If the priesthood of all believers rejects heirarchy, why have a leadership structure?

[JMM1957]

My concern is Scripture and doctrine. As I stated above, “We acknowledge that** our churches can err** in their interpretations of Scripture. Catholics do not.”

Could Paul err in his interpretation of Scripture? Let’s see:

6
I am amazed that you are so quickly forsaking the one who called you* by [the] grace [of Christ] for a different gospel
7
(not that there is another). But there are some who are disturbing you and wish to pervert the gospel of Christ.
8
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach [to you] a gospel other than the one that we preached to you, let that one be accursed!
9
As we have said before, and now I say again, if anyone preaches to you a gospel other than the one that you received, let that one be accursed!

According to Paul, there is a true gospel and false gospels. Paul was preaching the true gospel, and said we should do the same, (1 Corinthians 11:1) “Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.”

How does this square with your statement that I quoted above about “our churches”?

 

[JMM1957]

This is not to say that everything outside of the Bible must be rejected or ignored or condemned. We should just remember that “God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men” (Westminster Confession Chapter 20).

So lets simplify this, God knew that the original 12 Apostles and Paul would eventually die, so He provided the Scriptures for us so that we would be able to come to a complete knowledge of the Truth using just our human intellects?

 

[eddie_too]

since the Holy Bible is the source of immense division between followers of Jesus, i doubt it was ever intended to be the definitive source for identifying the true teachings of Jesus Christ.

i still believe that if Jesus wanted a book to govern His Church He would have written it Himself.

it is certainly true that all christian sects interpret the Sacred Scriptures for themselves.

it is equally true that Jesus identified certain, specific men, who He Himself spent three years teaching and training to be the foundation of His Church. in addition, He made it clear that He was giving His authority to be exercised on earth after His Ascension to these twelve men He Himself had chosen. it is also clear from any unbiased and honest reading of Sacred Scripture and Church History that among these twelve Jesus chose one, st. peter to have the final say.

also, since the twelve possessed the authority to bind on earth and in heaven, they also had the authority to identify and choose men to succeed them in exercising the Lord’s authority.

in addition, the Lord’s Church is NOT ONLY an institution made up of human beings. it is also a divine institution wherein dwells the Holy Spirit. this indwelling is what prevents the Church from teaching error.

it is clear that without a divinely instituted teaching authority we could not have certainty about who Jesus is and what Jesus taught. if Jesus had not given His authority on earth to an hierarchy, no one could be certain who Jesus is and what Jesus taught. there would only be many men doing their own interpretations and building their own congregations of followers.

finally, it is totally reasonable and for that reason necessary that the authentic teaching authority given to mankind by Jesus would be easily identifiable throughout the history of His Church. that is not to say that there are not many men who do not understand this or or do not believe this or who reject this, but the doubts and rejection of the obvious does not diminish its truth.

 

[JMM1957]

since the Holy Bible is the source of immense division between followers of Jesus, i doubt it was ever intended to be the definitive source for identifying the true teachings of Jesus Christ.

i still believe that if Jesus wanted a book to govern His Church He would have written it Himself.

it is certainly true that all christian sects interpret the Sacred Scriptures for themselves.

it is equally true that Jesus identified certain, specific men, who He Himself spent three years teaching and training to be the foundation of His Church. in addition, He made it clear that He was giving His authority to be exercised on earth after His Ascension to these twelve men He Himself had chosen. it is also clear from any unbiased and honest reading of Sacred Scripture and Church History that among these twelve Jesus chose one, st. peter to have the final say.

also, **since the twelve possessed the authority to bind on earth and in heaven, they also had the authority to identify and choose men to succeed them in exercising the Lord’s authority.
**
in addition, the Lord’s Church is NOT ONLY an institution made up of human beings. it is also a divine institution wherein dwells the Holy Spirit. this indwelling is what prevents the Church from teaching error.

it is clear that without a divinely instituted teaching authority we could not have certainty about who Jesus is and what Jesus taught. if Jesus had not given His authority on earth to an hierarchy, no one could be certain who Jesus is and what Jesus taught. there would only be many men doing their own interpretations and building their own congregations of followers.

finally, it is totally reasonable and for that reason necessary that the authentic teaching authority given to mankind by Jesus would be easily identifiable throughout the history of His Church. that is not to say that there are not many men who do not understand this or or do not believe this or who reject this, but the doubts and rejection of the obvious does not diminish its truth.

It is very clear in Scripture, that not long after the death of Jesus, the infant Church began to appoint authentic successors to preach the Truth to the whole world, as Jesus commanded.

 

[Nicea325]

One historian I read put it something like this… When the Pope agreed with the Eastern Bishops he was the successor of Peter and holder of the keys, when the Pope disagreed with the Eastern Bishops he was just one of the bishops.

Really you can trace it back to the Easter Controversy. ** Many times from that point forward the Eastern Bishops gave lip service to the Bishop of Rome but ignored his rulings.** Many times it was a power play with an emperor and sometimes it was just being disagreeable because they could.

However, the original point was that nobody ever thought the Pope and bishops didn’t have the authority they claimed. History shows many thought they didn’t have the authority they claimed but the RCC was mostly successful in putting down the “heretics”.

From what I can tell of the Waldensian’s they were Heretics from Rome but taught a very simple but authentic form of faith in Christ and they just wanted to be left alone.

Giving lip service does not constitute denial. Again, I challenge you to quote one Eastern Father who flat-out denied the Bishop of Rome the primacy? Did the father claim it as a usurpation of Christ? Recall, I said primacy, not supremacy, big difference.

In fact, grave matters were referred to Rome and at times they travelled a great distance to settle the matter-where? Rome. With who? The Bishop of Rome. I can provide countless cases where East went West to have it settled. Care to read them?

 

[De_Maria]

We’re not different.

We are totally different.

Which is my point. Catholics and Protestants aren’t different except that Protestants acknowledge that (with the exception of Scripture) our sources of knowledge can be fallible.

Ok. I’m glad you acknowledged that exception.

Let’s be clear. The Catholic Church Teaches that Catholic Doctrine is infallible and that Scripture is inerrant.

What’s the difference between infallible and inerrant?

Simple. Infallible means it will never fail. It’s a continual grace. In every century, the Church explains it’s Doctrines in greater and greater detail and the Holy Spirit will prevent any error from creeping into the new, more indepth, explanations.

Inerrancy, is a one time gift. The Church, in the persons of the human authors of the New Testament, was granted the grace of inerrancy when the words of the New Testament were penned. The Holy Spirit inspired the authors to write and protected them from error.

Now, here’s another difference between Protestants and the Catholic Church. Since Protestants are not infallible, they can err in their understanding from reading the inerrant Scriptures.

But the Catholic Church is infallible and does not err in her interpretations of the inerrant Scriptures.

We acknowledge that our churches can err in their interpretations of Scripture.

I’m glad you’re honest about that.

Catholics do not, which is great if the Catholic Church is right about everything it teaches but a big problem if wrong.

You are correct. But the Catholic Church is right about everything it Teaches because everything it Teaches comes directly from Christ.

You see, Christ Taught the Church and commanded the Church to Teach what He commanded. The Church Taught by word all which Christ commanded. The Church also wrote the New Testament based upon the Teachings of Christ. And the Church continues
to do both. Guided and protected by the Holy Spirit.

Protestants do not because they can not. The Holy Spirit does not protect them from error in any way. This is something they acknowledge and seem proud of as they come up with various and conflicting interpretations of Scripture. Their sole source of doctrine.

 

[JMM1957]

You see, Christ Taught the Church and commanded the Church to Teach what He commanded. The Church Taught by word all which Christ commanded. The Church also wrote the New Testament based upon the Teachings of Christ. And the Church continues
to do both. Guided and protected by the Holy Spirit.

It is very interesting that from what I have experienced, the vast majority of people who have come into the CC from other faith denominations, have done so for the reason of authority and consistency in teachings and doctrine. At one time many of these people thought of the CC as being antiquated and irrelevant, stuck in the past, unwilling to change itself and adapt to the modern world. Interesting.

 

[Debbie_Kono]

It is very interesting that from what I have experienced, the vast majority of people who have come into the CC from other faith denominations, have done so for the reason of authority and consistency in teachings and doctrine. At one time many of these people thought of the CC as being antiquated and irrelevant, stuck in the past, unwilling to change itself and adapt to the modern world. Interesting.

The Eucharist and authority were paramount for me and I’m sure for most. Then while in RCIA reading Humanae Vitae and the WHY the Church teaches against contraception. And that this teaching is unchanged In nearly 2000 years. In these times the absolute beauty in truthfulness in HV is a light in these dark and evil times.

 

[JMM1957]

The Eucharist and authority were paramount for me and I’m sure for most. Then while in RCIA reading Humanae Vitae and the WHY the Church teaches against contraception. And that this teaching is unchanged In nearly 2000 years. In these times the absolute beauty in truthfulness in HV is a light in these dark and evil times.

Absolutely.

 

[De_Maria]

It is very interesting that from what I have experienced, the vast majority of people who have come into the CC from other faith denominations, have done so for the reason of authority and consistency in teachings and doctrine. At one time many of these people thought of the CC as being antiquated and irrelevant, stuck in the past, unwilling to change itself and adapt to the modern world. Interesting.

That’s true. Then they found a truth outside of themselves. A truth that is objective rather than based on their private interpretations.

 

[Tommy999]

…But the Catholic Church is right about everything it Teaches because everything it Teaches comes directly from Christ.
You see, Christ Taught the Church and commanded the Church to Teach what He commanded. The Church Taught by word all which Christ commanded. The Church also wrote the New Testament based upon the Teachings of Christ. And the Church continues
to do both. Guided and protected by the Holy Spirit.
Protestants do not because they can not. The Holy Spirit does not protect them from error in any way. This is something they acknowledge and seem proud of as they come up with various and conflicting interpretations of Scripture. Their sole source of doctrine.

The hierarchical structure of the Catholic Church makes a lot of sense to me, because if everyone is equal and there are disagreements over doctrine, there needs to be someone with ultimate authority to interpret. I don’t think Jesus intended for there to be so many divisions within Christendom over doctrine. This is one of the features of Catholicism that I find appealing.

However, I also think it is important for Catholics to make clear the distinction between the infallibility of Catholic teaching and the quite “fallible” behavior of some of its priests over the years, especially if they are considered the spiritual descendants of the apostles.

Sometimes, the claims of infallibility are interpreted by some Protestants to mean that priests themselves are to behave like the apostles if they claim a direct link to them.

Over the past few years on this forum, I have read where Catholics claim that priests are the legitimate successors to the successors of Jesus, and Jesus and His Church are inseparable. If that is true, then why are there events related to abuse like those that happened in Baltimore that were documented in the Netflix documentary, The Keepers? I don’t think that Jesus would have appointed apostles like Father Maskell, do you?

baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/investigations/bs-md-sun-investigates-archdiocese-files-20170701-story.html

The problem I see with this whole aura of infallibility is that the victims of abuse by priests don’t feel as empowered to challenge or report their abuse because these priests are the ‘unquestioned authority’ that are never to be challenged. After all, they are the successors to the apostles, right?

In one case documented in ‘The Keepers’ documentary, one high school girl kept being abused and felt powerless because she was taught all her life not to question the authority of priests, which perpetuated the cycle of abuse she was suffering at the hands of one.

Therefore, I think it is vitally important to distinguish between Catholic teaching and the behavior of its priests, which should be in harmony but this is not always the case due to man’s fallen nature that affects all of us, whether we are Protestant, Catholic, Muslim, Hindu, or atheist.

 

[JMM1957]

The hierarchical structure of the Catholic Church makes a lot of sense to me, because if everyone is equal and there are disagreements over doctrine, there needs to be someone with ultimate authority to interpret. I don’t think Jesus intended for there to be so many divisions within Christendom over doctrine. This is one of the features of Catholicism that I find appealing.

However, I also think it is important for Catholics to make clear the distinction between the infallibility of Catholic teaching and the quite “fallible” behavior of some of its priests over the years, especially if they are considered the spiritual descendants of the apostles.

Sometimes, the claims of infallibility are interpreted by some Protestants to mean that priests themselves are to behave like the apostles if they claim a direct link to them.

Over the past few years on this forum, I have read where Catholics claim that priests are the legitimate successors to the successors of Jesus, and Jesus and His Church are inseparable. If that is true, then why are there events related to abuse like those that happened in Baltimore that were documented in the Netflix documentary, The Keepers? I don’t think that Jesus would have appointed apostles like Father Maskell, do you?

baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/investigations/bs-md-sun-investigates-archdiocese-files-20170701-story.html

The problem I see with this whole aura of infallibility is that the victims of abuse by priests don’t feel as empowered to challenge or report their abuse because these priests are the ‘unquestioned authority’ that are never to be challenged. After all, they are the successors to the apostles, right?

In one case documented in ‘The Keepers’ documentary, one high school girl kept being abused and felt powerless because she was taught all her life not to question the authority of priests, which perpetuated the cycle of abuse she was suffering at the hands of one.

Therefore, I think it is vitally important to distinguish between Catholic teaching and the behavior of its priests, which should be in harmony but this is not always the case due to man’s fallen nature that affects all of us, whether we are Protestant, Catholic, Muslim, Hindu, or atheist.

Here is the explanation of infallibility one more time:

Vatican II explained the doctrine of infallibility as follows: “Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith” (Lumen Gentium 25).

Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope “enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter.”

Notice it says nothing about “priests” being infallible (incapable of making mistakes or being wrong about doctrine/faith/morals) or impeccable (incapable of sin).

No matter how many times the CC defines these issues, there are some who just don’t understand, including unfortunately, some Catholics.

 

[Vonsalza]

However, I also think it is important for Catholics to make clear the distinction between the infallibility of Catholic teaching and the quite “fallible” behavior of some of its priests…

Trust me. We do. It’s others that don’t make or acknowledge the distinction because they’re uninformed or loathe to lose an effective apologetic against the Catholic Church, even if it’s invalid.

 

[De_Maria]

What does a priest mean bibically?

kohen, ‘priest,’ ‘prince,’ ’ minister’; hiereus archiereus; for hiereus megas, of Hebrews 10:21.

Hebrews 10:21 And having an high priest (heireus) over the house of God;
22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.

Romans 15:16 That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering (hierourgeō) the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.

 

[eddie_too]

if the magisterium of the RCC has erred in its interpretations of Sacred Scriptures, the errors were not damaging to the deposit of faith.

on the other hand, any errors if errrors occurred, were still made made under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. this means they occurred with the best of intentions of the magisterium, are a part of the Father’s divine will and work within God’s salvific plan for the salvation of souls.

themagisteriums teachings on apostolic succession and Sacred Tradition are not and cannot be errors of the magisterium. why? because without these teachings, it is impossible to know Jesus Christ and would render the entire christian faith, including the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture meaningless. without these two teachings, it would be impossible to have certainty about what Jesus did and taught.

if people are to dispute apostolic succession and Sacred Tradition, it is incumbent upon those who dispute them to provide a coherent and supportable alternative.

so far, no one has produced a sound and coherent argument against the doctrines of apostolic succession and Sacred Tradition and for these two doctrines being contrary to teachings of Jesus.

opposition to the apostles, the authority of the apostles and to their successors has indeed been a perpetual occurrence in the history of the RCC. however, the authority of the apostles and their successors has been acknowledged by the vast majority of Christ’s followers throughout the history of the Church. this fact, in and of itself alone, is a very substantive argument in favor of apostolic succession and Sacred Tradition.

so far, no one has presented a coherent and sound argument to refute apostolic succession and Sacred Tradition.

during Jesus’ stay on earth, the scribes and the chief priests regularly disputed His authority, so some people disputing the authority established by God is nothing new. now, just as in Jesus’ time, those who dispute divinely established authority do so from a hardness of heart.

by hardness of heart i mean that they simply refuse to acknowledge the superior knowledge and holiness of Jesus to themselves then and they refuse to acknowledge the superior knowledge and holiness of the RCC to themselves now.

hardness of heart, believing oneself to know more than Jesus then and now and believing oneself to know more than Jesus’ RCC now, was then and is now a serious problem for those who refuse to humble themselves before the Truth.

we who have been blessed with the RC faith should all be praying every day for the conversion of sinners, the softening of hearts and the salvation of souls. only through the grace of our Lord are we not among those who reject our Lord through the hardness of their hearts.

 

[De_Maria]

The hierarchical structure of the Catholic Church makes a lot of sense to me,

Me too.

because if everyone is equal and there are disagreements over doctrine, there needs to be someone with ultimate authority to interpret. I don’t think Jesus intended for there to be so many divisions within Christendom over doctrine. This is one of the features of Catholicism that I find appealing.

Couldn’t agree more.

However, I also think it is important for Catholics to make clear the distinction between the infallibility of Catholic teaching and the quite “fallible” behavior of some of its priests over the years, especially if they are considered the spiritual descendants of the apostles.

We are all “spiritual descendants of the apostles.” You too. All who have been baptized are descended from the Apostles because they were the first to Baptize:

Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Sometimes, the claims of infallibility are interpreted by some Protestants to mean that priests themselves are to behave like the apostles if they claim a direct link to them.

The Apostles were not perfect. Let me give you an example from Scripture:

Luke 22:48 But Jesus said unto him, **Judas, betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss?
**

Acts 15:37 And Barnabas determined to take with them John, whose surname was Mark.
38 But Paul thought not good to take him with them, who departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work. 39 And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other: and so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus;

The Apostles were not perfect and we, their descendants, are not perfect either.

Over the past few years on this forum, I have read where Catholics claim that priests are the legitimate successors to the successors of Jesus, and Jesus and His Church are inseparable. If that is true, then why are there events related to abuse like those that happened in Baltimore that were documented in the Netflix documentary, The Keepers? I don’t think that Jesus would have appointed apostles like Father Maskell, do you?

Did Judas Iscariot betray Jesus? Did Jesus appoint Judas Iscariot?

The problem I see with this whole aura of infallibility is that the victims of abuse by priests don’t feel as empowered to challenge or report their abuse because these priests are the ‘unquestioned authority’ that are never to be challenged. After all, they are the successors to the apostles, right?

Not necessarily. All Christians are descendants of the Apostles. Bishops are the successors of the Apostles.

However, some Bishops have also been found guilty of crimes against the Church. Those, are apparently descendants of Judas.

In one case documented in ‘The Keepers’ documentary, one high school girl kept being abused and felt powerless because she was taught all her life not to question the authority of priests, which perpetuated the cycle of abuse she was suffering at the hands of one.

Therefore, I think it is vitally important to distinguish between Catholic teaching and the behavior of its priests, which should be in harmony but this is not always the case due to man’s fallen nature that affects all of us, whether we are Protestant, Catholic, Muslim, Hindu, or atheist.

Agreed. Anyone who sins, be they Protestant, Catholic, Muslim, Hindu or atheist, sins in spite of and against Catholic Teaching. Because Catholic Teaching is the Word of God:

Ephesians 3:10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

 

[Peter_J]

Scripture is not silent on the nature of the Godhead, nor is it silent on how Christ, the Father and the Spirit interact and relate with one another. No, it doesn’t use the term “Trinity” but that doctrine can be proved and defended by Scripture.

Agree on the first part, but on the last part the word “proved” seems a bit of a stretch.

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by Tommy999
However, I also think it is important for Catholics to make clear the distinction between the infallibility of Catholic teaching and the quite “fallible” behavior of some of its priests…

Often it isn’t priests but lay Catholics with access to the internet, that Protestant pay most attention to.

 

[Peter_J]

…I’m not so sure that’s how it actually happened.

Can you elaborate on that?

 

[Peter_J]

You pray for them. You show them what the Scriptures say, speaking the truth in love. If they will not be persuaded, then you have done all that you can do. Certainly, telling them “the chair of St. Peter wills it” won’t persuade them.

Well that depends on what they believe about the chair of St. Peter.