To live by faith

[Lief_Erikson]

Hi Benedictus2,

I really enjoy your posts!

However, in this post you write:

“The Magisterium is the teaching office of the Church and so determines which ideas or doctrines truly reflect God’s will.”

You are doing here what Lief does on this particular issue, viz: you are ASSUMING the propriety of the so-called MAGISTERIUM without any proof or evidence.

I ask, politely - where is the word MAGISTERIUM found in the Bible?

You NEED to project this idea and concept into your reasonings to justify and support a theory. In my opinion, the Bible knows of no such thing.

Can you supply me with any hard proof?

God bless, In Christ Craig

You’re misunderstanding me some, Craig, I think. I’m not assuming the propriety of the Magesterium. There is a ton of evidence for its propriety from Scripture, the Early Church Fathers and reason. I’ve been hesitating to discuss that with you partly because I wanted to first show you that Sola Scriptura is not in the Bible, so that you would be more open to other new ideas, and partly because we’re already discussing Sacred Tradition in Scripture. We’re actively discussing something like seven or eight verses right now that I believe are describing Sacred Tradition. If my interpretation is correct, this blows some very wide holes in Sola Scriptura. That would destroy your main objections to the Magesterium all by itself. I think this talk we’re having about Sacred Tradition is a critically important discussion for us to have, at least for a little while longer before we get into the Magesterium references.

I want us to do justice to the Sacred Tradition references before we move on.

That doesn’t mean there isn’t scriptural evidence for the Magesterium. In fact, there are several explicit references to its authority.

And regarding your charge that the word “Magesterium” is not in the Scripture, I’d like to just refer you to Rawb’s answer (the same kind of answer as I gave you in our emails). The word “Trinity” is also not in the Bible, though the concept is. Neither is the word “Bible” for that matter! The word “Bible” is not in the Bible! Even though the idea of it can be seen in various passages. This is the same with the Magesterium. The word “Magesterium,” isn’t there, but the concept most definitely is.

 

[benedictus2]

“The Magisterium is the teaching office of the Church and so determines which ideas or doctrines truly reflect God’s will.”

You are doing here what Lief does on this particular issue, viz: you are ASSUMING the propriety of the so-called MAGISTERIUM without any proof or evidence.

I ask, politely - where is the word MAGISTERIUM found in the Bible?

You NEED to project this idea and concept into your reasonings to justify and support a theory. In my opinion, the Bible knows of no such thing.

Can you supply me with any hard proof?

God bless, In Christ Craig

You’re right, the word magisterium is not in the Bible. But when you come to think of it neither is the word Trinity.

Magisterium (which is Latin for the office of a teacher or other person in authority) is the teaching office of the church comprised of the Pope and the bishops. In Luke 10:16, Christ says “He who hears you, hears me; he who rejects you rejects me, he who rejects me, rejects Him who sent me”.

Because we believe that Christ’s promises cannot fail, so also we believe that the teaching office of His Church cannot fail. To say that Christ’s church has taught error would be tantamount to saying that Christ lied or that He was incapable of fulfilling His promise.

This also derives first of all from His promise that the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church that He built upon Peter. Also in John 16:13 he promised that He will send the Holy Spirit to guide it into all truth.

I am not sure how many times Christ mentioned the devil but in John 8:44 he characterizes Him as the father of lies. So if the Church has taught anything contrary to Truth, then the gates of hell has prevailed and therefore Christ failed in his promise.

I think these passages were caused to be written so that we can have an assurance, for without this assurance, nothing, not even the Bible can we hold to be true.

This is why I think the main bone of contention between Protestant and Catholics is not really purgatory, Marian dogmas or Transubstantiatin but rather the magisterium or put another way, infallibility.

Because once one concedes that the magisterium has the guidance of the Holy Spirit (as Christ promised) when it makes pronouncements on faith and morals, it therefore follows that its pronouncements are true.

And that is why I made the Bible as an example. The only way we can be certain that the Bible is in-errantly the Word of God is if we accept that those who decided on the cannon of the Bible is infallible, because to affirm otherwise would be to cast a doubt on the canon of the Bible. We would then start wondering if maybe the Gospel according to XYZ should have been included and Matthew deleted, and so forth.

I suppose you could liken it to someone who while not a pathological liar is known to have a lied a few times. If such a person were to make a declaration, you cannot say for sure if it is true because of the fact that he has lied before. The only way to be sure that what someone has said is true is if it is known that he has always told the truth.

And so we are back to Christ’s promises. Either we can take him at his word or we can’t.

In the darkest days of the church when we had scoundrels for Popes and bishops, this promise of Christ nevertheless remained. These Popes and others in the hierarchy of the church were too busy being scoundrels they never taught. So the Holy Spirit did not only guide them when they taught, it also shut them up to prevent them from teaching error.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Great post, Benedictus.

I guess I might as well now add some of the really explicit verses that support the Magesterium, in addition to those you brought up. Rather than dallying any longer.

So this is for Craig. First, some references to the authority of the Church over believers:
1 Peter 5:1-5:

Now as an elder myself and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as one who shares in the glory to be revealed, I exhort the elders among you to tend the flock of God that is in your charge, exercising the oversight, not under compulsion but willingly, as God would have you do it --not for sordid gain but eagerly. Do not lord it over those in your charge, but be examples to the flock. And when the chief shepherd appears, you will win the crown of glory that never fades away. In the same way, you who are younger must accept the authority of the elders. And all of you must clothe yourselves with humility in your dealings with one another, for “God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble.”

In the Sola Scriptura model, everyone interprets doctrine for themselves. This verse, however, says that everyone must accept the authority of the ecclesiastical hierarchy.

Another similar verse is Hebrews 13:17:

Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls and will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with sighing – for that would be harmful to you.

Here, we read that the ecclesiastical hierarchy is watchingt over the souls of those under their charge. In the Sola Scriptura model, everyone is responsible for interpreting doctrine for him or herself, so no ecclesiastical hierarchy has the authority to be in a position of giving account for the souls of other people.

Another significant reference is Acts 1:20, in which Peter oversees the “bishopric” of Judas being handed on to another, and then this person, Matthias, was “added to the eleven apostles” (v. 26). It also says in verse 25 that Matthias received, “the place in this ministry and apostleship fom which Judas turned aside.” This shows that the apostolic authority of the disciples was handed on to successors and did not remain restricted to the original 12.

So we have a scriptural united Church which had an ecclesiastical hierarchy watching over the “souls” of believers. Those believers were required to “submit” to that hierarchy and “obey” it, in the words of the Scripture. Saint Paul refers to the apostles as “servants of Christ and stewards of God’s mysteries” (1 Cor. 4:2).

Whoever adheres to Sola Scriptura and comes up with his own doctrines therefore breaks with the scriptural model of submitting to these spiritual authorities. They break with the “stewards of God’s mysteries,” a special role Paul doesn’t say belongs to every individual member of the Church, but instead says belongs to the apostles.

Jesus also prayed for that same Church, “Holy Father, protect them in your name that you have given me, so that they may be one, as we are one” (John 17:11). In Protestantism, there is no unity. So if Jesus’ prayer was answered by God in the affirmative (and who but an unbeliever would say the prayer of the Son of God went unheeded?), Catholicism has to be true. Similarly, Saint Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 1:10, “Now I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you be in agreement and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same purpose.” If Sola Scriptura is a true doctrine, Saint Paul’s words became useless to the Church immediately, because the Church followed false doctrines in some cases (like the Magesterium), and a believer who is more faithful to the teachings of Christ would have denied such a doctrine. Therefore Saint Paul’s teaching that people should not divide would have become void from the instant the Church was formed.

More important still is simply the fact that Jesus prayed that the Church be one, and if you’re right about Sola Scriptura, His prayer was not answered.

Now, with that important groundwork about the authority of the ecclesiastical hierarchy laid, I will move on to explicit passages in Scripture that describe the infallibility and authority of the Magesterium.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

1 Timothy 3:15:

The household of God . . . is the Church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Note the word choice! “Pillar,” and “foundation!” The pillar is that on which things are built, the bedrock upon which other structures are based. The word “foundation” goes even further, for there is no part of a house that is deeper than the foundation. Amen!

Christians, members of the Church, wrote the Scripture! Therefore the Scripture comes from the Church and as such is supported on the “pillar.” Similarly, the canon of Scripture was selected by the Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and thus again the Scripture, which is truth, is based upon the “foundation,” rather than being what Protestants believe it is, the “foundation” itself, from which everything else springs. No verse of Scripture refers to the Scripture as the “foundation of truth.” It says the Church is the foundation. In the same way, the Scripture is interpreted by the Church, which again makes the Church, in Catholic teaching, “the foundation,” for Scripture verses interpreted by individuals can be believed to mean a hundred different things. God, however, is One, and His truth is eternal.

Furthermore, if the Church is the foundation of truth (and the word “foundation” removes the possibility of anything else coming before it), it cannot be in error. The foundation of the truth of God cannot be riven with error, or it is not the foundation of truth.

Historically, we know that the Catholic Church is the Church Christ founded. St. Ignatius, a disciple of John, described it in the 1st century as the “Catholic Church,” a word of which a variety is even used in first or second Thessalonians. It was Christ’s Church from the beginning, so all the references to the authority of the ecclesiastical hierarchy and the authority of their successors, and Jesus’ prayer for unity, and most importantly, Saint Paul’s claim that the Church of the living God is the “pillar and foundation of the truth,” belong to and are fulfilled in it. That’s a matter of history. There is no point where the apostolic succession of the Church described in Acts 1 was broken, up to the Reformation, where people decided to place themselves as the authorities rather than those Saint Paul told people to submit to.

Now, let’s talk about Acts chapter 15. This chapter is critically important because in it, we can see the Magesterium in action! This is the first assembly of the Magesterium, the first of the great Christian councils, and in it, both its authority over the whole Church and its infallibility in the Holy Spirit are explicitly described.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Continued from a series of my posts on the previous page . . .

To begin:
Acts 15:2:

And after Paul and Barnabas had no small discussion and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to discuss this question with the apostles and elders . . . When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the Church and the apostles and the elders, and they reported all that God had done with them . . ." The apostles and the elders met together to consider this matter.

Here we see explicitly from Scripture the leaders of the Church, the apostles and elders, the top of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, assembling to discuss the matter of the conversion of the Gentiles and whether or not they must be circumcised. This is exactly what the Church has done ever since then when an important issue comes up, a matter of faith needing to be clarified. The top of the ecclesiastical hierarchy assembles, just as Acts 15 describes.

In our deliberations, the Pope has the authority to make the final word that concludes debate. This too is modeled after Acts 15. The leaders debate (v. 7), then the successor of Peter speaks (v. 7), then the debate ends (v. 12), and closing remarks can be made, such as those made by Barnabas, Paul and James (vs. 12-13).

And here we reach the really, really important points about the council, for our conversation about the Magesterium. These are verses 24-25, 28, and 16:4.
verses 24 and 25:

Since we have heard that certain persons who have gone out from us, though with no instructions from us, have said things to disturb you and have unsettled your minds, we have decided unanimously to choose representatives and send them to you . . .

Persons went out without instructions from the authorities in the Church, said things that disturbed and unsettled the believers, so the Church leaders decided to send representatives. This negates Sola Scriptura quite directly, for if everyone has the right to interpret doctrine for themselves from Scripture, there is nothing wrong with people going from the apostles (or their successors) without instructions from them. Protestants do it all the time, spreading their own various doctrinal ideas. But the “apostles and the elders” (v. 23) decided to send representatives of themselves to the churches to give clear instruction. And what kind of instruction?

To answer that question, we come to verse 28.
verses 28 and 29:

For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to impose on you no further burden than these essentials: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.

The council declares that its will was the will of “the Holy Spirit.” The first council of the Church thus declared its view on the matter of debate to be infallible, for it is impossible to doubt that the will of the Holy Spirit is infallible. It also said that this will, it “imposed” on the Church. This declares that not only is the decision of this council the infallible will of the Holy Spirit, but all Christians are required to obey it.

Then, we read:
Acts 16:4:

As they went from town to town, they delivered to them for observance the decisions that had been reached by the apostles and elders who were in Jerusalem.

They delivered to the churches for observance the “decisions” of the first council. This too affirms the authority explicitly stated in 15:28.

The Early Church practiced the same example, following the will of the councils as the will of the Holy Spirit, in accord with the teaching of Acts, and believing the Church because it was the “pillar and foundation of the truth.” The Church is not the roof built on the pillar of truth (Scripture), but rather is the pillar on which the roof is built. And it is not the house that rests on the foundation of truth (Scripture), but is itself the foundation of the truth from which all other wonders of the truth spring and on which they are based. You can see this in practice, in the council meeting of Acts 15. Therefore you can see that the Magesterium is directly scriptural.

This does not mean we don’t heed the Holy Spirit too. Paul and Peter had both received messages from the Holy Spirit about the Gentiles being brought into the Church. However, rather than taking their private hearing of the Holy Spirit and their belief that it was solidly based on Scripture as the final witness, they brought it to the council for an infallible teaching, so as to settle the matter for the entire Church. The decisions of the council were declared to be the decisions of the Holy Spirit (v. 28), and the “decisions” of the apostles and elders were “imposed” upon the whole of the Church.

Acts 15 is an incredible witness to the authority and infallibility of the Magesterium, as is 1 Timothy 3:15. If we are to follow the words of Scripture and let them guide us, we must also allow these passages about Church government and truth to speak to us and direct us.

The most logical interpretation of these verses, as well as the most explicit, is that which was followed by the Early Church that would have best understood what was happening in Acts 15 and 1 Timothy 3:15. This interpretation was that the Magesterium was infallible and must be followed.

 

[rinnie]

Rinnie, if God reveals Himself exclusively through the sacraments, what were all those spiritual experiences–visions, miracles and the like–that the saints had?

Also, how, in your view, were the Old Testament saints saved? And what about people who grew up, lived and died in America before the first settlers and missionaries arrived?

The Church teaches that people ignorant of the ordinary path of salvation through no fault of their own may yet be saved, as they cannot be judged for failing to participate in what they have not known.

Also, it teaches that God can reveal Himself in extra-sacramental experiences, such as the visions of the saints.

Yes but you still have to go back to what a sacrament is. A sacrament is an outward sign instituted by Christ to give Grace. Would all these things not be such? How can any of this not be done without some kind of grace from God. Which a Sacrament indeed is. Its just the RCC happens to have all of the sacraments. Which I was taught in order to have the true Church you must have all the sacraments.

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

John 6:52-59 “The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 53 So Jesus said to them "Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; 55 for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. 56 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them….”

John 5:60-67 *"When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This teaching is difficult; who can accept it?” 61 But Jesus, being aware that his disciples were complaining about it, said to them, "Does this offend you? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 63 It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is useless. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But among you there are some who do not believe… 66 Because of this many of his disciples turned back and no longer went about with him. 67 So Jesus asked the twelve, “o you also wish to go away?” *

When the disciples said "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?? Jesus repeated what he had said and reinforced it by saying “…for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink”. He did not say it was spiritual. God can do all things and we can only see things through our 4 dimensional perception. Do we understand? No, but we believe because we trust and love God.

From the time of Peter and his apostles’ ministry they believed in the Eucharist just as we do in the Catholic Church today. I am not sure but I think that maybe even Luther believed in the Eucharist - perhaps Calvin and Zwingli? (somebody on this thread my know). As Protestantism developed the beliefs of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church was watered down, changed and splintered into all kinds of different beliefs. The CC held firm because we believed that Jesus would always be with us and the Holy Spirit was there to guide us.

The H Spirit didn’t “kick in” when Protestantism was planted. He was there with us from the very beginning, from the very time Christ established His Church. He remains with us today. He has kept his promise.

Hi Cinette,

There is one thing that you said in this post, which I agree with. You said:

“The H Spirit didn’t “kick in” when Protestantism was planted. He was there with us from the very beginning, from the very time Christ established His Church. He remains with us today. He has kept his promise.”

I agree with this. It is important to remember in all our discussions that I am not arguing for Protestantism, per se; I am arguing, at all times, for what the scriptures actually teach.

At this time, I do not see that Sacred Tradition is on an equal authoritative level with the inerrant scriptures. I believe that God in His infallible foreknowledge and wisdom, PRESERVED His words in the ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS (not in any one single manuscript or in any one particular translation of the Bible.)

Therefore, my desire is always to bow to the ONE MEANING that the texts of scripture point to.

You are right; the Holy Spirit did not “kick in” with Protestantism. He was there from the start to lead us into the truth that the scriptures point to.

This is why I hold to SOLA SCRIPTURA which, of necessity, rules out Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium acting as a “three-legged stool” of authority.

God bless, Craig

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

Right next to the word Trinity, Craig!

I will do my best, though I’m not Leif or benedictus.

First, from this website: christendom-awake.org/pages/mcgovern/exegesis.htm

So our bishops are acting in the manner of Christ, who explained and taught Scripture and doctrine even though the apostles may have thought they understood and knew it.

I can see an argument forming in your brain - but shouldn’t all Christians mimick Christ in this way? Yes, in a sense but Christ chose to ordain Bishops (and we’ve seen, in Scripture, already that only certain men were chosen, and then only after they had been thouroughly taught as per St. Paul’s directions to St. Timothy). I know you see the translation as more as Overseer. I’ve been meaning it ask you what you feel the difference is?

So now, as an example of the original magisterium in action, I’ll direct you to the Council of Jerusalem in the book of Acts 15. The council is called to discuss the question of Judaizing, specifically circumcision. Note that only the “apostles and elders” (Bishops and priests) meet, not the rank and file Christians (what we’d call the Laity). They then discuss amongst themselves what they believe God would have them do, and issue a response. It is the response that St. Peter gives, interestingly enough.

drbo.org/chapter/51015.htm

So while the word Magisterium is not in Scripture, I believe the actions of Christ Our Lord and His Apostles strongly imply it, just as it does the Blessed Trinity, and it is apparently the manner in which the Church organically grew.

Hi Rawb,

I appreciate, too, your posts! They are always solid and get straight to the point; they are always very practical, as well, and aid growth in the spiritual life.

It was you who earlier in this thread gave me much valuable information about the “do’s and don’ts” of entering a Catholic Church; about the Roman Catholic Missal; and about the Holy Days of Obligation. I remember all this and I value it. I enjoy your contributions and benefit from them. I have been blessed by your posts.

This post is no exception. Thank you for the link you gave on the Magisterium, which is found here:

christendom-awake.org/pages/mcgovern/exegesis.htm

A great link. I need to do a lot of reading here. I am learning more and more about things Catholic.

In your post you ask me:

“I can see an argument forming in your brain - but shouldn’t all Christians mimick Christ in this way? Yes, in a sense but Christ chose to ordain Bishops (and we’ve seen, in Scripture, already that only certain men were chosen, and then only after they had been thouroughly taught as per St. Paul’s directions to St. Timothy). I know you see the translation as more as Overseer. I’ve been meaning it ask you what you feel the difference is?”

My answer is this. I have no problem with the papacy understood as eminent godly leaders providing spiritual leadership. I think some popes have provided this type of leadership. Praise God!

I cannot concede, however, that the papacy per se is given the gift of infallibilty in guiding the faithful in the matters of faith and morals.

I am not a Fundamentalist, though, and I do not believe that the pope is the antichrist; or that the papacy has a “worldly secular agenda” to pursue. I am not opposed to the papacy as such; it is just that I see Overseers as godly, spiritual leaders who provide mature, seasoned and experienced leadership for the Church MINUS any suggestion, however, of infallibility.

Infallibility, in my opinion, belongs only to God and to the teachings of the ORIGINAL INSPIRED INERRANT MANUSCRIPTS, which God Himself authored.

I hope this makes my position clearer.

God bless you, brother in Christ Craig

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

You’re misunderstanding me some, Craig, I think. I’m not assuming the propriety of the Magesterium. There is a ton of evidence for its propriety from Scripture, the Early Church Fathers and reason. I’ve been hesitating to discuss that with you partly because I wanted to first show you that Sola Scriptura is not in the Bible, so that you would be more open to other new ideas, and partly because we’re already discussing Sacred Tradition in Scripture. We’re actively discussing something like seven or eight verses right now that I believe are describing Sacred Tradition. If my interpretation is correct, this blows some very wide holes in Sola Scriptura. That would destroy your main objections to the Magesterium all by itself. I think this talk we’re having about Sacred Tradition is a critically important discussion for us to have, at least for a little while longer before we get into the Magesterium references.

I want us to do justice to the Sacred Tradition references before we move on.

That doesn’t mean there isn’t scriptural evidence for the Magesterium. In fact, there are several explicit references to its authority.

And regarding your charge that the word “Magesterium” is not in the Scripture, I’d like to just refer you to Rawb’s answer (the same kind of answer as I gave you in our emails). The word “Trinity” is also not in the Bible, though the concept is. Neither is the word “Bible” for that matter! The word “Bible” is not in the Bible! Even though the idea of it can be seen in various passages. This is the same with the Magesterium. The word “Magesterium,” isn’t there, but the concept most definitely is.

Thanks Lief,

Yes, I can understand you’re keen to discuss the bible verses that I have put before you which, I think, point to SOLA SCRIPTURA.

You say in your post:

“We’re actively discussing something like seven or eight verses right now that I believe are describing Sacred Tradition. If my interpretation is correct, this blows some very wide holes in Sola Scriptura.”

I am still not convinced, of course, by your interpretation of these verses, brother in Christ. I do want to see this through with you.

We are both coming at these issues with our own unique set of pre-suppositions. It’s important for us to remember this. We do need the Holy Spirit’s wisdom and tender knowledge to understand these verses correctly.

I do not claim to “know it all” by any means. I am only a keen and diligent student of the Word of God (I am not a scholar! I have never claimed to be one!) and I am not skilled first hand in the original languages (the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek). I rely on using Concordances for the meaning of biblical words.

However, all this being acknowledged and said, I still believe firmly that these verses point to SOLA SCRIPTURA and, therefore, do not provide room for an INFALLIBLE MAGISTERIUM.

We will continue our discussion. I am busy at work at the moment and have, of course, family committments. Please bear with me. I want to see this discussion through in the most systematic and thorough way possible.

I think we can both gain much from this process.

Please be assured that my respect for you at all times remains.

God bless you, brother Craig

 

[rinnie]

Craig, Here is something to just think about. Remember how when Jesus talked to people he talked in Parables. And remember how the Apostles said why do you do that? Remember what Jesus said. And think about this too Craig, Even the Apostles didn’t understand. Jesus had to teach them to what his words meamt. So now give this some thought Jesus said you think of this world I am talking of the next. Thats our problem Craig, and why we can’t define scripture, because you like I and the others at the time think of this world. That is why he told the Apostles I will send the Advocate the Holy Spirit, He will give you the words. That is why the RCC believes so much in the Holy Spirit. And the Holy Spirit has been passed down through Apostle succession. That is how Jesus planned it. Because if he didn’t how would we know who to believe. I could claim I have the HS and so could you and so could your neighbor. But if that were true again who would have the truth? We would all feel we had the truth. See what I mean. But we know that the Pope has that power it was promised and passed down. It can be traced until the time of Jesus. Hope this helped a little. Im not the best at explaining things.

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

You’re right, the word magisterium is not in the Bible. But when you come to think of it neither is the word Trinity.

Magisterium (which is Latin for the office of a teacher or other person in authority) is the teaching office of the church comprised of the Pope and the bishops. In Luke 10:16, Christ says “He who hears you, hears me; he who rejects you rejects me, he who rejects me, rejects Him who sent me”.

Because we believe that Christ’s promises cannot fail, so also we believe that the teaching office of His Church cannot fail. To say that Christ’s church has taught error would be tantamount to saying that Christ lied or that He was incapable of fulfilling His promise.

This also derives first of all from His promise that the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church that He built upon Peter. Also in John 16:13 he promised that He will send the Holy Spirit to guide it into all truth.

I am not sure how many times Christ mentioned the devil but in John 8:44 he characterizes Him as the father of lies. So if the Church has taught anything contrary to Truth, then the gates of hell has prevailed and therefore Christ failed in his promise.

I think these passages were caused to be written so that we can have an assurance, for without this assurance, nothing, not even the Bible can we hold to be true.

This is why I think the main bone of contention between Protestant and Catholics is not really purgatory, Marian dogmas or Transubstantiatin but rather the magisterium or put another way, infallibility.

Because once one concedes that the magisterium has the guidance of the Holy Spirit (as Christ promised) when it makes pronouncements on faith and morals, it therefore follows that its pronouncements are true.

And that is why I made the Bible as an example. The only way we can be certain that the Bible is in-errantly the Word of God is if we accept that those who decided on the cannon of the Bible is infallible, because to affirm otherwise would be to cast a doubt on the canon of the Bible. We would then start wondering if maybe the Gospel according to XYZ should have been included and Matthew deleted, and so forth.

I suppose you could liken it to someone who while not a pathological liar is known to have a lied a few times. If such a person were to make a declaration, you cannot say for sure if it is true because of the fact that he has lied before. The only way to be sure that what someone has said is true is if it is known that he has always told the truth.

And so we are back to Christ’s promises. Either we can take him at his word or we can’t.

In the darkest days of the church when we had scoundrels for Popes and bishops, this promise of Christ nevertheless remained. These Popes and others in the hierarchy of the church were too busy being scoundrels they never taught. So the Holy Spirit did not only guide them when they taught, it also shut them up to prevent them from teaching error.

Hi Benedictus2,

Another great post from you. I am still not, of course, convinced of an INFALLIBLE MAGISTERIUM, but when you acknowledged that there have been scoundrels as Popes and Bishops you have opened this issue up on a more practical level.

You write:

“In the darkest days of the church when we had scoundrels for Popes and bishops, this promise of Christ nevertheless remained. These Popes and others in the hierarchy of the church were too busy being scoundrels they never taught. So the Holy Spirit did not only guide them when they taught, it also shut them up to prevent them from teaching error.”

I am grateful for this concession, viz: that some Popes and Bishops did abuse their office! Thank you! History is full of such examples.

This concession means that it is now possible to investigate with rigour the question whether the Holy Spirit guided them as part of an INFALLIBLE MAGISTERIUM.

God bless you, In Christ Craig

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

Great post, Benedictus.

I guess I might as well now add some of the really explicit verses that support the Magesterium, in addition to those you brought up. Rather than dallying any longer.

So this is for Craig. First, some references to the authority of the Church over believers:

In the Sola Scriptura model, everyone interprets doctrine for themselves. This verse, however, says that everyone must accept the authority of the ecclesiastical hierarchy.

Another similar verse is Hebrews 13:17:

Here, we read that the ecclesiastical hierarchy is watchingt over the souls of those under their charge. In the Sola Scriptura model, everyone is responsible for interpreting doctrine for him or herself, so no ecclesiastical hierarchy has the authority to be in a position of giving account for the souls of other people.

Another significant reference is Acts 1:20, in which Peter oversees the “bishopric” of Judas being handed on to another, and then this person, Matthias, was “added to the eleven apostles” (v. 26). It also says in verse 25 that Matthias received, “the place in this ministry and apostleship fom which Judas turned aside.” This shows that the apostolic authority of the disciples was handed on to successors and did not remain restricted to the original 12.

So we have a scriptural united Church which had an ecclesiastical hierarchy watching over the “souls” of believers. Those believers were required to “submit” to that hierarchy and “obey” it, in the words of the Scripture. Saint Paul refers to the apostles as “servants of Christ and stewards of God’s mysteries” (1 Cor. 4:2).

Whoever adheres to Sola Scriptura and comes up with his own doctrines therefore breaks with the scriptural model of submitting to these spiritual authorities. They break with the “stewards of God’s mysteries,” a special role Paul doesn’t say belongs to every individual member of the Church, but instead says belongs to the apostles.

Jesus also prayed for that same Church, “Holy Father, protect them in your name that you have given me, so that they may be one, as we are one” (John 17:11). In Protestantism, there is no unity. So if Jesus’ prayer was answered by God in the affirmative (and who but an unbeliever would say the prayer of the Son of God went unheeded?), Catholicism has to be true. Similarly, Saint Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 1:10, “Now I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you be in agreement and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same purpose.” If Sola Scriptura is a true doctrine, Saint Paul’s words became useless to the Church immediately, because the Church followed false doctrines in some cases (like the Magesterium), and a believer who is more faithful to the teachings of Christ would have denied such a doctrine. Therefore Saint Paul’s teaching that people should not divide would have become void from the instant the Church was formed.

More important still is simply the fact that Jesus prayed that the Church be one, and if you’re right about Sola Scriptura, His prayer was not answered.

Now, with that important groundwork about the authority of the ecclesiastical hierarchy laid, I will move on to explicit passages in Scripture that describe the infallibility and authority of the Magesterium.

Hi Lief,

As much as I respect you, I cannot accept - to use your own words - that you have achieved your own goal of ‘laying the important groundwork about the authority of the ecclesiastical hierarchy.’

I’m sorry, but you have failed to do this.

You see, for one thing, 1 Peter 5:1-14 - in context - is speaking about the special responsibilities of Leadership. The Apostle Peter, who is also an Elder (not the first Pope), SHARES (not has position or power OVER) with Elders the truths about their work that he has personally learned and experienced.

These Elders, as Shepherds of God’s people, are to give themselves enthusiatically to the work, not for personal gain or position.

These Elders in these verses are already in the position of being responsible for the care of a Church congregation. Please read and compare these scriptures, in this connection:

John 21:15, 17; Acts 20:17, 28-35; 1 Timothy 3:1; 5:17; 2 John 1; 3 John 1.

These Elders were to stand alongside and give guidance, help, comfort and encouragement.

There is not a SMIDGEON of evidence for an ECCLESSIASTICAL HIERARCHY or an INFALLIBLE MAGISTERIUM.

You have merely ASSUMED that there is such an established hierarchy mentioned here. The plain matter of the fact is that there is no such entity in view, in my opinion. Therefore, you have failed to lay the important groundwork about the ecclessiastical hierarchy.

Cheers, In Christ Craig

 

[twb1621]

“Through Our Lord Jesus Christ our Apostles knew that there would be strife over the office of episcopacy. Accordingly, since they had obtained a perfect foreknowledge of this, they appointed those men already mentioned. And they afterwards gave instructions that when those men would fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. Therefore, we are of the opinion that those appointed by the Apostles, or afterwards by other acclaimed men, with the consent of the whole church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry.” St. Clement Of Rome (“The Epistle Of Clement To The Corinthians,” c. 96 A.D.)
“When we refer them to that tradition which originates from the Apostles, which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the churches, they object to Tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but than even the Apostles.” St. Irenaeus (“Against All Heresies,” c. 180 A.D.)
“Therefore, it is within the power of all in every church who may wish to see the Truth to examine clearly the Tradition of the Apostles manifested throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to reckon up those who were instituted bishops in the churches by the Apostles, and the succession of these men to our own times… For if the Apostles had known hidden mysteries…they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men.” St. Irenaeus (“Against All Heresies,” c. 180 A.D.)
“In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical Tradition from the Apostles, and the preaching of the Truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same life-giving faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the Apostles until now, and handed down in truth.” St. Irenaeus (“Against All Heresies,” c. 180 A.D.)
“It is necessary to obey the presbyters who are in the Church - those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the Apostles. For those presbyters, together with the succession of the bishops, have received the certain gift of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But we should hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever. For they are either heretics or perverse minds, or else they are schismatics who are puffed up and self-pleasing… Therefore, it behooves us to keep aloof from all such persons and to adhere to those who, as I have already observed, hold the doctrine of the Apostles.” St. Irenaeus (“Against All Heresies,” c. 180 A.D.)
“It behooves us to learn the Truth from those who possess that succession of the Church which is from the Apostles, and among whom exists that which is sound and blameless in conduct, as well as that which is unadulterated and incorrupt in speech…” St. Irenaeus (“Against All Heresies,” c. 180 A.D.) …"

1 So I exhort the presbyters 2 among you, as a fellow presbyter and witness to the sufferings of Christ and one who has a share in the glory to be revealed. 2 Tend the flock of God in your midst, (overseeing) not by constraint but willingly, as God would have it, not for shameful profit but eagerly. **3 Do not lord it over those assigned to you, but be examples to the flock. **4 And when the chief Shepherd is revealed, you will receive the unfading crown of glory. 5 Likewise, you younger members, 5 be subject to the presbyters. And all of you, clothe yourselves with humility in your dealings with one another, for: “God opposes the proud but bestows favor on the humble.” 6 So humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time. 7 Cast all your worries upon him because he cares for you. 8 Be sober and vigilant. Your opponent the devil is prowling around like a roaring lion looking for (someone) to devour. 9 Resist him, steadfast in faith, knowing that your fellow believers throughout the world undergo the same sufferings. 10 The God of all grace who called you to his eternal glory through Christ (Jesus) will himself restore, confirm, strengthen, and establish you after you have suffered a little. 11 To him be dominion forever. Amen.
12 I write you this briefly through Silvanus, 6 whom I consider a faithful brother, exhorting you and testifying that this is the true grace of God. Remain firm in it. 13 The chosen one 7 at Babylon sends you greeting, as does Mark, my son. 14 Greet one another with a loving kiss. Peace to all of you who are in Christ. " Peter 1 CH:5
This gospel clearly shows authority and guidence of Peter over the other “presbyters” respective of their areas. Note #3 Do not lord it over those assigned to you, but be examples to the flock. Clearly speaking to them in regard to their Assigned faithful. These were the Bishops of their given geographic areas. Peter was the main authoritative head and the Bishop of Rome (this is the seat of the pope) but all made a the “committee” if you will that later became known as the majesterium. Rome was alway considered the central point of the Church as far as the primary authority was concerned but also keep in mind Peter and all succeeding Popes had the majesterium jointly to provide strength in the Teachings of Christ.

Craig,

further…catscans.com/catholicsite/apostolic.htm

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

Craig, Here is something to just think about. Remember how when Jesus talked to people he talked in Parables. And remember how the Apostles said why do you do that? Remember what Jesus said. And think about this too Craig, Even the Apostles didn’t understand. Jesus had to teach them to what his words meamt. So now give this some thought Jesus said you think of this world I am talking of the next. Thats our problem Craig, and why we can’t define scripture, because you like I and the others at the time think of this world. That is why he told the Apostles I will send the Advocate the Holy Spirit, He will give you the words. That is why the RCC believes so much in the Holy Spirit. And the Holy Spirit has been passed down through Apostle succession. That is how Jesus planned it. Because if he didn’t how would we know who to believe. I could claim I have the HS and so could you and so could your neighbor. But if that were true again who would have the truth? We would all feel we had the truth. See what I mean. But we know that the Pope has that power it was promised and passed down. It can be traced until the time of Jesus. Hope this helped a little. Im not the best at explaining things.

Hi Rinnie,

I understand what you are trying to say here and I do not doubt your sincerity.

There is, however, in my opinion, a fatal flaw in your logic. After arguing for Apostolic succession - of which you have offered no proof - you make an unwarranted quantam leap of faith and “wrap up” your post by asserting:

“But we know that the Pope has that power it was promised and passed down. It can be traced until the time of Jesus. Hope this helped a little. Im not the best at explaining things.”

My problem with your position is that, in my view, the Papacy has no DIRECT warrant or authorisation from the scriptures. The Papacy is something, I think, that developed in history; that is, as an historical phenomena. I am not saying that this is, necessarily, bad in and of itself but I am saying that the idea cannot be found from a candid reading of scripture itself. It simply cannot be TRACED from the time of Jesus.

Now please consider this: As I have read and studied the scriptures, I see no evidence that the actual scriptures themselves CONFER the TITLE OF UNIVERSAL BISHOP to Peter. On the contrary, Christ did not appoint Peter to the headship (or PRIMACY) of the apostles but expressly forbade any such notions. Please read and study, in this connection, Luke 22:24-26; Ephesians 1:22-23; Colossians 1:18; and 1 Corinthians 3:11.

God bless, Craig

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

TO TOM,

In reply to your post 249,

Dear Brother Tom,

Your post, Tom, is replete with historical evidences and tradition. I need to ask you, though, how can you conclude on this presentation that ‘this gospel clearly shows authority and guidance of Peter over the other presbyters…’

In all honesty, how do you make such a connection unless you are pre-supposed to be inclined to favour that Peter was the main authoritative head and the Bishop of Rome?

God bless you, In Christ Craig

 

[benedictus2]

Hi Benedictus2,

Another great post from you. I am still not, of course, convinced of an INFALLIBLE MAGISTERIUM, but when you acknowledged that there have been scoundrels as Popes and Bishops you have opened this issue up on a more practical level.

You write:

“In the darkest days of the church when we had scoundrels for Popes and bishops, this promise of Christ nevertheless remained. These Popes and others in the hierarchy of the church were too busy being scoundrels they never taught. So the Holy Spirit did not only guide them when they taught, it also shut them up to prevent them from teaching error.”

I am grateful for this concession, viz: that some Popes and Bishops did abuse their office! Thank you! History is full of such examples.

This concession means that it is now possible to investigate with rigour the question whether the Holy Spirit guided them as part of an INFALLIBLE MAGISTERIUM.

God bless you, In Christ Craig

Just a really quick one.

It is not a concession at all (at least in the way I understand concession . It is just a statement of fact, a truth that is clear as daylight.

What needs to be understood about the infallibility of the magisterium is that it works in a negative way i.e. it is guided by the Holy Spirit so as NOT to teach error.So shutting them up when they could have “taught what they practiced” is the Holy Spirit’s way of making sure that the faithful is not led astray.

Also the reason why in some cases, the church remains silent. While she affirms predestination, she is silent on how this actually works. She affirms two points that seem to be contradictory i.e. grace and free will and leaves it at that for this is as far as the Holy Spirit will lead her.

And that is why I keep going back to the importance of Truth.

A father who is an out and out promiscous, unfaithful husband but teaches his son that what he is doing is wrong and tells the son that he should be faithful to his wife is still better IMO than a father who so far has been faithful to his wife but every chance he gets tells the son it is okay if you cheat on your wife and the more the merrier.

Of course, the faithful father who teaches the son to be equally faithful is so much better and that is what we are all called to be. But we all fall short of the goal and God is infinitely patient with us.

Will strive for more coherence on next post.

 

[twb1621]

TO TOM,

In reply to your post 249,

Dear Brother Tom,

Your post, Tom, is replete with historical evidences and tradition. I need to ask you, though, how can you conclude on this presentation that ‘this gospel clearly shows authority and guidance of Peter over the other presbyters…’

In all honesty, how do you make such a connection unless you are pre-supposed to be inclined to favour that Peter was the main authoritative head and the Bishop of Rome?

God bless you, In Christ Craig

Lets look at it this way and I am going to refer to some verses (only a few for now) we are more than familiar with. What I will ask you to do Craig, is at some point when you have time, look deeply into the emotions of Jesus along with His words and try to understand the circumstances and feelings involved as you refer to them. To have that intimate relationship with Jesus we must sometimes place ourselves with Him as “an Apostle” at times… to feel it. Let us keep in mind also that the only three apostles who Jesus always had with Him were Peter, James and John.
13 8 When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi 9 he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” 14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist, 10 others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 11 Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” 17 Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood 12 has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. 18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” 20 15 Then he strictly ordered his disciples to tell no one that he was the Messiah.
[18] You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church: the Aramaic word kepa - meaning rock and transliterated into Greek as Kephas is the name by which Peter is called in the Pauline letters (⇒ 1 Cor 1:12; ⇒ 3:22; ⇒ 9:5; ⇒ 15:4; ⇒ Gal 1:18; ⇒ 2:9, ⇒ 11, ⇒ 14) except in ⇒ Gal 2:7-8 (“Peter”). It is translated as Petros (“Peter”) in ⇒ John 1:42. The presumed original Aramaic of Jesus’ statement would have been, in English, “You are the Rock (Kepa) and upon this rock (kepa) I will build my church.” The Greek text probably means the same, for the difference in gender between the masculine noun petros, the disciple’s new name, and the feminine noun petra (rock) may be due simply to the unsuitability of using a feminine noun as the proper name of a male. Although the two words were generally used with slightly different nuances, they were also used interchangeably with the same meaning, “rock.” Church: this word (Greek ekklesia) occurs in the gospels only here and in ⇒ Matthew 18:17 (twice). There are several possibilities for an Aramaic original. Jesus’ church means the community that he will gather and that, like a building, will have Peter as its solid foundation. That function of Peter consists in his being witness to Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of the living God. The gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it: the netherworld (Greek Hades, the abode of the dead) is conceived of as a walled city whose gates will not close in upon the church of Jesus, i.e., it will not be overcome by the power of death.

14 [19] The keys to the kingdom of heaven: the image of the keys is probably drawn from ⇒ Isaiah 22:15-25 where Eliakim, who succeeds Shebnah as master of the palace, is given “the key of the house of David,” which he authoritatively “opens” and “shuts” (⇒ Isaiah 22:22). Whatever you bind . . . loosed in heaven: there are many instances in rabbinic literature of the binding-loosing imagery. Of the several meanings given there to the metaphor, two are of special importance here: the giving of authoritative teaching, and the lifting or imposing of the ban of excommunication. It is disputed whether the image of the keys and that of binding and loosing are different metaphors meaning the same thing. In any case, the promise of the keys is given to Peter alone. In ⇒ Matthew 18:18 all the disciples are given the power of binding and loosing, but the context of that verse suggests that there the power of excommunication alone is intended. That the keys are those to the kingdom of heaven and that Peter’s exercise of authority in the church on earth will be confirmed in heaven show an intimate connection between, but not an identification of, the church and the kingdom of heaven.

28 And “you” are they (the original apostles) who have continued with me in my temptations: 29 And I dispose to you, as my Father hath disposed to me, a kingdom; 30 That you may eat and drink at my table, in my kingdom: and may sit upon thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 31 And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, (meaning you all) that he may sift you (you all) as wheat: 32 But I have prayed for thee, (thee; Peter personally) that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.

This is a very powerful powerful verse more so than many people realize, because it is in this verse that Jesus declares Satan as the direct adversary desiring to Target the apostles and Peter but Peter as the direct force that Jesus prays to His Heavenly Father to give him (Peter) the strength to hold them together in faith. In this verse addressed to “Simon, Simon” it has been translated that the original wording specifically refers to “behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat:” This “you” refers to the chosen apostles.
continued…

 

[twb1621]

to Craig,
continued from previous post

This has been verfied by many on many occasions that the original wording specifically refers to “But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.” “Thee” specific to the subject being spoken to, Peter, that his faith will not fail and that Peter will confirm or strengthen his brethren and hold them together.

Just referring to these few it is clear what Jesus’ intention for Peter was. He assigned him as the earthly authoritative figure to provide guidance to the others in their ministry.
We can all agree that any reasonably sized organization in order to remain consistent must have a central figure that holds that authority singularly. But we also realize that in order to protect the integrity of what that organization stands for, there must be a committee of several whom acting together can provide protection to the principles of the organization should the central figure be found corrupt. Consider corporate CEO’s, Presidents, Chairman and so on. They hold powerful positions but are not left without some form of governing committee. In this case, the Church has Peter as the one authoritative CEO if you will (Bishop of Rome). In addition, The Bishop of Rome has his committee to not only assist him but also help him stay the course and he them because of their geographic dispersion (the bishops or presbyters as then called).
We also know that it was crucial that no seat be left empty and through the laying of hands, successors where maintained. No large body with locations geographically dispersed can remain with the same principles without a central authoritative point. This point or location of Rome was recognized and attested to from very early on as you can see from the previous excerpts I sent you. The committee as I referred it is nothing more than the body of Bishops. Thus is the origin of the Magisterium. The Bishop of Rome because of the seat of central authority became know as the papal seat or the chair of Peter.
I hope this helps you some on your journey and feel free to ask anything you have questions of.
God’s grace to you.

 

[twb1621]

this past response to you Craig is to show you a consistency in the organizational aspect of the first apostles, the historic continuance of their positions and the existence of the organization today. But there is much more that you can verify these positions with both historically and theologically. The rest is up to the Holy Spirit to guide them just as Jesus provided to them.

Your on the right path but as they say, it is a rough road to heaven but well worth the pot holes, God bless you, Craig.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

There is not a SMIDGEON of evidence for an ECCLESSIASTICAL HIERARCHY or an INFALLIBLE MAGISTERIUM.

You may be misunderstanding me. In the post you have quoted, I stated that my purpose was to show that the ecclesiastical hierarchy had authority over laypeople. I never stated that I was trying to support an infallible hierarchy- though this may be seen as implied by the fact that the hierarchy was charged with watching over the souls of believers, and how could they do that without infallible interpretations of the words of God?

But my goal in that post was not to support the existence of an infallible Magesterium. My goal was to show that there was an authoritative hierarchy, and no verse in your response contradicts that!

I agree with you that:
“You see, for one thing, 1 Peter 5:1-14 - in context - is speaking about the special responsibilities of Leadership.”

I also agree that Peter was an Elder, and that he “shares with Elders the truths about their work that he has personally learned and experienced.” I disagree with you about him not being the first Pope and not having position or power over the other Elders. In my view, he shares with the other Elders the truths he has learned, but he also has authority over them. My goal was not to show Peter’s authority from these verses, though, so you’re straying off-topic from the point of my post by challenging our doctrines about the Papacy, when I wasn’t even talking about it.

I did show there were elders of the Church that laypeople were supposed to obey. I showed these elders were assigned to watch over the souls of other believers and that believers were scripturally commanded to “obey” them and “submit” to their authority. Therefore I proved from Scripture the existence of an ecclesiastical hierarchy. That isn’t to say I proved the Papacy or the infallibility of the Magesterium in that post, but I did show the existence of an ecclesiastical hierarchy that laypeople were to obey.
Craig Kennedy:

These Elders, as Shepherds of God’s people, are to give themselves enthusiatically to the work, not for personal gain or position.

Agreed. However, they were given “position.” If laypeople are commanded to “obey” and “submit” to your teaching and authority, you necessarily do have “position.” Though this should not be lorded over other people, as I believe St. Paul says in one of the Epistles.
Craig Kennedy:

These Elders in these verses are already in the position of being responsible for the care of a Church congregation.

What do you mean by that?
Craig Kennedy:

These Elders were to stand alongside and give guidance, help, comfort and encouragement.

Agreed.
Craig Kennedy:

There is not a SMIDGEON of evidence for an ECCLESSIASTICAL HIERARCHY

Of course there is. It says, “Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls and will give an account.” There is a clear hierarchy if laypeople are ordered to “obey” and “submit” to their “leaders,” rather than being told to come up with doctrinal interpretation for themselves. Also, “you who are younger must accept the authority of the elders.” And Saint Paul refers to the apostles rather than all believers, as the “stewards of God’s mysteries.” Furthermore, Acts 1:20 shows that the apostles passed on all their authority to successors. These are clear statements showing the existence of a hierarchy. If you are required to obey the elders, and submit to them as “stewards of God’s mysteries,” and if you are required scripturally to “accept the authority of the elders,” how in the world can you say there isn’t an ecclesiastical hierarchy?

I agree with everything you said in your post about the elders having the office of encouraging, comforting, helping, guiding, and giving themselves to the work enthusiastically out of pure motives rather than in order to lord authority over other people or make personal gain. That is also exactly what our priests are supposed to do today, by the way.

The requirement that the elders not lord their authority over other people does not mean they don’t have authority over people, though. In fact, the scriptures are extremely clear that the elders do have authority and must be “obeyed” and “submitted to.” The beneficial roles of the elders that you elaborated on are also true. And if laypeople must obey the elders as the Scripture says, that is the definition of an ecclesiastical hierarchy.