On WHAT basis does your Church claim to be the One TRUE-Faith Church of the Bible?

[Darryl_B]

The term catholic means universal. It was an adjective of the Christian Church that was used in the early centuries.

They had bishops and deacons, but they didn’t have Christian priests yet. The Christian leaders in the New Testament were usually termed presbureros or episcopos for elder or bishop. The Greek word hiereus which is translated to priest was only used for Jewish priests and Jesus as the high priest in the book Hebrews. (1 Peter 2:5 & 9 uses hierateuma for priesthood of all believers). I believe I read somewhere that Origen 203-250 was the first to refer to a Christian leader as a hiereus and then in the coming centuries the term became customary to use.

This is not entirely correct. The Greek word 'IEREUS was a person who ministered in the 'IERON and has been translated ‘priest’. This should not be confused with the PRESBUTEROS who is the Christian ‘priest’ of the NAOS.

 

[Darryl_B]

The question is then why did the Catholic Christian Church refer to themselves as “elder priests” rather than simply “ministerial priests”. The answer can be found at the root of the problem. God chose the firstborn as the “priest to God”, but this got taken away from them they were stripped of that privilege and it got passed on to the tribal “Levitical priesthood”.

Jesus Christ came to fix that which went wrong. This old mistake was fixed and was reverted in the New Testament, an “elder priest”, by Jesus Christ, as God originally intended the ministering over the “dwelling of God” (NAOS temple).

The priest is an “elder priest” in the “house of God”, the covenant is familial, as planned by God.

 

[Cathoholic]

Susanlo. You said in post 110 (with parenthesis mine) . . .

QUOTE:
It seems he (St. Peter) was the first one to confess of Christ.

Remember Nathaniel already proclaimed Jesus as the “Son of God”, yet Jesus did not react to Nathaniel anything like He did to St. Peter.

JOHN 1:47a, 49-50 47 Jesus saw Nathana-el coming to him, . . . 49 Nathana-el answered him, **“Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!” **50 Jesus answered him, “Because I said to you, I saw you under the fig tree, do you believe? You shall see greater things than these.”

Afterwards, Maratha too had made a bold proclamation to Jesus too.

JOHN 11:20-27 20 When Martha heard that Jesus was coming, she went and met him, while Mary sat in the house. 21 Martha said to Jesus, “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died. 22 And even now I know that whatever you ask from God, God will give you.” 23 Jesus said to her, “Your brother will rise again.” 24 Martha said to him, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day.” 25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, 26 and whoever lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?” 27 She said to him, “Yes, Lord; I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, he who is coming into the world.”

JOHN 11:27 (NIV) “Yes, Lord,” she replied, “I believe that you are the Messiah, the Son of God, who is to come into the world.”

Again. Jesus did not react to Martha anything like He did to St. Peter.

Something very special concerning Jesus and St. Peter is going on in Matthew 16.

CCC 881 with emphasis mine . . .

CCC 881 ** The Lord made Simon ALONE,
whom he named Peter, the rock of his Church. **
He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock.
The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned
to the college of apostles united to its head. This pastoral office of Peter and the apostles
belongs to the Church’s very foundation and is continued by the bishops
under the primacy of the Pope.

And of course the context clearly shows St. Peter is the “rock” here.

Peter to Jesus: “YOU are the Christos”
Jesus to Peter: “YOU are the Petros”

Let’s look more at the context of the verses with the emphasis mine here . . . .

**
MATTHEW 16:13-20** 13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, Who do men say that the Son of man is?
14 And they said, Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah,
and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets. 15 He said to them,
But who do you say that I am?
16 Simon Peter replied, You are the Christ, the son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered him,
Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona!
For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you,
but my Father who is in heaven.
18 And **I tell you, **
you are Peter,
and on this rock I will build my church,
and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.
19 **I will give you **the keys of the kingdom of heaven,
and **whatever you bind **on earth shall be bound in heaven,
and **whatever you loose **on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
20 Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ.

So BEFORE re-naming Simon Peter the Blessing is for “YOU” (Peter).
AFTER re-naming Simon Peter the Keys and powers to bind and loose is for “YOU” here (Peter).
But “between” these someone is going to make the case Jesus ISN’T talking to Peter?

Especially when Peter just recognized Jesus and the “Messiah” or the “Christos”?

And Jesus says THAT was from “My Father in Heaven”?

To see the context is to affirm:

Peter to Jesus: “YOU are the Christos”
Jesus to Peter: “YOU are the Petros”

NOT:

Peter to Jesus: “YOU are the Christos”
Jesus to Peter: “You are NOT the Petros” (but everybody in the Gospels will refer to Peter as “Peter”/“Cephas” or “Kepha” or “Rock”)

It just doesn’t make sense to DENY Sacred Scripture and the obvious context here.

 

[Tomdstone]

**
MATTHEW 16:13-20** 13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, Who do men say that the Son of man is?
14 And they said, Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah,
and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets. 15 He said to them,
But who do you say that I am?
16 Simon Peter replied, You are the Christ, the son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered him,
Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona!
For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you,
but my Father who is in heaven.
18 And I tell you,
you are Peter,
and on this rock I will build my church,
and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.
19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,
and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven,
and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
20 Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ.

How do you know that this is not to be taken metaphorically, since there are so many things in Scripture that Catholics say are not to be taken literally.

 

[Darryl_B]

How do you know that this is not to be taken metaphorically, since there are so many things in Scripture that Catholics say are not to be taken literally.

Peter to Jesus: “YOU are the Christos”
Jesus to Peter: “YOU are the Petros”

Was Peter being metaphoric? Are you being metaphoric?

 

[Tomdstone]

Peter to Jesus: “YOU are the Christos”
Jesus to Peter: “YOU are the Petros”

Was Peter being metaphoric? Are you being metaphoric?

According to the Orthodox Study Bible pg. 1299 Jesus’ statement "You are peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church (Mat 16:18) was not of Peter himself, but of the faith of his confession. In other words, Jesus is the Rock of the Church, and the Church is built on the faithful confession of Christ.

I Corinthians 10
I want you to know, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, 2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3 and all ate the same supernatural food 4 and all drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ.

Ephesians 2
19 So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the corner stone
, 21 in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; 22 in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.

The Bible tells us that Jesus was the Rock or that Jesus was the corner stone.

 

[Cathoholic]

Tomdstone. You mentioned . . .

According to the Orthodox Study Bible pg. 1299 Jesus’ statement "You are peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church (Mat 16:18) was not of Peter himself, but of the faith of his confession. In other words, Jesus is the Rock of the Church, and the Church is built on the faithful confession of Christ.

I Corinthians 10
I want you to know, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, 2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3 and all ate the same supernatural food 4 and all drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ.

I already touched on this objection in a prior post (here).

QUOTE:
I think we as Catholics see and affirm ALL these dimensions.

We see Peter as the “Cephas” or “Petros” or “rock” because Jesus said it.

We see Jesus in a sense as “rock” because of who Jesus is (True God and True Man). That is who St. Peter derives his “rockness” from. Jesus gratuitously gives Simon this sublime participation in Himself as a gift to the Church (Catholics are NOT saying Peter is God but rather Jesus who is God, allows a special sharing or participation in His ministry here).

And we also see St. Peter’s confession of faith in a sense being involved here.

• Peter as Rock or “Cephas”
• Jesus the source
• Heavenly confession of faith from the mouth of Peter involved too

Catholics don’t DENY ANY of these senses.

CCC 424 Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church.

CCC 552 Simon Peter holds the first place in the college of the Twelve; Jesus entrusted a unique mission to him. Through a revelation from the Father, Peter had confessed: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Our Lord then declared to him: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.” Christ, the “living Stone”, thus assures his Church, built on Peter, of victory over the powers of death. Because of the faith he confessed Peter will remain the unshakable rock of the Church. His mission will be to keep this faith from every lapse and to strengthen his brothers in it.

Even the fact Jesus names Simon “Rock” or Peter AT Caesarea Philippi is almost certainly significant. . . . .

See the remainder of the quote (here).

Peter means “rock”.

Notice in the very quote you used even THAT referred to Peter as . . .“Peter”.

"You are peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church (Mat 16:18) was not of Peter himself

The statement above that you quoted, along with the conclusion you came to** . . . St. Peter wasn’t the “rock**” . . . . is a self-contradiction!

 

[mattp0625]

Dear friend in Christ,

On WHAT basis does your Church claim to be the One TRUE-Faith Church of the Bible?

OR: Is this not a factor in salvation’s path?

God Bless you,
Patrick

Hello there,

There are great posts here. Let me try not to be overly redundant.

How do we know the RCC is the true church of Christ? Many reasons have been mentioned here, such as the traceable apostolic succession, beginning with the handing of the keys to Peter by Jesus.

Ignatius of Antioch is important from a historical perspective. As noted, he was bishop at Antioch, where the original Christians fled from Jerusalem. He was a student of the apostles and likely ordained by Peter who also went to Antioch. He clearly had strong words about maintaining loyalty to the bishop while denouncing those who create schisms.

The names of Linus and Clement can also be found in scripture ( the 2nd and 3rd popes). The ancient historian Tertullian also certifies their names as maintaining the office of the episcopate from the apostles.

Regarding the history of other churches:

I realize many will say their beliefs are supported by authors like Augustine, and therefore they are traceable to the early Christians, but it’s untrue. Augustine never rejected the Catholic Church or its authority. A high view of scripture does not equate to Sola Scriptura. This seems disingenuous to me.

Historically, other churches can trace their roots to 16th Century Germany or therafter - whether denominational or nondenominational, they are all heirs of the Reformers.

In order to have the thousands of denominations or “nondenominations”, if you will, one has to accept that either 1) Christ allows conflicting doctrine in His Church, or 2) He established more than one church.

I hear many say that denominations are OK, because they agree on “the essentials”. These same folks also subscribe to Sola Scriptura.

Yet, the bible does not contain a list of doctrines considered essential to being a member of Christ’s church. Nor does scripture list the non-essentials. So, who decided what is essential and under what authority did they do so?

The answer is that each denomination decided for themselves. And, without realizing it, Sola Scriptura inherently gives way to traditions of men. To me, it’s clear the Reformation was a tradition of men who appointed themselves. They claimed to be reforming corrupt behaviors, and then exhibited more corrupt behaviors themselves.

The point is, at best, modern doctrines and churches are traceable to a time and place 1,500 years removed from the apostles of Christ and 1,200 years from the synods of bishops that compiled the inspired books of the bible.

 

[mattp0625]

Historically, we also believe that Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome. Ignatius of Antioch was also martyred in Rome.

Ignatius was another who recognized the Bishop of Rome.

This historical convergence, along with Jesus giving the keys to Peter and continuous apostolic succession, is what leads us from Jerusalem to Antioch to Rome.

 

[total_Catholic]

I have been to services at the local Catholic Church that did not contain the Eucharist and felt the worship there was genuine. But you would say it was all in vain? So sad.

I’d like to know which services were held at a local Catholic Church that did not contain the Eucharist. You may have went to a speech or some other ecumenical event but if you went to a Catholic church for any Sunday or Daily Mass, then yes, the Eucharist was offered. Give me a break!

 

[total_Catholic]

Hello there,

There are great posts here. Let me try not to be overly redundant.

How do we know the RCC is the true church of Christ? Many reasons have been mentioned here, such as the traceable apostolic succession, beginning with the handing of the keys to Peter by Jesus.

Ignatius of Antioch is important from a historical perspective. As noted, he was bishop at Antioch, where the original Christians fled from Jerusalem. He was a student of the apostles and likely ordained by Peter who also went to Antioch. He clearly had strong words about maintaining loyalty to the bishop while denouncing those who create schisms.

The names of Linus and Clement can also be found in scripture ( the 2nd and 3rd popes). The ancient historian Tertullian also certifies their names as maintaining the office of the episcopate from the apostles.

Regarding the history of other churches:

I realize many will say their beliefs are supported by authors like Augustine, and therefore they are traceable to the early Christians, but it’s untrue. Augustine never rejected the Catholic Church or its authority. A high view of scripture does not equate to Sola Scriptura. This seems disingenuous to me.

Historically, other churches can trace their roots to 16th Century Germany or therafter - whether denominational or nondenominational, they are all heirs of the Reformers.

In order to have the thousands of denominations or “nondenominations”, if you will, one has to accept that either 1) Christ allows conflicting doctrine in His Church, or 2) He established more than one church.

I hear many say that denominations are OK, because they agree on “the essentials”. These same folks also subscribe to Sola Scriptura.

Yet, the bible does not contain a list of doctrines considered essential to being a member of Christ’s church. Nor does scripture list the non-essentials. So, who decided what is essential and under what authority did they do so?

The answer is that each denomination decided for themselves. And, without realizing it, Sola Scriptura inherently gives way to traditions of men. To me, it’s clear the Reformation was a tradition of men who appointed themselves. They claimed to be reforming corrupt behaviors, and then exhibited more corrupt behaviors themselves.

The point is, at best, modern doctrines and churches are traceable to a time and place 1,500 years removed from the apostles of Christ and 1,200 years from the synods of bishops that compiled the inspired books of the bible.

Good points but the arrogant pride of the followers of the reformed churches has blinded them to the point that no 100% concrete evidence will ever suffice. “They have eyes but do not see”. Sad.

 

[susanlo]

Did God permit the prophets of Israel to leave and form little israels in protest of his people falling into error? Do you feel Jesus called for the reformers to cause division and schism?

I don’t think this quote is addressing the prophets of Israel specifically, but there were subgroups within Judaism in the first century.

catholic-resources.org/Bible/Jewish_Groups.htm
"Many people used to think of first-century Judaism as a monolithic block, a solidly unified religion, from which Christianity split off as a new religion. In contrast, we now know that there were many different sub-groups within ancient Judaism, and that the early “Jesus Movement” was just one of many different Jewish groups. Moreover, the separation of Christianity from Judaism was not sudden, but happened gradually over several generations.

**Judaism at the time of Jesus was both unified and divided, much like Christianity is today. ** All Jews believed and practiced some core aspects of their religion (Monotheism, the Law of Moses, Circumcision, etc. – see Covenants and Pillars of Ancient Judaism), but different Jewish groups debated and disagreed with each other about many details (expectations of the Messiah, ritual and purity laws, how to live under foreign domination, etc.). Similarly all Christians today agree on certain core items (Jesus is the Son of God, the NT has 27 books, etc.) but disagree on many details (the number of sacraments, forms of worship, role of faith and good works, etc.)."

 

[Wannano]

I’d like to know which services were held at a local Catholic Church that did not contain the Eucharist. You may have went to a speech or some other ecumenical event but if you went to a Catholic church for any Sunday or Daily Mass, then yes, the Eucharist was offered. Give me a break!

I don’t understand why you are so worked up. I never said or even hinted that I went to a Sunday Mass or Daily Mass that did not contain the Eucharist. I felt you were proposing that the Catholic Eucharist is the only act of worship that Jesus desires and I was pointing out that I have experienced non-Eucharist worship with Catholics that was sincere and meaningful.

I realize you will disagree with me but I really do believe that Jesus sees a Christian life lived in obedience to Him that comes from the earnest sincere desire of one’s heart as the highest form of worship.

 

[PJM]

And again, this is where definitions of what constitutes the Church come into conflict. The RCC would say as you’ve made clear that it sees itself as the lone church of Christ on Earth. The Orthodox and several other groups make similar claims to being that one true Church. However most Protestants reject that notion of what constitutes the Church as being limited to one denomination.

As for authority being directed to the apostles and their successors personally I agree with you on that aspect. Apostolic succession and connection to the historic Episcopate is an important part of my denomination just as it is for the RCC.

So help ME out Here

When Jesus said: Quote: MY “MY Church”, [Mt 16:18] some 1,500 YEARS before the reformation, He meant to include all religions that would at some point in history, even those with contradictory faith beliefs:shrug:

God Bless you

 

[PJM]

The term catholic means universal. It was an adjective of the Christian Church that was used in the early centuries.

They had bishops and deacons, but they didn’t have Christian priests yet. The Christian leaders in the New Testament were usually termed presbureros or episcopos for elder or bishop. The Greek word hiereus which is translated to priest was only used for Jewish priests and Jesus as the high priest in the book Hebrews. (1 Peter 2:5 & 9 uses hierateuma for priesthood of all believers). I believe I read somewhere that Origen 203-250 was the first to refer to a Christian leader as a hiereus and then in the coming centuries the term became customary to use.

The term catholic means universal. It was an adjective of the Christian Church that was used in the early centuries.

They had bishops and deacons, but they didn’t have Christian priests yet. The Christian leaders in the New Testament were usually termed presbureros or episcopos for elder or bishop. The Greek word hiereus which is translated to priest was only used for Jewish priests and Jesus as the high priest in the book Hebrews. (1 Peter 2:5 & 9 uses hierateuma for priesthood of all believers). I believe I read somewhere that Origen 203-250 was the first to refer to a Christian leader as a hiereus and then in the coming centuries the term became customary to use.

A Further explanation

The REASON for this seems to be 2-fold. It took a Bishop to Ordain a Priest; and as the infant CC grew, the need for another level of Godly service became evident.

1.”The WAY” until about 90 AD, was the Catholic Church from about 110 AD onward, and termed “Christians” only for a short time.

CATHOLIC. Its original meaning of “general” or “universal” has taken on a variety of applications in the course of Christian history. **First used by St. Ignatius of Antioch (A.D. 35-107) (Letter to the Smyrneans, 8, 2), **it is now mainly used in five recognized senses: 1. the Catholic Church as distinct from Christian ecclesiastical bodies that do not recognize the papal primacy; 2. the Catholic faith as the belief of the universal body of the faithful, namely that which is believed “everywhere, always, and by all” (Vincentian Canon);

In general, today the term “Catholic” refers to those Christians who profess a continued tradition of faith and worship and who hold to the Apostolic succession of bishops and priests since the time of Christ. (Etym. Latin catholicus, universal; Greek katholikos, universal.) Father Hardon’s Catholic DicrionaryEQ

1. While the TERM “priest” was not used from the begining, very soon there position and function seemed to be.

Acts Of Apostles 15:22 “Then it pleased the apostles and ancients, with the whole church, to choose men of their own company, and to send to Antioch, with Paul and Barnabas, namely, Judas, who was surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren”

**PRESBYTER. **In the early Church a member of a group (usually of priests) who advised a bishop. Together they formed the presbytery, which, under a bishop, was the governing body of a community. The presbyter having no official duties, he was often commissioned by the bishop to teach, celebrate Mass, and baptize. Presbyters were usually of advanced age and, like a bishop, chosen by the people. Their rank was above that of deacons but inferior to that of bishops. There was no restriction on their number. EQ

1. PRIEST. An authorized mediator who offers a true sacrifice in acknowledgment of God’s supreme dominion over human beings and in expiation for their sins. A priest’s mediation is the reverse of that of a prophet, who communicates from God to the people. A priest mediates from the people to God.

The Term “priest” in the CC was 1st used around the end of the 2nd Century.

Within the Church are men who are specially ordained as priests to consecrate and offer the body and blood of Christ in the Mass. The Apostles were the first ordained priests, when on Holy Thursday night Christ told them to do in his memory what he had just done at the Last Supper. {They were at the same time the 1st Bishops} All priests and bishops trace their ordination to the Apostles. Their second essential priestly power, to forgive sins, was conferred by Christ on Easter Sunday, when he told the Apostles, “For those whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven; for those whose sins you retain, they are retained” (John 20-22, 23).

The word priest (Germ. Priester; Fr. prêtre; Ital. prete) is derived from the Greek presbyteros (the elder, as distinguished from neoteros, the younger), and is, in the hieratical sense, equivalent to the Latin sacerdos, the Greekiereus, and the Hebrew kahane. By the term is meant a (male) person called to the immediate service of the Deityand authorized to hold public worship, especially to offer sacrifice. In many instances the priest is the religiousmediator between God (gods) and man and the appointed teacher of religious truths, especially when these include esoteric doctrines. To apply the word priest to the magicians, prophets, and medicine-men of the religions of primitive peoples is a misuse of the term. The essential correlative of priesthood is sacrifice, consequently, mere leaders in the public prayers or guardians of shrines have no claim to the title priest

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12409a.htm

The above site treats at length, the evolution of the “priesthood”, for anyone interested.

 

[PJM]

Hello there,

There are great posts here. Let me try not to be overly redundant.

How do we know the RCC is the true church of Christ? Many reasons have been mentioned here, such as the traceable apostolic succession, beginning with the handing of the keys to Peter by Jesus.

Ignatius of Antioch is important from a historical perspective. As noted, he was bishop at Antioch, where the original Christians fled from Jerusalem. He was a student of the apostles and likely ordained by Peter who also went to Antioch. He clearly had strong words about maintaining loyalty to the bishop while denouncing those who create schisms.

The names of Linus and Clement can also be found in scripture ( the 2nd and 3rd popes). The ancient historian Tertullian also certifies their names as maintaining the office of the episcopate from the apostles.

Regarding the history of other churches:

I realize many will say their beliefs are supported by authors like Augustine, and therefore they are traceable to the early Christians, but it’s untrue. Augustine never rejected the Catholic Church or its authority. A high view of scripture does not equate to Sola Scriptura. This seems disingenuous to me.

Historically, other churches can trace their roots to 16th Century Germany or therafter - whether denominational or nondenominational, they are all heirs of the Reformers.

In order to have the thousands of denominations or “nondenominations”, if you will, one has to accept that either 1) Christ allows conflicting doctrine in His Church, or 2) He established more than one church.

I hear many say that denominations are OK, because they agree on “the essentials”. These same folks also subscribe to Sola Scriptura.

Yet, the bible does not contain a list of doctrines considered essential to being a member of Christ’s church. Nor does scripture list the non-essentials. So, who decided what is essential and under what authority did they do so?

The answer is that each denomination decided for themselves. And, without realizing it, Sola Scriptura inherently gives way to traditions of men. To me, it’s clear the Reformation was a tradition of men who appointed themselves. They claimed to be reforming corrupt behaviors, and then exhibited more corrupt behaviors themselves.

The point is, at best, modern doctrines and churches are traceable to a time and place 1,500 years removed from the apostles of Christ and 1,200 years from the synods of bishops that compiled the inspired books of the bible.

GREAT POST:thumbsup:

Thank you and God Bless

 

[steve_b]

*All I’ll say *to this is yes the link to the Episcopate comes through the RCC. That’s not in question. However as I said, Anglicanism doesn’t accept that the minor changes to holy orders severed that connection.

This is a very cogent point you bring up. It goes straight to the topic IMV, who “is the ONE TRUE-FAITH Church of the bible”

Your issue is really over authority. Who has it, who doesn’t, who can take it away.

You agree the Catholic Church has the authority to pass on apostolic succession in holy orders to you in that sacrament, when you were in the Church.

Now you’re saying, the Catholic Church, who gave you this sacrament, CAN’T say your authority in that sacrament is null and void, because of the changes you made in that sacrament.

Bottom line, Jesus is the one backing up the promises (and the authority ) of the keys He gave to Peter and in extension Peter’s successors… That authority doesn’t go away from the papacy.

Let’s draw another example where authority was challenged.

When 1000’s of Jesus followers who he fed with a few loaves and fish, followed Jesus across the lake to get the rest of the story, the next day THEY left Him in mass, over disagreeing with His teaching, [Jn6:66…]

So:

• did that show Jesus has no authority because they disagreed with Him? No
• Or because they all left Him? No
• How did Jesus handle their leaving?
• He let them go!
• Jesus already gave them what the consequences are if they didn’t follow Him and left it at that. They made their choice

I personally find that passage, one of the scariest passages in scripture.

But to your points you bring up.

We’re dealing with supernatural realities here. What the pope ruled on, is already reality. He doesn’t have to argue the point, anymore than Jesus had to argue the point with those who left HIM.

That’s all I’m saying

 

[steve_b]

With regard to John 17:20-23, I’m not concerned Jesus would have any objection. We’re all one within the Christian Church despite denominational differences.

You’re kidding…right?

 

[Padres1969]

You’re kidding…right?

Not at all.

 

[Padres1969]

This is a very cogent point you bring up. It goes straight to the topic IMV, who “is the ONE TRUE-FAITH Church of the bible”

Your issue is really over authority. Who has it, who doesn’t, who can take it away.

You agree the Catholic Church has the authority to pass on apostolic succession in holy orders to you in that sacrament, when you were in the Church.

Now you’re saying, the Catholic Church, who gave you this sacrament, CAN’T say your authority in that sacrament is null and void, because of the changes you made in that sacrament.

Bottom line, Jesus is the one backing up the promises (and the authority ) of the keys He gave to Peter and in extension Peter’s successors… That authority doesn’t go away from the papacy.

Let’s draw another example where authority was challenged.

When 1000’s of Jesus followers who he fed with a few loaves and fish, followed Jesus across the lake to get the rest of the story, the next day THEY left Him in mass, over disagreeing with His teaching, [Jn6:66…]

So:

• did that show Jesus has no authority because they disagreed with Him? No
• Or because they all left Him? No
• How did Jesus handle their leaving?
• He let them go!
• Jesus already gave them what the consequences are if they didn’t follow Him and left it at that. They made their choice

I personally find that passage, one of the scariest passages in scripture.

But to your points you bring up.

We’re dealing with supernatural realities here. **What the pope ruled on, is already reality. **He doesn’t have to argue the point, anymore than Jesus had to argue the point with those who left HIM.

That’s all I’m saying

And that’s where we disagree. Because fundamentally the RCC sees the pope as having a power and position that no Protestant would agree he has to speak in abstentia for Christ