What is the standard against which you measure your understanding of Scripture?

[Pax]

michaelp:

Eat and drink of Christ body and blood is sybolic for belief. When we take the bread and wine, we are sybolically making Christ a part of us. He becomes who we are. This only happens to the degree that we believe in Him.Michael

You need to establish this from scripture and from the early Church Fathers to demonstrate that this contention is true.

michaelp:

Belief is the primary theme of John, not the Lord’s supper. In fact, John does not even record the Lord’s supper. The only Gospel that does not. Therefore, the emphasis, even in this chapter, is belief.Michael

John Chapter 6 is indeed about the Eucharist. It is true that John does not record the Last Supper, but it is also true that the entire gospel of John is written differently from the synoptic gospels. You conclude that the emphasis of the Chapter is belief. If that is true, then we must know what it is that Jesus wants us to believe. He wants us to believe that “we must eat His flesh and drink his blood to have life within us, and that if we eat His flesh and drink His blood, He will raise us up on the last day.” You cannot separate belief from the thing that must be believed.

michaelp:

John 6:35 Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst.

This is a parallel construct which shows coming to Christ = not hungering, and believing in Christ = not thirsting. It is in this context that He talks about eating His flesh and drining His blood. This is the context of the passage and therefore, it shows that Christ was referring to belief using a vivid illustration which shows the life and substance changing nature that true belief involves.Michael

This explanation is not at all satisfying to anyone that simply reads the plain meaning of the message. Your construct of what is determining the context and therefore the meaning ignores the rest of the language in the text. Moreover, Jesus would not have let his disciples leave over a misunderstanding of this nature. The disciples that left were not mistaken. If they were mistaken, Jesus would have said so. Instead, he asks the apostles if they were going to leave as well. He never even hints that he meant his words to be symbolic.

michaelp:

The reason why I said that I think the eucharist may be more than JUST symbolic is because of 1 Cor 11:30, not John 6. John six seems to have only a vivid illustation of belief in mind.
Michael

I think you are on track with Paul’s statements (see also 1 Cor 10:16-21). Now, if Paul is talking about the same Eucharist that Jesus is talking about in John Chapter 6, we now have additional triangulation and scriptural support for the Catholic interpretation of Jesus words. The Eucharist is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ.

 

[Pax]

michaelp:

I think that in response to your last post here and the last question will sum it all up.

What evidence will I accept? 1. Some clear biblical evidence. Or 2. the Pope show the signs that accompany one who speaks for God (Deut 13, 18 and 2 Cor 2:12). As this thread has shown, there is neither. This is God’s requirement, not mine. I use the same arguement to Charismatics who claim to be spokesmen for God.

Michael

One more thing about your requirement for signs by the Pope. My assumption is that you would expect every Pope in every age to display the miraculous signs associated with the apostle, Peter. I see no need for such a thing, but I do see a couple of problems.

While I am not surprised that the apostles worked signs and wonders which was part of God’s plan to bring about belief in both Jews and Gentiles, after all they were a “stiff necked people”, I don’t see any additional need in their successors. We do not see for example any signs and wonders spoken of concerning Timothy or some others that were ordained by the apostles.

Now imagine for a moment what would happen if the present Pope began working the signs and wonders worked by Peter. We would have some people, like you Michael, that would believe that these were from God, but we would have others claim that they were from Satan. In fact, there are already those that call the Pope the anti-Christ. Besides, Jesus tells us indirectly about seeing signs and believing when he addresses Thomas and says, “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.”[John 20:29]

While we might all love to see great signs and miracles, including our resurrected and gloried Savior, Himself, most of us (at least in this life) never will. Should this in anyway diminish our Christain beliefs even when those beliefs are not “explicitly” stated in scripture? I don’t think so. If something is contrary to scripture and clearly against the word of God, yet preached by a Christian that was accompanied by signs and wonders, I would not give any credibility to that person or their pronouncements. The signs and wonders would prove nothing. It is the truth that matters, and the truth has been layed out for us and established during the apostolic age.

The successors to the apostles protect the deposit of faith and pass on the truth of that faith reliably. They interpret and clarify matters reliably within the deposit of faith when new circumstances arise that need to be addressed, and they settle disputes about interpretations when they arise in important areas of faith and morals. They do not need signs and wonders to attest to this charism any more than I need to have signs and wonders surrounding me to verify my position of authority with my own children at home. I either have the authority of a father vested in me or I do not. The Pope and bishops either have the authority vested in them or they do not.

We believe that the power to bind and loose establishes their authority from scripture. We believe that if what they bind and loose on earth is also bound and loosed in heaven, then they must be protected from error when they do this. It is against God’s nature to have anything unclean, bad, or wrong to be bound or loosed in heaven. He would not allow his duly authorized officers to do such a thing.

 

[michaelp]

One more thing about your requirement for signs by the Pope. My assumption is that you would expect every Pope in every age to display the miraculous signs associated with the apostle, Peter. I see no need for such a thing, but I do see a couple of problems.

Why not? The prophets worked this way. Each one performed some type of sign individually. They claimed to speak for God, and God validated that claim for each one.

While I am not surprised that the apostles worked signs and wonders which was part of God’s plan to bring about belief in both Jews and Gentiles, after all they were a “stiff necked people”, I don’t see any additional need in their successors. We do not see for example any signs and wonders spoken of concerning Timothy or some others that were ordained by the apostles.

Timothy did not claim to speak infallibly. He did not even write a book. But, even if he did, as long as there was a verified apostle (2 Cor. 12:12) who had proven himself, he could validate for the person. It would be like if someone were to perform a sign, say, raising the dead, and then point to the message of someone else, that person would be validated by the living prophet or apostle. This seems to be the case with John the Baptist and Christ.

Now imagine for a moment what would happen if the present Pope began working the signs and wonders worked by Peter. We would have some people, like you Michael, that would believe that these were from God, but we would have others claim that they were from Satan. In fact, there are already those that call the Pope the anti-Christ. Besides, Jesus tells us indirectly about seeing signs and believing when he addresses Thomas and says, “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.”[John 20:29]

That is right. This happened to Jesus as they claimed that his signs were from Satan. But this did not stop Him. He still had to give the people some type of validation that would appeal to reason. Otherwise, anyone could claim to be speaking for God.

While we might all love to see great signs and miracles, including our resurrected and gloried Savior, Himself, most of us (at least in this life) never will.

In my mind, if we don’t this simply means that we rely only on that which has already been verified. Hence, the Scripture alone is the only verified infallible source from which we recieve our instruction.

Should this in anyway diminish our Christain beliefs even when those beliefs are not “explicitly” stated in scripture?

Belief in this magnitude, I do believe so. Unless someone were to show the signs of a prophet of course.

I don’t think so. If something is contrary to scripture and clearly against the word of God,

Yes, you are right. This is another requirement. If someone were to raise someone from the dead and then proclaim to speak the word of God, he or she is still subject to previously revealed truth (Deut 13). I think that this may still happen today. I don’t see why not.

The successors to the apostles protect the deposit of faith and pass on the truth of that faith reliably. They interpret and clarify matters reliably within the deposit of faith when new circumstances arise that need to be addressed, and they settle disputes about interpretations when they arise in important areas of faith and morals. They do not need signs and wonders to attest to this charism any more than I need to have signs and wonders surrounding me to verify my position of authority with my own children at home. I either have the authority of a father vested in me or I do not. The Pope and bishops either have the authority vested in them or they do not.

I would not have any problem with this. But it is when you insert the word “infallible” that it become the word of God. Your words to your children do carry authority, but you would never claim them to have infallible authority.

You must rememeber, I believe in the authority of tradition, just not the infallible authority of it. Just like a believe in the authority of the Government, but not the infallible authority. All authority that we reside under, whether the Church, Government, or our parents, are subject to the infallible authority that was previously given. If any authority goes against the previously given infallible word of God, it is not to be followed.

 

[michaelp]

We believe that the power to bind and loose establishes their authority from scripture. We believe that if what they bind and loose on earth is also bound and loosed in heaven, then they must be protected from error when they do this.

But, again, these are the apostles he is speaking to. This does not say anything about succession.

It is against God’s nature to have anything unclean, bad, or wrong to be bound or loosed in heaven. He would not allow his duly authorized officers to do such a thing.

I don’t understand this.

Thanks again. You are very helpful. I am sorry that I don’t see things the way you do. But I certianly respect your diligence and kindness.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

Could I ask a question that might help me out a great deal.

I know that you believe that the deposit of faith is carried in two forms. One scripture, and two the living tradition.

The living tradition is expressed though official dogmas of the Church right?

Is it also expressed in doctrine?

Are both of these infallible?

Is it ultimately found in the eccumenical Church councils? If so which ones?

Is there a book that records all of the previously laid down traditions that were infallible?

Thanks,

Michael

 

[Philthy]

michaelp:

Eat and drink of Christ body and blood is sybolic for belief. When we take the bread and wine, we are sybolically making Christ a part of us. He becomes who we are. This only happens to the degree that we believe in Him. Belief is the primary theme of John, not the Lord’s supper. In fact, John does not even record the Lord’s supper. The only Gospel that does not. Therefore, the emphasis, even in this chapter, is belief.

John 6:35 Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst.

This is a parallel construct which shows coming to Christ = not hungering, and believing in Christ = not thirsting. It is in this context that He talks about eating His flesh and drining His blood. This is the context of the passage and therefore, it shows that Christ was referring to belief using a vivid illustration which shows the life and substance changing nature that true belief involves.

The reason why I said that I think the eucharist may be more than JUST symbolic is because of 1 Cor 11:30, not John 6. John six seems to have only a vivid illustation of belief in mind.

Michael

Hi Michael-

Do you truly believe the biblical text in John 6 is definitively symbolic, or are you at your “moral certainty” level or somewhere else?

Does the Real Presence contradict any Christian principle or doctrine that you hold?

Do you think that St. Ignatious’ teachings on the nature of the Eucharist carry more weight than “logical analysis 2000 years removed” since he was a companion of John’s for over 30 years?

Do you think a symbolic interpretation excludes the possibility of the Real Presence necessarily: ie could the teaching have 2 levels of understanding?

Why do you think most of Christ’s disciples abandoned him over this teaching?

IF it’s because they misunderstood him, why did he not explain himself? As it stands He led them astray…

I’ve heard of the concept of “parallel construct” before. Someone used it to explain that John 3:5 has nothing to do with baptism, but that “born of water” refers to natural birth. However, when you compare John 3:5 to Titus 3:5 I think a compelling different analysis emerges, unless you believe the “bath of rebirth” in Titus 3:5 is, again, not referring to baptism.

Hope all is well…

Phil

 

[Philthy]

michaelp:

I am not coming at this as a Protestant Polemicist as if I am doing this to make a case for Protestantism. The fact of the case is that most all of Church history prior to Anselm held to some form of the Ransom to Satan theory. I do agree that there were seeds of the satisfation and substitution theories, but there are seed of all true doctine throughout the Church.

My basic point is still the same if you back up and look at it. Church history has not been as united as you seem to require an some MAJOR issues.

There are many more.

Michael

Michael,

The point is NOT that there is great unity on ambiguous teachings prior to THE MAGISTERIUM of the Church declaring revelation, nor should there be, of necessity. Your “unity with diversity” applies in this situation. However, AFTER the Magisterium has declared a truth then the “diversity” no longer represents “unity”. And this is why you won’t find Catholics presenting diversity on a topic. In short, the fact that there was diversity of opinion on an issue of “undeclared doctrine” in no way supports your concept that the said diversity implies that it is the “norm” for all topics, for all time, within the Church.

Just my thoughts…

Phil

 

[michaelp]

Hey Phil, good to hear from you,

Do you truly believe the biblical text in John 6 is definitively symbolic, or are you at your “moral certainty” level or somewhere else?

I would say that on a scale of 1-10 concerning the Real presence, I would be a 4 or 5 as to my belief that it was not real. But, there are not many things that I am above a 8 on if that gives you some perspective.

Does the Real Presence contradict any Christian principle or doctrine that you hold?

Not necessarily . . . I have a hard time with it and the cousel of Chalcedon, since it says that Christ cannot communitcate the attributes of one nature (i.e. divine attribute of omnipresence) to another nature (i.e. the human). If Christ’s body were to be in more than one place at one time, Chalcedon would have some troubles. It would border on Eutychianism to me. This would be a great discussion to start a new thread on. But I am not that sure about this.

Do you think that St. Ignatious’ teachings on the nature of the Eucharist carry more weight than “logical analysis 2000 years removed” since he was a companion of John’s for over 30 years?

Do you think a symbolic interpretation excludes the possibility of the Real Presence necessarily: ie could the teaching have 2 levels of understanding?

When I read his comments on this (and the rest of the fathers) two things are at play:

1. Did they really have in mind what we have in mind about the Real Presence? In other words, did they think that it actually turned into the body and blood of Christ, or did they just use scriptural language and not deal with the details.
2. If they truly did believe that the communion literally turned into the body and blood of Christ and If I were to believe this because they believed it, doesn’t that mean that I have set up the criteria to believe everything that the early Church believed including the literal millennium?
3. This could have been the way that the Apostles taught them concerning the Body and blood of Christ, and it could be that it actually turns into it somehow.

At the same time, even if I did believe this, I would have a much harder time adopting any teaching that said that it was somehow salvific or that it makes a necessary contribution to our salvation. But as you know, this is an entirely different issue and moves into Justification by faith alone.

Why do you think most of Christ’s disciples abandoned him over this teaching? IF it’s because they misunderstood him, why did he not explain himself? As it stands He led them astray…

That is a good question and the best arguement for the Real Presence from this passage. But it could possible be explained that they left Him because they misunderstood Him and he knew their hearts and did not stop them and correct their misunderstanding because He knew that it was ultimately a heart issue. These people wanted a literal kingdom to be set up. He was not going to do this, but He did not explain this to them right away either. He left mystery in alot of what he said.

Then again, you could be right.

I’ve heard of the concept of “parallel construct” before. Someone used it to explain that John 3:5 has nothing to do with baptism, but that “born of water” refers to natural birth. However, when you compare John 3:5 to Titus 3:5 I think a compelling different analysis emerges, unless you believe the “bath of rebirth” in Titus 3:5 is, again, not referring to baptism.

Actually, John 3:5 is not exactly a parallel construct in the Greek, since John 3:6 "that which is born of flesh is contrastive rather than parellel to the entire statement in 3:4. But the parallelism in John 6 is a true parallel construct equating belief and “coming” with both eating and drinking. It is a good reason to that He was simply talking about belief in this passage.

Hope you are having a good day,

Michael

 

[michaelp]

Philthy:

Michael,

The point is NOT that there is great unity on ambiguous teachings prior to THE MAGISTERIUM of the Church declaring revelation, nor should there be, of necessity. Your “unity with diversity” applies in this situation. However, AFTER the Magisterium has declared a truth then the “diversity” no longer represents “unity”. And this is why you won’t find Catholics presenting diversity on a topic. In short, the fact that there was diversity of opinion on an issue of “undeclared doctrine” in no way supports your concept that the said diversity implies that it is the “norm” for all topics, for all time, within the Church.

Just my thoughts…

Phil

This is very helpful. I just wish that there was some type of unified and fuller teach about this Magistium before it made its first pronouncement. Just to come into being all of the sudden, and claim to speak for God (even if the doctrine is correct) scares me. I don’t see any signs of this until the middle ages.

Michael

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

Unless, there is an atack on the truth, the Church and Magestarium doesn’t address it. In a way your asking for preemptive justification.God Bless :twocents:

 

[Benadam]

michaelp:

This is very helpful. I just wish that there was some type of unified and fuller teach about this Magistium before it made its first pronouncement. Just to come into being all of the sudden, and claim to speak for God (even if the doctrine is correct) scares me. I don’t see any signs of this until the middle ages.

Michael

Hi Michael,

I don’t know if you already know this about the pronouncements of doctrin. It applies to the Sacraments, Mary, Papal Authority etc.

The Church doesn’t decide how these teaching work, they are experienced as true since the beginning and when there is a reason to define what has been experienced a definition of what the Holy Spirit is doing is hashed out with human words that can best be wrapped around the action and it is pronounced as " this is what catholics say that is" just to guard the truth of what the Holy Spirit is already been doing.

For example: The first christians centered their worship around the breaking of bread. Their obedience to Christ had rewards in spiritual benefits. They ‘experienced’ the Eucharist and knew they were recieving their Lord in a way never comprehended before, or still for that matter. They came to know that without it the virtues required of them their ’ Christ likeness" was diminished. Alot of people don’t understand why they take the Eucharist and don’t ‘feel’ anything, for the most part the reason is because their lives aren’t offering them experiences that would put the grace to work in them in an immediately noticed way. Same thing untill there was a reason to define it, they wouldn’t want to since words can only reduce it’s reality. But in order to guard it’s truth they had to.

So when someone has difficulty in understanding the order of these things I know it’s because they are thinking that Catholic doctrins are manifestations or could be manifestations of intellect.

Nothing could be farther from the truth, we just aint that smart.

 

[Pax]

Michael,

I realize why you have difficulty with the papacy and with infallibility. Like many matters of Christian faith this can be hard intellectually and emotionally to accept. There may be a way, however, that may make it possible for you in good conscience to legitimately lower the bar, and reasonably conclude that the Pope is the successor to Peter.

The solution might be found by examining a few difficult teachings that you already accept. Not everything is found in scipture. John tells us that if everything that Jesus ever said and did were to be recorded “that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.” Some of these very things are probably handed down through apostolic tradition. This point was made a number of times on this thread and is worth serious consideration.

Christian teaching on the Trinity and the Incarnation have been well thought out but are not fully understood. Moreover, they are not completely expressed in scripture. The elements of mystery, especially in the Trinity, are accepted by Christians everywhere yet the amount of evidence from scripture is probably no greater for these understandings than it is for the papacy.

You probably accept these two teachings without argument. There may be other difficult teachings that come to your mind that are also not clearly expounded upon in scripture, yet you still accept them on faith. Examine these and see if your strict standards are being applied with the same energy and maybe even skepticism, as you apply to the papacy and infallibility. If in all honesty they are not, then you may have reason to relax your standards.

Re-examine the points we’ve made in this thread as a package. Look at the laying on of hands, the issue of the keys and the prime minister. Look for succession in Shebna to Eliakim and other prime ministers. See the succession in the OT patriarchs and the leadership of those that sat on Moses seat. Then look at ordination and the laying on of hands in the NT. Notice how Matthias is chosen to replace Judas and Peter remarks in Acts 1:20 "For it is written in the book of Psalms, "…and ‘His office let another take.’ Notice how the NT talks about the qualifications of a bishop. There is succession here and it still continues.

Notice the authority and infallibility of Peter at the Council of Jerusalem when he settles the issue “not” to require the gentiles to be circumcised. And when he had spoken the assembly which had been debating fell silent[Acts 15:12]. Peter’s decision was not infallible because it is recorded in scripture. Scripture has simply recorded the infallible decision. We trust the decision because it is consistent with our Christian faith and because it is recorded in scripture. We believe scripture because the scripture we have is vouched for and guaranteed to be authentic by the Church which is the pillar and bulwark of the truth. And we trust the Church because it was established by Jesus Christ and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.

Notice the authority and infallibility of Peter when he confronts Annanias and Saphira in Acts chapter 5. Their condemnation by Peter is affirmed in stunning fashion by God.

Go back to the gospels and note how Jesus tells Peter in Luke 22:31-32 “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.” And reconsider the three fold profession of Peter in the gospel of John and how Jesus tells Peter to tend His sheep and to tend His lambs. Peter is the chief apostle and shepherd appointed by Jesus to lead the flock.

You already give recognition to the special place of Peter among the twelve. Now consider the fact that when Peter is martyred the Church is still in its infancy and is suffering enormous persecution. Is it logical that Jesus would place Peter in an “office” because Jesus anticipated His own death, but would not expect a successor to Peter upon Peter’s death? The Church would need leadership immediately after Peter’s death just as it needed leadership before Peter’s death.

cont. on next post

 

[Pax]

cont. from prior post

Infallibility isn’t revelation or inspiration as experienced by the apostles. It is a much lesser thing. Infallibility merely protects the church from erroneously teaching the revealed and inspired word of God. Study infallibility from this point of view. It is not as big a charism as you might think. Pope’s, councils, and the Magesterium have a great advantage over the apostles prior to Pentecost and over all of the OT prophets. The Church since Pentecost has had in its posession all of the inspired works of scripture and all of the teachings and traditions of the apostles. The Church’s infallibility requires study and effort. Answers do not come by way of new revelation. Instead, the Church carefully looks at the deposit of faith and makes decisions that are consistent with that deposit which she alone possesses. The Holy Spirit protects the work of the Church in this regard by applying the charism of infallibility to prevent the Church from officially teaching error in the area of faith and morals.

The governance of the Catholic Church and its unity demonstrate a magnificent work of Jesus Christ in our midst. This is the promise and miraculous preservation of the fullness of Christianity for over two thousand years. The proof is not simply found in scripture, it is seen in the reality of the Church itself. It is the light upon the hill. It cannot be hidden. It is our spiritual home this side of eternity. This Church is a marvelous sign, miracle, and wonder to behold.

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

Pax that was a wonderful response I am enjoying the dialog, and I must say,you guys are gifted in the area of typing,my fingers would have fallen off trying to edit my mistakes God Bless You

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

michaelp:

This is very helpful. I just wish that there was some type of unified and fuller teach about this Magistium before it made its first pronouncement. Just to come into being all of the sudden, and claim to speak for God (even if the doctrine is correct) scares me. I don’t see any signs of this until the middle ages.

Hi Michael!

As Pax has pointed out, the first sign of the Magesterium can be found in Acts 15.

There was a lot of disagreement among those in Antioch over whether or not one needed to be circumcized to be saved (that they first had to become Jewish). Noteworthy is what they did not do to settle the disagreement:

1. They did not look to scripture at all, let alone “sola”, for the answer.
2. They did not pray to the holy Spirit with the assumption that he would tell them what was true.
3. They did not break away and start their own churches which taught what they believed to be true.

They went to the apostles in Jerusalem (vs 2). It was assumed that they had the authority to settle the matter.

When Paul and Barnabas arrived in Jerusalem they were welcomed by the whole church (all believers there) and the apostles and presbyters (vs 4). However, when it came time for the meeting not everyone was included. Only the apostles and presbyters met (vs. 6) because the authority to render an authoritative decision rested with them, not each individual believer. There’s no indication that the rest of the believers felt that they too should be included because the were just a capable of being lead to all truth by the holy Spirit as the church leadership. No. This was just for the church leadership.

Much debate took place (vs 7) stemming from much disagreement on the matter. Then Peter stood up and declared that all, Jew and Gentile alike, are saved by grace. He didn’t appeal to the scriptures because salvation by grace isn’t in there. The debate ended with Peter’s authoritative declaration (vs. 12).

After Peter authoritatively declared doctrine and after Paul and Barnabas described the signs that they had seen indicating that uncircumcized people were being saved then James stood up. He spoke of Peter’s description of God acquiring from among the Gentiles a people for his name (vs. 14). Then he quoted scripture (and this is really important) NOT to show where Peter’s authoritative decision of salvation by grace was found in the bible, but rather simply to show where scripture supported the idea of Gentiles also being saved. James’ scripture passage didn’t say that Gentiles didn’t need to first become Jewish (be circumcized), but that’s the authoritative decision reached by Peter. James then uses his power of binding and loosing to “bind” believers to certain “necessities” (vs. 19, 28). Notice these certain behaviors aren’t options but “necessities”. The Church still binds us to certain “necessities” today through her power of binding and loosing.

The Council then sends a letter, not only to Antioch, but everywhere that the church was, at that time, being built up (vs.23). Peter’s decision was binding not only on the believers where the disagreement arose but on all believers everywhere.

The letter stated that those who had been teaching that circumcision was necessary for salvation had been teaching that without a mandate from the church leadership (vs. 24). Even in the NT church union with the Church leadership was the standard against which one’s teaching was measured. There is no mention that what they were teaching was contrary to scripture, but rather only that they had not been authorized by the Church leadership to teach what they had been teaching.

CONTINUED…

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

…CONTINUED

The council explains that the authoritative decision that was reached was done so “by the holy Spirit and us” (vs.28). Scripture is never mentioned, not even as a support let alone as the sole authority by which the decision was rendered.

The letter was not sent alone with the instruction to pray to the holy Spirit for a correct interpretation of it. Human beings were sent along with it to give “the same message by word of mouth” (vs.27), a completely unnecessary precaution if the believers could simply pray for and be handed a correct understanding of the letter. Certainly Peter’s message of salvation by grace was included in this message by word of mouth since it was not included in the letter. Only the “necessitites” were included.

Upon receiving the letter the believers were “delighted” (vs.31). They didn’t continue to debate, or break into different churches, one teaching the necessity of circumcision while the other taught it was not necessary. No. They all accepted this authoritative decision with delight. And they accepted it upon the authority of the Magesterium, not the authority of scripture at all, let alone “sola”.

This is exactly how the Magesterium has functioned for 2000 years and continues to function today.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[michaelp]

OK, this is going to be short to both of you. The difference between teh Acts 15 occurance and today or immidately after the Apostles died was that they had verified apostles according to the model God set up. In other words, they had people who could legitimately speak for God, we do not. Therefore, they did not need Scripture as a witness. BIG DIFFERENCE. If the pope and others were doing what James, Paul, Peter and the other apostles were doing (raising the dead, healing the lame, etc) I would follow them also. But since we don’t, we have to rely upon their word as expressed in Scripture.

Michael

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

michaelp:

OK, this is going to be short. The difference between teh Acts 15 occurance and today or immediately after the Apostles died was that they had verified apostles according to the model God set up. In other words, they had people who could legitimately speak for God, we do not. Therefore, they did not need Scripture as a witness. BIG DIFFERENCE. If the pope and others were doing what James, Paul, Peter and the other apostles were doing (raising the dead, healing the lame, etc) I would follow them also. But since we don’t, we have to rely upon their word as expressed in Scripture.

Michael

Michael, what you have just stated here is part of your own tradition according to your own personal magesterium. It’s not anywhere in scripture.

In AD 80 Clement (mentioned in Phil 4:3) wrote “Our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned, and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry (Letter to the Corinthians, 44,1)”.

In AD 110 Ignatius (a disciple of the apostle John) wrote the following:

"For Jesus Christ, our inseparable life, is the will of the Father, just as the bishops, who have been appointed throughout the world, are the will of Jesus Christ. It is fitting, therefore, that you should live in harmony with the will of the bishop- as, indeed, you do (Letter to the Ephesians, 3,2).”
“Let us be careful, then, if we would be submissive to God, not to oppose the bishop (Letter to the Ephesians, 5,3)”.
I will send you further doctrinal explanations especially if the Lord should reveal to me that all of you to a man, through grace derived from the Name, join in the common meeting in the one faith, and in Jesus Christ, who was of the family of David according to the flesh, the Son of Man and the Son of God, so that you give ear to the bishop and to the presbytery with an undivided mind (Letter to the Magnesians, 20,2)”.
There are so many quotes from Ignatius that I could go on for pages, but bear in mind that these few quotes and many more, are from contemporaries of the apostles. Their writings show that, even when the apostles were still alive, apostolic succession was understood and beginning to be set in place.
You have no basis outside of yourself for rejecting the Church’s authority. Scripture supports it (Acts 15), history supports it (the writings above and much more). On what grounds do you reject it?

---

** **The problem among Protestants isn’t that no one can legitimately speak for God but rather that everyone can. As a result there are conflicting and contradictory teachings all claiming to be clearly taught in scripture when scripture and history agree that authority is to be found in the church leadership, not the individual

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[michaelp]

Catholic4aReasn:

Michael, what you have just stated here is part of your own tradition according to your own personal magesterium. It’s not anywhere in scripture.

In AD 80 Clement (mentioned in Phil 4:3) wrote “Our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned, and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry (Letter to the Corinthians, 44,1)”.

In AD 110 Ignatius (a disciple of the apostle John) wrote the following:

"For Jesus Christ, our inseparable life, is the will of the Father, just as the bishops, who have been appointed throughout the world, are the will of Jesus Christ. It is fitting, therefore, that you should live in harmony with the will of the bishop- as, indeed, you do (Letter to the Ephesians, 3,2).”

“Let us be careful, then, if we would be submissive to God, not to oppose the bishop (Letter to the Ephesians, 5,3)”.

I will send you further doctrinal explanations especially if the Lord should reveal to me that all of you to a man, through grace derived from the Name, join in the common meeting in the one faith, and in Jesus Christ, who was of the family of David according to the flesh, the Son of Man and the Son of God, so that you give ear to the bishop and to the presbytery with an undivided mind (Letter to the Magnesians, 20,2)”.

There are so many quotes from Ignatius that I could go on for pages, but bear in mind that these few quotes and many more, are from contemporaries of the apostles. Their writings show that, even when the apostles were still alive, apostolic succession was understood and beginning to be set in place.

You have no basis outside of yourself for rejecting the Church’s authority. Scripture supports it (Acts 15), history supports it (the writings above and much more). On what grounds do you reject it?

The problem among Protestants isn’t that no one can legitimately speak for God but rather that everyone can. As a result there are conflicting and contradictory teachings all claiming to be clearly taught in scripture when scripture and history agree that authority is to be found in the church leadership, not the individual

In Christ,
Nancy

I have no problem with these passages. These passages of the early Church fathers speak nothing concerning an “infallible office” through which the office of the apostles is mediated. I agree with them all. All they say to me is to do what your pastor/bishops says. No problem. I agree. The Bible already says as much:

Heb 13:17 “Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you.”

These passages that you quote say nothing more than this. Nothing about infallibility. They also say that there will be strife for the office of pastor/bishop. I agree.

Again, these passages do not say ANYTHING about infallible apostolic succession. You read them according to your traditions. Read them again and see if you think anyone could actually get infallible apostolic succession in which the successor speaks as the vicar of Christ and that the entire Church is to be submissive to his words. Come on!! You read your theology into the Bible at Matt 16 and John 21. And now you read into the Church fathers the same.

But I still like you.
Michael

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

michaelp:

I have no problem with these passages. These passages of the early Church fathers speak nothing concerning an “infallible office” through which the office of the apostles is mediated. I agree with them all. All they say to me is to do what your pastor/bishops says. No problem. I agree. The Bible already says as much:

Heb 13:17 “Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you.”

These passages that you quote say nothing more than this. Nothing about infallibility. They also say that there will be strife for the office of pastor/bishop. I agree.

Again, these passages do not say ANYTHING about infallible apostolic succession. You read them according to your traditions. Read them again and see if you think anyone could actually get infallible apostolic succession in which the successor speaks as the vicar of Christ and that the entire Church is to be submissive to his words. Come on!! You read your theology into the Bible at Matt 16 and John 21. And now you read into the Church fathers the same.

But I still like you.
Michael

The pope’s specific authority to speak for Christ can be found in Matt 16:19 in the giving of the keys. Understood in its historical context the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the holder of the keys speaks with the authority of the king (Is. 22:22). In order for any other interpretation to be reached Matt 16:19 must be divorced from its meaning as understood at the time the words were spoken.

I like you too! http://cdn-cf.aol.com/se/clip_art/gstres/celebrte/hug

In Christ,
Nancy