I think that protestants have taken the authority

[jswanstr]

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?

I honestly don’t understand where we are missing each other here. I was not trying to argue. I am not saying that site has the truth, but that site sets up a logical challenge to all of the verses the CC uses to justify its authority. A logical challenge that is never replied to by anyone here except by restating the premise or through ad hominem questions about the person making the logical argument. I don’t care who is making the logical argument. It is a logical argument, backed by facts that (to the best of my reading) the CC agrees with.

I will try to rephrase my question more simply.

Would someone, please, please, please, please, explain to me why they believe Christ wanted to create a political hierarchical “church”? If you cite scripture, please cite the literal translation.

Please avoid saying, “Christ created the church, so the church has authority, so when the church interprets Christ’s words the church is right, so the correct interpretation of scripture is to read it that Christ created the church, so the church has authority, so when the church interprets Christ’s words the church is right, so the correct interpretation of scripture is to read it that Christ created the church, so the church has authority, so when the church interprets Christ’s words the church is right, so the correct interpretation of scripture is to read it that Christ created the church, so the church has authority, so when the church interprets Christ’s words the church is right, so the correct interpretation of scripture is to read it that Christ created the church, so the church has authority, so when the church interprets Christ’s words the church is right, so the correct interpretation of scripture is to read it that Christ created the church.”

I am sorry if I am starting to sound adversarial, but I guess I got a little frustrated there…

I am searching for the truth, but I am not just going to ignore what Matthew wrote because a 2000 year old organization says, “Trust us, we have been around for a long time.”

I guess, you could end this discussion by saying that your belief in the CC is not founded on logic. That is what I say about my belief in God, so I don’t mean that in a negative way. It is just Catholics seem to claim to be able to defend themselves with logical arguments, but they don’t seem to be able to defend a logical counter argument.

 

[ESMDHokie77]

Your Bible Truth website gives me a good chuckle.
bible-truth.org/BaptistHistory.html goes on to describe how Baptists are not protestants, and that there has always been a group of independent early christian groups not in communion with the Catholic Church. This is a laughable idea and there is no proof of it. Further, I stopped reading that page when it called Holy Communion not important.

whostartedyourchurch.com/

 

[jswanstr]

Ignore the source. Address the argument. This is like logic 101. I just used that link because it was easier than typing the entire argument myself.

I am still waiting for someone to address the argument without using ad hominem attacks, simply restating their premise, or using circular logic.

Granted, because I am coming from a 100% open minded position, it is easy for me because I don’t yet have my own position (protestant, catholic, atheist, whatever) to defend. I am just evaluating the various existing positions for myself and searching for Truth.

The fact that none of you can put together a logical response to this argument is actually helping me, but unfortunately, I went from being like 99% sure I was going to be Catholic to being a little disenchanted by your tone and refusal to treat me with the same degree of respect I have tried to show you.

 

[mikeyrobbie]

Perhaps a non Catholic perspective… I grew up in a mixed religious household… My dad is Catholic and my mom is protestant…

I was raised in both Churches. Although I decided to finish CCD and become Catholic I still know a lot about protestant Christians…

Not all of them affirm the Bible… Many do… These are called Evangelicals… They believe the Bible and the Bible alone is the central authority…

Others such as Episcopalians, Anglicans, Lutherans, and Methodists do have Church traditions that they hold to be true…

On the other extreme there’s people like Quakers, Mennonites, and the Amish who don’t even use the Bible at all and go by tradition alone…

Stop stereotyping my mother!

 

[Little_Mary]

The thing is, a lot of Protestants understand that the Bible came from a council that happened far before the Reformation. That isn’t what’s being rejected. What’s being rejected is that the Catholic Chirch is still exactly the same as the church founded by Christ. For many of us, it seems impossible that an institution run by man could remain perfect, as many of us believe that men are inherently bad creatures. I know you believe that Christ meant that your church would be eternally perfect when he said “the gates of Hell shall not overcome it,” but bear in mind that we believe he was referring to the universal church, which breaks the boundaries between Catholic and Protestant.

The point being, in the things rejected by Protestants overall, I don’t think the origins of the Bible are among them.

I have a protestant friend who very much rejects the true origins of the Bible, but he is an exception. I can tell you some things that he has said that would make your hair curl. He simply rejects ANY truth that he doesn’t like, or that doesn’t fit the way he “thinks” things ought to be. Oh well…

As far as the Catholic Church being the same as it was from the beginning - with Christ’s help, and a LOT of it - trace back all Christian forms of worship, and see what you end up with when you get to the first century. The Mass we celebrate today is very very similar to the Mass celebrated in the early centuries; to give only one example.

Or you can take a shortcut and read Cardinal John Henry Newman’s book *Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine. * He did just that, traced back forms of Christian worship all the way back to the first century.

amazon.com/Essay-Development-Christian-Doctrine/dp/1616402520/ref=sr_1_sc_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1322421581&sr=1-2-spell

 

[adf417]

It must be faith before reason…thanks be to God.

St. Augustine wrote “I believe in order to understand” later, St. Anselm, echoed his statement similarly: “I do not seek to understand in order that I may believe, but I believe in order to understand.”

Hebrews 11:3 tells us that through faith God made the world and yet even this has been and will be refuted until He comes again in glory.

I personally, nor do I know any human, that will ever be able to fully and logically explain something like this (thanks be to God) to someone that needs it in terms of logic without faith.

 

[Nicea325]

I honestly don’t understand where we are missing each other here. I was not trying to argue. I am not saying that site has the truth, but that site sets up a logical challenge to all of the verses the CC uses to justify its authority.

Seriously? Do you think that the CC in its past 2000 years has not heard these type of arguments? Seriously? Justify authority? And kindly show us where Jesus set up a loose-knit-each-for-his-own non-hierachal church? Jesus founded a democractic church-seriously?

A logical challenge that is never replied to by anyone here except by restating the premise or through ad hominem questions about the person making the logical argument. I don’t care who is making the logical argument. It is a logical argument, backed by facts that (to the best of my reading) the CC agrees with.

Logical challenge? Again…WHAT DO YOU WANT TO HEAR IN ORDER TO SATISY YOUR APPEAL?

I will try to rephrase my question more simply.

Would someone, please, please, please, please, explain to me why they believe Christ wanted to create a political hierarchical “church”? If you cite scripture, please cite the literal translation.

Why “we” believe? No! It is not we believe but what God Himself founded. First of all,remove any secular views and assumptions you may have in your arguments about Catholicism. Second,when and where does God teach everything must be said and taught explicitly in the Bible? Where? Third, Jesus taught about the Kingdom of God,not the Democracy of God. Fourth,Jesus lived in the Eastern part of the world within an Eastern religion,culture,customs,monarchial rule (Jewish),langauges,etc,not with Western ideals.

Please avoid saying, “Christ created the church, so the church has authority, so when the church interprets Christ’s words the church is right, so the correct interpretation of scripture is to read it that Christ created the church, so the church has authority, so when the church interprets Christ’s words the church is right, so the correct interpretation of scripture is to read it that Christ created the church, so the church has authority, so when the church interprets Christ’s words the church is right, so the correct interpretation of scripture is to read it that Christ created the church, so the church has authority, so when the church interprets Christ’s words the church is right, so the correct interpretation of scripture is to read it that Christ created the church, so the church has authority, so when the church interprets Christ’s words the church is right, so the correct interpretation of scripture is to read it that Christ created the church.”

I am not even going to try to respond to this because apparently we will go no where.

I am sorry if I am starting to sound adversarial, but I guess I got a little frustrated there…

I am searching for the truth, but I am not just going to ignore what Matthew wrote because a 2000 year old organization says, “Trust us, we have been around for a long time.”

Then open up your mind my friend. The mind is like a parachute, in order to be successful it must open up. What Matthew says? And where does Matthew say anything about a loose-knit church/denominations?

I guess, you could end this discussion by saying that your belief in the CC is not founded on logic. That is what I say about my belief in God, so I don’t mean that in a negative way. It is just Catholics seem to claim to be able to defend themselves with logical arguments, but they don’t seem to be able to defend a logical counter argument

Huh? Come again? You act as though you the first person in the past 2000 years to have claimed to have presented a logical counter argument?

 

[PRmerger]

Would someone, please, please, please, please, explain to me why they believe Christ wanted to create a political hierarchical “church”? If you cite scripture, please cite the literal translation.

Firstly, the Catholic Church does not claim that Christ wanted to create a “political hierarchical church.”

We do claim, however, that Christ did establish a church. Do you dispute this?

We also claim that hierarchy, which comes from two Greek words,* hieros*, meaning “sacred,” and archein, meaning rule or order (or “sacred order”), is a good thing. Nature abounds with sacred orders which are good. Why would any sacred order be a bad thing?

As far as the church being “political”, what do you mean by this?

 

[PRmerger]

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.

Fair enough.

So where do you get these opinions? That is, based on what do you believe that the disciples and Paul could speak for God?

And based on what do you say that the bishops had no authority outside of those instructions left by those with authority?

 

[jswanstr]

Thank you adf417. That is what I was looking for. I have no problem with someone saying they take it on faith. I have a problem when people claim that it is so obvious that I must be stupid for not seeing it.

Logical challenge? Again…WHAT DO YOU WANT TO HEAR IN ORDER TO SATISY YOUR APPEAL?

I hope you don’t see this an an appeal. I am looking for someone to explain why they believe Christ intended to setup an organization like the CC without just relying on what the CC told them or questionable English translations of scripture. I don’t understand why we are missing each other on this.

When you say

Why “we” believe? No! It is not we believe but what God Himself founded.

That is my entire question. Why do you believe that? adf417 had a very logical and respectful answer that I will take into consideration and pray about. You are a jerk that sees everything as a fight. I am not your enemy.

I am trying to look at this with a completely open mind. I am open to anything that makes sense. If you are saying an open mind means to be open to blindly accepting the CC, that is basically saying I should be open minded about being closed minded.

I am coming into this without any predisposed ideas, so questioning a third groups ideas, doesn’t do much to defend yours.

I am not even going to try to respond to this because apparently we will go no where.

Sorry if that was a little disrespectful, but that basically does seem to be your position. If not, which one of those starts with something other than one of the others?

 

[Nicea325]

Thank you adf417. That is what I was looking for. I have no problem with someone saying they take it on faith. I have a problem when people claim that it is so obvious that I must be stupid for not seeing it.

I hope you don’t see this an an appeal. I am looking for someone to explain why they believe Christ intended to setup an organization like the CC without just relying on what the CC told them or questionable English translations of scripture. I don’t understand why we are missing each other on this.

When you say

That is my entire question. Why do you believe that? adf417 had a very logical and respectful answer that I will take into consideration and pray about. You are a jerk that sees everything as a fight. I am not your enemy.

I am trying to look at this with a completely open mind. I am open to anything that makes sense. If you are saying an open mind means to be open to blindly accepting the CC, that is basically saying I should be open minded about being closed minded.

I am coming into this without any predisposed ideas, so questioning a third groups ideas, doesn’t do much to defend yours.

Sorry if that was a little disrespectful, but that basically does seem to be your position. If not, which one of those starts with something other than one of the others?

I beg your pardon? I am a jerk for qustioning your thought process? No need to call a anyone a jerk or otherwise. Again,you act as though Catholics are stupid because we simply believe because what we have been told. I do not think so! It is more than what we have been told my friend.

I’ll start with this:

What part of the world did Jesus live?

 

[jswanstr]

We do claim, however, that Christ did establish a church. Do you dispute this?

We also claim that hierarchy, which comes from two Greek words,* hieros*, meaning “sacred,” and archein, meaning rule or order (or “sacred order”), is a good thing. Nature abounds with sacred orders which are good. Why would any sacred order be a bad thing?

Thank you for your reasoned response.

I don’t want to say that I dispute it, but I question it. I guess it depends on what you mean by “church”. If by church you mean following, or assembly, or congregation. Yes I agree that fits perfectly with the original Greek. If you are saying Christ created a system with leaders that had His authority to bind and loose, beyond the individuals he specifically granted that authority to, that is where I would like more information. Unfortunately, when I ask that question I get yelled at and asked a bunch of sarcastic questions.

I was using the term hierarchy in its modern sense (hierarchy ˈhaɪəˌrɑːkɪ] n pl -chiesa: system of persons or things arranged in a graded order). Thanks for correcting me, I should probably have used the term, “ranked” or “ordered” or “top down”. Hopefully my mistake was not the source of the confusion.

I was using the word political in this context: Of, relating to, or dealing with the structure or affairs of government.

It seems to me the CC is basically structured like a government, not an assembly or Ekklesia.

 

[Nicea325]

Thank you for your reasoned response.

I don’t want to say that I dispute it, but I question it. I guess it depends on what you mean by “church”. If by church you mean following, or assembly, or congregation. Yes I agree that fits perfectly with the original Greek. If you are saying Christ created a system with leaders that had His authority to bind and loose, beyond the individuals he specifically granted that authority to, that is where I would like more information. Unfortunately, when I ask that question I get yelled at and asked a bunch of sarcastic questions.

I was using the term hierarchy in its modern sense (hierarchy ˈhaɪəˌrɑːkɪ] n pl -chiesa: system of persons or things arranged in a graded order). Thanks for correcting me, I should probably have used the term, “ranked” or “ordered” or “top down”. Hopefully my mistake was not the source of the confusion.

I was using the word political in this context: Of, relating to, or dealing with the structure or affairs of government.

It seems to me the CC is basically structured like a government, not an assembly or Ekklesia.

My brother in Christ,do you believe in the office of angels? Yes or no?

 

[jswanstr]

I beg your pardon? I am a jerk for qustioning your thought process? No need to call a anyone a jerk or otherwise. Again,you act as though Catholics are stupid because we simply believe because what we have been told. I do not think so! It is more than what we have been told my friend.

I’ll start with this:

What part of the world did Jesus live?

I do not think it is stupid to believe something that is not logical or unproven. I do not think Catholics are stupid. Believing in something for no reason is a key component of my faith in God and Christ.

If it is more than what you have been told, that information is exactly what I have been asking for.

Jesus mostly lived in Roman governed Palestine and Egypt.

 

[PRmerger]

You are a jerk that sees everything as a fight. I am not your enemy.

jswan, as you are a newbie here perhaps the mods will cut you some slack, but calling people names such as “jerk” and other ad hominems will quickly get you banned.

It is good for you to be here and to be dialoguing with knowledgeable Catholics. So I would hate to see you banned.

Turn it down a notch, friend, and you will be treated with greater respect.

 

[PRmerger]

Thank you for your reasoned response.

I don’t want to say that I dispute it, but I question it. I guess it depends on what you mean by “church”. If by church you mean following, or assembly, or congregation. Yes I agree that fits perfectly with the original Greek. If you are saying Christ created a system with leaders that had His authority to bind and loose, beyond the individuals he specifically granted that authority to, that is where I would like more information.

From what source do you form your opinion that authority disappeared after “the individuals he specifically granted that authority to”?

I was using the term hierarchy in its modern sense (hierarchy ˈhaɪəˌrɑːkɪ] n pl -chiesa: system of persons or things arranged in a graded order). Thanks for correcting me, I should probably have used the term, “ranked” or “ordered” or “top down”. Hopefully my mistake was not the source of the confusion.

These terms are not mutually exclusive, jswan. Hierarchy as you put it, in the “modern sense”, is still a sacred order. Without order, you have chaos, no?

I was using the word political in this context: Of, relating to, or dealing with the structure or affairs of government.

Can you give an example of an action of the Catholic Church that you view as “political”?

It seems to me the CC is basically structured like a government, not an assembly or Ekklesia.

What would an “assembly” look like to you, as Jesus would have founded it? And please provide the source for this opinion. Thanks.

 

[jswanstr]

From what source do you form your opinion that authority disappeared after “the individuals he specifically granted that authority to”?

I mentioned this earlier and didn’t get a response, so I kinda forgot about it. If you look at the old testament, there were two roles. Profits and priests (including high priests). Profits had authority to speak for God, priests taught what the profits said, but had no authority to speak for God. Profits did not have an automatic succession system, but priests did.

For example, Moses was a profit and spoke for God. His brother Aaron was the high priest, but was not authorized to speak for God. The Levites became the priests, but only taught the people what the priests said. They did not claim to speak for God themselves.

Christ specifically warned us against false profits. That is why I am kinda stuck on this issue.

These terms are not mutually exclusive, jswan. Hierarchy as you put it, in the “modern sense”, is still a sacred order. Without order, you have chaos, no?

There are hierarchies outside of religion. That is why I wanted to clarify, but that issue is not worth our time.

Well… without order, yes there is chaos, but there is a difference between “order” and a system constructed of “orders”. I don’t want to get too hung up in the semantics, but it would still be ordered if everyone read the literal translation of the bible and interpreted it honestly for themselves. If people ignored the way God spoke to them when reading the scriptures, God will deal with that.

Can you give an example of an action of the Catholic Church that you view as “political”?

The catholic church took over the role of deciding what defined a “marriage” during the dark ages to clarify the inheritance system. That is where the term legitimate child came from. Clearly, the disciples did not involve themselves in this. Actually, up until the 14th century, commoners never got “married” in the way we think of it today. The church had better things to do than perform weddings.

The selection of Popes, I would imagine, would be classified as very political. I understand that Catholics consider the Holy Spirit to be making the choice, but then why must it be done in secret and why is it not always unanimous on the first ballot? Are you saying the Holy Spirit is only powerful enough to control a majority of cardinals?

What would an “assembly” look like to you, as Jesus would have founded it? And please provide the source for this opinion. Thanks.

I honestly don’t have a view right now. I am talking to Catholics and asking them to explain their view and I am talking to protestants and asking them to explain theirs. I am even talking to atheists and asking them to explain theirs.

Just off the top of my head… I would imagine it to be very similar to the Catholic Church minus the rule making (political) authority. I mean, Christ’s teachings were simple. He directly scolded the rule making that was taking place in his time and told people that all the commandments could be summarized into a few.

 

[PRmerger]

I mentioned this earlier and didn’t get a response, so I kinda forgot about it. If you look at the old testament, there were two roles. Profits and priests (including high priests). Profits had authority to speak for God, priests taught what the profits said, but had no authority to speak for God. Profits did not have an automatic succession system, but priests did.

For example, Moses was a profit and spoke for God. His brother Aaron was the high priest, but was not authorized to speak for God. The Levites became the priests, but only taught the people what the priests said. They did not claim to speak for God themselves.

Christ specifically warned us against false profits. That is why I am kinda stuck on this issue.

Ok. So you get your opinion from the Bible.

I am glad that you do! There are some Christians here who consider themselves to be novel and open-minded who deny that the Scriptures can be a source for forming one’s theological opinions.

Now, I will ask you, what entity was it that discerned for you that “Jesus warned us against false prophets”? Was it an assembly or ecclesial community? (Hint: yes, it was!)

 

[ESMDHokie77]

Authority is integral to the CC. Jesus’ authority was given to the Apostles, who passed it down through the ages to Bishops. Filling the vacant bishopric that Judas Iscariot left open was one of the first actions of the post-Pentecost church. Remove Apostolic Succession from the CC and it’s not the CC, it becomes a protestant ecclesial community with no authority to bind and loose, nor fully guided by the Holy Spirit.

Can you provide a source for your claims about marriage?

 

[PRmerger]

but it would still be ordered if everyone read the literal translation of the bible and interpreted it honestly for themselves.

This is a very curious paradigm, and we can actually see the fruits of this today–with the tens of thousand of Christian denominations, each claiming that they read the bible and interpreted it correctly.

What we have is, well, chaos and confusion, without the authority of the Catholic Church.

Now we don’t know whether baptism saves? Or is it just an ordinance?
Should it be done by intinction? Or by immersion? In a river? Or in a tub?

Is Sunday the Day of the Lord, or is it Saturday?

Should women be ordained? Or is that not permissible?

Do we have assurance of salvation? Or can we lose it?

Are we all going to be raptured? Or is that a novel doctrine that was made up in the 19th century?

Is Jesus a reincarnation of the archangel Michael? Or is he the divine son of God?

Eek! Chaos and confusion, all arising from the paradigm you proposed above!