The historicity of the Church

[joe371]

Thank you . Hey I went to an old Catholic church today right by my brothers house with my 18 month old grandson. I saw the doors were open and they have stations of the cross on their walls (it is Good Friday) which I wanted to show him. A couple of people were inside preparing for night service. One was an older gentleman in street clothes .Turns out he is the priest , with his wife . He is a converted baptist/Anglican who became a Catholic priest under the Catholic/Anglican agreement that I have heard about . I said you are like a Cardinal Newman. He laughed and I suggested he should be more like CS Lewis. One of the helpers said if he were alive today he would be Catholic. I asked has the church changed that much (in 60 years ?). Anyways we had interesting 20 minute chat, much like we do here. How can you not like an Irish Priest ?

That’s cool.

 

[benhur]

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…

The OT may help. They were fractured, had differing factions, sects, yet they were all sons of Abraham. If there are different churches then, are there different Bodies of Christ ? Is there more than one Bride ? The CC gets around this by saying all churches are really from one, Herself. OK. I view that as a Jewish sect, say the Scribes, were to say all other sects really derived from them.

 

[benhur]

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.

Yes but which church ? To an outsider he has many to choose from today. Historicity is important topic then. Infallibility is another important factor.

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.

We misunderstand. You asked where did Jesus use scripture as final authority. I then asked where did he say anything unbiblical was authoritative. I did not mean something not in the bible, I meant something contrary to what had been written in the bible (eg, God made world in 10 days). I did not mean extra biblical but unbiblical. For instance that the pharisees eventually had “authority” might be extra biblical but not unbiblical for the Law, Moses seat carried authority, which the Pharissees claimed to convey. The eucharist/communion is somewhat extrabiblical to OT but it is certainly not “unbiblical”, for it is foreshadowed, prophesied even…Jesus did use scripture at times as final authority when he didn’t have to (He was God) but the Son of Man used it to defeat the enemy in the desert temptations.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Yes but which church ? To an outsider he has many to choose from today. Historicity is important topic then. Infallibility is another important factor.

We misunderstand. You asked where did Jesus use scripture as final authority. I then asked where did he say anything unbiblical was authoritative. I did not mean something not in the bible, I meant something contrary to what had been written in the bible (eg, God made world in 10 days). I did not mean extra biblical but unbiblical. For instance that the pharisees eventually had “authority” might be extra biblical but not unbiblical for the Law, Moses seat carried authority, which the Pharissees claimed to convey. The eucharist/communion is somewhat extrabiblical to OT but it is certainly not “unbiblical”, for it is foreshadowed, prophesied even…Jesus did use scripture at times as final authority when he didn’t have to (He was God) but the Son of Man used it to defeat the enemy in the desert temptations.

ben,

Scripture is only final in its authority when it comes from the interpretation of the Church. Not the individual. Not Alone. And still, it is not the Scripture that is final but the voice of the Church in regards to the Scripture. It is clear that when the Church speak and uses Scriptures, the authority comes from Christ through both. The problems is that every denomination thinks themselves an authority. Even when they don’t follow the model of succession and ordination that those very same Scriptures espouse.

That’s what the Historical Church practices as it was handed down from the Apostles and deposited by Christ and the Holy Spirit.

Peace,

 

[benhur]

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

Nice analogy but… Again, little evidence that those St. Peter ordained were to be leaders over those St. John ordained. All were told to take care of the car (the gospel) and to pass it on. Yes 1 driver, as Christ is shown holding the keys in Revelations and as some dubbed the Holy Spirit as the Vicar of Christ. Not denying St. Peter indeed had keys and indeed used them first before the other apostles did, and indeed he was a leader… Just don’t see it as a "hereditary " monarchy (that is leadership from the choosing, touching of or from St. Peter, that is coming from those he personally laid hands on). And if so, why did not that continue ?

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

Not sure what you mean here.

 

[benhur]

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?

Well, did any of St. Peter’s successors receive keys directly from Jesus ?

 

[benhur]

[My friend,but the papacy is an office,which is mentioned.

yes, per CC interpretation. Even at that I said paplism, which includes many more things today than what is explicit in first church.

As for councils? You mean the Council of Jerusalem in the Acts of the Apostles does not count?

[/QUOTE]

 

[benhur]

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?

Show me where any authority is above Holy Writ, or that the authority is not constrained, channeled, to be in line with, God’s intended meaning of His written Word ? Even Christ was subject to His own Word (and you can’t get any more of an authoritative position, office, person than that).

 

[benhur]

If councils are not there as you mention, then I am curious to know, if you have any rejections to all doctrines defined and defended at ecumenical councils?

Again, councils were there, and I agree with many of the first ones, but not all as you do not either (one called by the east ,by the emperor forget the name).

Has it occurred to you as to why they were convened? I thought SS resolves all doctrinal matters?

They were convened to unify .They did not do that, just as scripture did not do that, just as any papal declaration did not do that. Truth always divides, whether you use scripture, a council, a decree. I do not justify authority by it’s unifying strengths. Truth stands by itself if necessary, though Truth wishes we be one under Him. … I would say every council, every papal decree, every scriptural interpretation strives to be unified with God and his intended meaning of Writ.

 

[benhur]

Let me approach it from a different angle: does the Catholic Church in your opinion, possess the correct interpretation about the Eucharist, via divine illumination and grace?

I think you know my answer but let me ask this how many rules, and dictates, practices does the CC have today dealing with communion/Eucharist ? That is, in preparing it, administering Him, receiving Him, in storing Him, in reverencing the consecrated elements plus any cleanup rules, how many written procedures are there ? That is what you are asking an opinion on for it reveals, embodies the interpretation.

 

[benhur]

Scripture is only final in its authority when it comes from the interpretation of the Church.

I would add only if it is the correct interpretation. She is the pillar of truth, and any temporoary falsehoods are not authoritative from her.

Not the individual. Not Alone.

An individual remains so even when in an office or as part of the Body, and is never alone when In Christ. It is the same argument used by politicians who say they are Christian or Catholic but when they take the oath of office they leave their faith at the door. We both disagree with that, so the reverse is true. Personal divine illumination doesn’t begin with an office.

It is clear that when the Church speak and uses Scriptures, the authority comes from Christ through both.

Yes, the Church (presbyters/bishops, teachers, prophets, lay people, writings, tracts, services, etc.) has authority when they make correct Scriptural pronouncements.

The problems is that every denomination thinks themselves an authority.

That is one end of the spectrum and a problem, as is the other end, when only ones own church is the right church.

Even when they don’t follow the model of succession and ordination that those very same Scriptures espouse.

Again a certain truth to that and a need for proper succession, yet it can be contrived for justification by some. I know of a few churches, as you might also, that have poor succession but are right on otherwise and some have good justification and "lineage’ but are poor examples of a church /congregation/parish.

Peace

 

[benhur]

Indeed. I completely agree. One church. One mission.

Although one could certainly argue that because the organization of the church is recorded in scripture you’d think omitting the rules and conditions for the papacy is a glaring omission. It’s not so much that instructions on the papacy are missing, but that instructions on so much else are present.

Hi and welcome and missing your southern california. Well put . Don’t go beyond the light he has given us. It may not be good if we have to much time on our hands to be theologians. Never recall a busy missionary coming up with bad doctrine…Blessings

 

[benhur]

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.

An example of leadership ,as St. Peter took the initiative (even citing scripture i think). Yet a bad example by drawing lots ? And have we ever heard of the one picked again ? Is he one of the twelve foundations spoken of in Revelations ? Many think it is St. Paul who replaced Judas. Don’t think the church is dogmatic on this. I say not a great start for the apostles, nor Peter but it was before Pentecost I think.

 

[spina1953]

Yes but which church ? To an outsider he has many to choose from today. Historicity is important topic then. Infallibility is another important factor.

We misunderstand. You asked where did Jesus use scripture as final authority. I then asked where did he say anything unbiblical was authoritative. I did not mean something not in the bible, I meant something contrary to what had been written in the bible (eg, God made world in 10 days). I did not mean extra biblical but unbiblical. For instance that the pharisees eventually had “authority” might be extra biblical but not unbiblical for the Law, Moses seat carried authority, which the Pharissees claimed to convey. The eucharist/communion is somewhat extrabiblical to OT but it is certainly not “unbiblical”, for it is foreshadowed, prophesied even…Jesus did use scripture at times as final authority when he didn’t have to (He was God) but the Son of Man used it to defeat the enemy in the desert temptations.

I would like to sat something about your wanting if I understand you correctly, something contrary to what had been written in the Bible. In OT, Exodus 21:24 it says an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, however Jesus said in Matthew 5:38-40 , “You have heard the commandment, ‘An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.’ But what I say to you is: offer no resistance to injury. When a person trikes you on the right cheek, turn and offer him the other.” Since Jesus in Mtt.5:38-40 is saying something quite different (contrary) than what has been written in the OT Exodus 21:24 Does this mean that what Jesus said takes the place of the old ;aw of Exodus 21:24? It would seems so as one can’t do both but one or the other.

 

[benhur]

I would like to sat something about your wanting if I understand you correctly, something contrary to what had been written in the Bible. In OT, Exodus 21:24 it says an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, however Jesus said in Matthew 5:38-40 , “You have heard the commandment, ‘An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.’ But what I say to you is: offer no resistance to injury. When a person trikes you on the right cheek, turn and offer him the other.” Since Jesus in Mtt.5:38-40 is saying something quite different (contrary) than what has been written in the OT Exodus 21:24 Does this mean that what Jesus said takes the place of the old ;aw of Exodus 21:24? It would seems so as one can’t do both but one or the other.

The NT doesn’t doesn’t make the OT unbiblical. An eye for eye is the Law .Yet that God delights in mercy is part of the OT as well as New. The woman caught in adultery should have been stoned and it would have been biblical, just that so is forgiveness and mercy, as was granted her by Jesus. Any of the actions were biblically authoritative eye for eye or turn the other cheek. Again truth and wisdom and the intent of His Word are part of proper interpretation.

 

[spina1953]

The NT doesn’t doesn’t make the OT unbiblical. An eye for eye is the Law .Yet that God delights in mercy is part of the OT as well as New. The woman caught in adultery should have been stoned and it would have been biblical, just that so is forgiveness and mercy, as was granted her by Jesus. Any of the actions were biblically authoritative eye for eye or turn the other cheek. Again truth and wisdom and the intent of His Word are part of proper interpretation.

I was not looking for anything that was unbiblical but contrary between what the OT says and what the NT says. I can think of plenty of things that are contrary between the OT and the NT. There is many things that in the OT we are to do but in the NT we do not do them at all even though both are biblical.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I would add only if it is the correct interpretation.

And we come full circle…

And who determines the correct interpretation? How have disputes been corrected throughout Church history in this regard?

She is the pillar of truth, and any temporoary falsehoods are not authoritative from her.

Not only a pillar but a bulwark as well. The fullness of truth is found in Her, because it is Christ’s. No need to add qualifiers.

An individual remains so even when in an office or as part of the Body, and is never alone when In Christ. It is the same argument used by politicians who say they are Christian or Catholic but when they take the oath of office they leave their faith at the door. We both disagree with that, so the reverse is true. Personal divine illumination doesn’t begin with an office.

The individual is brought to a life in Christ, which is found in the Body of Christ. The individual becomes part of something much bigger than himself. I frankly don’t care about politicians and what they say or don’t say about their faith. I care in how they become a part or not of the body of Christ. Again, there is no need for qualifiers or dis-qualifiers for that matter.

Yes, the Church (presbyters/bishops, teachers, prophets, lay people, writings, tracts, services, etc.) has authority when they make correct Scriptural pronouncements.

And how many times do we need to disagree and rebel and separate and further divide the body of Christ? I mean, who are we going to learn from? (From the Holy Spirit, like thousands and thousands of dissenters and heretics claim…) Are we ever going to admit we might be wrong?



Things started to change for me the moment I realized that I was wrong in some of my assumptions and beliefs. Once I was humble enough and understood that Christ left us with something to guide us, being the Church, and not something left for each individual interpretation things started to fall into place.

That is one end of the spectrum and a problem, as is the other end, when only ones own church is the right church. Again a certain truth to that and a need for proper succession, yet it can be contrived for justification by some. I know of a few churches, as you might also, that have poor succession but are right on otherwise and some have good justification and "lineage’ but are poor examples of a church /congregation/parish.

But what are we left with then? Church relativism? Or is there something bigger than ourselves?

Peace

And to you as well.

 

[benhur]

I was not looking for anything that was unbiblical but contrary between what the OT says and what the NT says. I can think of plenty of things that are contrary between the OT and the NT. There is many things that in the OT we are to do but in the NT we do not do them at all even though both are biblical.

Yes, have to think about it as it is a different angle you are bringing up. Of course there is a nt for a reason and i believe the old has been fullfilled and left behind us.

 

[benhur]

And who determines the correct interpretation? How have disputes been corrected throughout Church history in this regard?

Not sure"corrected’’ is the term, more like addressed. I am thinking of Jerusalem council and the proof being in the pudding. Where specifically did God say not to circumcise ? The proof was that God gave the gift of the Holy Spirit to Gentiles exactly as He did to the apostles and the Jews, before any ritual /rite. They could have very easily said then be baptized and circumcised and we would all probably do it. I guess the council decided keep the main thing the main thing, and don’t push to much with ritual or doctrine (Christ did say baptize, and did not mention circumcise though it was still ok to be Jewish, even become Jewish as a Christian.) So I apply that to the Orthodox and say the proof is in them, that the head bishop/pope controversy is not the main thing, and not necessary to be dogmatic on it. They have not fallen apart and remain being fruitful to the Body. That is why I said succession shouldn’t be so dogmatic but rather to be fruitful or as I said to be a “right on” congregation. (To be like the first Gentiles, filled with the Holy Spirit and in the Body as first class citizens.)

Not only a pillar but a bulwark as well. The fullness of truth is found in Her, because it is Christ’s. No need to add qualifiers.

Well maybe. Infallibility for one branch is a “qualifier”.

The individual is brought to a life in Christ, which is found in the Body of Christ. The individual becomes part of something much bigger than himself. I frankly don’t care about politicians and what they say or don’t say about their faith. I care in how they become a part or not of the body of Christ. Again, there is no need for qualifiers or dis-qualifiers for that matter

Agreed, but I feel some qualify the offices too much or disqualify the lay priesthood too much.

And how many times do we need to disagree and rebel and separate and further divide the body of Christ? I mean, who are we going to learn from? (From the Holy Spirit, like thousands and thousands of dissenters and heretics claim…) Are we ever going to admit we might be wrong?

One can certainly focus on the cup being half empty. The half full to some is perfect . As has been suggested here there may be two or three views on the Eucharist (not 40,000). CS Lewis wrote a beautiful article on the unity there really is amongst us all in what we hold in common over communion. Again, the proof is in the pudding of the participants and the positive effectualness for all three views…As far as people splitting, there is a time and place for it and you just let them go. I also know you alienate others by trying to unify in the wrong way. I recall the Easter controversy early in the church. Is that something to fight over , as to just when to celebrate it, especially when the tradition for some was apostolic…I tell you it is far more spiritually challenging and rewarding to be unified with a brother that is not exactly like you in dogamtic makeup. There are times to bite our tongue. Yet which church has the biggest catechism, the biggest set of binding rules and dogmas and doctrine and “Confessions” ? Like biting the tongue the question of admitting wrong can help. How does infallibility help ? How does it help to say only one is right from beginning to end ? There has been some CC movement in binding together and recognizing the good pudding that is in other churches yet we are second class and are in eternal danger if we knowingly reject all Catholic dogma. Hopefully on our end we give honor to where it is due and recognize some of the good of our (your) long history.

Things started to change for me the moment I realized that I was wrong in some of my assumptions and beliefs. Once I was humble enough and understood that Christ left us with something to guide us, being the Church, and not something left for each individual interpretation things started to fall into place.

I have only had one crisis where I realized I was wrong, totally wrong and greatly humbled. I was in danger of hellfire, of remaining in my sins yet was gloriously saved by Christ thru His illumination, thru the "preacher’’, thru the Word, thru the Body, thru a church, thru the church. Thankfully I have not had a crisis as to which definition of church is true. I would not have you kick against that which has and is saving you. The proof is in the pudding.
Don’t want to dogmatize any more than I have to. I was "broken’’ just to get here, don’t mind being “broken” to remain (yet forgive me for i can be guilty of all things, as your perfect cartoon suggests-thank you)

But what are we left with then? Church relativism? Or is there something bigger than ourselves?

OK. Just don’t make it to bigger than it has to be. May you or me always be more important than being right about something that neither puts you in or out of the "pudding’’…Hey, He is Risen…Blessings on tomorrow.

 

[joe371]

I think you know my answer but let me ask this how many rules, and dictates, practices does the CC have today dealing with communion/Eucharist ? That is, in preparing it, administering Him, receiving Him, in storing Him, in reverencing the consecrated elements plus any cleanup rules, how many written procedures are there ? That is what you are asking an opinion on for it reveals, embodies the interpretation.

Let’s be fair; I asked my question first: Let me approach it from a different angle: does the Catholic Church in your opinion, possess the correct interpretation about the Eucharist, via divine illumination and grace?