass as we do.

 

[jswanstr]

No succession? where does the Bible say Jesus came from? How about JESUS saying, “as My Father sent me so I send you…” what do you think this is? do you understand succession? perhaps that is where the problem lies. understanding succession.

I am very sorry, I meant to say there there was no line of succession for profits, those individuals given specific authority to speak for God and whose stories became the old testament.

Again, don’t freak out, I am just working my way through this. I don’t claim to have the answer, I am just asking questions.

 

[wisdomseeker]

I am very sorry, I meant to say there there was no line of succession for profits, those individuals given specific authority to speak for God and whose stories became the old testament.

Again, don’t freak out, I am just working my way through this. I don’t claim to have the answer, I am just asking questions.

No problem. Prophets were chosen men by God inside of the House of Israel and not from outside. So, if God brings a Prophet to give a message it would from inside His Church. as we know the Holy Mother of God has appeared many times to those inside the Church to give message to the Church.

 

[jswanstr]

No succession? where does the Bible say Jesus came from? How about JESUS saying, “as My Father sent me so I send you…” what do you think this is? do you understand succession? perhaps that is where the problem lies. understanding succession.

I am sorry, I was not careful enough in my post. I agree that there is a lineage in the bible, but that lineage seems to be more of a necessary condition for authority, as opposed to a sufficient condition.

Again, we may have a difference in the word “authority”. To me “authority” means you are authorized to speak for God. I thought about saying, “authorized by God to speak for him” but that seemed like it would be loading the phrase.

The old testament texts were very specific regarding the roles of leaders and the roles of profits (those speaking for God). For example, Moses was a profit Aaron was the high priest (leader). Aaron never claimed to have Moses’ authority to speak for God because he was never given that authority except when Moses told him what to say. The leaders authority to enforce the law was passed down through the Levites but the authority to make law and speak for God seems to me to come from direct “authorization” from God. When a profit died, I do not believe there was automatic succession.

But, take heed of the false prophets, who come unto you in sheep’s clothing, and inwardly are ravening wolves. Matthew 7:15 from Young’s Literal Translation

I also want to be clear on my (I don’t claim to speak for all protestants) position on the bible. I believe the bible is a collection of books and letters written by those directly given authority by God. That being the disciples that walked with Christ and were given authority by him and Paul. These letters are the only the instructions we have from the people individually authorized to speak for God. That is why I hold the bible in such high regard. However, I do not worship the book and the book has no authority. The book is a set of instructions from someone with authority.

So, big picture, I believe the disciples and Paul could speak for God. The bishops were leaders that followed, but had no authority outside of the instructions left by those with authority. I also believe that it is a natural part of human nature to want to be like God, so over time, leaders in the CC claimed more and more authority, without actually ever being given it.

 

[jswanstr]

No problem. Prophets were chosen men by God inside of the House of Israel and not from outside. So, if God brings a Prophet to give a message it would from inside His Church. as we know the Holy Mother of God has appeared many times to those inside the Church to give message to the Church.

Be very careful with the word “church”. Again, you are falling back to restating your premise.

Do you have any thoughts on this? bible-truth.org/Ekklesia.html

I know we may just be dealing with semantics here, but I don’t know if I agree that profits needed to come from within the House of Israel or the already existing .

Christ came to Paul and spoke to him. Paul was certainly not in the “Church”.

Either way, big picture, isn’t there an argument to be made that there is a difference between church leaders and those with authority to speak for God?

 

[wisdomseeker]

I am sorry, I was not careful enough in my post. I agree that there is a lineage in the bible, but that lineage seems to be more of a necessary condition for authority, as opposed to a sufficient condition.

Again, we may have a difference in the word “authority”. To me “authority” means you are authorized to speak for God. I thought about saying, “authorized by God to speak for him” but that seemed like it would be loading the phrase.

The old testament texts were very specific regarding the roles of leaders and the roles of profits (those speaking for God). For example, Moses was a profit Aaron was the high priest (leader). Aaron never claimed to have Moses’ authority to speak for God because he was never given that authority except when Moses told him what to say. The leaders authority to enforce the law was passed down through the Levites but the authority to make law and speak for God seems to me to come from direct “authorization” from God. When a profit died, I do not believe there was automatic succession.

But, take heed of the false prophets, who come unto you in sheep’s clothing, and inwardly are ravening wolves. Matthew 7:15 from Young’s Literal Translation

I also want to be clear on my (I don’t claim to speak for all protestants) position on the bible. I believe the bible is a collection of books and letters written by those directly given authority by God. That being the disciples that walked with Christ and were given authority by him and Paul. These letters are the only the instructions we have from the people individually authorized to speak for God. That is why I hold the bible in such high regard. However, I do not worship the book and the book has no authority. The book is a set of instructions from someone with authority.

So, big picture, I believe the disciples and Paul could speak for God. The bishops were leaders that followed, but had no authority outside of the instructions left by those with authority. I also believe that it is a natural part of human nature to want to be like God, so over time, leaders in the CC claimed more and more authority, without actually ever being given it.

Humm… I understand that you were told such a things. but a person have a choice to either hear the Church built by Christ and sent by Christ or chose to believe in someone outside the Church who was not sent by God at all.

Remember the Word of God says, to have faith one must hear the Word. it does not say to read the Word. that is something to ponder upon it.

I understand that many have discarded the Church Jesus found and substituted with the Bible. Thus using the Word of God agaisnt God’s Church. does that make sense to you?

They have discarded the Church Jesus HImself instructed and promised to uphold her until the ends of time. Yet man chose to ignore her and using the Bible alone tries to build another church to replace that One Christ built. does that make sense to you?

Many claim today, they know more than the 2000 year Church, yet they expect you to believe them who were not there to know enougth what was tought then. does that make sense to you?
Does it make sense to you that these people who took the Sacred Scriptures from teh Catholic Church claim to have authority to read Scriptures to you?

Why would any one would try to trample God to the point of trying to build another Church when the Bible itself speaks of the Holy Church of God, the Pillar and Bullwark of the Truth? Does that make sense to you?

Does it make sense to you that protestants can claim to be a greater people than Catholics that God abandomned His Church because He found a better people that He could lead? When did God ever abandomned His people ever? He punished His people for doing wrong but never He abandomned them and went after other people. So it is with Jesus. Jesus commanded His Church to go to the whole world and preached all He commanded until the ends of times. Only the Holy Church knows all that Jesus commanded.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Be very careful with the word “church”. Again, you are falling back to restating your premise.

Do you have any thoughts on this? bible-truth.org/Ekklesia.html

I know we may just be dealing with semantics here, but I don’t know if I agree that profits needed to come from within the House of Israel or the already existing .

Christ came to Paul and spoke to him. Paul was certainly not in the “Church”.

Either way, big picture, isn’t there an argument to be made that there is a difference between church leaders and those with authority to speak for God?

I have a question for you. How do you decide that these people have the Truth and not the CC?

 

[jswanstr]

I have a question for you. How do you decide that these people have the Truth and not the CC?

I very much do not! However, they are citing facts that the words you are using to defend your position are not the words Christ used. Do you disagree with any of the facts they cite?

I was very much hoping to get a logical response to the position that the teachings of the CC seem to be rooted in a (at best) mistaken translation of the word Christ used. Doesn’t that scare you a little?

 

[wisdomseeker]

I very much do not! However, they are citing facts that the words you are using to defend your position are not the words Christ used. Do you disagree with any of the facts they cite?

I was very much hoping to get a logical response to the position that the teachings of the CC seem to be rooted in a (at best) mistaken translation of the word Christ used. Doesn’t that scare you a little?

Ok, you said that you cannot know, yet you say they cite facts. what facts? how do know they are facts?

When we come to know the Truth we are not scared of it any longer.

 

[jswanstr]

Humm… I understand that you were told such a things. but a person have a choice to either hear the Church built by Christ and sent by Christ or chose to believe in someone outside the Church who was not sent by God at all.

Remember the Word of God says, to have faith one must hear the Word. it does not say to read the Word. that is something to ponder upon it.

I understand that many have discarded the Church Jesus found and substituted with the Bible. Thus using the Word of God agaisnt God’s Church. does that make sense to you?

They have discarded the Church Jesus HImself instructed and promised to uphold her until the ends of time. Yet man chose to ignore her and using the Bible alone tries to build another church to replace that One Christ built. does that make sense to you?

Many claim today, they know more than the 2000 year Church, yet they expect you to believe them who were not there to know enougth what was tought then. does that make sense to you?
Does it make sense to you that these people who took the Sacred Scriptures from teh Catholic Church claim to have authority to read Scriptures to you?

Why would any one would try to trample God to the point of trying to build another Church when the Bible itself speaks of the Holy Church of God, the Pillar and Bullwark of the Truth? Does that make sense to you?

Does it make sense to you that protestants can claim to be a greater people than Catholics that God abandomned His Church because He found a better people that He could lead? When did God ever abandomned His people ever? He punished His people for doing wrong but never He abandomned them and went after other people. So it is with Jesus. Jesus commanded His Church to go to the whole world and preached all He commanded until the ends of times. Only the Holy Church knows all that Jesus commanded.

I would agree with everything you said here if I agreed with your premise that Jesus intended to create a “church” (as in a hierarchical political body). I, however, do not see evidence of this in a literal translation of His words.

Would you please defend your premise against this argument? bible-truth.org/Ekklesia.html

No Catholic has been able to do that for me. All they do is repeat their premise rather than defend it. That is really the only thing keeping me from becoming Catholic, but I just can’t get over the thought that all these rules are basically the same thing that Jesus yelled at the pharisees for.

I also don’t see 2000 years of history as a good defense of the CC. That a lot of time for selfish, greedy, and prideful humans to try and gain power through manipulating Christ’s teachings.

 

[jswanstr]

Ok, you said that you cannot know, yet you say they cite facts. what facts? how do know they are facts?

When we come to know the Truth we are not scared of it any longer.

Did you read that paper? Which facts do you disagree with?

Saying, “Christ started the CC.” requires defense.

Saying, “The original Greek word used in the bible was Ekklesia” does not require a defense because everyone agrees that is the word that was used.

What I am begging you to do is tell me which of his facts you disagree with and why.

 

[wisdomseeker]

I would agree with everything you said here if I agreed with your premise that Jesus intended to create a “church” (as in a hierarchical political body). I, however, do not see evidence of this in a literal translation of His words.

Would you please defend your premise against this argument? bible-truth.org/Ekklesia.html

No Catholic has been able to do that for me. All they do is repeat their premise rather than defend it. That is really the only thing keeping me from becoming Catholic, but I just can’t get over the thought that all these rules are basically the same thing that Jesus yelled at the pharisees for.

I also don’t see 2000 years of history as a good defense of the CC. That a lot of time for selfish, greedy, and prideful humans to try and gain power through manipulating Christ’s teachings.

I understand you and the confusion this can cause. the reason that Catholics cannot defend such thing is because it is so many misconceptions on his writing that becomes impossible to even begin to explain. The way the Church about God is very different from his enterpretation of the Bible. The way protestants see God it is not the same way Catholics know God. I hope this helps

I will give this website site and you can read if you would like.

star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m3/4mrkh.html

thecatholictreasurechest.com/

 

[jswanstr]

I understand you and the confusion this can cause. the reason that Catholics cannot defend such thing is because it is so many misconceptions on his writing that becomes impossible to even begin to explain. The way the Church about God is very different from his enterpretation of the Bible. The way protestants see God it is not the same way Catholics know God. I hope this helps

I will give this website site and you can read if you would like.

star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m3/4mrkh.html

thecatholictreasurechest.com/

I just got done reading the first one and, again, it is nothing new. Only repackaging and reciting the premise and then saying that because the premise is that Jesus created a “church” that the teaching of the CC are the Truth and therefore because the CC taught you Jesus created a church… and around in a circle the logic goes, but it never addresses the question of Christ’s words, when literally translated and not padded by someone that may or may not have an agenda (the first English translation to use the word “church” was a protestant translation). The first Catholic translations used the word “assembly” or “congregation”. It was only a protestant man that wanted to defend his position that there should be a hierarchical organization with rule making authority that first used the word “church” in his translation.

 

[wisdomseeker]

I just got done reading the first one and, again, it is nothing new. Only repackaging and reciting the premise and then saying that because the premise is that Jesus created a “church” that the teaching of the CC are the Truth and therefore because the CC taught you Jesus created a church… and around in a circle the logic goes, but it never addresses the question of Christ’s words, when literally translated and not padded by someone that may or may not have an agenda (the first English translation to use the word “church” was a protestant translation). The first Catholic translations used the word “assembly” or “congregation”. It was only a protestant man that wanted to defend his position that there should be a hierarchical organization with rule making authority that first used the word “church” in his translation.

Yes, and then we go back to the place where I asked you, do you know enough to know that they are speaking the Truth and the CC is not.

Perhaps you should know that many in teh past has had a position about God, and the CC is the One who determines if his position is according to God.

The Bible was not written in English. sometimes it is hard to find translation to the words, but I think taht Eklesia (greek) to english means Church.

So he says that Church was created by the CC because she wants to have power. Hummm… how do you determine that the author has the Truth but not the CC?

for example, in my language we say Igreja which is a perfect translation from Greek.

the meaning of teh word is seing how the Church in the NT begin to grown.

 

[Nicea325]

I would agree with everything you said here if I agreed with your premise that Jesus intended to create a “church” (as in a hierarchical political body). I, however, do not see evidence of this in a literal translation of His words.

Would you please defend your premise against this argument? bible-truth.org/Ekklesia.html

No Catholic has been able to do that for me. All they do is repeat their premise rather than defend it. That is really the only thing keeping me from becoming Catholic, but I just can’t get over the thought that all these rules are basically the same thing that Jesus yelled at the pharisees for.

I also don’t see 2000 years of history as a good defense of the CC. That a lot of time for selfish, greedy, and prideful humans to try and gain power through manipulating Christ’s teachings.

Wait a minute! What exact answer do you require to be covinced? You expect a Catholic to defend their position against your one link: bible-truth.org. I read NOTHING in the source which is NEW to my ears. Nothing!

You do not see 2000 years of history as a good defense for the CC? Why? Because it does not defend your biased views? Because it does not defend Protestanism uncontrolable divisions? I thnk it is weak argument to negate church history simply it does not tickle your ears. That is one of the weakst arguments by non-Catholic to say: I don’t see 2000 years of history as a good defense.

Really? Then you have an other history outside the NT rebuking our 2000 years of history?