second question for our non-catholic brethern

[SteveVH]

It isn’t a handful of picked verses, but rather what you can gestalt from the whole of scripture, both old and new. From how God interacts with man (and the role of each Person of the Trinity) in the OT all the way to how He interacts with man in the NT, and the special relationship that the Holy Spirit has with and in believers. I don’t think anyone would question whether or not the Holy Spirit “could” infallibly guide believers on an individual basis, but rather “does” He, and I believe the whole of scripture testifies that He does. From conviction of sin, to the charisms and gifts, to knowing and revealing God and Who Jesus is, prayer, etc… etc… He is truly the Spirit of Truth.

The Holy Spirit dwells within each person who has been Baptized. This does not necessarily mean that each person who has been Baptized then has the power and authority to individually and infallibly interpret anything. This power was given specifically to Peter and the Apostles, not all of mankind. Because the Church was built upon the rock of Peter, the power and authority was given to Church which is the “Pillar and Foundation of Truth” (1 Tim 3:15). It was handed down to those bishops ordained by the Apostles, and their successors.

The very fact that the Protestant world resembles a shattered piece of glass in the variety of beliefs and interpretations (literally tens of thousands) and lack of unity, is prima facie evidence that individuals were not given the gift of infallibility. It is a gift to the Church and the authority is handed down, not assumed. Objectively speaking, truth can never conflict with truth and if there were no conflicts as to the Christian faith, we would be one Church. We are not, therefore not all Christian faith traditions can claim that they have the truth given by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Kliska]

The Holy Spirit dwells within each person who has been Baptized. This does not necessarily mean that each person who has been Baptized then has the power and authority to individually and infallibly interpret anything. This power was given specifically to Peter and the Apostles, not all of mankind. Because the Church was built upon the rock of Peter, the power and authority was given to Church which is the “Pillar and Foundation of Truth” (1 Tim 3:15). It was handed down to those bishops ordained by the Apostles, and their successors.

All of mankind definitely does not have the same relationship with the Holy Spirit as believers do. Only believers have the Holy Spirit dwelling inside of them on a permanent basis, in a categorically different way than non-believers. Obviously we are going to disagree on what scripture teaches in regard to who is head of the church and Who is supposed to guide her.

The very fact that the Protestant world resembles a shattered piece of glass in the variety of beliefs and interpretations (literally tens of thousands) and lack of unity, is prima facie evidence that individuals were not given the gift of infallibility. It is a gift to the Church and the authority is handed down, not assumed. Objectively speaking, truth can never conflict with truth and if there were no conflicts as to the Christian faith, we would be one Church. We are not, therefore not all Christian faith traditions can claim that they have the truth given by the Holy Spirit.

There is only one Truth, and it doesn’t change. I’d point out that the division doesn’t just exist amongst protestants. To study the history of the RC is to see the divisions that exist there as well. The main difference between us is going to be how do we believe those in charge in the RC determine what is taught as truth and what is not. That belief is influenced by layer upon layer of scripture. In short, you believe that what the RC presents as truth in matters of faith and morals is absolutely true, and that is promised in scripture. I don’t read that in scripture, I don’t interpret it the same way, to delve into that would be way too argumentative on your turf (again, trying to be respectful). Obviously we don’t see eye-to-eye there, and neither of us is going to budge because of the other.

Pray for me to see the truth, and I shall pray for you! Truly.

 

[SteveVH]

All of mankind definitely does not have the same relationship with the Holy Spirit as believers do. Only believers have the Holy Spirit dwelling inside of them on a permanent basis, in a categorically different way than non-believers.

Yes, I am speaking of the Baptized. I’m not sure what “believer” really means.

Obviously we are going to disagree on what scripture teaches in regard to who is head of the church and Who is supposed to guide her.

Why do you suppose that is? To whom did Christ give the authority to bind in heaven what is bound on earth and to loose in heaven what is loosed on earth? (Matt 16). To whom did Christ give the authority to forgive or retain sins? And which is the only the Church that can legitimately and historically trace the succession of its bishops back to Peter and therefore to Jesus? Pretty clear to me.

There is only one Truth, and it doesn’t change. I’d point out that the division doesn’t just exist amongst protestants. To study the history of the RC is to see the divisions that exist there as well.

That there have been schisms and divisions from the Catholic Church is indeed part of history. They are called Eastern Orthodox and Protestants. Jesus didn’t promise that people would never leave his Church. Five thousand left him when he taught about the Eucharist. But the point is that the Church remains, intact, complete with all of the dogmas and doctrines of the early Church as handed down from the Apostles. And these are not just claims but historical facts. We can prove that our doctrines have never changed from those of the first Christians.

The difference is that those who left the Church did not do so under a united set of beliefs. They all became their own popes and created their own belief system based upon their own understanding. And it continues to splinter today. In my little town of about 10,000 people, the once “Baptist Church” has now become five separate faith communities, none of which have the name Baptist associated with them. That is in the period of 15 years.

The main difference between us is going to be how do we believe those in charge in the RC determine what is taught as truth and what is not. That belief is influenced by layer upon layer of scripture. In short, you believe that what the RC presents as truth in matters of faith and morals is absolutely true, and that is promised in scripture.

Yes. He made those promises to someone and it kind of tells us who that was, and then we have the history that follows.

I don’t read that in scripture, I don’t interpret it the same way, to delve into that would be way too argumentative on your turf (again, trying to be respectful). Obviously we don’t see eye-to-eye there, and neither of us is going to budge because of the other.

And to what authority do you defer, Kliska, other than your own opinion? There is a Church that is 2000 years old which existed and flourished for nearly 400 years before we even had the new Testament, on the teachings and practices of the Apostles. It then gave the world the Bible. The sacred texts that make up the New Testament were used in its liturgies and were understood to support the Catholic understanding, obviously. For one to come along centuries later and claim that those who were taught by the Apostles themselves were somehow in error as to their understanding of Christ’s words just seems to be a real stretch for me.

Pray for me to see the truth, and I shall pray for you! Truly.

You got it!

 

[White_Tree]

Not necessarily.

John 14:12 Very truly, I tell you, the one who believes in me will also do the works that I do and, in fact, will do greater works than these, because I am going to the Father.

Doing greater works than Jesus is not the equivalent of being greater than Jesus, or having authority or power greater than Jesus. Nor is it the equivalent of having wisdom and understanding greater than Jesus.

It is ostensible that if someone performs a work greater than the exhibited works of Jesus, it is not because Jesus lacked the power to perform such a work, but rather that He chose not to exercise that power.

 

[Kliska]

Yes, I am speaking of the Baptized. I’m not sure what “believer” really means.

Sorry, protestant speak. Believer meaning one who has faith in the Christ of the Bible. I don’t believe everyone who was Baptized is saved, as I don’t believe it is Baptism that imparts salvation. Different discussion, different day. lol

Why do you suppose that is? To whom did Christ give the authority to bind in heaven what is bound on earth and to loose in heaven what is loosed on earth? … Pretty clear to me.

Less so to me, or else I’d be Roman Catholic. lol Christ is the head of the church, and what you speak of lead to Pentecost, and the Holy Spirit was received by the fledgling church (ekklesia/out called ones) proper.

I again interpret those scriptures differently (the ones you point to). BTW, I don’t deny Peter’s role in those events at all, we disagree on his authority and place in the group of believers; again, obviously I don’t believe Peter was the head of the church, nor the first Pope.

That there have been schisms and divisions from the Catholic Church is indeed part of history. They are called Eastern Orthodox and Protestants.

I’m not speaking of those, but rather the splits on doctrine within the RC umbrella itself. It is there, even though it isn’t usually discussed, and it isn’t my place to discuss them.

Jesus didn’t promise that people would never leave his Church. Five thousand left him when he taught about the Eucharist. But the point is that the Church remains, intact, complete with all of the dogmas and doctrines of the early Church as handed down from the Apostles. And these are not just claims but historical facts. We can prove that our doctrines have never changed from those of the first Christians.

Again, not from the historical writings and evidences I have read for myself. For example, RC doctrine could not contradict scripture and still be truth, yet (of course) I believe it does contradict scripture. I’m not here to convince anyone of that, that’s not my place here, nor do I think I could. That level of teaching I leave up to the Holy Spirit in situations like this, for Him I trust 100%. I also believe that for my own sake, and do appreciate prayers.

The difference is that those who left the Church did not do so under a united set of beliefs. They all became their own popes and created their own belief system based upon their own understanding. And it continues to splinter today…

That’s because all humans are sinners, me included. We are in agreement; God is not happy that we split over things like the color of the carpet in the church building, He is not happy that we split at all.

Yes. He made those promises to someone and it kind of tells us who that was, and then we have the history that follows.

What you see and glean from the history and teachings including scripture are not what I see and glean.

And to what authority do you defer, Kliska, other than your own opinion?

This is where we differ. My authority is God. There is nothing in between God the Father and I save Jesus, who is God the Son. I’m indwelt by God the Spirit. So is every other believer. My opinion doesn’t count only His opinion, we each find ourselves in the unique position of working our own salvation out with fear and trembling.

Let me put it to you this way; in your attempt to talk with me about such things, and your hope that I read scripture the way a RC would… Who do you think is capable of allowing me to do so? Only the Spirit. If He is capable of that, He is also capable of teaching me and guiding me in general on Truth.

If I ask you how do you interpret scripture, I’m assuming (please correct me if I am wrong) you would tell me to turn to the RC? We, you and I, don’t believe in turning to the same source for our interpretations. If you turn to the organizational church, who do they turn to? Who gives them authority? You believe the Holy Spirit. I don’t believe scripture says there is any middleman needed; we have God in us Who promises to lead and guide us. There are titles and roles in the church for sure, I just do not see the ones (such as Pope and Priest) widely taught by Rome, nor to I agree on the details in practice of the other positions laid out scripturally, such as Bishop.

There is a Church that is 2000 years old which existed and flourished for nearly 400 years before we even had the new Testament, on the teachings and practices of the Apostles. It then gave the world the Bible. The sacred texts that make up the New Testament were used in its liturgies and were understood to support the Catholic understanding, obviously. For one to come along centuries later and claim that those who were taught by the Apostles themselves were somehow in error as to their understanding of Christ’s words just seems to be a real stretch for me.

We agree on the fact of the Church, we just don’t agree on Who heads it up, and who is contained in it. You see it as the Roman Catholic Church, and I don’t see that in scripture at all. But of course everyone knows that because I freely say I’m a protestant. I have delved into Church history, and obviously the scriptures. I don’t see there what you see there. Perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps I’m not.

Without God’s guidance and grace we would all be lost, so I truly do covet prayer, and am not being flip when I say that.

You got it!

Grace and peace to you!

 

[PJM]

=Kliska;11395013]Right, I do understand that is the RC position, but we protestants tend not to believe that is true, or else most of us wouldn’t be protestants. lol Our position is that believers, including the pope and those comprising the magisterium, can err both in their teaching by action and teaching by word.

Let’s dicsuss it

You explain WHY you hold your position and I’ll TRY to explain our Catholic position:thumbsup:

WELCOME to the FORUM

Patrick

 

[SteveVH]

This is where we differ. My authority is God. There is nothing in between God the Father and I save Jesus, who is God the Son. I’m indwelt by God the Spirit. So is every other believer. My opinion doesn’t count only His opinion, we each find ourselves in the unique position of working our own salvation out with fear and trembling.

Why do you suppose that Jesus founded a Church, Kliska?

Let me put it to you this way; in your attempt to talk with me about such things, and your hope that I read scripture the way a RC would… Who do you think is capable of allowing me to do so? Only the Spirit. If He is capable of that, He is also capable of teaching me and guiding me in general on Truth.

Yes, and I would never place limitations on the capabilities of the Holy Spirit. But there are many who claim the same as you. They have prayed to the Holy Spirit for guidance and believe they have received it. And they each disagree with the others who have received guidance.

If I ask you how do you interpret scripture, I’m assuming (please correct me if I am wrong) you would tell me to turn to the RC? We, you and I, don’t believe in turning to the same source for our interpretations.

Very true. I read the Scriptures through the lens of Sacred Tradition and the teachings of the Magisterium, who even you believe was infallible in its selection of the Sacred texts to be included in our Bible, yes? You are left only with your own judgment. I trust the teaching of my Church over my own judgment. Christ promised the Holy Spirit to guide it into all truth.

If you turn to the organizational church, who do they turn to?

The teachings of the Apostles which the Church has possessed since its inception and kept alive through Sacred Tradition. Remember, the Catholic Church was not reliant upon Scripture for its dogmas (revealed truth) and its doctrines (teachings on the dogmas). That was handed down by the Apostles. The Scriptures both support Sacred Tradition and are reliant upon it in order to be correctly interpreted. Indeed, they are only that part of Sacred Tradition committed to writing.

Who gives them authority?

Jesus. Read the 16th Chapter of Matthew.

Grace and peace to you!

And you as well.

 

[Kliska]

Let’s dicsuss it

You explain WHY you hold your position and I’ll TRY to explain our Catholic position:thumbsup:

WELCOME to the FORUM

Patrick

Thank you for your welcome! I think I’ve opened my big mouth enough for now , and I do appreciate the offer. I’ve studied the Catholic position from Catholics, including historians, and truly understand it, I just don’t agree with it.

 

[Kliska]

Why do you suppose that Jesus founded a Church, Kliska?

The church is the people, so calling His out-called ones is for our salvation. I don’t believe He founded an organizational church in quite the same was as you mean. His life, death, and resurrection was all for us, and the gospel message sent out was to share the good news with all.

Yes, and I would never place limitations on the capabilities of the Holy Spirit. But there are many who claim the same as you. They have prayed to the Holy Spirit for guidance and believe they have received it. And they each disagree with the others who have received guidance.

Absolutely, yet “Mere Christianity” remains, to borrow from Lewis. The splits and disagreements are a failure on our parts, not on His.

Very true. I read the Scriptures through the lens of Sacred Tradition and the teachings of the Magisterium, who even you believe was infallible in its selection of the Sacred texts to be included in our Bible, yes? You are left only with your own judgment. I trust the teaching of my Church over my own judgment. Christ promised the Holy Spirit to guide it into all truth.

And I feel from scripture that the idea of a Magisterium, which I would see to be man-formed, not God-formed, is not scriptural. Also, as I mentioned before, I read the whole of scripture as pointing one of the main points was to remove the separation between God and man, now making us all members of the priesthood.

The teachings of the Apostles which the Church has possessed since its inception and kept alive through Sacred Tradition. Remember, the Catholic Church was not reliant upon Scripture for its dogmas (revealed truth) and its doctrines (teachings on the dogmas). That was handed down by the Apostles. The Scriptures both support Sacred Tradition and are reliant upon it in order to be correctly interpreted. Indeed, they are only that part of Sacred Tradition committed to writing.

Tradition should not contradict scripture if that is true, but that isn’t what I see. That is what makes me Protestant in basic definition. I go back to the most historical texts, which is scripture. Any other teaching, to be valid, cannot contradict; fill out, clarify, etc… yes, absolutely, but not contradict.

Jesus. Read the 16th Chapter of Matthew.

I know it well I don’t see, from the whole of scripture, that the RC application/interpretation holds up.

And you as well.

 

[Reuben_J]

Doing greater works than Jesus is not the equivalent of being greater than Jesus, or having authority or power greater than Jesus. Nor is it the equivalent of having wisdom and understanding greater than Jesus.

It is ostensible that if someone performs a work greater than the exhibited works of Jesus, it is not because Jesus lacked the power to perform such a work, but rather that He chose not to exercise that power.

Exactly. Thank you.

 

[SteveVH]

The church is the people, so calling His out-called ones is for our salvation. I don’t believe He founded an organizational church in quite the same was as you mean. His life, death, and resurrection was all for us, and the gospel message sent out was to share the good news with all.

Yes the Church is the people, the Body of Christ, but more importantly it is a divine institution with Jesus as the head. And Jesus started the Church and placed the Apostles, in particular Peter, as the head of that Church and gave his own authority to that Church. They ordained bishops and priests and set up churches all over the known world. It was very much an organizational Church. History itself proves that.

Absolutely, yet “Mere Christianity” remains, to borrow from Lewis. The splits and disagreements are a failure on our parts, not on His.

Regardless, you must admit that because someone claims that they are guided by the Holy Spirit on an individual basis does not necessarily mean that they really are. If they were there would be no such thing as denominations of Christianity.

And I feel from scripture that the idea of a Magisterium, which I would see to be man-formed, not God-formed, is not scriptural. Also, as I mentioned before, I read the whole of scripture as pointing one of the main points was to remove the separation between God and man, now making us all members of the priesthood.

Yes, we are all members of the priesthood of the faithful. We are not, however, all members of the ministerial priesthood. As for the idea of a magisterium, turn to the Council of Jerusalem in Acts. It was a meeting of the Apostles and bishops to decide a matter of great importance in the Church. That is what the Magisterium is.

Tradition should not contradict scripture if that is true, but that isn’t what I see. That is what makes me Protestant in basic definition. I go back to the most historical texts, which is scripture. Any other teaching, to be valid, cannot contradict; fill out, clarify, etc… yes, absolutely, but not contradict.

So please tell me what in Sacred Tradition contradicts Sacred Scripture? You are limited by the presupposition that everything Jesus and the Apostles taught is included in the Bible and yet the Bible never makes this claim. If what you say is true, how did the Church flourish for nearly 400 years before the canon was decided? The Church, as you well know, existed before even a word of the New Testament was written. How was this so if the Bible was the necessary authority?

 

[White_Tree]

Exactly. Thank you.

Glad I could help clear things up.

 

[PJM]

The church is the people, so calling His out-called ones is for our salvation. I don’t believe He founded an organizational church in quite the same was as you mean. His life, death, and resurrection was all for us, and the gospel message sent out was to share the good news with all"

Dear friend in Christ,

God permits you [not indicitive of HIS APPROVAL] to hold your own opinions. Your position is clearly NOT Christ own, nor is it biblical:

Mt. 10:1-8 "And having called his twelve disciples together, he gave them [HIS] power over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of diseases, and all manner of infirmities. COLOR=“Red”]And the names of the twelve apostles are these:

The first, Simon who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother. These twelve Jesus sent: commanding them, saying: …The kingdom of heaven is at hand. Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out devils: freely have you received, freely give"

Mt. 16:18-19 “And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon [YOU] this rock I will build my church,[SINGULAR] and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.”

Jn. 17:18-20 “As thou hast sent me into the world, I also have sent them into the world.[This MEANS with God’s own Power AND AUTHORITY] ** And for them do I sanctify myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth**. And not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me”

Mt. 28: 19-20 "Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost**.Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you**: **and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world. **

There’s much more nut space is limited:thumbsup:

And I feel from scripture that the idea of a Magisterium, which I would see to be man-formed, not God-formed, is not scriptural. Also, as I mentioned before, I read the whole of scripture as pointing one of the main points was to remove the separation between God and man, now making us all members of the priesthood.

Please READ carfefully the above passages.
The Granted Powers of “bubding and Loosning” ARE UNLIMITED Power of Governance of the One new Church Christ Founded and desires.

Christ HAD to do this in order to make POSSIBLE the chnaged mandate from only the Jews to “THEE ENTIRE WORLD” Mk 16:14-15. The OT had a hirearchly of priestly AUTHORITY so too MUST todays Church.

Tradition should not contradict scripture if that is true, but that isn’t what I see. That is what makes me Protestant in basic definition. I go back to the most historical texts, which is scripture. Any other teaching, to be valid, cannot contradict; fill out, clarify, etc… yes, absolutely, but not contradict.

On this we agree. So exactly where do you see contradictions? Know friend that “church-preactices are changeable” while Faith beliefs are not.

I know it well I don’t see, from the whole of scripture, that the RC application/interpretation holds up.

PLEASE be specific so we too can be:thumbsup:

God Bless you,
patrick

 

[Kliska]

Yes the Church is the people, the Body of Christ, but more importantly it is a divine institution with Jesus as the head. And Jesus started the Church and placed the Apostles, in particular Peter, as the head of that Church and gave his own authority to that Church. They ordained bishops and priests and set up churches all over the known world. It was very much an organizational Church. History itself proves that.

It was indeed organizational in a sense, but not in the RC sense… again, of course I’m going to say that, I’m a protestant. However, even the Orthodox Churches don’t see it exactly the same as Rome. Peter wasn’t the head. Bishops, elders, deacons were called for, but not priests… etc…

Regardless, you must admit that because someone claims that they are guided by the Holy Spirit on an individual basis does not necessarily mean that they really are. If they were there would be no such thing as denominations of Christianity.

Absolutely. We have to constantly be in prayer and study to figure out if what someone is trying to sell us lines up with God’s teaching. Each of us should delve into scripture daily.

Yes, we are all members of the priesthood of the faithful. We are not, however, all members of the ministerial priesthood. As for the idea of a magisterium, turn to the Council of Jerusalem in Acts. It was a meeting of the Apostles and bishops to decide a matter of great importance in the Church. That is what the Magisterium is.

There was no ministerial priesthood. That was done away with by Jesus. The Council at Jerusalem was a meeting of believers. It was held in Jerusalem because that was the place of the first organization church, and James was the head of that first organizational church, being Jesus’ brother.

So please tell me what in Sacred Tradition contradicts Sacred Scripture? You are limited by the presupposition that everything Jesus and the Apostles taught is included in the Bible and yet the Bible never makes this claim. If what you say is true, how did the Church flourish for nearly 400 years before the canon was decided? The Church, as you well know, existed before even a word of the New Testament was written. How was this so if the Bible was the necessary authority?

This would go into proselytizing territory, as we’d be delving into all the major teaching that splits Protestant and RC. I’m unwilling to go into all of that here. Thank you for asking however.

 

[JonNC]

It seems clear that
[1] God did start a New religion [set of faith beliefs]

[2} did found a new church [structure and organization]

Mt. 10:1-8
Mt. 16:18-19
John 17:14-20
Mk. 16: 14-15
Mt. 28:16-20 are evidence of this.

SO DEAR FRIENDS MY QUESTION IS:

Did Christ give to the Apostles the Power and Authority to

[1] Teach this new faith FULLY and CORRECTLY?

[2] Give [transfer] the necesary Powers and Authority to them?

God Bless you!
Patrick

As a Lutheran, I’d say yes to both 1 and 2, with the caveat that neither implies that Apostolic Succession (though it is a good thing), or that Apostolic teaching is necessarily attached to AS. Apostolicity can be found in communions that do not have AS, and incorrect teaching can be found in communions that have it.

Jon

 

[Kliska]

Apostolicity can be found in communions that do not have AS,

Would you mind explaining what this means from a Lutheran perspective? This non-Lutheran protestant sister is admitting her ignorance. Also, what role do Lutherans ascribe to AS? Meaning what benefit do they see to tracing lineage back to an Apostle, is the claim also that Lutheran Priests fall within AS?

ETA: perhaps Lutheran Pastor is the correct term?

 

[JonNC]

=Kliska;11401464]Would you mind explaining what this means from a Lutheran perspective? This non-Lutheran protestant sister is admitting her ignorance.

Lutherans think of apostolicity in terms of consistence in teaching with that of the Apostles, not necessarily the succession of laying on hands.

Also, what role do Lutherans ascribe to AS? Meaning what benefit do they see to tracing lineage back to an Apostle

Melanchthon, in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession states:

Concerning this subject we have frequently testified in this assembly that it is our greatest wish to maintain church-polity and the grades in the Church [old church-regulations and the government of bishops], even though they have been made by human authority [provided the bishops allow our doctrine and receive our priests]. For we know that church discipline was instituted by the Fathers, in the manner laid down in the ancient canons, with a good and useful intention.

is the claim also that Lutheran Priests fall within AS?

Some do claim it, while others continue to rely on the validity of presbyter ordination.

Jon

 

[Kliska]

Many thanks :tiphat:

 

[SteveVH]

It was indeed organizational in a sense, but not in the RC sense… again, of course I’m going to say that, I’m a protestant. However, even the Orthodox Churches don’t see it exactly the same as Rome. Peter wasn’t the head. Bishops, elders, deacons were called for, but not priests… etc…

Kliska, have you ever heard of the term “presbyter”. It is used in many translations in place of “elders”. The word “presbyter” is the root word for “priests”. If there was no difference between the priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial priesthood then why would presbyters (priests) have to be appointed? Wouldn’t they already be priests?

Absolutely. We have to constantly be in prayer and study to figure out if what someone is trying to sell us lines up with God’s teaching. Each of us should delve into scripture daily.

While I am certainly in favor of daily scripture reading, what good does it do us, really, if all we have to rely upon is our own judgment. In other words, why would your interpretation of scripture be more valid than the one who is trying to sell you a line? Doesn’t it then become just a matter of opinion with two people disagreeing? That is why the Bible instructs us to go to the Church, the “pillar and foundation of truth” for our understanding.

There was no ministerial priesthood. That was done away with by Jesus.

The fact that priests and bishops were appointed by the Apostles is evidence that there was, in fact, a ministerial priesthood. Not to mention that the priesthood is very much alive in the writings of the early Church fathers. So they were certainly not under the impression that the ministerial priesthood was done away with. These were men who were taught by the Apostles themselves, or by their students.

The Council at Jerusalem was a meeting of believers. It was held in Jerusalem because that was the place of the first organization church, and James was the head of that first organizational church, being Jesus’ brother.

Paul and Barnabas were in a dispute with those who were teaching that Christians must be circumcised. They were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to bring the question to the Apostles and elders (priests). In other words, they did not decide on their own but brought the question to the leaders of the Church (the Apostles). Why? Because they had authority that Paul and Barnabas did not ascribe to themselves individually. The question was brought for the leaders of the Church to decide. This is the Magisterium.

This would go into proselytizing territory, as we’d be delving into all the major teaching that splits Protestant and RC. I’m unwilling to go into all of that here. Thank you for asking however.

Kliska, defending your position is not proselytizing. While I am sure that everyone respects your prudence and caution in proselytizing, don’t take it too far. I think everyone is aware that this is not your purpose in being here.

God bless.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Right, I do understand that is the RC position, but we protestants tend not to believe that is true, or else most of us wouldn’t be protestants. lol Our position is that believers, including the pope and those comprising the magisterium, can err both in their teaching by action and teaching by word.

Teaching by “action” is not considered infallible. Teaching by word is infallible only in extremely rare and specific circumstances.

Now, about infallibility:

1. The Pope is the final authority on matters of doctrine (cf. Mt. 16:18-19, Jn. 21:15-19)
2. God cannot allow His whole Church to fall into heresy (or else Hell will have prevailed).
3. Therefore, the Pope must be prevented from formally teaching error.