What Is Your Authority?

[jmcrae]

My point in bringing this up was to determine if the catholic church truly had the authority of Christ to carry out these inquisitions in His name. If catholics want to claim their church has authority from Christ and being led by the Spirit then its going to be extemely difficult to defend things like the inqusitions as being the will of Christ and His giving the church the authority to do such things.

The caracature of the Inquistion as kind of a bloodthirsty torture chamber never actually existed. It was a system of trial in which questions were asked (hence the term “inquisition” - the asking of questions - to determine whether or not a person was guilty of the crime of which he was accused). This system continues to be used in justice systems all over the world today, and there is nothing wrong with it. In fact, most people would not feel that they were getting a fair trial if this system were not being used.

As for the death penalty, yes, it was used, and for things that we might not consider to be worth the death penalty today - but keep in mind, back in those days, the soul was considered to be of greater value than the body, and if someone was harming other people’s souls (and it was proven that he intended to do so), then he would receive the death penalty.

A statistic I heard a few years ago that really puts the Inquisition into perspective, at least to my way of thinking, is that the United States of America killed more suspected terrorists between September 11, 2001 and August of 2003 than the Spanish Inquisition killed heretics in the entire 300 years of its existence.

 

[jcrichton]

That’s a name which was invented by others in the 17th century. But yes if you follow Christ you do at least in a partial sense belong to the Catholic Church.

Hi, petergee!

Could you clarify that 17th century invention… I do not follow… my understanding is that the idea, if not the title itself, (Roman Catholic Church) has its origins in the early Church—Britannica 2003 Deluxe Edition:

Several historical factors, some of them more prominent at one time and others at another, help to account for the emergence of Roman Catholicism from the catholic Christianity of the early church. The twin factors that would eventually be regarded as the most decisive, at any rate by the champions of the primacy of Rome in the church, were the primacy of Peter among the 12 Apostles of Christ and the identification of Peter with the church of Rome. In the several enumerations of the Apostles in the New Testament (Matthew 10:2–5; Mark 3:16–19; Luke 6:14–16; Acts 1:13) there are considerable variations, with further variations in the manuscripts; but what they all have in common is that they list (in Matthew’s words) “first, Simon, who is called Peter.” “But I have prayed for you,” Jesus said to Peter, “that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren” (Luke 22:32); and again: “Feed my lambs. . . . Tend my sheep. . . . Feed my sheep” (John 21:15–17). Above all, when Christ, according to the New Testament, said to the Apostle Peter, “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock (Greek petra) I will build my church” (Matthew 16:18), that was, according to Roman Catholic teaching, the charter of the church—i.e., of the Roman Catholic Church.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

You and others speak of the original 12 apostles having the truth. I can agree with that adding that we can read and know that they had their differences. But lets set that aside.

What Bible verse, letter, or other document that one of these original 12 men authored uses “Catholic” to name or identify Christ’s Church?

In other words, I am curious as to what made you conclude that the “Church” is the Catholic Church?

Bamm

Hi, Bamm!

Have you noticed how your statement or a variation of it is always the final thesis of Protestants (all non-Catholic denominations)? You questions the authority of the Church and you ask for definite proof that there is a direct link to Christ’s original Eleven while ignoring that there are hundreds of writings from Catholic Bishops many who were direct disciples of the Eleven plus One plus Paul (and of course their direct disciples).

Yet, it amazes me how you then purport that your “church” (any and all non-Catholic denominations) have been visited by the Holy Spirit and endowed with the Mission, Power, and Authority that somehow He failed to maintain through the next 14 centuries after Christ’s Ascension.

Here’s an excerpt from Britannica 2003 Deluxe Ed.:

The emergence of Catholic Christianity

At least in an inchoate form all the elements of catholicity—doctrine, authority, universality—are evident in the New Testament. The Acts of the Apostles begins by focusing on the demoralized band of the disciples of Jesus in Jerusalem; but by the time its account of the first decades is finished, the Christian community has developed some nascent criteria for determining the difference between authentic (“apostolic”) and inauthentic teaching and behaviour. It has also moved beyond the borders of Judaism, as the dramatic sentence of the closing chapter announces: “And so we came to Rome” (Acts 28:14). The later epistles of the New Testament admonish their readers to “guard what has been entrusted to you” (1 Timothy 6:20) and to “contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3), and they speak about the Christian community itself in exalted and even cosmic terms as the church, “which is (Christ’s) body, the fulness of him who fills all in all” (Ephesians 1:23). It is clear even from the New Testament that the specification of these catholic features was called forth by challenges from within, not only from without; indeed, scholars have concluded that the early church was far more pluralistic from the very beginning than the somewhat idealized pictures in the New Testament might suggest.

As such challenges continued in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, further specification became necessary. The schema of apostolic authority formulated by the bishop of Lyon, Irenaeus (c. 130–c. 200), may serve to set forth systematically the three main lines of authority for catholic Christianity: the Scriptures of the New Testament (alongside the Christianized “Old Testament”) as the writings of the Apostles of Christ; the episcopal centres established by the Apostles as the seats of their identifiable successors in the governance of the church; and the apostolic tradition of normative doctrine as the “rule of faith” and the standard of Christian conduct. Each of the three depended on the other two for validation; one could determine which purportedly scriptural writings were genuinely apostolic by appealing to their conformity with acknowledged apostolic tradition and to the usage of the apostolic churches, and so on. This was not a circular argument but an appeal to a single catholic authority of apostolicity, in which the three elements were inseparable. Inevitably, however, there arose conflicts—of doctrine and jurisdiction, of worship and pastoral practice, and of social and political strategy—among the three sources of authority, as well as between equally “apostolic” bishops. When bilateral means for resolving such conflicts proved insufficient, there could be recourse to either the precedent of convoking an apostolic council (Acts 15) or to what Irenaeus had already called “the preeminent authority of this church (of Rome), with which, as a matter of necessity, every church should agree.” Catholicism was on the way to becoming Roman Catholic.

I pray that you study the early Church’s Fathers as they can assist you in understanding the authenticity of Christ’s Roman Catholic Church!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Acts 9:31. Your favourite Bible probably renders it as “the Church throughout all”. But the original Greek text is “Ekklesia Katha holos” - “the Catholic Church”.

Hi, Petergee!

What a difference does Greek makes!

Thank you for this interesting post!

Maran atha!

Angel

PS: Are you versed in Greek or Arameic? I am hoping you are, God Bless!

 

[MarkA16]

Is this discussion now among Catholics? Where is the original poster?

 

[po18guy]

Is this discussion now among Catholics? Where is the original poster?

Well, Protestant101 is an Adventist. Dunno where he is about now, but he asks an essentially impossible to answer question. A Catholic would have to adopt a Protestant view of the church in order to answer - which many of us do not now, nor have we ever had. Many “bible” Christians, those with no Tradition, no history, no lineage back to Christ, but only a book, often ask many impossible questions, demanding that we prove our claims, completely forgetting that they have the new beliefs, not us.

Many Evanglicals who have tested the “sola scriptura” doctrine have found it wanting, and have ended up in the Catholic Church. Those who claim that scripture is “self attesting” cannot grasp the concept of Tradition being self attesting, due to its origin in Christ. We would still have Christ’s church if there was no bible. They would not. We love the bible and it is a great part of our faith, but it is far from everything, and says so.

John 21:25 indicates that scripture was meant to supplement Tradition, since it was written by one who practiced Tradition first, and documented it with scripture. John specifically says that scripture is not the complete story of Christ. How sad those who think it is. If only it was called the Antioch Catholic Church, they might soften their hearts and unify. But Rome? The name has been so maligned over the centuries…

Christ’s peace.

 

[agangbern]

John 21:25 indicates that scripture was meant to supplement Tradition, since it was written by one who practiced Tradition first, and documented it with scripture. John specifically says that scripture is not the complete story of Christ. How sad those who think it is. If only it was called the Antioch Catholic Church, they might soften their hearts and unify. But Rome? The name has been so maligned over the centuries…

Christ’s peace.

Oh, Rome! Have they not read Romans 1:8, that it was the faith of the Church in Rome that "is proclaimed all over the world"? It was not the faith of the Antioch Church that is recorded of being proclaimed to the whole world, although surely, the faith of the Church in Antioch was one and the same with the faith of the Church in Rome, but it was the faith of the Church that was in Rome that was being proclaimed to the whole world. And that is what is still being proclaimed today to the whole world.

 

[Petergee]

Hi, petergee!

Could you clarify that 17th century invention… I do not follow… my understanding is that the idea, if not the title itself, (Roman Catholic Church) has its origins in the early Church—Britannica 2003 Deluxe Edition:

Several historical factors, some of them more prominent at one time and others at another, help to account for the emergence of Roman Catholicism from the catholic Christianity of the early church."

The description “the Catholic Church” dates from the first century, but no-one had heard of the term “Roman Catholic” until the Anglicans invented it.

The encyclopedia may **use the term **“Roman Catholicism” to describe the Catholic Church of the first century, but this term was only invented in the 19th century.

From This Rock:
“**Q: When did the term “Roman Catholic Church” first come into being? **
A: It is not possible to give an exact year when the Catholic Church began to be called the “Roman Catholic Church,” but it is possible to approximate it. The term originates as an insult created by Anglicans who wished to refer to themselves as Catholic. They thus coined the term “Roman Catholic” to distinguish those in union with Rome from themselves and to create a sense in which they could refer to themselves as Catholics (by attempting to deprive actual Catholics to the right to the term).
Different variants of the “Roman” insult appeared at different times. The earliest form was the noun “Romanist” (one belonging to the Catholic Church), which appeared in England about 1515-1525. The next to develop was the adjective “Romish” (similar to something done or believed in the Catholic Church), which appeared around 1525-1535. Next came the noun “Roman Catholic” (one belonging to the Catholic Church), which was coined around 1595-1605. Shortly thereafter came the verb “to Romanize” (to make someone a Catholic or to become a Catholic), which appeared around 1600-10. Between 1665 and 1675 we got the noun “Romanism” (the system of Catholic beliefs and practices), and finally we got a latecomer term about 1815-1825, the noun “Roman Catholicism,” a synonym for the earlier “Romanism.”
A similar complex of insults arose around “pope.” About 1515-25 the Anglicans coined the term “papist” and later its derivative “papism.” A quick follow-up, in 1520-1530, was the adjective “popish.” Next came “popery” (1525-1535), then “papistry” (1540-1550), with its later derivatives, “papistical” and “papistic.” (Source: Random House Webster’s College Dictionary, 1995 ed.)
This complex of insults is revealing as it shows the depths of animosity English Protestants had toward the Church. No other religious body (perhaps no other group at all, even national or racial) has such a complex of insults against it woven into the English language as does the Catholic Church. Even today many Protestants who have no idea what the origin of the term is cannot bring themselves to say “Catholic” without qualifying it or replacing it with an insult.”

 

[Petergee]

Hi, Petergee!

What a difference does Greek makes!

Thank you for this interesting post!

Maran atha!

Angel

PS: Are you versed in Greek or Arameic? I am hoping you are, God Bless!

Bless you no, I have only picked up a few phrases. But I believe there are some regular posters here who are versed in Ancient Greek, and possibly Aramaic/Syriac/Classical Hebrew.

 

[justasking4]

Yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Lets look at historical situation and see how your claims work out. Were there inquisitions that went on for centuries with the approval of a number of popes the will of Christ?

po18guy
Yes.
justasking4
Quote:
Did Christ give these popes the authority to do these things?

Yes.
justasking4
Quote:
If a person resisted these inquistions were they resisting Christ?
po18guy
Yes.

Simple! Next completely irrelevant question, please!

---

If Christ gave the catholic church the authority to engage in the inquisitions, then He must have approved of the tactics of the inquisitions also. This would have to follow from what you are saying here.

 

[justasking4]

The Church doesn’t claim that everything it does is done with the authority of Jesus and the guidance of the Spirit. The Church is still made up of fallible human beings and human beings are generally acknowledged to be able to screw up just about everything.

What makes you think that these popes that they were not doing these things by the authority of Christ and guidance of the Holy Spirit?
i can’t imagine that they did not think so.

 

[Petergee]

If Christ gave the catholic church the authority to engage in the inquisitions, then He must have approved of the tactics of the inquisitions also. This would have to follow from what you are saying here.

Since you’re determined to go of-topic, perhaps you should tell us what exactly are these supposed “tactics of the inquisitions” which you apparently think Christ did not approve of.
I’m guessing that you have probably blindly swallowed the outrageously blatantly false and utterly discredited “Black Legend” of the Church Inquisitions, which was invented by 17th century Dutch and English protestant pamphleteers.

 

[NotWorthy]

If Christ gave the catholic church the authority to engage in the inquisitions, then He must have approved of the tactics of the inquisitions also. This would have to follow from what you are saying here.

If God gave Saul the authority to be king, did he authorize everything Saul did as King? David? Solomon? Any of the other yahoos that were declared king in Judah?

The Pope had authority to declare the inquisition out of necessity.

 

[jmcrae]

If Christ gave the catholic church the authority to engage in the inquisitions, then He must have approved of the tactics of the inquisitions also. This would have to follow from what you are saying here.

Do you believe that your government has been authorized by God to carry out whatever actions it sees fit to protect your nation?

If so (and I hope so, since Jesus Himself tells us that God has set the nations and their governments in place to carry out His will), does that mean that you approve of absolutely everything that your government does, in carrying out that mission?

 

[bill210]

Picture yourself a Christian living in the year 75. There is no New Testament yet that is years in the future. You have been taught about Jesus and Salvation and the Church by who? by what method?
Yes you would have been taught your faith by the Apostles and their disciples by word of mouth. That is known as Sacred Tradition! These three things make a unity; Sacred Tradition, Holy Scripture, and the Teaching Authority of the Church.
God bless.
Bill

“What’s Your Authority?”

There are quite a number of points brought up in this article, which I would find interesting to study, discuss, or debate. One has to admit; there sure are a lot of divergent opinions on “authority” when it comes to religious matters, and understanding of doctrines and Holy Scripture. I would appreciate having a topic like this to gather and compare info, and to study into the nature of church authority as depicted in this article I have linked to. I will try to follow the train of thought in the article; and mention one point at a time, in the order they are talked about in the article.

In this article; a “script” is provided for Catholics who wish to refute anyone who believes that the Bible is “sufficient;” and I have some observations/comments about this kind of thing.

The first cluster-bomb that the Catholic is instructed to drop on their poor, unsuspecting victim reads like this: (in the script)

To the Protestant who really does know their Bible, this step is quite unecessary, and there is no need to “prove” this, for the Bible declares it in many ways, all without making any effort to “prove” it. The Bible declares many things without ever trying to
prove same; and to try to force people into the mold of proving such a needless point is simply a denial of complete faith in God’s Holy Word.

Catholics make the claim that the Bible is “not sufficient” only to bolster their doctrines on “Tradition;” but in doing so; they have never proven in all of their “apologetics” how that the Bible allegedly falls short in giving the essential information needed for “salvation.” To intimate in any way that if a person only had the Bible; they could not be saved, would not be something that is possible to defend on any “Christian” basis.

The script in this article tells Catholics to offer “a few words of Christian truth;” and if the authority of the Holy Bible is diluted by the doctrine of Tradition, then Catholics do not even have a leg to stand on here.

If a Catholic asks me this question about proving the Bible says it is “sufficient;” (and they have asked) then I just tell them that they will have an even harder time proving that it doesn’t say this.

Many times in Scripture; truths are implied or illustrated,
without being said verbatim; or “proven” expicitly. So in this first post, I would like to challenge the Catholic “script” here; and ask Catholics to prove that the Bible is not sufficient. What in this Holy Book of God would be classed as “insufficient” or “incomplete?” (for salvation). If all you can do is to appeal to Catholic authority; then you have not even come close to answering my first questions here. If The Holy Bible is so “incomplete” or “insufficient” then please let us know exactly where these faults are so that we finally know the whole truth on this matter.

After we discuss this point some; I will be glad to move on to the next point made in the “script.”

 

[po18guy]

The description “the Catholic Church” dates from the first century, but no-one had heard of the term “Roman Catholic” until the Anglicans invented it.

Is not the official name of our church “The Church of Christ”? The whole Roman thing likely came about after heresies began to divide her.

Christ’s peace.

 

[Petergee]

Is not the official name of our church “The Church of Christ”?

I would say the “official” name is simply “The Church”. Or more formally “The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church”.

The whole Roman thing likely came about after heresies began to divide her.

The “Roman Catholic” thing came about in the 17th century after the great protestant hereseies and was invented by the English heretics, and is virtually unheard of in non-English-speaking countries. Of course that does not prevent us speaking of “The Roman church” to refer to the diocese of Rome, one of the thousands of dioceses which make up the Catholic Church. The Latin-rite or Western-rite church of the Catholic Church is also sometimes loosely referred to as “the Roman (Rite) Catholic church” to distinguish it from the Eastern Catholic churches (Rites), which are NOT separated by heresies but have the same faith as parts of the same Catholic Church.

 

[KHI29]

I haven’t read this whole thread but I read the parts where P101 was posting and I’m surprized that this was never posted as a reply to shut him down (or maybe I missed it). The Bible does indeed say that it does not contatin everything for salvation:

There are still many other things that Jesus did, yet if they were written about in detail, I doubt there would be room enough in the entire world to hold the books to record them.
John 21:25

P101 is shut down…

 

[annem]

from jcrichton:

You question the authority of the Church and you ask for definite proof that there is a direct link to Christ’s original Eleven while ignoring that there are hundreds of writings from Catholic Bishops many who were direct disciples of the Eleven plus One plus Paul (and of course their direct disciples).

Yet, it amazes me how you then purport that your “church” (any and all non-Catholic denominations) have been visited by the Holy Spirit and endowed with the Mission, Power, and Authority that somehow He failed to maintain through the next 14 centuries after Christ’s Ascension.

This is such a good reply that I wanted to bring it up again.

It was the bishops and the popes who held authority and maintained orthodoxy for the first 3 centuries. Who told people to stop reading gnostic literature? In the one instance we have of early Christians ever reading the gnostic “Gospel of Peter” it was a bishop who ordered the work thrown away. Who decided the outcome of the first theological debates–what relationship did Jesus have to God, for example, and the Trinity? .

Also I wanted to comment on the “Maratha tha” that used used in your signature. I believe Larry Hurtado and other bible scholars now think that phrase was the original “Come Lord Jesus” used within the first years of Christianity, most likely at the moment when the bread and wine were changed into Christ. Is that why you use it? Just curious.

God bless, Anne

 

[justasking4]

NotWorthy;3075622]If God gave Saul the authority to be king, did he authorize everything Saul did as King? David? Solomon? Any of the other yahoos that were declared king in Judah?

Good point. We can in a number of places see where God did give kings the power to kill.

The Pope had authority to declare the inquisition out of necessity.

Where did Jesus give His apostles etc the power to torture or kill if people did not believe?
What passage in the NT would you show me that leaders of the church were given this authority?