What's Your Authority?

[Abu]

eazyduzit #19
The only thing that can open the door to the Kingdom of God is the Gospel. Peter understood this at some point, because he used this “key” to open the kingdom to the Gentiles in the book of Acts. In Lk12:32, Jesus is addressing His words to “little flock”. Who is in view here? Is it Peter only? The 12 only? No, I think that no matter how desperate we are to see this as Peter alone we will eventually need to yield to the logic that “flock” is plural, and it consistently means the “church”. Then, if I am a son of the King, I am under authority, and there fore I have authority, which includes the power of binding and loosing anything I need in His kingdom.

As “the Gospel” has not been produced or declared by Jesus, as He wrote nothing, but only by His Church, why try to ignore that reality?

Why reject Jesus when he established His Church (post #13)? The mandate to St Peter, and only St Peter, is stark. No one else has that authority, and to imagine that all who claim to follow Jesus have the authority He gave solely to St Peter is totally discredited by the thousands of differing Protestant sects all teaching something different. Self-interpretation is self-deception.

 

[Cider]

I don’t see the point of the question. Faith is something we choose to believe in and follow, or not. . Muslims believe in the authority of the Qur’an. Catholics in the Bible and the Pope. Buddhists follow the example of Siddhartha Gautama and the teachers of their particular school. Reconstructionist pagans follow the example of their ancestors. Wiccan’s follow the leaders of their coven. Eclectic pagans follow their own hearts.

You can’t convince people who believe in an outside higher authority like the Pope or Jesus that authority really lies within themselves anymore than you can convince people who believe authority lies within their own hearts to follow the authority of a transcendent or incarnate God or a prophet.

The whole argument seems like boys lining up having a pissing match. It’s all about bravado and one-upmanship instead of evangelization.

 

[eazyduzit]

I would defer to Randy Carson’s thread “The King and the Royal Steward” for a great discussion and explanation of this topic.

Begin with Isaiah 22:15-25. Eliakim, who succeeds Shebnah as master of the palace, is given “the key of the house of David,”. What he opens cannot be shut and what he shuts cannot be open. It is a sign of great authority and was given to Peter alone.

The point is this. Christ founded a Church and gave great, unprecedented authority to that Church; his own authority. He gave the Church its hierarchical structure with Peter at its head. This idea that it is just “Jesus and me” is completely unfounded. We are a body, not a bunch of dismembered parts scattered around.

I found it interesting that you addressed the “Keys” but did not address “binding and loosing” and the power to “forgive sins”. Do you believe the Church alone has this authority or do you believe this authority was meant to extend to all Christians?

I just need to do this one step at a time. First, how do we know the “house of David” represents "the Kingdom of God? Second, what could Jesus give to open the Kingdom? Some esoteric (hidden) knowledge? No that is not His MO. The only thing that can open the door to the Kingdom of God is the Gospel. Peter understood this at some point, because he used this “key” to open the kingdom to the Gentiles in the book of Acts. In Lk12:32, Jesus is addressing His words to “little flock”. Who is in view here? Is it Peter only? The 12 only? No, I think that no matter how desperate we are to see this as Peter alone we will eventually need to yield to the logic that “flock” is plural, and it consistently means the “church”. Then, if I am a son of the King, I am under authority, and there fore I have authority, which includes the power of binding and loosing anything I need in His kingdom. If this is not so, then of what use is the Kingdom? How can I have healing or prosperity or whatever is mine in the Kingdom? What an impoverished Christian life would this be? I refuse to be misled by any church when the scripture is clear.

 

[adf417]

I refuse to be misled by any church when the scripture is clear.

Hmmmmmm! Oh the questions what come to mind…

 

[SteveVH]

In ancient times, a king might choose a second in command (known as the royal steward or prime minister) who literally wore a large key as a symbol of his office and who spoke with the authority of the king. The prophet Isaiah confirms this:

Isaiah 22:20-22
"In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.”

In the passage above, God is speaking to Shebnah, an unfaithful steward serving King Hezekiah. God is telling Shebnah that he is about to be replaced by Eliakim, and this confirms the existence of the office, the key worn as a symbol of the office, and the continuation of the office in perpetuity – despite the change of office holder. In other words, the office of the royal steward continued even when the man who held the office died or was replaced by someone else. God Himself passes the key from one steward to the next.

In the New Testament, we learn that Jesus inherits the throne of his father, David.

Luke 1:31–33
And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there will be no end.

We also read the following:

Matthew 16:13-19
When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

The passage quoted above from Matthew tells us that Jesus named Peter as His royal steward and gave him the “keys to the kingdom of heaven" as the symbol of his authority to speak in His name. Since Jesus is an eternal king, the office of royal steward in His kingdom will never end. Peter died as a martyr as Jesus foretold, but the successors of Peter have taken his place in the perpetual office that Jesus established in His royal court.

In addition to the reference to a key or keys, note the following parallels:

"What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.” (Is. 22:22)
"Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Mt. 16:19)

Jesus specifically referenced the passage from Isaiah when He appointed Peter, and Peter received authority from Jesus to speak universally in His name. To do so faithfully, Peter must not teach error; therefore, Peter (and his successors who hold the office of the Royal Steward - also known as the Bishop of Rome) are protected by God through the charism of infallibility.

Thanks, Randy.

 

[eazyduzit]

I don’t see the point of the question. Faith is something we choose to believe in and follow, or not. . Muslims believe in the authority of the Qur’an. Catholics in the Bible and the Pope. Buddhists follow the example of Siddhartha Gautama and the teachers of their particular school. Reconstructionist pagans follow the example of their ancestors. Wiccan’s follow the leaders of their coven. Eclectic pagans follow their own hearts.

You can’t convince people who believe in an outside higher authority like the Pope or Jesus that authority really lies within themselves anymore than you can convince people who believe authority lies within their own hearts to follow the authority of a transcendent or incarnate God or a prophet.

The whole argument seems like boys lining up having a pissing match. It’s all about bravado and one-upmanship instead of evangelization.

You don’t see the point because you’re looking from an earthly point of view. Christianity is different from all other religions because the Holy Spirit (God) lives in us. This, and not rules or earthly rulers is what gives us unity. That is how I know that a Chinese Pentecostal will know and believe the same way that I do. Its a spiritual thing.

 

[Cider]

You don’t see the point because you’re looking from an earthly point of view. Christianity is different from all other religions because the Holy Spirit (God) lives in us. This, and not rules or earthly rulers is what gives us unity. That is how I know that a Chinese Pentecostal will know and believe the same way that I do. Its a spiritual thing.

But you just proved my point. Why aren’t you Catholic? After all the Holy Spirit resides in you and must be guiding you to be Catholic, because the Catholic Church has the fullness of truth.

 

[SteveVH]

I just need to do this one step at a time. First, how do we know the “house of David” represents "the Kingdom of God?

As you re-posted this I take that you weren’t satisfied with Randy’s response. I would only ask if you would dare refute anything he posted, and if not, why do you continue to doubt the role of authority given to Peter alone?

The point is that we are speaking of an office, an office of authority known very well by the Jews. The Apostles all knew what Jesus meant when he gave the keys to Peter. Peter was now the Royal Steward who would represent the King and what he shuts no one can open and what he opens no one can shut. What Peter would bind on earth would be bound even in heaven and what Peter loosed on earth would be loosed even in heaven.
Incredible authority, given by Christ himself.

Second, what could Jesus give to open the Kingdom?

His life.

Some esoteric (hidden) knowledge? No that is not His MO. The only thing that can open the door to the Kingdom of God is the Gospel. Peter understood this at some point, because he used this “key” to open the kingdom to the Gentiles in the book of Acts. In Lk12:32, Jesus is addressing His words to “little flock”. Who is in view here? Is it Peter only? The 12 only? No, I think that no matter how desperate we are to see this as Peter alone we will eventually need to yield to the logic that “flock” is plural, and it consistently means the “church”.

Really? Let’s take a look once more at the words Jesus spoke, from the Gospel of Matthew:

"Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. (Matthew 16:17-19)

Now, please, while exercising intellectual honesty, please tell me to whom Jesus is speaking?

Then, if I am a son of the King, I am under authority, and there fore I have authority, which includes the power of binding and loosing anything I need in His kingdom.

You have no idea what this means, do you?

If this is not so, then of what use is the Kingdom? How can I have healing or prosperity or whatever is mine in the Kingdom? What an impoverished Christian life would this be? I refuse to be misled by any church when the scripture is clear.

You mean what can you get out of the deal? Is this really what you believe the power of binding and loosing is all about? How far we have strayed…

 

[eazyduzit]

In ancient times, a king might choose a second in command (known as the royal steward or prime minister) who literally wore a large key as a symbol of his office and who spoke with the authority of the king. The prophet Isaiah confirms this:

Isaiah 22:20-22
"In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.”

In the passage above, God is speaking to Shebnah, an unfaithful steward serving King Hezekiah. God is telling Shebnah that he is about to be replaced by Eliakim, and this confirms the existence of the office, the key worn as a symbol of the office, and the continuation of the office in perpetuity – despite the change of office holder. In other words, the office of the royal steward continued even when the man who held the office died or was replaced by someone else. God Himself passes the key from one steward to the next.

In the New Testament, we learn that Jesus inherits the throne of his father, David.

Luke 1:31–33
And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there will be no end.

We also read the following:

Matthew 16:13-19
When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

The passage quoted above from Matthew tells us that Jesus named Peter as His royal steward and gave him the “keys to the kingdom of heaven" as the symbol of his authority to speak in His name. Since Jesus is an eternal king, the office of royal steward in His kingdom will never end. Peter died as a martyr as Jesus foretold, but the successors of Peter have taken his place in the perpetual office that Jesus established in His royal court.

In addition to the reference to a key or keys, note the following parallels:

"What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.” (Is. 22:22)
"Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Mt. 16:19)

Jesus specifically referenced the passage from Isaiah when He appointed Peter, and Peter received authority from Jesus to speak universally in His name. To do so faithfully, Peter must not teach error; therefore, Peter (and his successors who hold the office of the Royal Steward - also known as the Bishop of Rome) are protected by God through the charism of infallibility.

If it is so clear that that the only possible thing that Jesus could be doing here is creating an earthly office of infallibility, then how are we to understand this quote from a sermon by Augustine(tractate CXXIV) “For the Rock(Petra) was Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself also built… For what the Church is essentially in Christ, such representatively is Peter in the rock(petra); and in this representation, Christ is to be understood as the Rock, Peter as the Church”.
This is clear to me.
Please show me in the bible where “infallibility” is a “charism” of the Holy Spirit?

 

[eazyduzit]

As you re-posted this I take that you weren’t satisfied with Randy’s response. I would only ask if you would dare refute anything he posted, and if not, why do you continue to doubt the role of authority given to Peter alone?

The point is that we are speaking of an office, an office of authority known very well by the Jews. The Apostles all knew what Jesus meant when he gave the keys to Peter. Peter was now the Royal Steward who would represent the King and what he shuts no one can open and what he opens no one can shut. What Peter would bind on earth would be bound even in heaven and what Peter loosed on earth would be loosed even in heaven.
Incredible authority, given by Christ himself.

His life.

Really? Let’s take a look once more at the words Jesus spoke, from the Gospel of Matthew:

"Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. (Matthew 16:17-19)

Now, please, while exercising intellectual honesty, please tell me to whom Jesus is speaking?

You have no idea what this means, do you?

You mean what can you get out of the deal? Is this really what you believe the power of binding and loosing is all about? How far we have strayed…

Yes, this is exactly what all Pentacostals believe across the board without any variance. Jesus is giving the Kingdom to someone in Lk.12:32. The group receiving the Kingdom here is the “little flock” I know how desperate you are for this to be Peter alone, but to me it is clear that “little flock” must always be the church.
I think I’m safe with that.

 

[Randy_Carson]

If it is so clear that that the only possible thing that Jesus could be doing here is creating an earthly office of infallibility, then how are we to understand this quote from a sermon by Augustine(tractate CXXIV) “For the Rock(Petra) was Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself also built… For what the Church is essentially in Christ, such representatively is Peter in the rock(petra); and in this representation, Christ is to be understood as the Rock, Peter as the Church”.

Are you basing your entire rejection of Peter as the rock based on this one passage of an Early Church Father?

I ask because I have boatloads of quotes saying the opposite from:

1. Early Church Fathers
2. Protestant Scholars (25 at last count)
3. Orthodox theologians

Unless you are attributing infallibility to Augustine, I think he’s outnumbered by those who went before him and those that came after him. He simply got this wrong.

Please show me in the bible where “infallibility” is a “charism” of the Holy Spirit?

Here are a few verses and some questions for you:

The Infallibility of the Catholic Church Proved from Scripture

The following verses suggest that the Catholic Church is prevented from teaching error in matters of faith and morals by God Himself. I provide questions below each verse to illustrate why it is applicable to our understanding of infallibility.

Matthew 16:18
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Q: If Jesus promised to build his own church and that Church ever fell into doctrinal error, would this mean that a) Jesus was a liar, b) Jesus did not have the power to protect his own church, or c) Jesus was incompetent as a church builder?

Matthew 28:20
And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.

Q: If the Church fell into doctrinal error at any time during the 1500 years before the Protestant Reformation, would that suggest that Jesus did not remain with the Church “always”?

John 14:15-16
15"If you love me, you will obey what I command. 16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever—

Q: If the Church ever fell into doctrinal error, would that mean that Jesus did not give the Counselor or that the Counselor simply failed to remain with the Church “forever”?

John 14:18
18I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.

Q: If the Church ever fell into doctrinal error, would that imply that Jesus actually did leave us as “orphans” during all that time?

John 14:26
26But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

Q: If the Church fell into error despite this promise, would that mean the Holy Spirit failed to teach the Church “all things” or to remind the Church of the things that Jesus had said to the Apostles?

John 16:13
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

Q: Could the Holy Spirit fail to guide the Church into all truth - or allow the Church to fall into error - if Jesus promised otherwise?

Now, consider the following three verses:

1 John 4:4
4You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.

1 Timothy 3:13
15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Mark 3:27
27In fact, no one can enter a strong man’s house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he can rob his house.

Q: Is Satan stronger than Jesus, is the Church the household of God, and can Satan rob the Church of the deposit of truth by “binding” Jesus in any way?

In light of the above, is it possible that the Church fell into doctrinal error? Taken individually, each of these verses creates a problem for those that assert that the Church “went off the rails” at some point in history. Taken as a whole, they portray Christ’s own involvement in building, nurturing and protecting His Church until the end of time. The Catholic Church remains strong and vibrant – not by her own efforts or innate qualities – but because God Himself is leading and guiding her to ensure that “the gates of hell will not overcome it.”

 

[Randy_Carson]

If it is so clear that that the only possible thing that Jesus could be doing here is creating an earthly office of infallibility,

Let’s stay focused on Peter as the Royal Steward. You know the OT is often a foreshadowing of the NT, right?

Scripture Parallels: Joseph, Eliakim, and Peter

Joseph - Genesis 41:40-44
40 You shall be in charge of my palace, and all my people are to submit to your orders. Only with respect to the throne will I be greater than you.” 41 So Pharaoh said to Joseph, “I hereby put you in charge of the whole land of Egypt.” 42 Then Pharaoh took his signet ring from his finger and put it on Joseph’s finger. He dressed him in robes of fine linen and put a gold chain around his neck. 43 He had him ride in a chariot as his second-in-command, and people shouted before him, “Make way!” Thus he put him in charge of the whole land of Egypt. 44 Then Pharaoh said to Joseph, “I am Pharaoh, but without your word no one will lift hand or foot in all Egypt.”

• Steward over Pharaoh’s kingdom
• Second in command
• Dressed in robes with gold chain around neck as symbols of authority
• Universal jurisdiction throughout the land of Egypt
• No one lifts hand or foot without Joseph’s word

Eliakim - Isaiah 22:20-22
20 “In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. 21 I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the people of Judah. 22 I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.

• Steward over Hezekiah’s kingdom
• Second in command
• Dressed in robe and sash with key on shoulder as symbols of authority
• Universal jurisdiction throughout Jerusalem and Judah
• No one opens or shuts without Eliakim

Peter - Matthew 16:18-20
18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

• Steward over Jesus’ kingdom
• Second in command (cf. John 21:15-19 vicarious shepherd of the one flock)
• Given keys as symbol of authority
• Universal jurisdiction over all of Jesus’ kingdom
• Authority to bind and loose in heaven and on earth

 

[Abu]

eazyduzit #29
Please show me in the bible where “infallibility” is a “charism” of the Holy Spirit?

As a “charism” is transitory, it is NOT the same as Christ’s specific and clear mandate to St Peter until the end of time.
CHARISMS. Literally “gifts of grace” (charismata), described by St. Paul as gratuitous blessings of an extraordinary and transitory nature conferred directly for the good of others. Indirectly they may also benefit the one who possesses the charisms, but their immediate purpose is for the spiritual welfare of the Christian community.
Modern Catholic Dictionary by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.
therealpresence.org/cgi-bin/getdefinition.pl

INFALLIBILITY. Freedom from error in teaching the universal Church in matters of faith or morals.
therealpresence.org/cgi-bin/getdefinition.pl

St Augustine
On the rock of infallibility clearly conveyed by Christ (post #13), St. Augustine proclaims: "If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church’ . . . [Matt. 16:18]. Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement, Clement by Anacletus, Anacletus by Evaristus . . . " (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).

“Number the bishops from the see of Peter itself. And in that order of Fathers see who succeeded whom, That is the rock against which the gates of hell do not prevail.”
Psalmus contra partem Donati, 18 (A.D. 393),GCC 51

“Let us not listen to those who deny that the Church of God is able to forgive all sins. They are wretched indeed, because they do not recognize in Peter the rock and they refuse to believe that the keys of heaven, lost from their own hands, have been given to the Church.”
Christian Combat, 31:33(A.D. 397), in JUR,3:51
americancatholictruthsociety.com/articles/augustinecatholic.htm

See former Protestant Dr Scott Hahn on the Papacy:
‘I recommend a three- volume work written by a Professor Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, and it goes through all the Fathers and the many, many things they said to show that they recognize this authority in the Pope. Augustine, for instance, “Even if some traitor crept into this order of Bishops which is drawn from Peter, himself, up to Anastasius who now occupies the same See, he would not prejudice the Church.” He speaks of the cathedre Petri.
‘When you look at St. Augustine, a great saint and Father that the Protestants revere, Augustine had more things to say about the Popes as successors to Peter with all of his plenary authority than almost anybody else in the first seven centuries of the Church. It’s astonishing. Augustine said, “Who is ignorant that the chief Apostolate is to be preferred to any Episcopate?” Of the dignity of Peter he says, “in whom the primacy of the Apostles shone forth with excelling grace.” ’
catholic-pages.com/pope/hahn.asp

 

[Sy_Noe]

But you just proved my point. Why aren’t you Catholic? After all the Holy Spirit resides in you and must be guiding you to be Catholic, because the Catholic Church has the fullness of truth.

But you said faith is something we choose to believe in and follow, or not. And only a faithful Catholic is going to believe the CC has the fullness of truth.

My authority is simply my understanding of how the Holy Spirit is guiding me deep within the sanctuary of my conscience where even CCC teaches it is where I am alone with God. Might my understanding of His voice be wrong on some things? Certainly. Obviously everyone is not right on everything. We’re finite human beings trying to understand an infinite being as God. But I’m fine with some gray matter. Because for me the bottom line is no one truly knows with certainty the one truth. Believing we know is not the same as knowing. Faith can not be proven. The best any of us can do is walk by it. Whatever it is we believe. Peace to all on your walks.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Whenever I am involved in conversations with non-Catholic Christians I go straight to the authority question. If that question is not resolved then every other discussion is only matter of swapping opinions. It is important, therefore to be clear on the basics of the Catholic understanding of authority. It is rooted in the fact that Jesus Christ was sent by God and had all authority on heaven and earth. (Mt 22:18) Jesus exercised this authority by:

1. Teaching the truth
2. Healing the sick
3. Vanquishing the Devil.

He told his apostles to continue this work. (Mt. 22:19) He delegated that authority to his apostles because he said, “As the Father has sent me I am sending you.” (Jn 20:21) The apostles appointed their successors who are the bishops and priests of the Catholic Church.

This is what the early Christians believed about apostolic succession:

Clement of Rome, 95AD
“The Apostles received the gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ and they went out full of confidence in the Holy Spirit and appointed…bishops and deacons…they appointed them so that tested men would succeed their ministry.”

Ignatius of Antioch, 115AD
“When you obey the bishop you obey Christ…it is essential that you do nothing without the bishop. Submit to the priests as to Christ.”

“By knowledge of the truth we mean the teaching of the Apostles… the order of the Church as established from earliest times throughout the world…preserved through the Episcopal succession: for to the bishops, the apostles committed the care of the Church in each place which has come down to our own time…safeguarded by the most complete exposition the reading of the Scriptures without falsification and careful and consistent exposition of them avoiding both rashness and blasphemy.”

St Irenaeus, 160AD
We can enumerate those who were appointed bishops in the churches by the apostles and their successors down to our own day. They were handing over to them their own office of doctrinal authority.”

That same authority continues in the Catholic Church today. The Holy Father really is the successor of Peter and the bishops are the apostles alive and active today.

This is why Catholic priests and the Catholic faithful need to be true to the teachings of the Catholic faith. Without it we are simply trading in our own opinions. When we contradict church teachings, dissent from Church teachings we are taking ourselves outside the line of authority and our views–no matter how seemingly reasonable and no matter how passionately we hold them–are dust in the wind. They have no more authority or weight than anyone else’s opinions. You may argue your point and rage against the authority of the church, but step outside it and you are on your own.

The analogy I use is that of the barque of Peter. Launch out on your own and your on the wild and wide open sea in little more than a self inflated life raft. The barque of Peter may be an old ship. She may be creaky and leaky at times. She may have troubles in the engine room and the cargo in the hold may be rotting, but she’s still more seaworthy than your own little lifeboat, and even though she may be tossed about by the winds and stormy seas she’ll make it to the port at last.

Better to stay on board, batten down the hatches and weather the storm than to set off on your own.

Taken from: patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2015/01/apologetics-101.html

Here’s the thing though. None of this is actual proof. Before it can even begin to seem so, you first must have faith. Not only faith in an infinite God but faith in finite humans, in their writings being free from error. Faith in the NT but then also faith in ECF writings and in the CC and in how the CC interprets both Scripture and the early writings. Without many leaps of faith measured in, there is no so called “proof”. This applies to the other boatloads of quotes you mentioned you have. It btw applies to any faith as well. That’s why they’re called faiths and beliefs. By which people walk by. Not by sight. I for instance have faith in God. In Christ. I respect that you and your fellow faith-filled Catholics believe you know. But I for instance just don’t have the same degree of faith you have. So all the boatloads of quotes don’t prove anything to me.

 

[yateanieys]

What IS the Word of God and how do we recognize it? In other words, what is it and what is it specifically NOT?

I’m not sure you can recognize the Word of God, for it exists beyond all things. The Word of God is the perfect completion of the godhead (the Holy Trinity) as well as that which was created by the godhead (the physical dimension). As for what the Word is not, the Bible is not the Word of God. The Bible is merely the divinely-inspired record that was created as the medium through which God’s eternal Word narrates itself (e.g. the perfect harmony of spiritual and physical completeness) as well as its intended purpose in a language that we as physical beings can best comprehend. Anything beyond the words written in the Bible is purely divine knowledge.

So, in answer to your question, the closest way we can recognize the Word of God is to have faith that the Bible speaks the truth and that this truth translates to the significance of the words written upon its pages.

Honestly, if we could simply recognize the Word of God, then faith wouldn’t have a purpose; therefore, nothing would exist as there would be no free will. God created us so that we would choose to believe in Him and choose of our own accord to love Him back as he loves us. Without that choice, there is no purpose in Creation.

 

[authority2]

thanks-- but when Jesus gave me instructions to go to a bible college-- i refused – for 3 years-- becasue i was educated catholic-- but i understand what Saint Paul was talking about –

1 Corinthians 2 New International Version (NIV)

2 And so it was with me, brothers and sisters.

When I came to you,

I did not come with eloquence or human wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God.[a]

2 For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 3 I came to you in weakness with great fear and trembling

. 4 My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, 5 so that your faith might not rest on human wisdom, but on God’s power.

God’s Wisdom Revealed by the Spirit

6 We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing.

7 No, we declare God’s wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began.

8 None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9 However, as it is written:

“What no eye has seen,
what no ear has heard,
and what no human mind has conceived”**—
the things God has prepared for those who love him—
10 these are the things God has revealed to us by his Spirit.

The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God.

11 For who knows a person’s thoughts except their own spirit within them? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.

12 What we have received is not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us.

13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words.[c]

14 The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.

15 The person with the Spirit makes judgments about all things, but such a person is not subject to merely human judgments, 16 for,

“Who has known the mind of the Lord
so as to instruct him?”[d]
But we have the mind of Christ.

1 Samuel 19
But when they saw a group of prophets prophesying, with Samuel standing there as their leader, the Spirit of God came on Saul’s men, and they also prophesied. 21 Saul was told about it, and he sent more men, and they prophesied too. Saul sent men a third time, and they also prophesied.

it was an interesting education to spend a few years with a school of prophets**

 

[pablope]

We maintain the practices of what the Catholic Church calls sacraments - the title matters not to us, and wouldn’t be a barrier to reunification. The Lutheran definition of sacrament is just a bit more particular.

So…have you been confirmed? If you would join the CC or any OC, do you think these two churches would let you just join without having to undergo confirmation?

And why does a Lutheran pastor need to be ordained if one joins the CC or OC?

Lutherans claim to be a valid continuation of the western church, so typically such arguments aren’t too effective with us.

yes…because you have to resort to lots of dizzying rationalization…in order to claim to be a valid continuation of the Church…but disregard some early Church traditions which you claim to not disregard…

 

[Marie5890]

Authority?

How much of human ego is part of our assumed authority?
As broken creatures in a broken world, we are all subject to egos, egos that distort truth.

 

[Abu]

Sy Noe #34
My authority is simply my understanding of how the Holy Spirit is guiding me deep within the sanctuary of my conscience where even CCC teaches it is where I am alone with God.

Such errors need correction as the **CCC 1783 **teaches that “The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.”

CCC 1792 identifies “errors of judgment” precisely: “…assertion of a mistaken autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and Her teaching…”

So, the reality is that since conscience is not a god, but a judgment of the practical reason as Msgr Cormac P Burke (Law and Dissent, 1985) points out, "for the Catholic, there is never a conflict between the authority of the Church and conscience, because belief that Christ has given His Church authority to teach without error is part of his conscience, freely accepted. According to Canon 205, Catholics are those in full communion with the Church through the bonds of profession of faith, the sacraments and ecclesiastical governance.

"If one holds a personal opinion that a particular course of action seems licit – contrary to the Church’s teaching – he has a conflict within his own conscience. This is doubt or rejection of the divine guarantees of the certainty of the truths already present in his mind, to accommodate a contrary opinion. We now have a house divided against itself.

"He cannot escape the conclusion that his contrary opinion must be mistaken, as he would be acknowledging the accepted fact of the fallibility of conscience – it does not make truth. He then has to see where he has been mistaken, to reflect more deeply on the arguments for the Church’s teaching. If he feels that he is not mistaken, then he must conclude that Christ’s Church is mistaken and naturally his faith in Christ and His Church has started to collapse.

“He has no grounds then to believe in any truths – the sacraments (especially the Eucharist), or in Her worship or any other aspect of Her life. Such a Catholic needs the counsel of a faithful priest.”

Because for me the bottom line is no one truly knows with certainty the one truth.

Fr Thomas Dubay in Faith And Certitude, Ignatius Press, 1995 examines certitude which is total certainty:
“They attain truth who love it. One of the chief immoralities is an indifference to truth. It is worse than sexual perversion, said Jesus Himself. Those who reject His representatives are more guilty than perverted Sodom and Gomorrah (Mt 10:14-15). Indifference to truth is nothing less than and indifference to reality and to the Author of reality…One of the too little noticed traits of the saints is their utter commitment to truth.” (p 189-190).

Objective certitude “has three traits. First it is an enlightened assent. One not only knows something, but he also knows why he knows it, and he sees the objective reasons why it is so….[Second] certitude excludes a reasonable fear of being wrong…[Third] certitude is unchangeable. Because it is based on objective reality it is permanent.”