To live by faith

[Cinette]

*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. *

…

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.

[/INDENT]
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. *

,* " Seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand."

St Augustine*

You express my sentiments exactly when you say that your understanding is limited and that you trust the Authority of the Church in interpreting and explaining matters of Faith. That is their job! Jesus promised us that he would be with us always and that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church into all truth always. I believe Jesus and we have the witness of 2000 years. The evidence there. The truth is so clear.

Thank you for that.
Cinette

 

[Cinette]

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?”

If the Lutherans believed in transsubstantiation (maybe during the time of Luther) they no longer do so. I once met a Lutheran pastor socially and in conversation he explained to me his belief that only during communion is the bread the “body” of Jesus - when it is received by the communicant. Whatever is left over is just bread and they usually feed it to the birds. I understand there are several threads of Lutherism. It is difficult to identify which is which.

 

[benedictus2]

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

Sorry to but in.

It is Christ’s Church, but he decided to build it on Peter and it is His Spirit that continue to guide it to this day. Sometimes I have the feeling that protestants if they can would have stopped these words being written or being included in Matthew.

Note too, Jesus says; it was the Father who revealed this to Peter, so the Father actually had a hand in choosing Peter.

When you come to think that the definitioin of a canon of books was started only by Pope Damasus in the council of Rome in 382 and not finalized until 787, the Apostles were long dead by then.

By your reasoning therefore, those who came up with the canon were no longer infallible.

To say that infallibility rested with the Apostles and not after that means that you do not think the Bible as it is today is infallible because that was established at the very least 200 years after apostolic times.

And if you say that okay, those who defined the canon were infallible but not their successors, how do you determine that. What standard do you use to determine when infallibility was in and when it went out. And who determines that ?

 

[dawid]

I am grateful that I am welcome to attend Mass in any Catholic parish, anywhere in the world; it’s just that I cannot partake of the Eucharist!

The first part of your statement is true today.
At the time of the Church fathers, those who wished to join the Church (catechumens) were excluded from the Mass until they were fully part of the Church.

One of the reasons was possibly due to the persecution of the members - you really didn’t want an agent from the emperor in your midst.

This did indeed happen and part of Pliny’s (the Roman official) records reflect the Mass and the Eucharist.

This restriction has however changed and today your statement is valid.

Concerning the second part of your statement, while I was in discussion woth my archbishop, he informed me that it is permittable for a non-Catholic to receive Communion at Mass under certain circumstances.

I would recommend that you discuss this with the bishop of your local diocese.

 

[dawid]

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.

The text in brown is concerned with the term “Apostle” discussed at newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm

The word “Apostle”, from the Greek apostello “to send forth”, “to dispatch”, has etymologically a very general sense. Apostolos (Apostle) means one who is sent forth, dispatched–in other words, who is entrusted with a mission, rather, a foreign mission. It has, however, a stronger sense than the word messenger, and means as much as a delegate. In the classical writers the word is not frequent. In the Greek version of the Old Testament it occurs once, in 1 Kings 14:6 (cf. 1 Kings 12:24). In the New Testament, on the contrary. it occurs, according to Bruder’s Concordance, about eighty times, and denotes often not all the disciples of the Lord, but some of them specially called. It is obvious that our Lord, who spoke an Aramaic dialect, gave to some of his disciples an Aramaic title, the Greek equivalent of which was “Apostle”. It seems to us that there is no reasonable doubt about the Aramaic word being seliah, by which also the later Jews, and probably already the Jews before Christ, denoted “those who were despatched from the mother city by the rulers of the race on any foreign mission, especially such as were charged with collecting the tribute paid to thetemple service” (Lightfoot, “Galatians”, London, 1896, p. 93). The word apostle would be an exact rendering of the root of the word seliah,= apostello.

When Judas Iscariot ceased to be an apostle, he was replaced by another.

St. Ignatius of Antioch declares that this ministry holds legitimately its authority from God through Christ (Letter to the Philadelphians, i). Clement of Rome, in his Letter; to the Church of Corinth (about 96), defends with energy the legitimacy of the ministry of bishops and, priests, and proclaims that the Apostles established successors to govern the churches (xlii-xliv). We may conclude with confidence that, about the end of the second century, the ministers of the churches were everywhere regarded as legitimate successors of the Apostles; this common persuasion is of primary importance.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

CHRIST HIMSELF IS THE TRUE AND ONLY FOUNDATION OF THE CHURCH.

That theory is not supported by anything in the Bible I know of. And it directly contradicts Revelation 21, which says that the apostles are the permanent foundation of the Church, that no one enters the city of God except through the apostles!

Revelation 21:12 says that in the city of God there are 12 gates, representing the 12 tribes of Israel (which also represent the completeness of the Church. People must pass through those gates, in other words be a part of the Church, to enter the city of God.

Then, in Rev. 21:14, it says, “And the wall of the city has twelve foundations, and on them are the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.”

The gates, representing the Church, or the true paths of the Church, are of course supported by and built in the wall, the foundation of which is the apostles. Every believer must pass through the wall, the foundations of the apostles, to enter the city of God. Therefore this foundation of the apostles is an eternal bulwark for the Church, not a temporary one limited to the 1st century. Every Christian must pass through this wall to enter the city, both then and now. And this is the wall that, according to Rev. 21, keeps all that is unclean out of the Church.

 

[Cinette]

The first part of your statement is true today.
At the time of the Church fathers, those who wished to join the Church (catechumens) were excluded from the Mass until they were fully part of the Church.

One of the reasons was possibly due to the persecution of the members - you really didn’t want an agent from the emperor in your midst.

This did indeed happen and part of Pliny’s (the Roman official) records reflect the Mass and the Eucharist.

This restriction has however changed and today your statement is valid.

Concerning the second part of your statement, while I was in discussion woth my archbishop, he informed me that it is permittable for a non-Catholic to receive Communion at Mass under certain circumstances.

I would recommend that you discuss this with the bishop of your local diocese.

Dawid! - Craig doesn’t believe in trans-substantiation. He believes that the bread and wine is not consecrated into the body and blood but that this is just a spiritual transformation. So he could never be permitted to partake.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

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;

The view that Christ was talking only about “spiritual” unity in his prayer runs contrary to Scripture. St. Paul taught that physical and spiritual unity are interrelated, for he teaches that by dividing from those who are wrong, it will “become clear who among you are genuine.” Thus physical division is a sign of spiritual division:

1 Cor. 11:17-19 says, “Now in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. For, to begin with, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you; and to some extent I believe it. Indeed, there have to be factions among you, for only so will it become clear who among you are genuine.”

He teaches in Galations 5:20-21 that people engaged in “dissensions” or “factions,” “will not inherit the kingdom of God.” So on the one hand, in 1 Corinthians, Paul encourages “factions” in the sense that he wants people who are faithful to his teachings to divide from those that aren’t, so that in the one faithful faction the truth may be made clear. On the other hand, in Galatians we see that the existence of factions is a sign of division from the Kingdom of Heaven. Therefore Jesus could not have been talking about only “spiritual” unity. Physical unity is also part of it.

This is made even more clear when we look at the fact that Jesus prays that the Church “may be one, as we are one.” Jesus and the Father are one totally, with no division whatsoever. They are Persons of one Godhead. They aren’t just “one in spirit” while their actions or viewpoints on various issues can be in discord. They are entirely one, in total agreement on all doctrine. In the same way, Jesus prays that the Church may be one. In the Catholic Church, this unity exists to the extent that Catholics submit to the Church’s teaching (thus separating themselves from “dissensions” condemned in Scripture) and faithfully follow Christ in the paths of his apostles.

If the Catholic Church is wrong in its doctrine of the Magesterium, though, then believers are called to to divide from it and form a different faction, according to 1 Cor. 11, that they might be more perfectly united with the trueness of Christ’s teaching. If this is the case, then Christianity has always been broken in unity from its origins up to now, and there has never been a time when Christ’s prayer was answered since the apostles died.

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.

Authority was never the context of that verse. One can see from the verse immediately preceeding that it was talking about the power of community prayer (Matt. 18:19).

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

God bless you, In Christ Craig

My position remains that while you’re right that your viewpoint does not demand the Catholic Church, the Scripture does.

 

[twb1621]

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, My loving Christian Brother, what I am about to say is with respect to you for your devotion and that I feel is clear. But in addressing that which you have not seen of yourself. at this point it would be beneficial to you to step outside the limits you have established for yourself in order to see what it is you are saying and how you are selectively discrediting ALL that which Jesus has instructed in clear words. Some things require interpretation of course but you are interpreting direct instructions into meaning something you base on another unrelated opinion which is self defeatist. I realize it is hard for you to accept the principles of Sacred Tradition and infalibillity. I have no doubt the Holy Spirit will help you there. But the fact is you attest to gospel but refute gospel at the same time and yet you love the word of God. That is directly because you are interpreting that which needs no interpretation. You say “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.”
You are correct in one sence and that is that we do not have Apostles now as we did then. But look at what you are saying. You are refuting the word of Jesus based on your opinion. That is the problem. The Bible is not up for individual opinions and you know in your heart it is not. Put away opinions for a minute and open your mind, add together all that is written and what was ordered by Christ in the establishment AND PROCESSION of His Church until His return. Look at the history that floowed, and consider everything you are trying to devote yourself to came from exactly the same source.

Paradosis: Handing On Divine Revelation
Catholic Christians believe that in Jesus Christ the Lord is summed up the entire Revelation of the most high God.
On Divine Revelation, 7, Vatican II Therefore [it is] Christ the Lord, in whom the entire Revelation of the most high God is summed up…
2 Cor 1:20
For however many are the promises of God, their Yes is in him (Jesus Christ).
2 Cor 4:5-6
For we do not preach ourselves but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your slaves for the sake of Jesus. For God who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” has shone in our hearts to bring to light the knowledge of the glory of God on the face of (Jesus) Christ.
The Revelation of Yahweh to His chosen People was given to the Israelites and transmitted from generation to generation for centuries.
Peter defined the process of handing down the Revelation of Yahweh from father to son. The Greek word for this process of handing on the Word of God is paradosis .
1 Pet 1:18-19
… realizing that you were ransomed from your futile conduct, handed on (patroparadotos) by your ancestors, not with perishable things like silver or gold but with the precious blood of Christ as of a spotless and unblemished lamb
The New Testament authors referred frequently to the process of “handing on” the Word of God to His People.
Lk 1:1-2
Since many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning and ministers of the word have handed them down (paredosan) to us.
1 Cor 11:23
For I received from the Lord what I also handed on (paredoka) to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread …
1 Cor 15:3-4
For I handed on (paredoka) to you as of first importance what I also received …
2 Tim 2:2
And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust (parathou) to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.
It is Paul who makes the distinction of modes in which the Revelation of God to His People can be handed on.
Paul also called the process of handing on the Word of God “tradition.” He then terms two ways in which “traditions” are transmitted, by word, orally, and by letter, written.
2 Thess 2:15
Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions (paradoseis) that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.
Therefore, Catholic Christians believe that the Bible–written tradition–is not the only source of Revelation. And, Catholic Christians believe, the Bible does not teach that it is the only source of Revelation.
John 20:30
Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of (his) disciples that are not written in this book.
John 21:25
There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.
The official teaching of the Catholic Church reflects Biblical teaching on the whole of Revelation.
On Divine Revelation, 9, 10, Vatican II
Sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other … Sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God, which is entrusted to the Church.
Catholic Christians believe that the Bible affirms that God’s way of revealing himself to His People is to choose certain people for these tasks:
o in the Hebrew Scriptures these people were the patriarchs, continued… to 2

 

[twb1621]

#2
continued from 1
prophets, judges, and kings;
o in the New Testament, these people are apostles, prophets, teachers, and faithful people.
Paul defines the New Testament people chosen to hand on the Revelation of the Word of God.
2 Tim 2:2
And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.
Paul also continues to describe who the “faithful people” are who are to hand on the Revelation of God.
The first category of “faithful people” is episcopos, bishop.
1 Tim 3:1-2
This saying is trustworthy: whoever aspires to the office of bishop (episcopes) desires a noble task. Therefore, a bishop (episcopon) must be irreproachable, married only once, temperate, self-controlled, decent, hospitable, able to teach.
Tit 1:7-9
For a bishop (episcopon) as God’s steward must be blameless, … holding fast to the true message as taught so that he will be able both to exhort with sound doctrine and to refute opponents.
The second category of “faithful people” is presbyteros, a presbyter, priest, elder.
Tit 1:5-6
Appoint presbyters (presbyterois) in every town, as I directed you, on condition that a man be blameless, married only once, with believing children who are not accused of licentiousness or rebellious.
1 Tim 5:17
Presbyters who preside well deserve double honor, especially those who toil in preaching and teaching.
The third category of “faithful people” is diakonos, deacon.
1 Tim 4:6,13,16
If you will give these instructions to the brothers, you will be a good minister (diakonos) of Christ Jesus, nourished on the words of the faith and of the sound teaching you have followed. … Until I arrive, attend to the reading, exhortation, and teaching. … Attend to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in both tasks, for by doing so you will save both yourself and those who listen to you.
1 Tim 3:8-9
Similarly, deacons (diakonous) must be dignified, not deceitful, not addicted to drink, not greedy for sordid gain, holding fast to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience.
The Bible testifies that the Apostolic Church exercised this teaching authority (“holding fast to the true message … to refute opponents” (Tit 1:9)) beyond the words and deeds of Jesus Christ.
The Acts of the Apostles records that there were different truths being taught regarding keeping the Mosaic Law. One group represented by Judaizers taught that Gentile Christians must come to the Christian life through keeping the Mosaic Law; the second group represented by Paul taught that Gentile Christians did not need to keep the Mosaic Law. There was also no Scripture regarding the truth of the issue. So they appealed to the authority of the Holy Spirit in council. The Catholic Church has followed this model ever since.

Error in teaching:

Acts 15:1
Some who had come down from Judea were instructing the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the Mosaic practice, you cannot be saved.”
Dissension and controversy:

Acts 15:2
Because there arose no little dissension and debate by Paul and Barnabas with them, …
Appeal to the apostles and presbyters in Jerusalem:

Acts 15:2
… it was decided that Paul, Barnabas, and some of the others should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and presbyters about this question.
Apostles and presbyters convened:

Acts 15:6
The apostles and the presbyters met together to see about this matter.
Discussion:

Acts 15:7-11 - Peter
Acts 15:12 - Barnabas and Paul
Acts 15:13-21 - James
Problem is resolved:

Acts 15:22
Then the apostles and presbyters, in agreement with the whole church, decided …
Decree is promulgated:

Acts 15:22-23
The ones chosen were Judas, who was called Barsabbas, and Silas, leaders among the brothers. This is the letter delivered by them: “The apostles and the presbyters, your brothers, to the brothers in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia of Gentile origin: greetings.”
The authority of the Holy Spirit is appealed:

Acts 15:28
It is the decision of the holy Spirit and of us …
Paradosis or tradition falls into two categories. The difference can be seen in Acts 15. Besides the issue of following the Mosaic Law for gentile converts, which meant primarily circumcision, the Council of Jerusalem also decreed that converts had “to avoid pollution from idols, unlawful marriage, the meat of strangled animals, and blood” (Acts 15:20).

There are clearly distinguished paradosis or traditions which are considered irrevocable, unchangeable, even to our day, e.g. circumcision is not a requirement for new Christians. On the other hand, today we would not be concerned with “pollution from idols,” how an animal is killed for meat, or whether blood is in our food. These appear to be different traditions from the former–changeable and not binding in the same way as non-circumcision.

The Roman Catholic Church also follows this biblical model in her approach to paradosis/traditions.

Hence, there are paradosis/traditions which are unchangeable, capital letter “T”, “Traditions.” These are the defined faith or moral teachings based on the Bible but revealed by the Holy Spirit as an authority in the Church (Acts 15:28). An example from the history of the Roman Catholic Church of Tradition (with a capital letter “T”) is the teaching on purgatory. This teaching of the Church can never change.

There appear to be paradosis/traditions which are changeable, small letter “t”, “traditions.” These are the “rules of the organization, rules of the club.” These change as people, culture, faith and understanding develop. An example from the history of the Roman Catholic Church of tradition (with a lower case letter “t”) is the teaching on the prohibition of eating meat on Fridays. This practice of mandatory abstinence as penance in the Church has changed.
Continued to #3

 

[Lief_Erikson]

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

The word “canon” is not in the Scripture and the idea of a canon or even a “Bible” is not taught in the Scripture. The Scripture does teach that there are God-breathed Scriptures, but does not say when or if the canon will be ever completed. Neither does it say that there is a canon. So what is the authority on which is grounded your view that “we find the full deposit of the apostles’ teaching and doctrine in the completed canon of scripture”?

 

[twb1621]

#3
Continued from #2
Bishop of Rome
The Roman Catholic Church from Apostolic times has literally followed the Bible in the establishment of good order in the Church. According to Paul’s letters to Timothy and Titus there are three orders to the organization and leadership of the Church (sometimes known as ecclesiastical order or hierarchy): episcopos or bishops, presbyteros or elders, commonly translated priests, and diaconos or deacons.
The first in order and the greatest in authority is the episcopos, the bishop.
1 Tim 3:1-2
This saying is trustworthy: whoever aspires to the office of bishop (episcopes) desires a noble task. Therefore, a bishop (episcopon) must be irreproachable, married only once, temperate, self-controlled, decent, hospitable, able to teach …
Tit 1:7,9
For a bishop (episcopon) as God’s steward must be blameless, not arrogant, not irritable, not a drunkard, not aggressive, not greedy for sordid gain, holding fast to the true message as taught so that he will be able both to exhort with sound doctrine and to refute opponents.
Luke, in the Acts of the Apostles, distinguishes the shepherding role of the episcopos/bishop.
Acts 20:28
Keep watch over yourselves and over the whole flock of which the holy Spirit has appointed you overseers (episcopous), in which you tend the church of God that he acquired with his own blood.
The shepherding role of the apostle Peter as episcopos was related by John.
Jn 21:15-17
When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” He then said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” (Jesus) said to him, “Feed my sheep.”
The Roman Catholic Church believes that the twelve apostles were the first episcopes, receiving at the Last Supper their leadership order to serve when Jesus told them “Do this in remembrance of Me.”
Peter, as demonstrated in the biblical portrait of him, exercised a leadership role first among the other apostles and early Christians, and then later in Rome before his martyrdom there in 67/68 AD.
Peter’s presence in Rome in indicated in his first letter. The name “Babylon” is used here as a cryptic name for the city of Rome, a characteristic of writings done during times of persecution. During Peter’s time (witnessed by his own martyrdom) and most New Testament times (witness the Book of Revelation–classic persecution literature), Rome took on the characteristics of the most outstanding example of a world power hostile to God–ancient Babylon.
1 Peter 5:12-13
I write you this briefly through Silvanus … The chosen one at Babylon sends you greeting, as does Mark, my son.
Clement of Rome (I Clement) and Irenaeus (To the Romans) both attest to Peter’s presence and death in Rome.
Paul makes mention of Linus, a Christian at Rome. Irenaeus (Adversus Haereses, 3, 3, 3) tells us that the same Linus was Peter’s first successor as bishop of Rome.
2 Timothy 4:21
Eubulus, Pudens, Linus, Claudia, and all the brothers send greetings.
Two great historians of the Church, Eusebius of Caesarea, a bishop and historian of the Council of Nicaea, and Augustine, bishop and theologian, preserve for us the list of successors of the bishop of Rome to their own time. They attest to the sense and realization the Church had to the need for historic succession to the Bishop of Rome.
Eusebius (260-339), The History of the Church, Book 3, 324 AD
After the martyrdom of Paul and Peter, the first man to be appointed Bishop of Rome was Linus. … Linus, who is mentioned in the Second Epistle to Timothy as being with Paul in Rome, as stated above was the first after Peter to be appointed Bishop of Rome. Clement again, who became the third Bishop of Rome … to Miltiades.
Augustine (354-430), Letters, No. 53, 400 AD
For, to Peter succeeded Linus, to Linus, Clement, to Clement Anacletus, to Anacletus Evaristus, … to Siricius Anastasius.
On the following pages is a list the bishops of Rome from Peter to Benedict XVI. Historians both secular and ecclesiastical concur with a final list published by the Vatican Library.
The only biblical “claim to fame” of these men is that they are episcopoi, bishops. There is no greater “order” according to the Bible. The Catholic Church teaches this. Other titles are only honorary and organizational.
The Catholic Church has also taken Paul at his word.
1 Cor 4:14-16
I am writing you this not to shame you, but to admonish you as my beloved children. Even if you should have countless guides to Christ, yet you do not have many fathers, for I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel. Therefore, I urge you, be imitators of me.
1 Thess 2:11-12
As you know, we treated each one of you as a father treats his children, exhorting and encouraging you and insisting that you conduct yourselves as worthy of the God who calls you into his kingdom and glory.
Continued to #4

 

[twb1621]

final

The faithful of the Church has always called their ordered leadership “father.” In Greek, the language of the early Church, the word for father was pappas; in Latin, the language of the later Church, the word for father was papa.
By the 300’s, bishops were sometimes called “pope” a corruption of the word for father. By the 700’s the title for affection and respect for the Bishop of Rome exclusively was Pope.
It is not uncommon for enemies and non-believers of Roman Catholicism to create an argument against the succession and therefore validity of the Bishops of Rome as true successors to Peter by proffering the history of the “bad Popes.” That argument arises from a basic misunderstanding of Sacred Scripture.
The first response to be made to the so-called argument from the “bad Popes” is admission that many men who held the position of Bishop of Rome were not holy men. Perhaps Peter was the best model for human failure in such a leadership role. He denied Jesus three times after being told he would do so. Some (e.g., Peter, Judas) who are called stumble and fall.
Some (Peter) repent and are saved. Others (Judas) reject that grace. It behooves us to remember that Jesus does not call saints, but sinners.
Lk 5:31-32
Jesus said to them in reply, “Those who are healthy do not need a physician, but the sick do. I have not come to call the righteous to repentance but sinners.”
Mt 9:12
He heard this and said, “Those who are well do not need a physician, but the sick do.”
The moral miracle of the “bad Popes” is that they were worldly men, public sinners, and never functioned as spiritual leaders nor touched or changed the deposit of faith of Christianity.
We are reminded by the Lord even to the present day that the lifestyle of the messenger does not alter the validity of the message. Recall the American TeleEvangelists’ scandals in 1987 and 1988.

catholicapologetics.org/cabiapbk.htm

 

[Lief_Erikson]

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.

How does the word fail to describe accurately what happened? The Scripture says the apostles and elders assembled specifically to discuss a certain issue of faith (v. 6) and make a decision on the matter for the Church (v. 28, 16:4). That is what a Church council is. They also said their decision was that of the Holy Spirit, which is a clear claim of infallibility (v. 28).

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.

Actually, it does, as the Early Church was convinced that its councils were authoritative and that the practice was of apostolic origin. They were in a far better position to know the meaning of the apostles than you or I, so their practice and belief is a direct support to “my idea” of a Magesterium .

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.

Something severely condemned by Paul. There historically have often been people who reject the will of the Holy Spirit revealed in the councils. But Paul said that people who engage in “dissensions” will not be in the Kingdom of Heaven (Gal. 5:20-21).

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

Oh, come on, Craig. No council is going to give all the answers to every question. They will only provide the answers to the questions brought up in the council. Councils also do not always provide a message in such a way that “no further clarification is necessary.” For there are always more details that could be defined.

And the council was clear on what it set out to clarify in verses 19-20. No passage you’ve provided shows that the teachings of the council were unclear- I skimmed those chapters, and they talk about things that the council was not even trying to talk about. It’s not like the whole Christian message was supposed to be defined in council #1. They were only giving dogma on the matter of the Gentiles and some other matters relating to the Law (v. 29).

If Paul wanted to repeat some of those teachings in his letters, how does that contradict the infallibility of the council? Some of the believers may not have got the message, or it may be being implemented in an unsatisfactory fashion, or Paul may simply be repeating to them how important this is.

Of course Paul can give further clarifications if he wants to. Our bishops and priests clarify matters of faith for confused laypeople all the time, including teachings passed on by councils. And sometimes priests themselves don’t know enough on certain matters of faith and are therefore instructed on the teachings of councils by other believers.

A repetition of or clarification of words of a council in no way negates the authority or infallibility of that council.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

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.

And everyone will interpret that passage in accordance with their own beliefs and upbringings, feel like the Spirit is guiding them, and then will come up with a million contradictory results. That’s why you need an infallible interpreter of the infallible Word, just as you did in the Old Testament- or denominationalism (or, worse, non-denominationalism) will be the result. Jesus said, “Sanctify them in the truth.”

Your claim that we have “the completed canon of scripture” is not supported by any verse of Scripture, and neither are the books of canon listed in Scripture, and neither does Scripture even say that there should be a canon! It never says Christians should make one or even talks about one at all. The word “canon” is not in the Bible. Neither is the word “Bible.” “Scriptures,” are referred to, though Scripture never says what any of the New Testament era “Scriptures” are or if there is a limited number of them. So what authority is your belief based on, that God would, “leave the guidance that we receive in its PERMANENT FORM, THAT IS - THE COMPLETED CANON OF SCRIPTURE,” considering that none of these necessary foundations for this belief are even in the Scripture?
Craig Kennedy:

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

You haven’t responded to any of the points I raised about the verses of Acts 15, yet.

You did argue, though, that clarifications or reaffirmations of the council were made later. However, the chapters you brought up, at least as far as I saw when skimming them, do not touch on the issues the council met to discuss. They discuss different issues unrelated to the topics of the council. Therefore a teaching by Paul about a matter unrelated to the council is hardly a “clarification” of that council.

Furthermore, I’d like to point out that the Church fully accepts the possibility of the need for clarifications of councils. For instance, the Council of Trent clarified and reaffirmed the teachings of the councils of Rome, Carthage and Hippo, when it declared infallibly the Scripture’s canon. And Vatican II was called together as a clarification of Vatican I. These things do not contradict the infallibility of what the councils they were describing, any more than the “clarifications” you and I are engaged in right now about the meaning of the Scripture contradict its infallibility.
Craig Kennedy:

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.

Exactly. That is the role of the Magesterium. And without its infallibility (v. 28 “it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us”), these decisions could be neither binding nor authoritative, as the decisions of Acts 15 were (v. 28, “impose on you”, 16:4, “they delivered . . . for observance the decisions”).
Craig Kennedy:

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.

What the heck?

 

[guanophore]

Talking about matters of Faith.

Protestants often ask why they are not allowed to receive the Eucharist in the Catholic Church. They are offended by this.

Some people (Catholics) think that the Bishops who speak up that pro-choice Catholics should abstain from receiving Holy Communion are “over the top”.

I have been contemplating this and the passage in Corinthians came up:

*1 Cor 10:16
”The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a sharing in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a sharing in the body of Christ?”

1 Cor 11:27-29
“Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord. 28Examine yourselves, and only then eat the bread and drink of the cup. 29For all who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgment against themselves.”
*

If Holy Communion (the Eucharist) is only symbolic, as Protestants believe, then why would we be eating and drinking judgment against ourselves?

I am thinking of this particularly as the USA is coming close to the elections. How can anyone “examine their conscience” and think it OK to vote for a pro-choice candidate?

This is a very good point. You can 't “profane” by consuming something (or in this case Someone) who is not present. If you are not really consuming the body and the blood, then how can you “profane” that which does not exist?

Another question is, if the “body and blood” are symbolic, then how is it He gave His “symbolic” flesh and blood on the cross?

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

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.

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.

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.

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:

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 . . .

Hi Lief,

You say:

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

You NEED to believe this to support your theory. You produce historical information and try to use this to provide vital connections with your theory.

The Church (ekklesia) in the biblical sense connotes an assembly rather than an INSTITUTION in our modern sense.

God bless you, Craig

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

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?

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.

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.

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.

Hi Lief,

You are giving too much weight to the opinions of the early Church. You state:

“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?”

I do not think the views of the early Church were infallible and, in fact, Church histories often show they were sometimes divided among themselves over some doctrines; for example millennialism, gifts of the Spirit, the charismata, eschatology, the nature and character of the Church etc

God bless, Craig

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

*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 ([
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. *](http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/piustoc.html )

I, like you, regret the splintering that has occurred within the Christian Church.

Humbly, I say, I do not have all the answers; if I did I would not be on this forum searching for better answers than I have NOW.

However, there are some convictions that I have conscientiously and firmly formed on my Christian journey. One such conviction is that the UNITY of the Church, at whatever level it meets, in earth or in heaven, derives from the Lord of the Church, who is its one Head.

This is why I believe that the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH IS PART OF CHRIST’S UNIVERSAL CHURCH, but it is not - in and of itself - the Church which Christ founded.

In Christ, Craig
​

​

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

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?”

Hi Benedictus2,

How is it, then, that the current Pope believes in “theistic evolution” when it is painfully obvious that many Cardinals and Bishops reject this interpretation as erroneous?

How can this be, in the light of an INFALLIBLE MAGISTERIUM?

God bless, Craig