To live by faith

[Lief_Erikson]

Craig, I understand you’re probably thinking about and considering posts 240 and 241 more carefully before responding to them, so that’s fine. I look forward to your responses to those posts, whenever you get around to it.

In the meantime, though, about the post of mine that you did respond to, you forgot to respond to this part of it:
Lief Erikson:

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 Early Church followed false doctrines in some cases (like its belief in the infallible authority of Sacred Tradition and the Magesterium), and a believer who understood better 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.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

A wonderful post series, twb! I very much enjoyed it.

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

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.

Thank you Benedictus2,

Yes, excellent points made here and I can follow your logic, as far as it goes.

Your illustration of the faithful father is well put and sums up your well organised argument. You state:

“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.”

Very well said and presented; and memorable!

God bless you, In Christ Craig

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Craig, here’s a neat passage referring to the authority of the apostles on all matters of faith. It tells us how to distinguish between falsehood and the Spirit of truth, and it doesn’t say “compare what you hear to Scripture and decide for yourself.” In fact, it says to listen to the apostles.
1 John 4:5-6:

They [false prophets] are from the world and therefore speak from the viewpoint of the world, and the world listens to them. We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

These verses tell us to listen to the apostles because they “are from God,” and by listening to them “we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood.”

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

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.

Hi Benedictus2,

As much as I have appreciated this post - and I have acknowledged this in a previous post - there is, however, a flaw in your argument for an INFALLIBLE MAGISTERIUM. You write:

“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.”

You are, in fact, saying - from your viewpoint - that the infallibilty of the Magisterium only functions in a NEGATIVE way ie to prevent error.

This, to my mind, flies in the face of the fact that the whole New Testament reverberates with the preaching of the gospel being conducted with much clarity, boldness and utter dependence upon the Holy Spirit.

Your supposed MAGISTERIUM only - apparently - functions in an entirely negative way. I do not see that this equates with your own theory that Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium operate as equal authoritative standards.

I do not see, however, that your theory resonates with the ethos and theological vision of the scriptures. This is why I reject the notion of an INFALLIBLE MAGISTERIUM.

God bless you, Craig

 

[benedictus2]

You are, in fact, saying - from your viewpoint - that the infallibilty of the Magisterium only functions in a NEGATIVE way ie to prevent error.

This, to my mind, flies in the face of the fact that the whole New Testament reverberates with the preaching of the gospel being conducted with much clarity, boldness and utter dependence upon the Holy Spirit.

Your supposed MAGISTERIUM only - apparently - functions in an entirely negative way. I do not see that this equates with your own theory that Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium operate as equal authoritative standards.

So, sorry I wasn’t very clear there. It is very hard for me to put together a coherent thought on the run (I was working on a power point presentation at the same time as trying to respond to you)

The guidance of the Holy Spirit to come into knowledge of Truth and thereby making it doctrine, is separate but is the preliminary step to being given the power to preach, what ever truth has been arrived at, with boldness.

To go back to the faithful father example, the Holy Spirit guides the father to the truth that infidelity is a sin against God. Should someone suggest to the father that infidelity is okay and the father come to agree with this, then the Holy Spirit will prevent him from teaching his son this error.

But because there are revealed truths (plain as day) such as “Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery”, the Holy Spirit will guide the father to realizing that this, and not the contrary proposition is the Truth.

So this first stage is primarily arriving at Truth. And this may be arrived at negatively as follows: if infidelity is wrong, then fidelity must be right.

After having arrived at this Truth, the father is then emboldened by the Holy Spirit to preach this Truth with vigor and gusto, even exhorting the son to hold fast to this truth to the point of death should there come a time when such a situation arise. The father likewise is expected to do the same.

This is why the guidance not to preach error is important because of the fact that orthopraxis (right conduct) follows from orthodoxy (right doctrine).

In a race, it is important that first of all you are in the right track. Your feat and prowess will be pointless if you are running along a track that is heading straight to a ravine.

Going back to my example on contraception, when every other Christian denomination has accepted this to be not in contradiction with Christ’s teaching, only the Catholic Church has continued to teach that this is wrong and against God’s will (and this position is biblical). Those who preach otherwise are in fact leading others to error and Christ has very strong words about those who lead others to sin.

The same can be said of divorce.

IMO, the other churches have allowed the world to evangelise them, rather than them standing by the Gospel, and evangelizing the world.

In the history of the Church, the guidance of the Holy Spirit has been evident in the way it has battled heresy - from the Circumcision heresy in the first century to Jansenism in the 17th.

I do not see, however, that your theory resonates with the ethos and theological vision of the scriptures. This is why I reject the notion of an INFALLIBLE MAGISTERIUM.

God bless you, Craig

The infallible magisterium is hard to accept for most people. In this day and age of individualism, to bow to someone other than our own construct of what constitutes good and evil and revealed truth is hard.

It took a lot of humility on my part to accept something that I, by my own attempts at reasoning, cannot accept. In the end, I accepted because I realized that all these people (popes, bishops, fathers of the church, saints) , thousands of them who have pondered on the issue that I am pondering, have far more knowledge and is more likely to have been guided by the Holy Spirit than me at my own attempts to grasp the Truth.

The thelogical vision of Scripture is of one church united in love and without a magisterium to teach infallibly, everyone in the end becomes his own magisterium.

The only way I and others can accept an infallible magisterium is because we believe in Christ’s promise. If he said that the gates of heaven will not prevail against His Church, that He will guide her into all truth, and that whoever hears them hears Him, then we believe that because He is the Son of God, we can take His word for it. If I do not believe in the infallibility of Jesus’s promise then I really do not believe in Jesus at all, because the Jesus I believe in, then, will be my own construct, incapable of keeping His promise at best and at worst, is actually telling a lie.

And yes, it is hard to accept. I think that I accept it at all can only be due to grace.

 

[twb1621]

Hi Benedictus2,

As much as I have appreciated this post - and I have acknowledged this in a previous post - there is, however, a flaw in your argument for an INFALLIBLE MAGISTERIUM. You write:

“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.”

You are, in fact, saying - from your viewpoint - that the infallibility of the Magisterium only functions in a NEGATIVE way ie to prevent error.

This, to my mind, flies in the face of the fact that the whole New Testament reverberates with the preaching of the gospel being conducted with much clarity, boldness and utter dependence upon the Holy Spirit.

Your supposed MAGISTERIUM only - apparently - functions in an entirely negative way. I do not see that this equates with your own theory that Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium operate as equal authoritative standards.

I do not see, however, that your theory resonates with the ethos and theological vision of the scriptures. This is why I reject the notion of an INFALLIBLE MAGISTERIUM.

God bless you, Craig

We recognize the gift of the Holy Spirit and the power to bring us Home but we can not ignore or limit this power as it was not only a gift from God to His Apostles to guide and enlighten them in their ministry but to continue the same guidance and enlightenment in His Church in order for it to survive until the end of days when He returns. This was the proclamation of Jesus Christ. This can not be however, unless it is done through a body functioning just as the Apostolic College functioned, the governing body who teaches and guides. With the Holy Spirit and only because of the guidence and enlightenment of the Holy Spirit, it is done according to His will.

excerpt from newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm#II
In Christ’s discourse to the Apostles at the Last Supper several passages occur which clearly imply the promise of infallibility: “I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you forever. The spirit of truth . . . he shall abide with you, and shall be in you” (John 14:16, 17). “But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you” (ibid. 26). “But when he, the spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth (John 16:13). And the same promise is renewed immediately before the Ascension (Acts 1:8). Now what does the promise of this perennial and efficacious presence and assistance of the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of truth, mean in connection with doctrinal authority, except that the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity is made responsible for what the Apostles and their successors may define to be part of Christ’s teaching? But insofar as the Holy Ghost is responsible for Church teaching, that teaching is necessarily infallible: what the Spirit of truth guarantees cannot be false…” Using the link, please read on. yell out with any questions.

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

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.

Thanks Tom,

I have read your posts with interest and an open mind.

It is still my belief that Peter was an outstanding witness to the Lord’s glory - I come to this conclusion based on the scriptural account.

As I read the inerrant scriptures, I see that Peter had been with the Lord from the earliest days of His ministry to the climax of it in Jerusalem. Please read here and refer to:Matthew 26:58; Mark 14:54; Luke 22:60-62; John 18:10-11, 15-16.

The Lord had appointed Peter to be an Apostle, a specially authorised witness, Matthew 10:1-2. I do not see that scripture declares MORE than what I have just said, so for you to postulate that it was our Lord’s intention to make Peter the UNIVERSAL BISHOP OF ROME AND THE FIRST POPE is to import - alongside of the scriptural testimony - and to declare something that is not expressly set before us. This is my problem with your view.

You may marshall extra-biblical evidence which may IMPLY that Peter was the FIRST POPE but, in my opinion, scripture is silent on this and offers no support, as such, for your contention.

I thank you for your recognition of my Christian identity and authenticity, when you write:

“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.”

I do appreciate what you write and I do consider it carefully.

God bless you, brother in the Lord Craig

 

[Cinette]

So, sorry I wasn’t very clear there. It is very hard for me to put together a coherent thought on the run (I was working on a power point presentation at the same time as trying to respond to you)

The guidance of the Holy Spirit to come into knowledge of Truth and thereby making it doctrine, is separate but is the preliminary step to being given the power to preach, what ever truth has been arrived at, with boldness.

To go back to the faithful father example, the Holy Spirit guides the father to the truth that infidelity is a sin against God. Should someone suggest to the father that infidelity is okay and the father come to agree with this, then the Holy Spirit will prevent him from teaching his son this error.

But because there are revealed truths (plain as day) such as “Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery”, the Holy Spirit will guide the father to realizing that this, and not the contrary proposition is the Truth.

So this first stage is primarily arriving at Truth. And this may be arrived at negatively as follows: if infidelity is wrong, then fidelity must be right.

After having arrived at this Truth, the father is then emboldened by the Holy Spirit to preach this Truth with vigor and gusto, even exhorting the son to hold fast to this truth to the point of death should there come a time when such a situation arise. The father likewise is expected to do the same.

This is why the guidance not to preach error is important because of the fact that orthopraxis (right conduct) follows from orthodoxy (right doctrine).

In a race, it is important that first of all you are in the right track. Your feat and prowess will be pointless if you are running along a track that is heading straight to a ravine.

Going back to my example on contraception, when every other Christian denomination has accepted this to be not in contradiction with Christ’s teaching, only the Catholic Church has continued to teach that this is wrong and against God’s will (and this position is biblical). Those who preach otherwise are in fact leading others to error and Christ has very strong words about those who lead others to sin.

The same can be said of divorce.

IMO, the other churches have allowed the world to evangelise them, rather than them standing by the Gospel, and evangelizing the world.

In the history of the Church, the guidance of the Holy Spirit has been evident in the way it has battled heresy - from the Circumcision heresy in the first century to Jansenism in the 17th.

The infallible magisterium is hard to accept for most people. In this day and age of individualism, to bow to someone other than our own construct of what constitutes good and evil and revealed truth is hard.

It took a lot of humility on my part to accept something that I, by my own attempts at reasoning, cannot accept. In the end, I accepted because I realized that all these people (popes, bishops, fathers of the church, saints) , thousands of them who have pondered on the issue that I am pondering, have far more knowledge and is more likely to have been guided by the Holy Spirit than me at my own attempts to grasp the Truth.

The thelogical vision of Scripture is of one church united in love and without a magisterium to teach infallibly, everyone in the end becomes his own magisterium.

The only way I and others can accept an infallible magisterium is because we believe in Christ’s promise. If he said that the gates of heaven will not prevail against His Church, that He will guide her into all truth, and that whoever hears them hears Him, then we believe that because He is the Son of God, we can take His word for it. If I do not believe in the infallibility of Jesus’s promise then I really do not believe in Jesus at all, because the Jesus I believe in, then, will be my own construct, incapable of keeping His promise at best and at worst, is actually telling a lie.

And yes, it is hard to accept. I think that I accept it at all can only be due to grace.

My feelings exactly!

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

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.

Hi Lief,

I believe that1 Timothy 3:15 does, indeed, refer to the Church as the “pillar and foundation of the truth.” However, what I perceive this to mean differs from your understanding.

Let me explain my view. Paul is instructing Timothy about how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household. This household is built upon the foundation of TRUE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINE; not upon Peter or the papacy, as such.

It is this true apostolic doctrine that is:

1. The foundation of the Church
2. The true apostolic succession - that is, the true Church always teaches the doctrine of the apostles.

Acts 2:42 asserts this true apostolic doctrine, when it speaks of the Fellowship of believers:

“They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching, and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.”

While the Apostles were alive the TRUE CHURCH stood forth as the “pillar and ground of the truth.” As the Church lives in the power of the Spirit, today, she receives her doctrinal deposit of the truth from this pillar and ground of truth.

When the Church fails to live in dependence on Her DIVINE HEAD ie THE LORD JESUS CHRIST, she loses her UNITY and becomes weak, scattered and chastened.

This, dear brother in Christ, is - in my opinion - the meaning of 1Timothy 3:15.

God bless, In Christ Craig

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

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

To begin:

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.

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.

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:

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.

Hi Lief,

I have given you my position on 1 Timothy 3:15.

I will now answer this post on Acts 15 in a separate reply to allow more room for more detailed comment.

In respect of acts 15 you declare:

"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."

I do not share this view. Please refer to my separate post for my reasons, in rejecting your proposed basis for the Magisterium.

Cheers, In Christ Craig

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

FOR LIEF,

In reply to Post 241 on Acts 15.

Hi Lief,

In your post 241 you have proposed Acts 15 as a model for a “top-level hierarchy” in making infallible decisions, for the guidance of the faithful. In this connection, you write:

“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.”

Is this, however, the case? I, for one, do not think so.

The first thing we must consider is: was the Jerusalem Conference a “Council” as such. I know that you consider this Jerusalem Conference as the “First Church Council” and, therefore, authorising all the “Church Councils” of later church history. I don’t dispute that many helpful decisions were made at later Church Councils, but this does not give any direct support to your idea of a Magisterium.

The decision at Jerusalem smoothed out the path for Law-keeping Jews and Law-free Gentiles to enjoy full fellowship. However, it didn’t solve all the problems - as always, the parties involved tended to view the decisions differently, as they start from different assumptions.

Was, in fact, the Jerusalem Council all definitive, in such a way that no further clarification was necessary. I don’t think so. Paul in Galatians and then in Romans 7-11; 14:1-15; 1 Corinthians 8-10 and so on, had to CLARIFY POINTS and then leave the guidance that we receive in its PERMANENT FORM, THAT IS - THE COMPLETED CANON OF SCRIPTURE. Why is this? In my opinion, it is so we can find in scripture a positive statement about which aspects of any teaching or culture are definitely objectionable to God.

The Jerusalem Conference in Acts 15, properly understood, offers no support for the notion of a ROMAN CATHOLIC MAGISTERIUM.

It does, however, offer support for the general scriptural principle that when disagreement about doctrine and practices disrupts God’s Church, responsible Church Leaders should meet together to find God’s solution that will enable them to go forward together in fruiful fellowship in obedience to God’s revealed will.

These considerations, I think, put the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 in its proper perspective and lend no encouragement to build a theory of an INFALLIBLE MAGISTERIUM.

Cheers, In Christ Craig

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

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.

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.

What do you mean by that?

Agreed.

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.

Hi Lief,

I do agree that there is a Church Leadership with “authority”. You write:

"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."

Yes, in the context of which you write I do agree there is a proper God-ordained Leadership in the Church.

God bless, In Christ Craig

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

Craig, I understand you’re probably thinking about and considering posts 240 and 241 more carefully before responding to them, so that’s fine. I look forward to your responses to those posts, whenever you get around to it.

In the meantime, though, about the post of mine that you did respond to, you forgot to respond to this part of it:

Hi Lief,

I think that what Christ was referring to in His prayer for unity among believers in John 17, was that believers should be “one” in the spiritual bonds of fellowship and apostolic doctrine.

Christ promised His SPIRITUAL PRESENCE whenever two or three are rightly gathered together in His name; when this happens there is RULE, DIRECTION AND PROPER AUTHORITY.

This viewpoint does not, necessarily, demand the INSTITUTION OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH.

God bless you, In Christ Craig

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

Craig, here’s a neat passage referring to the authority of the apostles on all matters of faith. It tells us how to distinguish between falsehood and the Spirit of truth, and it doesn’t say “compare what you hear to Scripture and decide for yourself.” In fact, it says to listen to the apostles.

These verses tell us to listen to the apostles because they “are from God,” and by listening to them “we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood.”

Hi Lief,

While the Apostles lived, I agree that THEN they were given infallible guidance.

I do not believe, however, we have Apostles NOW - THAT IS, TODAY. Their function has now ceased. CHRIST HIMSELF IS THE TRUE AND ONLY FOUNDATION OF THE CHURCH.

We find the full deposit of the Apostles’ teaching and doctrine in the completed canon of scripture.

Cheers, In Christ craig

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

So, sorry I wasn’t very clear there. It is very hard for me to put together a coherent thought on the run (I was working on a power point presentation at the same time as trying to respond to you)

The guidance of the Holy Spirit to come into knowledge of Truth and thereby making it doctrine, is separate but is the preliminary step to being given the power to preach, what ever truth has been arrived at, with boldness.

To go back to the faithful father example, the Holy Spirit guides the father to the truth that infidelity is a sin against God. Should someone suggest to the father that infidelity is okay and the father come to agree with this, then the Holy Spirit will prevent him from teaching his son this error.

But because there are revealed truths (plain as day) such as “Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery”, the Holy Spirit will guide the father to realizing that this, and not the contrary proposition is the Truth.

So this first stage is primarily arriving at Truth. And this may be arrived at negatively as follows: if infidelity is wrong, then fidelity must be right.

After having arrived at this Truth, the father is then emboldened by the Holy Spirit to preach this Truth with vigor and gusto, even exhorting the son to hold fast to this truth to the point of death should there come a time when such a situation arise. The father likewise is expected to do the same.

This is why the guidance not to preach error is important because of the fact that orthopraxis (right conduct) follows from orthodoxy (right doctrine).

In a race, it is important that first of all you are in the right track. Your feat and prowess will be pointless if you are running along a track that is heading straight to a ravine.

Going back to my example on contraception, when every other Christian denomination has accepted this to be not in contradiction with Christ’s teaching, only the Catholic Church has continued to teach that this is wrong and against God’s will (and this position is biblical). Those who preach otherwise are in fact leading others to error and Christ has very strong words about those who lead others to sin.

The same can be said of divorce.

IMO, the other churches have allowed the world to evangelise them, rather than them standing by the Gospel, and evangelizing the world.

In the history of the Church, the guidance of the Holy Spirit has been evident in the way it has battled heresy - from the Circumcision heresy in the first century to Jansenism in the 17th.

The infallible magisterium is hard to accept for most people. In this day and age of individualism, to bow to someone other than our own construct of what constitutes good and evil and revealed truth is hard.

It took a lot of humility on my part to accept something that I, by my own attempts at reasoning, cannot accept. In the end, I accepted because I realized that all these people (popes, bishops, fathers of the church, saints) , thousands of them who have pondered on the issue that I am pondering, have far more knowledge and is more likely to have been guided by the Holy Spirit than me at my own attempts to grasp the Truth.

The thelogical vision of Scripture is of one church united in love and without a magisterium to teach infallibly, everyone in the end becomes his own magisterium.

The only way I and others can accept an infallible magisterium is because we believe in Christ’s promise. If he said that the gates of heaven will not prevail against His Church, that He will guide her into all truth, and that whoever hears them hears Him, then we believe that because He is the Son of God, we can take His word for it. If I do not believe in the infallibility of Jesus’s promise then I really do not believe in Jesus at all, because the Jesus I believe in, then, will be my own construct, incapable of keeping His promise at best and at worst, is actually telling a lie.

And yes, it is hard to accept. I think that I accept it at all can only be due to grace.

Hi Benedictus 2,

In your post you assert:

"This is why the guidance not to preach error is important because of the fact that orthopraxis (right conduct) follows from orthodoxy (right doctrine).

In a race, it is important that first of all you are in the right track. Your feat and prowess will be pointless if you are running along a track that is heading straight to a ravine."

I heartily agree that right conduct comes from right doctrine, which I consider is based on scriptural teaching.

I further agree we must be running on the right track.

God bless you, In Christ Craig

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Hi Lief,

I believe that1 Timothy 3:15 does, indeed, refer to the Church as the “pillar and foundation of the truth.” However, what I perceive this to mean differs from your understanding.

Let me explain my view. Paul is instructing Timothy about how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household. This household is built upon the foundation of TRUE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINE

Ephesians 2:20, which I can see you’re basing this on, says God’s household is built on the foundation of the apostles, not on the foundation of apostolic doctrine. The apostles themselves, of course, are members of the Church, so again the Scripture places the Church before the doctrine. The entire context confirms this interpretation, as verse 19 is referring to human beings rather than teachings, verse 20 refers to people, including Jesus, and verse 22 refers to human beings, “in him you too are being built together . . .” Doctrine is in neither the context nor the words.

It is this true apostolic doctrine that is:

1. The foundation of the Church
2. The true apostolic succession - that is, the true Church always teaches the doctrine of the apostles.

I made my comment about your thinking on the foundation of the Church in my previous paragraph, but I’ll talk about your thinking on the apostolic succession in a moment.

Acts 2:42 asserts this true apostolic doctrine, when it speaks of the Fellowship of believers:

“They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching, and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.”

Fascinating. It appears, from this, that you believe Sacred Tradition existed, though only during the lifespans of the apostles. This was their non-scriptural (as scripture wasn’t yet written and it undoubtedly included a lot of interpretation) and was “true apostolic doctrine.”

We Catholics believe something similar about Acts 2:42. Like you, we believe this verse refers to the Early Church adhering swiftly to “true apostolic doctrine,” or infallible Sacred Tradition. This verse does teach that teachings of the apostles not even based on Scripture (Scripture was later based on them) were authoritative in the Early Christian community. None of the New Testament was written at that particular point in time, so yes, it could only have been “true apostolic doctrine” that they devoted themselves to.

While the Apostles were alive the TRUE CHURCH stood forth as the “pillar and ground of the truth.”

Here’s the link you’re missing: The apostles appointed successors to themselves, to shepherd the flock and keep its faith pure. They appointed personal successors to succeed themselves in their own authority and office as bishops (Acts 1:20, KJV) and gave instructions that bishops be appointed to lead the flock (1 Tim. 3:1, Titus 1:5-9). They also appointed deacons (Acts 6:1-6), elders (14:23), and evangelists (21:8). They passed on their authority to others.

They charged the bishops with the task of defending true doctrine from all error (Titus 1:9).

The true Church, as you say, was indeed the “pillar and foundation of truth,” at that time, yet according to Scripture, they appointed successors to themselves who had authority over the Church, to lead and guide it. Therefore the Church remains the “pillar and foundation of the truth.” Here are the passages:
Acts 1:20:

And his bishopric let another take.

Acts 1:24-25:

Then they prayed and said, “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.”

Thus the office of apostleship never ended. While the apostles eventually died, the office of their authority was handed over to the bishops.

The Earliest Christians were certainly convinced that this was so. Saint Ignatius, one of the earliest writers and a personal friend and disciple of the Apostle John, wrote, “As therefore the Lord did nothing without the Father, being united to Him, neither by Himself nor by the apostles, so neither do ye anything without the bishop and presbyters.”

Continued in the next post . . .

 

[Lief_Erikson]

And St. Ignatius wrote, “Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop. On the other hand, whatever has his approval is pleasing to God. Thus, whatever is done will be safe and valid.” — Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8, J.R.

He further wrote, "I therefore, yet not I, but the love of Jesus Christ, entreat you that you use Christian nourishment only, and abstain from herbage of a different kind; I mean heresy. For those [that are given to this] mix up Jesus Christ with their own poison, speaking things which are unworthy of credit, like those who administer a deadly drug in sweet wine, which he who is ignorant of does greedily take, with a fatal pleasure leading to his own death.

“Be on your guard, therefore, against such persons. And this will be the case with you if you are not puffed up, and continue in intimate union with Jesus Christ our God, and the bishop, and the enactments of the apostles. He that is within the altar is pure, but he that is without is not pure; that is, he who does anything apart from the bishop, and presbytery, and deacons, such a man is not pure in his conscience.”

The Early Church believed that the authority of the apostles was retained in those they appointed as successors. We can see them appointing successors in authority all over the New Testament, as in the verses I cited above, and can see the task of these bishops and other leaders given to protect the Church from error. The Early Church knew what it was talking about, and who better than one of the Apostle John’s intimate friends and disciples would know how this was to be interpreted?

As the Church lives in the power of the Spirit, today, she receives her doctrinal deposit of the truth from this pillar and ground of truth.

Agreed. However, we do not rely on the Spirit alone, but also still upon the Church that remains the pillar and foundation of truth. This is why the Church Christ made has remained one, united to the ancient, Biblical faith of the earliest Christians, and has never fallen into heresy or the subjectivism that dogs individualist belief systems that admit their own fallibility.

When the Church fails to live in dependence on Her DIVINE HEAD ie THE LORD JESUS CHRIST, she loses her UNITY and becomes weak, scattered and chastened.

I agree that this is the result of Christians losing their dependence on Jesus. And you should take this further. When Christians fail to live in dependence on the authorities Christ instituted to guide the Church as representatives of Him, they fail to adhere perfectly to their Head and thus scatter. There is a reason why scattering on crucial matters of doctrine plagues Protestantism with over 30,000 denominations and vast numbers more non-denominationals, while the Catholic Church remains one.

The reason is not that Protestants are overall much bigger sinners than Catholics. The reason is that where people break from the foundation of the apostles, they build a house not on a rock but on sand, so it always falls, no matter how people modify it to try to make it work and get it to become more in line with the will of the Holy Spirit.

This, dear brother in Christ, is - in my opinion - the meaning of 1Timothy 3:15.

I’m glad the verse you’re referring to says the foundation is the apostles, rather than the doctrine of the apostles, or the writings of the apostles. For if the Scripture said that, then the Church would not really be the truth’s foundation, but rather the teaching would be, or the Scripture. Then your view of Sola Scriptura might have been justified. And if it was, then the mayhem of Protestantism might have been what God would want for all of us, rather than unity in clearly revealed truth.

 

[AveSantaMaria]

*Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with Thee. Blessed art Thou among women and blessed is the fruit of Thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. Amen. *

Come Holy Spirit, come by means of the powerful intercession of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, your well beloved spouse. Come Holy Spirit, come by means of the powerful intercession of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, your well beloved spouse. Come Holy Spirit, come by means of the powerful intercession of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, your well beloved spouse.

As a born Catholic who ventured into Protestantism for a little over two years, I am a little curious as to the Protestant Sola Scriptura doctrine. What is the Protestant justification for Sola Scriptura? Why is Scripture infalliable in Protestant eyes? Why do we not include the Acts of Peter or the Acts of Peter and Paul or the Gospel of James in Sola Scriptura? Do Protestants think it is **ok ** that they have so many different churches with so many contrary interpretations of scripture, even such as the Mormons, Seventh-Day Adventists, Jehovah Witnesses, or that Lutherans and all Protestants are followers of Martin Luther, who wrote “On the Jews and their Lies”, which influenced Nazi Germany, and he was referred to by the Fuhrer as a great warrior, a true statesman, and a great reformer? What about the fact that people frequently believe that God is talking to them especially through coincidences? In fact, one Protestant minister delivered a pre-election message from God himself to Sarah Palin, telling her that she was sent to be a new Esther? Or what about the lack of saints in the Protestant church of the caliber of Mother Theresa, St. Francis of Assisi, St. Maximilian Maria, St. Martin de Porres, St. Josephine Bakhita, (or even St. Padre Pio or St. Therese de Liseux if you accept Catholic teaching) Why would God keep a church through divinely appointed leaders and authoritative teaching throughout the Old Testament and then ordain for it continual splitting and thousands of independent churches of different doctrines after Jesus came? Do Protestants think that Luther is a saint?

I think that I left the Catholic church because I wanted the supportive/friendly Protestant community and I thought that Catholic hierarchy was suspect - they were not following scripture literally and I inwardly suspected that maybe the Marian apparitions were demonic.

I think that I came back to Catholicism mostly because I followed the literal interpretation of the Bible to the best of my knowledge and thought it made a mess of life and made me very irrational, as my understanding of the subtleties of scripture were incomplete. I seriously doubt that God was talking to me during all the times that me and my Protestant friends thought that he was. I had a personal experience that convinced me that yes, the demonic does exist, and my wonderful standing in Protestant community provided no barrier against it this painful experience - there was conflict between my confidence in myself as a follower of God’s teaching and the effect of this supposed teaching in my life.

I no longer trust my feelings in making any spiritual choices or even my rigorous analysis. I trust the hierarchy and the teaching of the saints and the Bible, and I use my rigorous analysis to understand this teaching, accepting on faith what I cannot understand. Even things in the Bible, such as when Jesus quotes the Scripture to the Pharisees, “The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under my feet” or the concept of the Trinity, or why is it that “Jesus and the Father are one but the Father is greater than Jesus,” I find my grace or capacity for understanding is limited. I sincerely hope that my disappointment at not being able to comprehend life may hold within it shreads of “poverty in spirit” or humility. I have also found hope in Catholicism for moral rightness, as Catholic teaching, to the best of my knowledge, recognized slavery as wrong as early as the 1600s or even before, years before the American Civil War, and the Catholic hierarchy under Pope Pius XI (jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/piustoc.html) seems to have rescued more Jewish people during the Holocaust than all the international aid organizations combined, and the Catholic church was pretty much the only church in Nazi Germany to take a stand against forced sterlization of the mentally ill because of the 100% pro-life stance while all other churches did not. Furthermore, I found with research that my prior suspicion of the Immaculate Heart of Mary seemed, instead of being well-founded, to be horribly wrong and Catholic saints like St. Francis of Assisi seem to be the rare people who have existed since the time of Jesus Christ who took the Gospel 100% literally, so I can actually observe the results of following God in them and I am so grateful for the preservation and gift of their examples.

Come Holy Spirit, come by means of the powerful intercession of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, your well beloved spouse. Come Holy Spirit, come by means of the powerful intercession of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, your well beloved spouse. Come Holy Spirit, come by means of the powerful intercession of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, your well beloved spouse.

*Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with Thee. Blessed art Thou among women and blessed is the fruit of Thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. Amen. *

 

[benedictus2]

Hi Benedictus 2,

In your post you assert:

"This is why the guidance not to preach error is important because of the fact that orthopraxis (right conduct) follows from orthodoxy (right doctrine).

In a race, it is important that first of all you are in the right track. Your feat and prowess will be pointless if you are running along a track that is heading straight to a ravine."

I** heartily agree that right conduct comes from right doctrine, which I consider is based on scriptural teaching.**

I further agree we must be running on the right track.

God bless you, In Christ Craig

True, but scripture is not always clear especially when we come to the finer points of living our faith in the modern age.

If scripture is so clear, how come the anglicans now have actively homosexual priests, how come every protestant church, contrary to the bible, accepts contraception and divorce? They all claim that they have the Bible to back their beliefs.

And we go back to the question again of who is right. Lutherans believe in the Real Presence (based on the Bible) but Calvinists don’t (apparently also based on the Bible). With all these different interpretations of the Bible who then is right?

And this is what happens without a Magisterium. As I said before, everyone becomes his own magisterium. If I don’t agree with this church’s take on the Bible, I will set up my own.

Ask yourself, do you really think, having read John and the other 3 gospels that this splintered mess we call Christianity today is what Jesus had in mind when he said to Peter, upon this rock I will build My church? Is this in keeping with his prayer that we may be one as He and the Father are one (John 17:11). Did he really want every Tom, **** and Harry to start his own church?

The fact that every Christian is crying for unity means that they concede that the situation is not ideal.

Everyone claims to have been guided by the Holy Spirit and yet how can that be when their stands are in opposition to each other?

And if the Holy Spirit is not guiding all these dirvergent interpretations, then who is?

po18guy put it this way on another thread:

“Two pertinent questions:1. Does the Holy Spirit unite?2. Does the demon divide?”