Nowhere does it say "the Church," corporately, is our teacher

[guanophore]

This post was taken from another thread where it was off topic.

It explicitly states that He gave various ministries (including teachers) within the Church Christ is building to equip the saints (redeemed believers) for the work of service, to the building up of the Body of Christ - which is the Church.

Nowhere does it say “the Church,” corporately, is our teacher, as you claim.I will agree that it supports the unity of faith, for the sake that believers "are no longer be children tossed here and there by waves, and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming… growing up in ALL ASPECTS INTO HIM.I agree with unity, but not conformity for the sake of external unity. I’m questioning the Apostolic validity of certain Marian dogmas sanctioned by both the Latin and Greek churches.

I am curious, Apo, how you understand this passage:

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

What, or whom is being referred to here as “church”? Do you not consider this passage to be a commentary about Church Authority?

 

[agangbern]

And how could the church not be known as our teacher if "it is the pillar and mainstay of the truth"? (1Tim 3:15) And can the head be separated from the body without destroying the whole man? Not at all. Jesus, the head of the body, is teacher. Therefore, the whole man is a teacher, not just the head but together with his body.

 

[guanophore]

I have read a lot of it and its absolutely amazing how the scriptures are twisted out of context to say things it does not.

The priesthood of believers is not dependent on the church.

What is the foundation of the apostles?

Better that than being in a church that teaches false doctrines and practices.

Where in scripture are the Keys defined and explained?

You really are confused,justasking, if you think the priesthood of al believers is not dependent upon the church. A person cannot enter their identity as a “priest, prophet and king” apart from the Church. To be “in Christ” is to be part of His Church. The two are inseparable.

 

[Crumpy]

from Matthew’s gospel (NAB)
28:19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit,
28:20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.

Obviously, Jesus doesn’t say “this nation” or “that nation” but ALL NATIONS.

There is one source, one Church, and one truth.

See Chapter Two of Pope Benedict’s 1968 book, Introduction to Christianity.

(This book is tough to read, it’s not an elementary book on the subject, or anything like that, but it is very interesting. I’m just two chapters into it, and Chapter Two is on Ecclesiastical Faith.

To Benedict, faith is something that “hits you” – not making this up – it’s the word that you hear. Accepting this word makes you part of a corporate body of other believers who believe in the word.

recall, “faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of Christ”
Rom 10:17

It NOT a result of “thinking” about things for some period of time. That’s a philosophy, which faith is not.)

 

[guanophore]

Define authority!
God never instituted men in the church to have absolute authority over other men. But the authority in the church was an authority to serve.

ALL AUTHORITY COMES FROM GOD
Authority is a God given privilege to carry out an action.

Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

Ephesians 5:22-23 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

Acts 5:29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

 

[Crumpy]

guanophore, that’s right. The pope is called the servent of the servents of God, as I recall.

Gee, how many ways can we Catholics agree with you? The Church has very little temporal authority “over men” as you say. The authority, and the responsibility, are aspects of the “commission” given in Mt 28-19-20, no?

It is characteristics of protestants to “have no authority” other than the Bible, so we’re off to the races on that one, again, I guess.

In terms of your focus on “authority over men”, Benedict addresses that in the Book cited in my previous post. Significantly, he points out that God has chosen to reveal Himself through men. Call that authority or not, that’s the way it is.

Benedict’s book is an exposition on “the apostle’s creed” which, he points out, is an expansion of Mt 28:19. The creed contains the affirmation of belief in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and these affirmations have been, in previous centuries, expanded as the times required to deal with heresies of those times. The Credo (I believe) in the apostles creed jumps right off the words of Christ in the gospel. This creed, following Mt 28:19, was the creed recited (to say the least) at baptism.

The apostles were leaders of the church, in the church. It’s silly to beat around the bush about “authority.” What is a “great commission” except the bestowal of responsibility and authority?

You’re attacking the “authority” word that the Catholic Church uses. Well, expound, please, on the distinction of the protestant use of the word “commission.”

Protestants (and Catholics) LOVE to disagree with each other, and to split hairs. This all is an OLD argument. Antics with semantics, again.

 

[Crumpy]

Well, again, on the question of the role of the Church.

Christ established a church ( Mt 16:18).

This church has existed continuously from apostolic times.

Protestants: notice, the church does not come at us today, solely from the pages of scripture. In fact, many new testament books are written to existing churches (Corinthians, Colossians, Phillipians, Romans, Revelation, etc). The gospel was spreading before the books of the Bible were even written.

The Bible was finalized, that is, the church decided which of many writings were inspired, at the end of the fourth century, at a meeting of bishops at Carthage.

It is so hollow to Catholics to hear protestants say ‘the bible is our only authority’ because it was the church which wrote the books of the bible and assembled the books of the bible.

The bible was not received as the Mormons understand their book of Mormon, received from God on golden plates (which no longer exist). The books of the bible were assembled in a quite public fashion at a council.

Certainly there are other churches not in union with Rome that have done their own selection of sacred writings, such as, if I’m not mistaken, the Coptic church which holds 87 books in the bible.I’m really going out on a limb to say that I think that they adopted some of the Gnostic writings, which the Catholic Church rejected by the time of the council at Carthage.

So, the bible came from the church, not the other way around. The Church existed before the Bible. “That’s the true and basic fact, Jack.”

 

[apophasis]

I am curious, Apo, how you understand this passage:

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

What, or whom is being referred to here as “church”? Do you not consider this passage to be a commentary about Church Authority?

First of all the two passages (Eph. 4:11-15 and Matt. 18:15-17) are not related. The contexts are completely diverse.

The Ephesian passage speaks about various ministries given to men by God within the Body of Christ for the purpose of equipping the saints for service: apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, teachers. An early example of this would be Philip (Acts 6:5) who was not himself an Apostle but an evangelist (Acts 8:5-6; 8:34-35). Also the appointed elders within the various churches planted by Paul were to be able “to teach” for the expressed purpose of bringing their flock to a mature understanding of the faith (1 Tim. 3:2; Eph. 4:14). Paul admonished the elders of Ephesus to be on guard for themselves and for the congregation they were assigned to shepherd (pastor). Why? Because with Paul’s departure “savage wolves” would come in among them not sparing the flock, and from among their own selves men would arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples AFTER THEM (Acts 20:28-32). In other words, they will introduce, as dogma, their own personal opinions rather than submit to the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints by the Apostles (Jude 3).

Now the Matthew passage has nothing to do with ministries within the Body of Christ, but correcting an offender, i.e., a fellow churchman of his sin toward another. The correction is first to be attempted privately between the offender and the offended. But if the offender fails to listen then they were to take the issue before two or three as witnesses. If this fails the offended and the two to three witnesses were to take the issue before the whole congregation (the church). And if he still refuses to listen the whole congregation was to shun him - “let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax-gatherer.” It was to be a corporate punishment, inflicted by the majority.

We see an example of this kind of discipline exercised by the whole church at Corinth (1 Cor 5:1-2, 11-13). However, in Paul’s second letter we see that the one who was shunned by the majority repented and was to be forgiven, comforted and brought back into fellowship lest he be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow (2 Cor. 2:7).

Is the “church” in Matt. 18:17-18 referring to the “magesterium” of the RCC? No, of course not. Is that passage a commentary on “Church authority.” No. When He says, “tell it to the church,” He means take the issue (sin) before the elders and the whole congregation. And if he’s still unrepentant, the congregation, as a whole, was to take action against him. It has nothing at all to do with “church authority” in the sense that you mean it. But instead church discipline as a last resort. Don’t read into a passage your own preconceived ideas. Certainly Rome is going to tell you that the passage supports its self-proclaimed sovereignty over the hearts and minds of its devotees (from womb to tomb and beyond into purgatory). But then why wouldn’t it?

 

[myfavoritmartin]

guanophore, that’s right. The pope is called the servent of the servents of God, as I recall.

Gee, how many ways can we Catholics agree with you? The Church has very little temporal authority “over men” as you say. The authority, and the responsibility, are aspects of the “commission” given in Mt 28-19-20, no?

Hmmm…ccc882
"For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ and as pastor of the entire Church, has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered"

NOT a real servanty sound to me!

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

This post was taken from another thread where it was off topic.

I am curious, Apo, how you understand this passage:

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

What, or whom is being referred to here as “church”? Do you not consider this passage to be a commentary about Church Authority?

Apophasis is correct.​

The Church is not our teacher - otherwise, either:

• we, who are part of the Church, would be teaching ourselves
  or
• we would not be in the Church at all - because the taught, & the teacher, are two different groups
  The solution is that, within the Church, some have a teaching office, while others do not (as in 1 Cor. 11). Both are in the one Church, & have different functions within it. The problem arises when one part of the Church is identified as being the whole: which is very bad, whether as theology or doctrine.

The passage in the quotation is talking about the local congregation - it has nothing to do with teaching authority, & a lot to do with the details of the exercise of discipline within the congregation.

 

[Ne_OrangeKnight]

Hmmm…ccc882
"For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ and as pastor of the entire Church, has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered"

NOT a real servanty sound to me!

Was Jesus, then, not being very servanty when He walked the world with full, supreme, and universal power over the whole of creation?

Power and humility aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive.

Sam, the Neon Orange Knight

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Was Jesus, then, not being very servanty when He walked the world with full, supreme, and universal power over the whole of creation?

Power and humility aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive.

Sam, the Neon Orange Knight

And you are not comparing Benedict to Jesus I pray?

 

[guanophore]

First of all the two passages (Eph. 4:11-15 and Matt. 18:15-17) are not related. The contexts are completely diverse.

The Ephesian passage speaks about various ministries given to men by God within the Body of Christ for the purpose of equipping the saints for service: apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, teachers. An early example of this would be Philip (Acts 6:5) who was not himself an Apostle but an evangelist (Acts 8:5-6; 8:34-35). Also the appointed elders within the various churches planted by Paul were to be able “to teach” for the expressed purpose of bringing their flock to a mature understanding of the faith (1 Tim. 3:2; Eph. 4:14). Paul admonished the elders of Ephesus to be on guard for themselves and for the congregation they were assigned to shepherd (pastor). Why? Because with Paul’s departure “savage wolves” would come in among them not sparing the flock, and from among their own selves men would arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples AFTER THEM (Acts 20:28-32). In other words, they will introduce, as dogma, their own personal opinions rather than submit to the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints by the Apostles (Jude 3).

Now the Matthew passage has nothing to do with ministries within the Body of Christ, but correcting an offender, i.e., a fellow churchman of his sin toward another. The correction is first to be attempted privately between the offender and the offended. But if the offender fails to listen then they were to take the issue before two or three as witnesses. If this fails the offended and the two to three witnesses were to take the issue before the whole congregation (the church). And if he still refuses to listen the whole congregation was to shun him - “let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax-gatherer.” It was to be a corporate punishment, inflicted by the majority.

We see an example of this kind of discipline exercised by the whole church at Corinth (1 Cor 5:1-2, 11-13). However, in Paul’s second letter we see that the one who was shunned by the majority repented and was to be forgiven, comforted and brought back into fellowship lest he be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow (2 Cor. 2:7).

Ok, I think we are in agreement on all these points. My question is, how is the “church” to be identified? How is one to know which corporate gathering of the believers is the authentic one?

Is the “church” in Matt. 18:17-18 referring to the “magesterium” of the RCC?

I think the word “magesterium” did not develop until some time. I think,though, that the idea of the true church being built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets is very evident from the NT record forward.

No, of course not. Is that passage a commentary on “Church authority.” No. When He says, “tell it to the church,” He means take the issue (sin) before the elders and the whole congregation.

I think any “congregation” apart from the elders would not be considered authentic. Ok, maybe “commentary on authority” is the wrong phrase. More of an example of how that authority is to be used by the faithful. It establishes that there is an authoritative source that is appointed to solve disputes between believers.

And if he’s still unrepentant, the congregation, as a whole, was to take action against him. It has nothing at all to do with “church authority” in the sense that you mean it.

What “sense” do you think I mean it?

But instead church discipline as a last resort. Don’t read into a passage your own preconceived ideas. Certainly Rome is going to tell you that the passage supports its self-proclaimed sovereignty over the hearts and minds of its devotees (from womb to tomb and beyond into purgatory). But then why wouldn’t it?

Rome says nothing of the kind, apo. The authority is over the doctrine and morals. the church only exercises authority over those who are united with Her in doctrine and morals. When people decide to make choices outside the Apostolic Tradition which has been entrusted to the Magesterium, she treats them like tax collectors.

 

[Ne_OrangeKnight]

Ne_OrangeKnight;2737597:

Was Jesus, then, not being very servanty when He walked the world with full, supreme, and universal power over the whole of creation?

Power and humility aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive.

Sam, the Neon Orange Knight

And you are not comparing Benedict to Jesus I pray?

I don’t understand the outrage. And, you’re missing the point. Power and humility aren’t mutually exclisive. Just because the pope has power doesn’t mean that he’s not a servant.

Sam, the Neon Orange Knight