The historicity of the Church

[Isaiah45_9]

I just have to say, great thread.

I’m still only on page 15, but save for a few flare ups, which can be quite expected from behind the wall of tiny light bulbs.

People are doing great.

A special thanks to the Non-Catholics for sticking to it. It’s the dialogue which brings us closer.

This thread is why this site is great.

Indeed! I made a couple of new friends on this thread alone

 

[Nicea325]

All questions I could not answer as a former SS advocate.

Exactly! They cannot be answered by Scripture alone.

 

[Nicea325]

BENHUR, I believe if you read St. Vincent of Lerins “For the Antiquity and Universality of the Catholic Faith Against the Profane Novelties of All Heresies”, it will help you understand what Nicea and Joe 371 are trying to tell you.

A General Rule for distinguishing the Truth of the Catholic Faith from the Falsehood of Heretical Pravity.[4.]

I have often then inquired earnestly and attentively of very many men eminent for sanctity and learning, how and by what sure and so to speak universal rule I may be able to distinguish the truth of Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical pravity; and I have always, and in almost every instance, received an answer to this effect: That whether I or any one else should wish to detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as they rise, and to continue sound and complete in the Catholic faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief in two ways; first, by the authority of the Divine Law, and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church.

[5.] But here some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church’s interpretation? For this reason—because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian, another, Iovinian, Pelagius, Celestius, another, lastly, Nestorius another. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation.

[6.] Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense “Catholic,” which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors.

What is to be done if one or more dissent from the rest.

[7.] What then will a Catholic Christian do, if a small portion of the Church have cut itself off from the communion of the universal faith? What, surely, but prefer the soundness of the whole body to the unsoundness of a pestilent and corrupt member? What, if some novel contagion seek to infect not merely an insignificant portion of the Church, but the whole? Then it will be his care to cleave to antiquity, which at this day cannot possibly be seduced by any fraud of novelty.

[8.] But what, if in antiquity itself there be found error on the part of two or three men, or at any rate of a city or even of a province? Then it will be his care by all means, to prefer the decrees, if such there be, of an ancient General Council to the rashness and ignorance of a few. But what, if some error should spring up on which no such decree is found to bear? Then he must collate and consult and interrogate the opinions of the ancients, of those, namely, who, though living in various times and places, yet continuing in the communion and faith of the one Catholic Church, stand forth acknowledged and approved authorities: and whatsoever he shall ascertain to have been held, written, taught, not by one or two of these only, but by all, equally, with one consent, openly, frequently, persistently, that he must understand that he himself also is to believe without any doubt or hesitation.

newadvent.org/fathers/3506.htm

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

The role of apostolic succession in preserving true doctrine is illustrated in the Bible. To make sure that the apostles’ teachings would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, “What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach.

Joe371,
I would agree that Paul is here passing on to his son( in Christ) and to those he would in turn teach :even “Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel”

Paul’s gospel was indeed no doubt ,raised up again, by the ministry of his son Timothy .(2Tim4:6)

" the time of my departure is at hand" “For I am ready to be offered up”

But in my opinion ,all who God would call ,even after Timothy was gone ,in future generations ,to the same ministry,might rightly be called sons to Paul also :in respect to “my gospel” .
That is that through the written record ,like Timothy ( especially Paul’s letters to Timothy) they also would:

"Study to shew thyself approved unto God,a workman that needeth not to be ashamed,rightly dividing the word of truth"2Timothy 2:15(KJV)

For me ,however,the absence of Paul ( knowing that his departure was at hand) referring to apostolic succession ,in this place is again deafening by its silence ; because in context he no doubt, is dealing with the continuance of the same gospel ,he himself , was sent to preach.
Where then ,is mention of the continuance of that apostleship, from which he preached from?

Was it because he knew that he was part of that (apostleship) foundation laid in his lifetime?

"And the wall of the city had twelve foundations,and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb"Rev21:14

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Is the Papacy not a part of the Historicity of the Church?

Perhaps, but certainly not the strawman Papacy that you’ve put forth.
Phrases such as “infallible monarch bishop” and “endless power nor infallibility” combine truth and falsehood, perhaps the most common form of dishonesty - half-truths.

However, Anglicans don’t claim to have an infallible magisterium.

True. They can’t.
Thus disqualifying themselves as the Church that Jesus promised to protect in all generations.

 

[joe371]

Joe371,
I would agree that Paul is here passing on to his son( in Christ) and to those he would in turn teach :even “Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel”

Paul’s gospel was indeed no doubt ,raised up again, by the ministry of his son Timothy .(2Tim4:6)

" the time of my departure is at hand" “For I am ready to be offered up”

But in my opinion ,all who God would call ,even after Timothy was gone ,in future generations ,to the same ministry,might rightly be called sons to Paul also :in respect to “my gospel” .
That is that through the written record ,like Timothy ( especially Paul’s letters to Timothy) they also would:

"Study to shew thyself approved unto God,a workman that needeth not to be ashamed,rightly dividing the word of truth"2Timothy 2:15(KJV)

For me ,however,the absence of Paul ( knowing that his departure was at hand) referring to apostolic succession ,in this place is again deafening by its silence ; because in context he no doubt, is dealing with the continuance of the same gospel ,he himself , was sent to preach.
Where then ,is mention of the continuance of that apostleship, from which he preached from?

The continence:

Paul told Timothy, what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to all who God would call, even those after your death? :nope:

Paul told Timothy, “What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach.

We see in 1 and 4 Timothy (1 Timothy 1:6 and 4:14) where Paul reminds Timothy that the office of bishop had been conferred on him through the laying on of hands. Notice in 1 Timothy 5:22 that Paul advises Timothy not to be hasty in handing on this authority to others. In Titus Paul describes the apostolic authority Titus had received and urges him to act decisively in this leadership role.

What is deafening, with all respect and humility, is the testimony of the early Catholic Church in its unanimous assertion of apostolic succession.

It all began in Acts 1:21-26, where we see the apostles, immediately after Jesus’ Ascension, acting swiftly to replace the position left vacant by Judas’s death.

 

[benhur]

Actually it is not going around it because you seem to believe,if it is not written in the Bible it is false or an innovation. As I said, the Bible was never written to be explicit on every single matter within the church. Where does the Bible say one must marry inside a church? Wedding rings? Wear a white dress? Have a best man? Etc,etc,etc.

More important, the succession of bishops was written down very early by the church. If you believe it is false,then the church fathers are guilty of inventing a false practice. Likewise, no where does the Bible mention about formulating a canon; and yet, not one Protestant has an issue with it? And who gave us the canon? The church and its bishops-not the Bible. Therefore, Apostolic Succession from Peter does not to be explictly said in the Bible because no where did Jesus teach: It must be in the Bible.

Peace

Again, no problem with succession, even from Peter. Just don’t see Peter’s successors as any different than say Paul’s or John’s.Just not in the ECF’s(much later yes).

 

[benhur]

.
Precisely why Jesus founded His church here on earth to help us and guide us.

Amen. It is a new testament carried on by the Church, the Body of Christ as the nation of Israel carried forth the old testament.

Yes God uses humans as His instruments to pass on the Gospel.

“For God so chose that by the foolishness of preaching that men be saved”.

But how can you embrace SS, if it was never mentioned and let talone aught by Jesus or the 12?

For the same reason you embrace other things that were not taught explicitly by Christ or the twelve-remember “evolving” ? I have not given my full opinion on SS.

What doctrinal matters were blurred by the papacy or any council?

Not sure except what were Luther’s 90 some points of dispute and what was it the Church wanted him to rescind on ? Was it really just indulgences ? On what points did he digress that led to his excommunication ? If there were no errors or "blurring’ why was there a counter reformation, or what was “reformed” ? Was there any scriptural foundation, rationale for any counter reformation?

Here is where you have been duped into believing a man-made practice called SS.

I have stated it is man made terminology but in context of other man made policies and practices of the time.

SS advocates seem to believe the church came after the Bible and therefore is a captive of Scripture or subordinate to it. That is not what Jesus, Scripture and early church taught and believed.

By that logic we must be careful with any council authority even any head bishop authority or any practice not done right away or during the church’s first decade. It is like the Jews saying to Moses, “we don’t place to much authority in Holy Writ for Abraham and Isaac and even our deliverance took place way before such written guidance”.

Your argument is in error. Again, where did Jesus teach: It must be Biblically founded?

You want to go on record as as saying authoritative reasoning (binding dogma /doctrine) does not have to be biblically founded today?

Did Jesus write a Bible as “the” authority or did He found His church with His authority granted to her?

Wrong juxtaposing. It is not bible authority vs church authority

My Bible says something contrary to what you are proclaiming.

See, we are both using biblically founded critiques.

Again…when did Jesus declare: Scripture is the FINAL authority

And where did He say anything unbiblical is authoritative ?

and must be in the Bible?

Did Jesus reason from anything better ? Was the Nation of israel and it’s authority better ? Was the Sanhedrin better ? Was the king or high priest better ?

Where is SS ever mentioned or taught by anyone in the NT church?

As you frame the question it’s not there, just as councilarism or papalism is not.

 

[benhur]

So you are saying:

Yes, the truth about the Eucharist is knowable in spite of the fact that there are at least 3 different and opposing beliefs about it?

No, the truth about the Eucharist is not knowable?

The Eucharist is either a symbolic meal or it truly becomes Jesus’ body and blood. It cannot be both - agreed?

Is it definitively knowable? If so then how?

I believe I stated all things are knowable (your term), that is having proper interpretation, having God’s mind on the matter is possible as He so graces us. Eucharistic thoughts apply to the above. We have stated and agreed that divine illumination on the matter is needed. We also agree truth is not relativistic but absolute. We have even agreed that we will know even better when we see Him face to face. For our purposes down here yes, symbolism only and transubstantiation are the two ends of the spectrum. I think we agreed that by faith we "know’’. We even agree that God uses the church, and I say even councils and pastors and teachers and scriptures to help mold the truth . For sure it is His hand that molds all things ((name removed by moderator)uts) in our minds and hearts, the inner man.

 

[benhur]

The most accurate?

Trying to be truthfully humble here.Trying to be balanced with truth and wisdom on the matter. Also recognizing my limitations to perfectly knowing as compared to how I will know then, in heaven. Perhaps I want to be less dogmatic for unity sake or belonging sake (or a weakness) and am weary or cautious of vain disputations. Perhaps…You are making me think but don’t want to be legalistic. I really believe some in heaven were not baptized as many were . Yes I want to be absolute but not pidgeoned holed

Bread and wine remain bread and wine, or they transform completely into Jesus’ body and blood. One notion is completely wrong while the other is completely right, just as 2 + 2 = 4 is not a more accurate answer than 2 + 2 = 5. However, if you are more comfortable with the relative notion of revealed truth, that’s cool.

i know what you mean, and i agree with eucharistic spectrum. Again truth and wisdom. For instance sometimes 1+1 = 3 in a real spiritual /physical union between man and wife with child.

 

[benhur]

Y

Agreed. However, when it comes to resolving doctrinal disputes, God is not guiding my sister, me, you, the Baptist church, the Lutheran church and the Catholic church, for we, and they, all teach something different when it comes to certain doctrines. I think what it comes down to is: you do not believe that the Holy Spirit was sent to guide just one church into all truth, so that truth could be properly preserved when other folks decide to start their own churches and teach something different?

 

[joe371]

I believe I stated all things are knowable (your term), that is having proper interpretation, having God’s mind on the matter is possible as He so graces us. Eucharistic thoughts apply to the above. We have stated and agreed that divine illumination on the matter is needed. We also agree truth is not relativistic but absolute. We have even agreed that we will know even better when we see Him face to face. For our purposes down here yes, symbolism only and transubstantiation are the two ends of the spectrum. I think we agreed that by faith we "know’’. We even agree that God uses the church, and I say even councils and pastors and teachers and scriptures to help mold the truth . For sure it is His hand that molds all things ((name removed by moderator)uts) in our minds and hearts, the inner man.

Truth is not relative. OK. Have all churches, or people that believe that the Eucharist, for example, is symbolic only - received divine illumination on the matter?

 

[joe371]

Trying to be truthfully humble here.Trying to be balanced with truth and wisdom on the matter. Also recognizing my limitations to perfectly knowing as compared to how I will know then, in heaven. Perhaps I want to be less dogmatic for unity sake or belonging sake (or a weakness) and am weary or cautious of vain disputations. Perhaps…You are making me think but don’t want to be legalistic. I really believe some in heaven were not baptized as many were . Yes I want to be absolute but not pidgeoned holed i know what you mean, and i agree with eucharistic spectrum. Again truth and wisdom. For instance sometimes 1+1 = 3 in a real spiritual /physical union between man and wife with child.

 

[joe371]

joe371;11906782:

Y
Well…just because we have differing views does not mean God is not guiding outside your paradigm (of only one church being guided) . Somewhere in the mix the truth exists. Should we be trying to justify our church that way ? Jesus had no problem with differences in Judaism to doubt it’s overall mission, or justifying one over the other.

CCC 817 agrees with you. Truth is found outside the CC. You believe that somewhere in the mix, truth continues to exists, again somewhere. That’s cool. I have faith the truth has been preserved in the Catholic church for good reasons, but I digress.

 

[joe371]

benhur;11907948]Amen. It is a new testament carried on by the Church, the Body of Christ as the nation of Israel carried forth the old testament.

Do you mean one church or the fractured body of Christ consisting of many many autonomous churches in the world today. It has always confused me when people refer to “the church” as if there is only one church within Christendom, that’s all…

 

[joe371]

benhur See, we are both using biblically founded critiques.

That’s the point. You both see the bible differently, in certain cases, and come away from it with a different understanding, which is why a higher authority is required to settle those differences, namely God via His church.

And where did He say anything unbiblical is authoritative ? Did Jesus reason from anything better ? Was the Nation of israel and it’s authority better ? Was the Sanhedrin better ? Was the king or high priest better ? As you frame the question it’s not there, just as councilarism or papalism is not.

Something Jesus said that was unbiblical i.e. not found in the Old Testament: In Matthew 23:2 Jesus relies on the oral tradition of acknowledging Moses’ seat of authority, which passed from Moses to Joshua to the Sanhedrin."

He also taught that we must eat his flesh and drink his blood, two things not found in the Old Testament.

Jesus had something better than scripture aka the old testament (without excluding scripture): His new covenant teachings, which were passed on to His apostles.

 

[ffg]

Again, no problem with succession, even from Peter. Just don’t see Peter’s successors as any different than say Paul’s or John’s.Just not in the ECF’s(much later yes).

This is a part that I find interesting.

20+ years ago when my dad gave me keys to the car, what he didn’t do is say ‘now since you and your close friends are all the same age and starting to drive, share the keys, they are really for all of you’.

He did say, if you take care of the car, your son might get the keys.

Now obviously, in Jesus’ case, the Church he started will not end as He mentions.

Therefore, it is guaranteed the keys will be passed on. You can only have 1 driver.

 

[Nicea325]

Again, no problem with succession, even from Peter. Just don’t see Peter’s successors as any different than say Paul’s or John’s.Just not in the ECF’s(much later yes).

Oh but there is a difference. Did any of Paul’s successors receive the keys directly from Jesus? Do the ECF all successors of Paul or John received keys?

 

[Nicea325]

Amen. It is a new testament carried on by the Church, the Body of Christ as the nation of Israel carried forth the old testament.
“For God so chose that by the foolishness of preaching that men be saved”.
For the same reason you embrace other things that were not taught explicitly by Christ or the twelve-remember “evolving” ? I have not given my full opinion on SS. Not sure except what were Luther’s 90 some points of dispute and what was it the Church wanted him to rescind on ? Was it really just indulgences ? On what points did he digress that led to his excommunication ? If there were no errors or "blurring’ why was there a counter reformation, or what was “reformed” ? Was there any scriptural foundation, rationale for any counter reformation?
I have stated it is man made terminology but in context of other man made policies and practices of the time. By that logic we must be careful with any council authority even any head bishop authority or any practice not done right away or during the church’s first decade. It is like the Jews saying to Moses, “we don’t place to much authority in Holy Writ for Abraham and Isaac and even our deliverance took place way before such written guidance”.
You want to go on record as as saying authoritative reasoning (binding dogma /doctrine) does not have to be biblically founded today? Wrong juxtaposing. It is not bible authority vs church authority See, we are both using biblically founded critiques.
And where did He say anything unbiblical is authoritative ? Did Jesus reason from anything better ? Was the Nation of israel and it’s authority better ? Was the Sanhedrin better ? Was the king or high priest better ? As you frame the question it’s not there, just as councilarism or papalism is not.

For some reason, my posts are not posting. I’ll answer a few questions, the ones highlighted…

If SS is not considered a non-biblical authority, then why it is not taught or mentioned? Apparently you would not follow an non-Biblical practice or would you? Again…where is SS mentioned or taught by Jesus or the 12?

So Peter and others needed NT writings to defend the Incarnation? If they didn’t use the Bible it would automatically make it void?

 

[joe371]

Oh but there is a difference. Did any of Paul’s successors receive the keys directly from Jesus? Do the ECF all successors of Paul or John received keys?

No mention of anyone other than Peter, receiving the keys, in scripture or in church history.