Protestant Ordination - By what authority?

[SATEX]

Angainor

I would be over the top to accept any other dogma presented by any man in the last 400 years or so over the fathers of the Church in the first 400 years.

 

[cjaubert]

Angainor:

Heretic may have been a little excessive, but it looks like things got started off on the wrong foot from the beginning. This is clearly over-the-top:
It is manifest, therefore, that we should look upon the bishop even as we would look upon the Lord Himself - Ignatius to the Ephesians

Angainor, I am chiming in again because you really can’t be serious. Between the lines of your writing, I keep seeing, “I have my mind made up, don’t confuse me with the truth.”

Two questions: (1) If Jesus did not intend to create authority in his apostles, and the bishops of the church, then why did he say, "“Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.” If JESUS did not confer authority on his apostles, what, EXACTLY, did He mean by what he said? (Goodness gracious… God certainly sent Jesus to earth with power and authority, and Jesus send his apostles out WITH EXACTLY THE SAME AUTHORITY THAT GOD GAVE HIM. How much clearer could that be?)

(2) I know you agree that Jesus said to Simon Peter, "And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” My question is, if JESUS did not confer authority on Peter, what, EXACTLY, did He mean by what he said?

 

[Kay_Cee]

Angainor:

I would love to say “You must do what is right.” If only we knew for 100% certianty what is right in every situation. We must seek the independant truth of what is right. Sometimes we may disagree as to what is independantly right. One or both of us will be wrong, but we each must do what we each must do. We can only try to convince each other.

But did Jesus not found a church? Did He not promise that the gates of Hell would not overcome it? Did He not promise that He would not leave us orphans? Did He not promise that the Holy Spirit would guide us into all truth? Did He not tell the apostles, “He who hears you hears Me”?

If Jesus did not found a church wherein we can find the truth despite human failings and frailities, then He is one lousy church founder.

 

[jimmy]

Angainor, I am chiming in again because you really can’t be serious. Between the lines of your writing, I keep seeing, “I have my mind made up, don’t confuse me with the truth.”

Ha, that is the impression I am getting.

 

[Angainor]

jimmy:

That is very irrational to say that the Church was heresy from the first century and then to accept Christianity. Do you think Christ couldn’t even protect His Church from error for a 100 years?

First let me say that I did backtrack about Ignatius being a heretic. I didn’t think that one through. I still say, however, that he is taking a tiny step in the wrong direction. Over the centuries, tiny steps add up.

Now, let me ask this. The Epistles are filled with advice on how to spot false teachers and false prophets and what to do about that.

Why???

Catholics don’t need this advice. If it comes from the pope=GOOD. If it doesn’t=BAD.

 

[Angainor]

jimmy:

Do you think Christ couldn’t even protect His Church from error for a 100 years?

These discussions are great! They really get me to think.

I was thinking about what you said about Jesus protecting his Church from error. A thought popped into my head and I want to share it with you.

There is one action we know Jesus took after he established his Church and after he asended into heaven: He personally commisioned Paul (Acts 9).

Paul was no champion of authority. He wasn’t afraid to go toe-to-toe with the hotshots.

Consider one moment. Did Jesus send Paul with the purpose of keeping his Church pointed in the right direction? Was Paul sent to be a counter-balance?

I have to ask myself: What if Jesus didn’t send Paul? The Church would be much different. And remember, Paul was sent after the Church was commisioned.

Like I said, this was a thought that popped into my head.

 

[RyanL]

Angainor:

… I still say, however, that he is taking a tiny step in the wrong direction…

Againor,

First, let me say that it takes character to own up to a mistake. I admire it, and we would all do well to acknowledge our occasional short-sightedness.

Second, let me ask again, how is what Ignatius said substantially different than Luke 10:16?

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[RyanL]

Angainor:

Consider one moment. Did Jesus send Paul with the purpose of keeping his Church pointed in the right direction?

Yes, in addition to the other Apostles (who didn’t write as much, that we know of).

Angainor:

Was Paul sent to be a counter-balance?

How so?

Angainor:

I have to ask myself: What if Jesus didn’t send Paul?

I’m sure He would have made Himself known another way, perhaps through a stronger reliance on Sacred Tradition.

Just my thoughts.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[cjaubert]

Why won’t Angainor, or someone else, answer these questions?

Two questions: (1) If Jesus did not intend to create authority in his apostles, and the bishops of the church, then why did he say, "“Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.” If JESUS did not confer authority on his apostles, what, EXACTLY, did He mean by what he said? (Goodness gracious… God certainly sent Jesus to earth with power and authority, and Jesus send his apostles out WITH EXACTLY THE SAME AUTHORITY THAT GOD GAVE HIM. How much clearer could that be?)

(2) I know you agree that Jesus said to Simon Peter, "And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” My question is, if JESUS did not confer authority on Peter, what, EXACTLY, did He mean by what he said?

 

[SATEX]

Ubert
You have a valid point. Some form their own ideal of whate scripture says to them, then, when they come to scripture that shoot down their interpretations, they put a spin on it instead of going to the authority that was set up by Christ to help them in these things. Jesus Christ as being God has thought of everything. How would he leave his word (Truth) to each to privately interpret for themselves. What logic is there in that?

 

[cjaubert]

My point is really more simple. Catholics believe that Jesus Christ put Peter in charge of His Church, in essence making Peter the first Pope. Protestants deny this. Let’s assume, for argument’s sake, that Jesus did NOT intend to make Peter the first Pope. If that is true, then what, EXACTLY, did Jesus do to Peter here? What authority, EXACTLY, if any, did Jesus give to Peter?

 

[SATEX]

Ubert
As I said above, it was understood by most all Christians and many non-Christians that Jesus Christ appointed Peter as the foundation and leader of His vivible Church on earth.
It was not until the reformation that there was a large scale spin on scripture to refuke what was alway known before.
If protestant views are correct then Christ was not with His Church in any large scale.
Why would Christ not be in His Church for 1500 years?
It just does not make any sence does it.
Richard

 

[Angainor]

RyanL:

Angainor:

I have to ask myself: What if Jesus didn’t send Paul?

I’m sure He would have made Himself known another way, perhaps through a stronger reliance on Sacred Tradition.

Let me rephrase this by stating a couple of points. I will not draw any conclusions from these points. I will leave that to you:

a) It is hard to imagine the Protestant Reformation happening without Paul’s influence and epistles. That is to say, I think if there was not an Apostle Paul, there would be no reformation.

b) Jesus personally commisioned the Apostle Paul.

 

[StCsDavid]

Angainor:

b) Jesus personally commisioned the Apostle Paul.

Was not Paul obedient to Peter, or at the very least did not Paul recognize Peter has the head of the church?

 

[Angainor]

StCsDavid:

Was not Paul obedient to Peter, or at the very least did not Paul recognize Peter has the head of the church?

My brothers, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas [Peter]”; Still another, “I follow Christ.”

Is Christ divided? … So then, no more boasting about men! All things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future—all are yours, and you are of Christ, and Christ is of God.
1 Corinthians 1:11–13…3:21–23

I can envision Paul saying today, My brothers, some have informed me that there are quarrels among you. One says, “I follow Luther”; another “I follow Calvin”; another “I follow Benedict” …

 

[cjaubert]

cjaubert:

Let’s assume, for argument’s sake, that Jesus did NOT intend to make Peter the first Pope. If that is true, then what, EXACTLY, did Jesus do to Peter here? What authority, EXACTLY, if any, did Jesus give to Peter?

Is there some reason that this most simple of questions cannot be answered by anyone? Might it be because there is no answer OTHER THAN the Catholic answer? The silence on this is deafening, and proves, at least to me, that when Protestants are put back on their heels and asked questions that are almost self-evident in their clarity, they cannot or will not answer them. Instead, they change the subject and engage in sort of a doctrinal bait and switch.

Come on, Protestants, won’t someone just answer this simple question: If in Matthew 16:18-19 Jesus did NOT intend to make Peter the first Pope, then what, EXACTLY, did Jesus do to Peter here? What authority, EXACTLY, if any, did Jesus give to Peter?

 

[Angainor]

cjaubert, I apologize for an earlier crack about ignoring you. I am aware of these Catholic arguments

cjaubert:

Angainor, I am chiming in again because you really can’t be serious. Between the lines of your writing, I keep seeing, “I have my mind made up, don’t confuse me with the truth.”

Two questions: (1) If Jesus did not intend to create authority in his apostles, and the bishops of the church, then why did he say, "“Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.”…

(2) I know you agree that Jesus said to Simon Peter, "And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock…

cjaubert, I apologize for an earlier crack about ignoring you. I am aware of these Catholic arguments. I believe Jesus was giving the keys to the Church as a whole. As to the reasons why, see this document especially starting at paragraph 22.
23] In all these passages Peter is the representative of the entire assembly of apostles [and does not speak for himself alone, but for all the apostles], as appears from the text itself. For Christ asks not Peter alone, but says: Whom do ye say that I am? And what is here said [to Peter alone] in the singular number: I will give unto thee the keys; and whatsoever thou shalt bind, etc., is elsewhere expressed [to their entire number], in the plural Matt. 18, 18: Whatsoever ye shall bind, etc. And in John 20, 23: Whosesoever sins ye remit, etc. These words testify that the keys are given alike to all the apostles and that all the apostles are alike sent forth [to preach].
And more…

 

[RyanL]

Angainor,

I will ignore the fact that you didn’t answer my (repeated) question, and ask you the following short answer questions…

What does Isaiah 22:22 say?
What does Matt 16:18-19 say?
Did Jesus know about Isaiah 22:22?
Where does Matt 18 mention “keys”?

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[StCsDavid]

Angainor:

My brothers, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas [Peter]”; Still another, “I follow Christ.”

Was Paul not writing to the Church in Corinth? Was he not encourgaing his brothers and sister to be united? Yet Luther did the exact opposite. Not only did he divide the Church, but he summarily changed the Bible; removed Christ’s real presence from the Eucharist; along with a host of other self-determined changes. Those who followed Paul, Peter, or Appollos weren’t practicing different faiths. There wasn’t a church of Paul or a church of Apollos…but Luther essentially invented the Church of Luther to satisfy his opinion.

 

[cjaubert]

Angainor:

I believe Jesus was giving the keys to the Church as a whole.

Why Peter? Why not someone else?

Also, it is interesting to me to note that the link you provide says it was compiled in 1537. Was the entire Christian world wrong for 1500 years before that?

Finally, the scholarship here seems awfully like hearing footsteps behind you and thinking zebras. It just makes no logical sense, particularly in light of the rather clear writing in Matthew 16.