The historicity of the Church

[joe371]

Instead of a divine command, protestantism is playing God by arrogating that authority to themselves.

True…and at the same time admitting that they can’t know for sure (infallibly) that their teachings (doctrinal interpretations) are right, for the simple fact that they make the same claim about the CC i.e. we are left with an infallible book e.g. the Holy Bible, but no one to infallibly interpret it via the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

In Acts 2 Jesus’ church was formed and the HS was given to Jesus’ church to protect her, as the bride of Christ, from the gates of hell, and that must include the preservation of doctrinal truth as well. If not then what was the point of John 16:13 coupled with John 14:16 and Matthew 16…

2 When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. 2 Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3 They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. 4 All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.

 

[benhur]

Ok, that makes so much more sense.

So you are differentiating on the Christology from Hus and other reformers and that of Arius, Nestorius and company?

Got it.

Yes, I think Hus, Luther, Calvin and Zwingly submitted to what the Church holds as the Trinity and their essences/natures.

As for the Christology, I have to (obviously) side with Joe.

Even when we disagree in the application :knight2:

Thankfully, we do pray to the same God and we all recognize God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit -

ok amen thanks

 

[benhur]

Good point, and one of the reasons why I love the CCC 817 - 821. One thing though: It seems that you are suggesting (when you say "We can know if they had proper Christology by what they said, wrote about Christology) that it is each Christians interpretation of what the reformers taught, or what the CC taught etc. , that will determine the validity or truth on the matter? Correct me if I am wrong…

Zwingli’s view of the Eucharist was that it was merely a symbolic meal, and many believe that today; Luther strongly disagreed. He actually said, regarding Zwingli’s Eucharistic theology aka Christolgy - “I’d rather drink blood with the pope than wine with Zwingli” and we all know what ML thought about the pope at the time, and he was right about the abuse of indulgences. This is such an important doctrine for many reasons, so how can we know if Zwingli was wrong about this sacrament that showers down life-giving grace, drawing us closer to Jesus? If it is so clear then why do so many believe his view, and most importantly, to what teaching authority can we defer once we have reach an impasse just as those two men did (both men deferred to the bible as their final authority)?

I think I meant you can know man’s doctrine by what he says it is and nothing to do with our interpretation of what they say…As for real presence and Eucharist and Luther and Zwingli, I don’t think I can see any effectual difference between them. That is did one display more spiritual fruit due to their communion beliefs. could you tell on any Sunday afternoon what they believed they partook of earlier with their communion? Was one closer to The Lord than the other due to their communion beliefs on any given day they received communion? Not sure but I suspect communion was efficacious to both despite their differing views on this matter. As far as to whom or what to defer differences to is another matter for another day.

 

[joe371]

I think I meant you can know man’s doctrine by what he says it is and nothing to do with our interpretation of what they say…As for real presence and Eucharist and Luther and Zwingli, I don’t think I can see any effectual difference between them. That is did one display more spiritual fruit due to their communion beliefs. could you tell on any Sunday afternoon what they believed they partook of earlier with their communion? Was one closer to The Lord than the other due to their communion beliefs on any given day they received communion? Not sure but I suspect communion was efficacious to both despite their differing views on this matter. As far as to whom or what to defer differences to is another matter for another day.

One called the bread and wine Jesus’ Body and Blood upon the words of consecration; the other referred to it as just bread and wine after the words are spoken; no transformation takes place; purely a symbolic meal. This is such an important doctrine for many reasons, so how can we know if Zwingli was wrong about this sacrament that showers down life-giving grace, drawing us closer to Jesus? If it is so clear then why do so many believe his view, and most importantly, to what teaching authority can we defer once we have reached an impasse that divides, just as those two men did (both men deferred to the bible as their final authority and parted ways establishing new movements)? The HS cannot be guiding both reformed churches to teach the polar opposite on the Eucharist.

If I were to leave the CC and establish my own church, teaching what Swinglie taught, all the while claiming to be moved by the HS vis-a-vis that particular teaching, then how can I know I am right considering the fact that I was not given the authority to function in this capacity by Jesus, or His apostles? Sure I can have my own interpretation, but what right do I have to start a church and call my church, the church established by God, Who is the source of all truth guiding His one church, and again I mean no disrespect to anyone; just being logical.

 

[benhur]

The HS cannot be guiding both reformed churches to teach the polar opposite on the Eucharist.

Agreed. I am not relativistic about truth.Truth is quite absolute. Both are being guided,as thru a glass darkly, and any error from the relationship (HS and reformer) is not due to HS.

[/If I were to leave the CC and establish my own church, teaching what Swinglie taught, all the while claiming to be moved by the HS vis-a-vis that particular teaching, then how can I know I am right considering the fact that I was not given the authority to function in this capacity by Jesus, or His apostles? Sure I can have my own interpretation, but what right do I have to start a church and call my church, the church established by God, Who is the source of all truth guiding His one church, and again I mean no disrespect to anyone; just being logical.

At some point it would also be illogical to sense the correctness of a certain doctrine and not follow it. There is a balance between God ordained authority and God given inspiration/revelation. We are all part of a bigger Body and all its functions overseen by the HS, yet we are individually signed, sealed, delivered into that Body by the same HS.
[/quote]

 

[benhur]

Fine, but it does show God’s judgement on those who do precisely what protestantism has done, and with the very same rationalizations.

Korahs judgement is what it was. It is written right there in scripture. It is still for us to discern when to apply the lesson to future conflicts. If I were CC I would apply it to Protestantism, especially after 1870 with the direct ( no longer implied) infallibility decree.

Just because God doesn’t use the same extreme measures to publicly punish people doesn’t mean that He doesn’t consider it a sin. In fact, that is a pattern throughout salvation history: teach the sinfulness of an act, and punish it forcefully as a means of emphasizing the fact.

Yes, from time to time. But often the judgement is postponed, and the sin continues because of this, so scripture says (somewhere).

We don’t see, for example, a plague against first-born males for kings defying God. That doesn’t mean that kings defying God is OK with Him now.

Agreed

Jesus guiding the church by sin?
Scism is sinful; this is clear in the scriptures.

Again, that is the CC judgement, quite logical from its point of view. However, obviously it is not the only judgement or point of view from within the Body. It is also clear that schism sometimes is the fault of both parties.

Yes, God has in the past allowed punishment of His people through evil regimes, but He has always, consistently, thereafter punished those evil regimes.

Agreed, in OT times. Not sure if that applies to factions within the Body.

In the case you mention, it took a DIVINE VISIT to change the structure of authority.
BEFORE His death & resurrection, Christ commanded that we were to FOLLOW that established authority, even if they don’t practice what they preach

Yes, that is the CC interpretation . That divine visit was upon all 12 apostles, then upon 3000 then upon the gentiles (Cornelius). As I stated earlier in a post, this divine visit is what illumines, rebirths and puts us into the Body. That is apart from the authority and roles the apostles were given. That is the balance, between this divine visit to the individual and the divine giftings/offices in the Body.

Instead of a divine command, protestantism is playing God by arrogating that authority to themselves

Agreed, from your point of view and has been vice versa’d by others way before us.

 

[Nicea325]

Korahs judgement is what it was. It is written right there in scripture. It is still for us to discern when to apply the lesson to future conflicts. If I were CC I would apply it to Protestantism, especially after 1870 with the direct ( no longer implied) infallibility decree.

Yes, from time to time. But often the judgement is postponed, and the sin continues because of this, so scripture says (somewhere).
Agreed
Again, that is the CC judgement, quite logical from its point of view. However, obviously it is not the only judgement or point of view from within the Body. It is also clear that schism sometimes is the fault of both parties.
Agreed, in OT times. Not sure if that applies to factions within the Body.
**Yes, that is the CC interpretation **. That divine visit was upon all 12 apostles, then upon 3000 then upon the gentiles (Cornelius). As I stated earlier in a post, this divine visit is what illumines, rebirths and puts us into the Body. That is apart from the authority and roles the apostles were given. That is the balance, between this divine visit to the individual and the divine giftings/offices in the Body.

Agreed, from your point of view and has been vice versa’d by others way before us.

The CC interpretation? It is the command from God! Authority has always been an issue with humanity and especially under Protestanism. That is one the biggest weaknesses of Protestanism, there is no “central” authority to resolve issues. Precisely why there exist scores of denominations. Many Protestants will say:

We have an authority: God.

Then why are you not doing what God has commanded? There is a reason why God gave the 12 Apostles full authority. No where does Jesus grant the same authority to the faithful.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Korahs judgement is what it was. It is written right there in scripture. It is still for us to discern when to apply the lesson to future conflicts. If I were CC I would apply it to Protestantism, especially after 1870 with the direct ( no longer implied) infallibility decree.

Read what it was. It was Korah telling Moses that he, and the others, being members of the priesthood of the nation, had just as much authority as Moses. Sound familiar?

Yes, from time to time. But often the judgement is postponed, and the sin continues because of this

Yep. My point exactly.

Again, that is the CC judgement, quite logical from its point of view. However, obviously it is not the only judgement or point of view from within the Body. It is also clear that schism sometimes is the fault of both parties.

Regardless of any proportinate blame, it is clear from scripture that causing a schism, i.e. LEAVING the authoritative body, is sinful. We saw it in the OT when Israel rebelled against Rehoboam (even though much of the “fault” was his); we saw Christ’s command to obey even the evil scribes & Pharisees – because they had the seat of authority.

It should be 100% clear that we are NOT to split from the Church, unless & until a Divine Command changes that authority. Doing so oneself is simply playing God. And sinful.

Agreed, in OT times. Not sure if that applies to factions within the Body.

Hermeneutics of continuity.

Yes, that is the CC interpretation .

It should be rather clear to anyone who studies scripture and salvation history.
You can deny it, but don’t try to pretend to be sola scriptura, prima scriptura, or anything else but contra scriptura.

That divine visit was upon all 12 apostles, then upon 3000 then upon the gentiles (Cornelius).

Sure, but the divine visit caused a shift in authority to the Magisterium in union with St. Peter. Period. None else.

And certainly not a group (or an individual!) that had no spiritual connection with them who came along a millenium and a half later.

As I stated earlier in a post, this divine visit is what illumines, rebirths and puts us into the Body. That is apart from the authority and roles the apostles were given. That is the balance, between this divine visit to the individual and the divine giftings/offices in the Body.

Right. And those OFFICES subsist in the Catholic Church. And nowhere else. By divine ordinance.

Agreed, from your point of view and has been vice versa’d by others way before us.

From an objective point of view as well. Relativism doesn’t apply here.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

The CC interpretation? It is the command from God! Authority has always been an issue with humanity and especially under Protestanism. That is one the biggest weaknesses of Protestanism, there is no “central” authority to resolve issues. Precisely why there exist scores of denominations. Many Protestants will say:

We have an authority: God.

Then why are you not doing what God has commanded? There is a reason why God gave the 12 Apostles full authority. No where does Jesus grant the same authority to the faithful.

:yup:

:yup:

Except I’d call it a minor weakness. Being in opposition to God’s commands is just a weee bit more important!!!

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Yes, that is the CC interpretation . That divine visit was upon all 12 apostles, then upon 3000 then upon the gentiles (Cornelius). As I stated earlier in a post, this divine visit is what illumines, rebirths and puts us into the Body. That is apart from the authority and roles the apostles were given. That is the balance, between this divine visit to the individual and the divine giftings/offices in the Body.

And still, Cornelius didn’t go off on his own and planted his own bible church, .

But what happened?

He was brought to the Church, to Peter!!! Just like Paul was brought to the Church. Paul was sent by the Church - he didn’t go and do things on his own, but with the Church.

That is the consistent message: we are brought to the Church! Not to divide the Church.

 

[benhur]

The CC interpretation? It is the command from God! Authority has always been an issue with humanity and especially under Protestanism. That is one the biggest weaknesses of Protestanism, there is no “central” authority to resolve issues. Precisely why there exist scores of denominations. Many Protestants will say:

We have an authority: God.

Then why are you not doing what God has commanded? There is a reason why God gave the 12 Apostles full authority. No where does Jesus grant the same authority to the faithful.

Yes authority is a problem and Jesus said we would not be like the world and that the least is greatest and is one who serves. Otherwise it is about getting power, keeping and growing it. Even after Peter was told he had the keys other apostles vied for top spot, to sit at His right hand. It seems like the struggle continued right up to the split between east and west, and then the west splitting up with the reformation. The idea that the chair of Peter was above all others is something I say history shows as developing. I am not sure I am going against any of the early councils. As I said earlier, the power of Peter’s chair has grown, and the East shows that it is not necessary. It is not due to church growth. A congregation with it’s elders or even outgoing bishop can not appoint a bishop ? The early church had many challenges as today yet she was not as centralized. Is it by God’s command or is it by the nature of institutions and power ? Is it a combination? The movings and changes are sacred to CC, but not sure you can hold the East and Protestants to these authoritative changes.

 

[Nicea325]

:yup:

:yup:

Except I’d call it a minor weakness. Being in opposition to God’s commands is just a weee bit more important!!!

:tiphat:

 

[joe371]

Agreed. I am not relativistic about truth.Truth is quite absolute. Both are being guided,as thru a glass darkly, and any error from the relationship (HS and reformer) is not due to HS.

At some point it would also be illogical to sense the correctness of a certain doctrine and not follow it. There is a balance between God ordained authority and God given inspiration/revelation. We are all part of a bigger Body and all its functions overseen by the HS, yet we are individually signed, sealed, delivered into that Body by the same HS.

The error is not due to God - agreed! Has God ensured that the truth can be definitively known about the Eucharist i.e. is there a way for a fallible person like me who sees “as thru a glass darkly”, to know with certainty the truth about the Eucharist, in view of the fact that there are opposing beliefs?

 

[joe371]

The CC interpretation? It is the command from God! Authority has always been an issue with humanity and especially under Protestanism. That is one the biggest weaknesses of Protestanism, there is no “central” authority to resolve issues. Precisely why there exist scores of denominations. Many Protestants will say:

We have an authority: God.

Then why are you not doing what God has commanded? There is a reason why God gave the 12 Apostles full authority. No where does Jesus grant the same authority to the faithful.

:yup:

 

[joe371]

Yes authority is a problem and Jesus said we would not be like the world and that the least is greatest and is one who serves. Otherwise it is about getting power, keeping and growing it. Even after Peter was told he had the keys other apostles vied for top spot, to sit at His right hand. It seems like the struggle continued right up to the split between east and west, and then the west splitting up with the reformation. The idea that the chair of Peter was above all others is something I say history shows as developing. I am not sure I am going against any of the early councils. As I said earlier, the power of Peter’s chair has grown, and the East shows that it is not necessary. It is not due to church growth. A congregation with it’s elders or even outgoing bishop can not appoint a bishop ? The early church had many challenges as today yet she was not as centralized. Is it by God’s command or is it by the nature of institutions and power ? Is it a combination? The movings and changes are sacred to CC, but not sure you can hold the East and Protestants to these authoritative changes.

In your opinion, is there any chance that Jesus established His church, sent the Holy Spirit to His fledgling church on Pentecost to guide her, as the bride of Christ, into all truth until His eventual return, so that all generations of Christians could avail themselves of said truth, as opposed to just the generation belonging to the apostolic age?

 

[Nicea325]

Yes authority is a problem and Jesus said we would not be like the world and that the least is greatest and is one who serves. Otherwise it is about getting power, keeping and growing it. Even after Peter was told he had the keys other apostles vied for top spot, to sit at His right hand. It seems like the struggle continued right up to the split between east and west, and then the west splitting up with the reformation. The idea that the chair of Peter was above all others is something I say history shows as developing. I am not sure I am going against any of the early councils. As I said earlier, the power of Peter’s chair has grown, and the East shows that it is not necessary. It is not due to church growth. A congregation with it’s elders or even outgoing bishop can not appoint a bishop ? The early church had many challenges as today yet she was not as centralized. Is it by God’s command or is it by the nature of institutions and power ? Is it a combination? The movings and changes are sacred to CC, but not sure you can hold the East and Protestants to these authoritative changes.

For some odd reason my original reply did not post? As for Peter? The See of Rome developed in terms of functions and duties as any living organism would. However, it is Christ Himself who gave Peter and the other Apostles the full authority. Their authority did not “develop” over time as many Protestants like to believe. This much I do know from my extensive research into church history:

*No where in the Scriptures or the early Christian writings did Christ found His Church resembling the Protestant/fundamentalist model. A loose-knit-care-free church all doing and teaching as they please.
*

Sorry. The NT and early church writings say something much more different.

 

[joe371]

For some my original reply did not post? As for Peter? The See of Rome developed in terms of functions and duties as any living organism would. However, it is Christ Himself who gave Peter and the other Apostles the full authority. Their authority did not “develop” over time as many Protestants like to believe. Thsi much I do know from my extensive research into church history:

*No where in the Scriptures or the early Christian writings did Christ found His Church resembling the Protestant/fundamentalist model. A loose-knit-care-free church all doing and teaching as they please.
*

Sorry. The NT and early church writings say something much more different.

Furthermore, it would have to develop as the Catholic Church enlarged and expanded; ergo the need for a hierarchy as well.

 

[Nicea325]

Furthermore, it would have to develop as the Catholic Church enlarged and expanded; ergo the need for a hierarchy as well.

Precisely! It is not different than the U.S. government of today compared to 1789. Did George Washington and Congress have to deal with the FBI,CIA,DEA,etc,etc?

 

[joe371]

Precisely! It is not different than the U.S. government of today compared to 1789. Did George Washington and Congress have to deal with the FBI,CIA,DEA,etc,etc?

:clapping:

 

[Nicea325]

:clapping:

I simply do not understand why so many cannot “see” the authority assigned to the 12 by Christ himself?