SPLIT: What is the church and its authority?

[rfournier103]

I’ve heard that argument before and its nothing new to me. A Catholic will say that is why Jesus established the Catholic Church.

Then I’ll say no he did not. Then the Catholic will say yes he did, look at these verses. Then I’ll take those same verses and say you misinterpreted them. Then it’ll go on back and forth and neither one of use will change our minds, but that’s fine I get enjoyment in the fact that we’re at least talking about God, when there are so many other things that we could talk about.

I took the liberty of capitalizing “Catholic” and “Church” for you. I would be blessed if you would kindly show some respect at least in doing that. Thank you.

So you enjoy a debate that goes nowhere? Is THAT why you’re here?

And who are YOU to say that the Catholic Church has misinterpreted the Scriptures? Does YOUR authority come from your years of study at the seminary? Your years of pouring over the Sacred Scriptures in their original languages? Did the Holy Spirit come to you in the middle of the night and tell you that the Catholic Church is interpreting Scripture wrong? Did the pastor at the local Bible Chapel (or whatever unknown community you belong to) tell you so?

How do you know we’re the ones misinterpreting?

He doesn’t. He just wants to argue. I, for one, love a good argument.

I don’t know about you, but the deeper I dig, the more I find the Catholic Church is the Rock even when I dig in places not necessarily Catholic. And since my father was Protestant most of my life, that was a lot of digging and disagreements to sift through.

You define the church as the Catholic Church, I define the church as a body of believers in Jesus.

How could ALL the Christians know what the right course of action to take would be? Who would know what the TRUTH was? Would Jesus leave the Church leaderless? The Bible as we know it wasn’t around until c. 393 AD. WHAT GUIDED THE BODY OF BELIEVERS FROM 33 - 393 AD? The HOLY SPIRIT guided the BISHOPS of the Church, who in turn guided the body of believers.

You’re trying to make the point that is why we need one church. The Catholic Church in its 2000 years or so of existence hasn’t proven that Peter was the first pope.

It has for hundreds of millions of believers… Just not to the tacdon’s satisfaction…

Isn’t Peter buried under St. Peter’s Basilica in Vatican City? He’s not buried at a Presbyterian church. Or a Baptist church.

Peter was a Jew.

Jesus Christ was a Jew. What of it? Actually, since Peter was an Apostle of Christ; and a BELIEVER in Christ… wouldn’t that make him a CHRISTIAN? (by your definition?)

Believers in Christ were called Christians in the NT.

How many Jewish popes other than Peter has there been?

Since by your definition Peter wasn’t a Jew… and all believers in Christ are Christians… I would have to say ZERO.

If it was so important Peter would of wrote in a book who his successor was.

Do you really think so? Pope John Paul II never knew who his successor would be. Wouldn’t the BISHOPS under the guidance of the Holy Spirit choose the successor?

The Catholic Church does not have the historical evidence to prove who Peter’s successor was.

The Church seems to think it was Pope Linus… Sounds like a topic for another thread, tacdon…

The Catholic Church also can’t prove from scripture that Peter was the first pope. The Catholic Church also can not prove that Jesus built the Church on Peter. They might give some verses, but those verses are misinterpreted.

Again… You come here and tell us that we’re all wrong, and you’re right. I certainly hope that you can give us a straight answer as to what gives YOU the authority to define and interpret Scripture and lecture US about it…

Acts 8:30-31 ~ Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?” He replied, “How can I, unless someone instructs me?” So he invited Philip to get in and sit with him.
Have you been sent here to interpret Scripture for us…?

The verses we would cite don’t matter because nothing we say would ever be proof enough for you. Anything we say you would label as being misinterpreted; your ready-made defense for anything a Catholic would ever say to you.

 

[JRKH]

tacdon;12012314:

The bible says take it to the church, which means whatever church your close to.

Passion Points - Does “Church” really mean “Church?”

Excellent question and one that really needs to be discussed…
As you know the Greek word used is "Ekklesia which you rightly point out means:

it should be assemply of persons-- a group of people gathered together–

I would add here that it refers to a group of people called out for a specific purpose (Strongs concordance)

it does not mean a huge monolithic organization–

Actually this assumption does not follow. The size and organization does not come into play in the meaning of Ekklesia.
In the case of the Body of Christ - it is a huge Ekklesia - worldwide - and yet it is one assembly of people called out.
Organization is nothing more than the natural outgrowth of a growing and spreading Ekklesia. Nothing sinister in this…In fact it is quite biblical.
As for “monolithic”…that might need to be defined a bit more. Certainly there needs to be room for diversity in the body of Christ, and certainly there is great diversity in the Catholic Church - but there also needs to be core constants - accepted and agreed to by all.

almost like a “club” or fellowship-- each fellowship can function well if they have the help of the Holy Spirit-

Can’t argue with this…this is quite true.

can you tell if a church – does not have the leading and fellowship of the Holy Spirit??

personally – i can–

can yo tell if some speaks by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
well i can !!

i remember one of the times when i was in a fellowship assembly-- and there was a Question-- and one of the “prophetic” members of the body of Christ said-- "well lets ask the LORD-- we did and we were given the answer–

Because it does not take – hours-days-weeks -months-- to get an answer from God the Holy Spirit-

because if it does-- then you would check you"service provider" haha

Yes I can tell…and I am sure others in other communions will say the same thing.
Yet each of these communions teach differing and sometimes contradictory things. The ONE Body - that is Christ’s Ekklesia needs a way to resolve such matters and the Holy Spirit provided it.

This method is given in Scripture - it is the ecumenical council - the first one being held in Jerusalem and is recorded in Acts 15. This council was acting on instructions directly from Christ Himself - as recorded in Mt 18:15-18 and came together to resolve a conflict that was disturbing the peace of the Church (the group).

Just to be clear - I respect the view you express above - and I believe that when this idea first caught on 500 or so years ago - it probably seemed like a quite noble experiment. But the results of the experiment are anything but encouraging - Thousands of differing groups, all teaching different things and all claiming the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

No - - the more I look at things, and having read the Scriptures on the matter, I am convinced that the model used by the RC and the EO is the right one. Yes we differ in some areas, but the basic structure of the Ekklesia in each case is both sound and eminently biblical.

Peace
James

 

[ckutac]

tacdon;12012314:

The bible says take it to the church, which means whatever church your close to.

Passion Points - Does “Church” really mean “Church?”

youtu.be/jm9mNC_xb-w

it should be assemply of persons-- a group of people gathered together–
it does not mean a huge monolithic orginazation–

almost like a “club” or fellowship-- each fellowship can function well if they have the help of the Holy Spirit-

can you tell if a church – does not have the leading and fellowship of the Holy Spirit??

personally – i can–

can yo tell if some speaks by inspiritiaon of the Holy Spirit?
well i can !!

i remember one of the times when i was in a fellowship assembly-- and there was a Question-- and one of the “prophetic” members of the body of Christ said-- "well lets ask the LORD-- we did and we were given the answer–

Because it does not take – hours-days-weeks -months-- to get an answer from God the Holy Spirit-

because if it does-- then you would check you"service provider" haha

You must believe in one really screwed up and confused God then. Because that God you believe in tells different Christians different things that both can’t be true… That Holy Spirit tells Baptist that Baptism does nothing, and is only an outward symbol of an inward conversion intended only for adults. But tells Catholics that baptism is a sacrament where you receive the Holy Spirit for the first time, and anyone infant or adult can and should be baptized…

That isn’t even getting to how screwed up God is, in not being able to decide what Jesus actually meant when he said this is my Body, this is my Blood. Catholics and Lutherans believe that he really meant it was his body and blood. Calvinist believe that it is a symbol, but that Jesus is actually present in spirit, while others believe it is just a symbol for us to remember Jesus.

 

[JRKH]

This is what happens when a counterpoint runs out of ammo. They reach into the box marked “A” and often come out with ad hominem instead.

I didn’t take his comment as an Ad Hominem as much as a false assumption…one that I have discovered is quite common in these kinds of conversations.

Very often I have had difficulty in getting a protestant to look passed he fact that I am Catholic.
Once I can get a person to recognize that I am looking strictly at the Text of Scripture…(if I can)…then the conversation can proceed.

Peace
James

 

[po18guy]

I didn’t take his comment as an Ad Hominem as much as a false assumption…one that I have discovered is quite common in these kinds of conversations.

Very often I have had difficulty in getting a protestant to look passed he fact that I am Catholic.
Once I can get a person to recognize that I am looking strictly at the Text of Scripture…(if I can)…then the conversation can proceed.

Peace
James

While not completely clear-cut, it is a logical fallacy. Am searching here for precisely which it is: yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

 

[po18guy]

While not completely clear-cut, it is a logical fallacy. Am searching here for precisely which it is: yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

Suddenly claiming that the CC has no evidence of Peter’s papacy, or of succession is both a logical fallacy and a canard, as well as a red herring. This may be the triple play of debating error. It is also very much human nature.

 

[po18guy]

I didn’t take his comment as an Ad Hominem as much as a false assumption…one that I have discovered is quite common in these kinds of conversations.
Peace
James

While not completely clear-cut, it is a logical fallacy. Am searching here for precisely which it is: yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

Suddenly claiming that the CC has no evidence of Peter’s papacy, or of succession is both a logical fallacy and a canard, as well as a red herring. This may be the triple play of debating error. It is also very much human nature.

 

[JRKH]

Suddenly claiming that the CC has no evidence of Peter’s papacy, or of succession is both a logical fallacy and a canard, as well as a red herring. This may be the triple play of debating error. It is also very much human nature.

Yes - it is very much human nature.

While I never want to speak for - - or every circumstance
But my experience leads me to believe that, so long as the protestant can keep the Catholic on the defensive…that is, defending the papacy and the Magisterium…they can avoid really looking at some very disturbing (to their position) links in NT Scripture.

The protestant will say - “Show me the pope in the Bible” - and the conversation runs down the “usual course”…
So - what we need to do (IMHO) is to answer that question very briefly and then turn the tables on them. Instead of waiting for their normal responses to our argument - we ask them:
“Show me “independent local churches” in the Bible”
Show me where conflicting teaching is permitted in the NT."

Follow this with the explanation that, you are perfectly willing to listen to the arguments against the papacy IF they can first show you a more biblicall alternative.

now THAT can lead to some interesting conversation…

Peace
James

 

[po18guy]

Yes - it is very much human nature.

Peace
James

In mentioning authority, we often see accusations of arrogance or of triumphalism. I ask those who perceive this not to conflate confidence with arrogance. As well, truth - the whole truth and nothing but the truth - is indeed triumphalism. The evil one counters with relativism. So, if one wants to triumph over evil, there is but one choice. But, to sell that idea without the appearance of arrogance or triumphalism is our challenge.

 

[JRKH]

In mentioning authority, we often see accusations of arrogance or of triumphalism. I ask those who perceive this not to conflate confidence with arrogance. As well, truth - the whole truth and nothing but the truth - is indeed triumphalism. The evil one counters with relativism. So, if one wants to triumph over evil, there is but one choice. But, to sell that idea without the appearance of arrogance or triumphalism is our challenge.

AMEN - -

 

[Goya]

Yes - it is very much human nature.

While I never want to speak for - - or every circumstance
But my experience leads me to believe that, so long as the protestant can keep the Catholic on the defensive…that is, defending the papacy and the Magisterium…they can avoid really looking at some very disturbing (to their position) links in NT Scripture.

The protestant will say - “Show me the pope in the Bible” - and the conversation runs down the “usual course”…
So - what we need to do (IMHO) is to answer that question very briefly and then turn the tables on them. Instead of waiting for their normal responses to our argument - we ask them:
“Show me “independent local churches” in the Bible”
Show me where conflicting teaching is permitted in the NT."

Follow this with the explanation that, you are perfectly willing to listen to the arguments against the papacy IF they can first show you a more biblicall alternative.

now THAT can lead to some interesting conversation…

Peace
James

Whenever any challenge is prefaced with “…show me X” in the Bible, I always counter with “…show me ‘Bible’, in the Bible-?” Then often I follow that up with:

“where is it [the Bible] mentioned in the Bible?”

“Where is it prophesied?”

“Where is it exalted above the very Church to which it testifies, and through which it came into being?”

Even when ‘X’ is in the Bible, the key is to put the Bible itself, back into perspective, vis a vis the Church.

Just as “the Sabbath was made for Man, and not Man for the Sabbath”, so too is the Bible made for the Church, and not the Church, for the Bible.

 

[JRKH]

Whenever any challenge is prefaced with “…show me X” in the Bible, I always counter with “…show me ‘Bible’, in the Bible-?” Then often I follow that up with:

“where is it [the Bible] mentioned in the Bible?”

“Where is it prophesied?”

“Where is it exalted above the very Church to which it testifies, and through which it came into being?”

Even when ‘X’ is in the Bible, the key is to put the Bible itself, back into perspective, vis a vis the Church.

Just as “the Sabbath was made for Man, and not Man for the Sabbath”, so too is the Bible made for the Church, and not the Church, for the Bible.

Normally I would not choose the approach “show me bible in the bible”…as I think that it would tend to toss up a barrier…but I like how you follow it up…Those are all good questions.

The trick in such an approach is to do so gently and in such a way as the other person is not (overly) frightened by it.

Peace
James

 

[Tommy999]

Hello,
Can someone please explain what actions cause someone to be banned from CAF? I was following some recent threads that interested me and found this one and noticed that Tacdon shows ‘Banned’. I’m mainly curious because I also am a protestant and I enjoy these forums and don’t want to get banned if I can help it. I sense maybe it was because of his somewhat disrespectful and argumentative tone but that it is just a guess on my part.

 

[Tommy999]

To all,
Please disregard my previous post. I just read forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=78447 which explains reasons for getting banned. I should have read that in the first place.

 

[po18guy]

Whenever any challenge is prefaced with “…show me X” in the Bible, I always counter with “…show me ‘Bible’, in the Bible-?” Then often I follow that up with:

“where is it [the Bible] mentioned in the Bible?”

“Where is it prophesied?”

“Where is it exalted above the very Church to which it testifies, and through which it came into being?”

Even when ‘X’ is in the Bible, the key is to put the Bible itself, back into perspective, vis a vis the Church.

Just as “the Sabbath was made for Man, and not Man for the Sabbath”, so too is the Bible made for the Church, and not the Church, for the Bible.

Fr. Mitch Pacwa contends with bible onlyists by asking them where the “Sacred Table of Contents” came from.

 

[po18guy]

Fr. Mitch Pacwa contends with bible onlyists by asking them where the “Sacred Table of Contents” came from.

test