What's Your Authority?

[carson2two]

finding christians in the 5 fold ministry – that can do more than "quote scripture-- and say we are right !!

What is the five (5) fold ministry?

Answer: The concept of the five-fold ministry comes from Ephesians 4:11,

"It was he … some to be (3) evangelists, and some to be (4) pastors and (5) teachers.

saved and baptised in the Holy Spirit-- makes the difference

yes i been involved with the charasmetic group sence 1969 –

and about the only thing – they can do is pray in tongues-- w/o understanding–

so finding a christian group that demenstrates the power and authority of a deciple –

as Jesus said in math 10;10 – or in mark 16;15-20 … can be a challange–

The Mystery of Power and Authority

Join author and speaker John Paul Jackson as he reveals some of the spiritual mysteries of the Bible… including how God speaks today through dreams!

youtu.be/4JjywnrugxU

jesse Duplantis’ Testimony

Duplantis, once a pop star, now a renowned man of God. God touched his life and changed him and thru him brought salvation to others

youtu.be/QbkOlZJyU-M

 

[onenow1]

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.

“NO”! Getting to the truth is a narrow road. Please observe how wide a road to Jesus is these days you can see it, just in these discussions

God Bless

 

[yateanieys]

Honestly, I’ve always considered the fragmentation of the Church as Satan’s penultimate accomplishment (only second to convincing the majority of the world that he doesn’t exist). The reason I say that is because of 3-page discussions like this one. Instead of devoting all one’s efforts to being the fishers of men that Jesus called us to be, people selfishly devote a portion of their time to bickering back and forth between themselves about logical and conceptual semantics of authority and salvation and purpose.

 

[rinnie]

Honestly, I’ve always considered the fragmentation of the Church as Satan’s penultimate accomplishment (only second to convincing the majority of the world that he doesn’t exist). The reason I say that is because of 3-page discussions like this one. Instead of devoting all one’s efforts to being the fishers of men that Jesus called us to be, people selfishly devote a portion of their time to bickering back and forth between themselves about logical and conceptual semantics of authority and salvation and purpose. Yes, I now stand guilty of the same thing.

What’s the point of debating if you aren’t going to acknowledge the other side of the debate? Personally, I’m Pentecostal, so I’m largely out of place here, and though I originally joined for a specific question, I stayed on this forum to learn more about the different brands of faith. I stayed so that I might supplement my response to those that ask what the differences are between the various sects of Christianity. But, even though I’m out of place, I don’t feel as if I’m out of line.

I’m here to learn and to grow in the Word and gain a feeling for Catholicism as a whole, but threads like this just make it that much harder for people like me to learn, because it’s all different. I’ve also found several conflicting Catholic responses to other critical topics on this forum (i.e. speaking in Tongues). I can understand Catholic responses differing from those of the, say, the Protestant faith, but Catholics conflicting with other Catholics? For someone like me who’s looking to differentiate between the various faiths, that speaks volumes about the Catholic Church.

I’m not saying that all the threads on this forum are confusing; in fact, a good portion of them contrive healthy discussion between faiths, are very informative, and the Catholic believers that respond to them are more than willing to offer a helpful link to publications or to help clarify otherwise ambiguous material. But, IMHO, this thread is shameful. All you guys are doing is asking questions. I’ve read the whole thing and still can’t find a simple systematic answer from the Catholic believers in this thread. The majority of what I’ve found is bashing, prejudice, and the rejection of possibility.

Personally, I believe that the first person to respond to this thread, Indifferently, got it 100% right with only four words; our authority is derived from our faith in the authority of the Word of God, not some doctrine or dictation from someone claiming authority (of which the written Word predates and mentions absolutely nothing of) that picks apart that which is supposed to remain whole and indefinite. I believe that the Catholic Church assumes authority. I believe that a Church is made up of it’s people, not the self-proclaimed religious aristocracy. I believe the people of the Church who are charged with furthering God’s Kingdom share that authority, not some elite group who claim they have the authority through no mention of the Word of God and deny it to everyone else.

So, let me ask a question. Where does the Bible mention papacy, worship/adoration of Mary (or the immaculate conception of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the assumption of Mary, or Mary as co-redemptrix and mediatrix), petitioning saints in heaven for their prayers, apostolic succession, the ordinances of the church functioning as sacraments, infant baptism, confession of sin to a priest, purgatory, indulgences, or the equal authority of church tradition and Scripture?

Let the fervent tenacity of the Catholic interpretation commence!

Boy you ask a lot of questions. But that’s good!.

The Papacy. Lets start with Peter, Jesus gave him the power to bind and loose. He said you got the keys to the kingdom. That is what we call the Papacy whoever holds the keys.

History proves Peter handed them down and if you look they trace to the current Pope.

As far as asking the Blessed Mother, or other Saints for prayers, that is written in the Rev, how the prayers of the Saints are taken up to heaven. The book of Job will also help you, how Job was Righteous, which means no sin. If you had sin you could not be Righteous.

Righteous is what we want to be called, That’s a Saint. Anyway read Job how God states he will not accept the prayers of Jobs friends, but told the friends to have Job pray for them, his prayers he will accept.

We may not be righteous in the eyes of God, but the Saints are and we know their prayers are accepted. God tells us he will not accept the prayers of the un-righteous. Read Job, then get back to us.

 

[yateanieys]

Wow, thank you

That was a rather pleasant read despite the nature of my post. If you’d notice, I had edited the post as I felt guilty once I realized I was actually being the biggest hypocrite in this thread up until that point. I see my efforts were in vain, but that’s good. I need to face that side of myself instead of hiding it. Regardless, thank you for your insight; it has been duly noted!

 

[rinnie]

Honestly, I’ve always considered the fragmentation of the Church as Satan’s penultimate accomplishment (only second to convincing the majority of the world that he doesn’t exist). The reason I say that is because of 3-page discussions like this one. Instead of devoting all one’s efforts to being the fishers of men that Jesus called us to be, people selfishly devote a portion of their time to bickering back and forth between themselves about logical and conceptual semantics of authority and salvation and purpose.

But is not the point to not bicker, but all be teachers and help one another by answering the questions as simple and kind as we can.

With that said let me ask you a real easy question. Here it is. If you say Mary was not a Virgin all her life, and I say she was, how do we get our answers.

Is it okay for you to think what you want, and I can think what I want? Or do we need the Truth?

If God did not want us to have truth, why did he leave us the Church? Why did he make disciples who all taught the same exact thing?

That’s why we need to investigate and learn from oneanother.

 

[yateanieys]

But is not the point to not bicker, but all be teachers and help one another by answering the questions as simple and kind as we can.

Well, growing in one’s faith is one thing, but debating semantics is another. As I said before, what’s the point of debating with other faiths and challenging them if you aren’t going to acknowledge the answer? I mean the title of this thread, especially considering the the topic of the forum it was posted in, was bait. Like someone said earlier, it just ends up being a pissing match.

If anyone who wasn’t part of the Church stumbled across this, would you agree that it could very well shy them away from religion because they can plainly see that religious people are just a bunch of bigots that argue semantics all day? How do you think the Lord would feel about that if it were to happen? How would that be responsible of us as fishers of men to ignore the possibility of driving people who need the Word of God away? It just seems to me like tossing poisonous chum in the water.

 

[yateanieys]

I guess I’m just saying that if you want to learn, then that’s great, but baiting people in a Non-Catholic forum to get a rise out of them is irresponsible. I seriously doubt that if a non-believer came across this thread that he or she would say, “Wow! This looks stimulating! I gotta get in on that action. Where do I sign up for Debate for Christ?”

 

[rinnie]

Well, growing in one’s faith is one thing, but debating semantics is another. As I said before, what’s the point of debating with other faiths and challenging them if you aren’t going to acknowledge the answer? I mean the title of this thread, especially considering the the topic of the forum it was posted in, was bait. Like someone said earlier, it just ends up being a pissing match.

If anyone who wasn’t part of the Church stumbled across this, would you agree that it could very well shy them away from religion because they can plainly see that religious people are just a bunch of bigots that argue semantics all day? How do you think the Lord would feel about that if it were to happen? How would that be responsible of us as fishers of men to ignore the possibility of driving people who need the Word of God away? It just seems to me like tossing poisonous chum in the water.

Well lets put it this way. The question was where does your Church claim authority and where does it claim it comes from, Right?

The RCC claims its authority came straight from Jesus and our Proof is Jesus gave Peter the Authority of the RCC.

So see we claim our authority came from Jesus Christ, and we belong to the Church that began with Peter. Now there should be no disrespect or make us bigots for spreading what is taught in the bible.

Other faiths do indeed claim they have this same authority and show the proof they have. If they cannot they tend to get a little testy if you know what I mean.

I personally believe if we can show we indeed have the fullness of the truth promised by God, it would turn people towards his church not away.

Now lets look at this another way. Did Jesus not say that he had all authority from heaven and earth, do you think he was called names? Of course he was, he was even called the devil by many.

So unfortunately truth brings on arguments from those who will not or cannot accept it.

But the difference here is this, if someone says your Church does not have authority, then they must prove this statement false.

If they cannot, it is not fair to accuse someone for bait. This forum is Catholic Answers, it is a here to debate why we believe the RCC is indeed the One True Church. And indeed show our proof.

Now it is your Job to show us how your church claims authority over ours, or why or why it does not.

By the way every Church should claim this, and everyone should believe their Church is the true Church of Christ. Don’t you agree?

 

[rinnie]

I guess I’m just saying that if you want to learn, then that’s great, but baiting people in a Non-Catholic forum to get a rise out of them is irresponsible. I seriously doubt that if a non-believer came across this thread that he or she would say, “Wow! This looks stimulating! I gotta get in on that action. Where do I sign up for Debate for Christ?”

One more thing, say tomorrow I say I have the fullness of truth and will begin my own Church.

It is called the Church of Rinnie, and Jesus told me to do it.

What is going to come back to me is where is your authority, how am I going to be shut down on my self proclaimed truth. Easy I have no authority.

They will show in the bible how Jesus warned us of self-proclaimed people who claim to teach and preach in his name, and will show how we are told in the bible to stick with the CC.

We need this, Jesus knew it, or he would not have warned us to stay away from the Church of Rinne! But it does kind of grow on ya huh!

 

[Sy_Noe]

"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.”

Catholics are those in full communion? Not only those. Fr Charles Grondin, a CAF apologist, states it this way:

“The Code of Canon Law currently does not recognize that someone can leave the Catholic Church. You might become a non-practicing member, but the Church’s laws consider anyone baptized Catholic to always be Catholic.”

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12648280&postcount=2

You’re also therefore wrong about there never being conflict between Catholic authority and conscience. A baptized or confirmed Catholic, even one catechized properly with the mind informed, can certainly reach a point later along their journey where they don’t hold belief with the certainty you do that the Catholic Church teaches without any possibility of human error. (or for that matter perhaps not any church with humans involved in doing the teaching)

What you’re closer to being correct about is someone can believe the CC could be mistaken and their faith in what you believe to be His Church, begins to collapse. But you’re wrong about such a person’s faith in Christ naturally collapsing. Such a believer can very much still believe in 1 God and in Christ the Savior. They can still have grounds to believe truths from deep within their conscience. Might they be mistaken too? Of course! That’s the thing about faith. It takes it to believe and even for someone to believe they “know”, it takes a whole lotta faith. Faith by which to walk by without sight. In the faithful Catholic’s case, sure they believe in God, the NT, don’t believe things written by humans could be in error, have faith in the CC interpretations. The believer whose faith in the CC has collapsed merely does not have the faith you do in Catholic interpretation of Scripture or in ECFs. And without faith in Catholic authority, I’m uncertain how counsel from a Catholic priest would help if one enters the counsel without faith in the one doing the counselling.

In any case, along your own journey, continued peace!

 

[yateanieys]

The RCC claims its authority came straight from Jesus and our Proof is Jesus gave Peter the Authority of the RCC.

I suppose I’d answer that by saying, that clearly isn’t solid proof. Yes, Jesus gave the keys of the Church to Peter, but the Primacy of Peter never translated to those that followed, at least insofar as to what the Bible says. I simply think that if it did translate, then the Word of God would have considered that part important enough to mention in the Bible.

Unfortunately, the Catholic Church is the only thing that says it has authority and it refers to itself to “prove” it. That’s as if I wrote the words “I’m the President of Earth” on a piece of paper, and whenever I told people I was the President of Earth and they demanded proof, I’d show them the paper and say, “Well, it says so right here.” Then when people said it’s not proof, I’d refer them to a passage in an ancient religious text that said “One day, [insert diety of choice] said, ‘and I will bestow the title of President of Earth on one man I deem worthy of such glorious a title,’ and so it will be.” “See? [the hypothetical god in this situation] said he would and the scripture proves that I am, because my great-great-great-…] grandfather was the one who was originally bestowed with the title, and then it was passed on through our lineage until it got to me.” That’s a complete misinterpretation of the text, and even though I *could *be right, where’s the undeniably solid proof? The ancient text in this case said “one man,” nothing about those that followed him.

Take when Jesus breathed the breath of divine knowledge and judgment upon 11 of the 12 apostles. There was nothing written thereafter where Jesus charged them to pass on that particular gift or that they were even able to do so. Again, if it was that important, then the Bible would have mentioned it.

Perhaps, Peter was simply put in charge of getting the Church back on it’s feet since it was in such disarray at the time. Granted, the Bible doesn’t offer much in the way of solid proof of any contrary; however, it does accent faith in the Word. In fact, faith is largely a more recurrent theme in the Bible than authority.

The only times authority is mentioned is in reference to the strength of gov’t (esp. that of Israel) under God’s ultimate authority and the times when Jesus was asked by what authority he taught and performed miracles.

Of course, Jesus never told them as it would have likely ended in his capture and persecution, but Mark 1:22 said those in the synagogue were astonished by what he taught, for he taught as one with authority and not as the scribes, who assumed their authority. The scribes derived their authority from a collective of people and texts and opinions. It was more of a general consensus, if you will. However, Jesus derived his authority from himself as the spiritually and physically perfect incarnate of the Word of God. That is where the authority lies. The Church has no authority; the Church has a duty to further God’s Kingdom, not Authority over said Kingdom. The Church was commissioned by God, who is the perfect Authority. I can’t say as I’d want it any other way. To me, God and His Word is the only authority, which is the same way it was when Jesus walked the Earth and even before then, plain and simple.

As I said before, there’s not much in regards to the contrary either, but saying that it is one way and not offering sufficient biblical proof is self-proclamation, the exact thing you said the Bible warns us against…at least, IMHO

 

[Abu]

yateanieys #45
If anyone who wasn’t part of the Church stumbled across this, would you agree that it could very well shy them away from religion because they can plainly see that religious people are just a bunch of bigots that argue semantics all day?

As “semantics” is the meaning of a word, phrase, sentence, or text, that is precisely what Christ is about in plainly founding His Catholic Church and no other, and it is only those who want only “to do their own thing” that would dismiss the Christ when He instituted His Church and no other:
**All four promises to Peter alone: **
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." (Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later to the Twelve, also].

**Sole authority: **
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

Already, Peter had exercised his supreme authority in the upper room before Pentecost to have Judas’ place filled. At the first Apostolic Council of Jerusalem Peter settled the heated discussion over circumcising the gentiles and “the whole assembly fell silent” (Acts 15:7-12). Paul made sure that his ministry to the gentiles was recognised by, Peter (Gal 1:I8).

#50
The Church has no authority

It is only those who have no real authority who disregard and demean the Christ, Son of God and His Church. It is plainly ridiculous to imagine that any one of the thousands of different sects all teaching something different could have the fullness of truth.

The failure to understand Christ, His Church, Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium, is highlighted in Sacred Scripture, and solved only by Christ’s Catholic Church:
St Paul’s epistles have “some things hard to understand, which those who are unlearned and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.” [2Pet 3:16]

“…no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man but, but holy men of God spoken as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.” [2Pet 1: 20-21].

The Ethiopian eunuch reading Isaiah was asked by Philip who had been moved by the Holy Spirit – “Do you understand what you are reading? And he said, ‘How can I unless some man show me?’ And he asked Philip to come and sit with him.” [Acts 8:30-31].

St. Paul writes to Titus: “A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid: knowing that he, that is such a one, is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment” (Titus 3:10-11). This reflects the still earlier teaching of Christ: “And if he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican” (Matthew 18:17).

 

[Erich]

It is important, therefore to be clear on the basics of the Catholic understanding of authority.%between%

This essay makes a lot of good points about authority.

 

[Erich]

Unfortunately, the Catholic Church is the only thing that says it has authority and it refers to itself to “prove” it.

No, that would be circular reasoning. From Proving Inspiration:

An Accurate Text

Sir Frederic Kenyon, in The Story of the Bible, notes that “For all the works of classical antiquity we have to depend on manuscripts written long after their original composition. The author who is the best case in this respect is Virgil, yet the earliest manuscript of Virgil that we now possess was written some 350 years after his death. For all other classical writers, the interval between the date of the author and the earliest extant manuscript of his works is much greater. For Livy it is about 500 years, for Horace 900, for most of Plato 1,300, for Euripides 1,600.” Yet no one seriously disputes that we have accurate copies of the works of these writers. However, in the case of the New Testament we have parts of manuscripts dating from the first and early second centuries, only a few decades after the works were penned.

Not only are the biblical manuscripts that we have older than those for classical authors, we have in sheer numbers far more manuscripts from which to work. Some are whole books of the Bible, others fragments of just a few words, but there are literally thousands of manuscripts in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Coptic, Syriac, and other languages. This means that we can be sure we have an authentic text, and we can work from it with confidence.

The Bible as Historical Truth

Next we take a look at what the Bible, considered merely as a history, tells us, focusing particularly on the New Testament, and more specifically the Gospels. We examine the account contained therein of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.

Using what is in the Gospels themselves and what we find in extra-biblical writings from the early centuries, together with what we know of human nature (and what we can otherwise, from natural reason alone, know of divine nature), we conclude that either Jesus was just what he claimed to be—God—or he was crazy. (The one thing we know he could not have been was merely a good man who was not God, since no merely good man would make the claims he made.)

We are able to eliminate the possibility of his being a madman not just from what he said but from what his followers did after his death. Many critics of the Gospel accounts of the resurrection claim that Christ did not truly rise, that his followers took his body from the tomb and then proclaimed him risen from the dead. According to these critics, the resurrection was nothing more than a hoax. Devising a hoax to glorify a friend and mentor is one thing, but you do not find people dying for a hoax, at least not one from which they derive no benefit. Certainly if Christ had not risen his disciples would not have died horrible deaths affirming the reality and truth of the resurrection. The result of this line of reasoning is that we must conclude that Jesus indeed rose from the dead. Consequently, his claims concerning himself—including his claim to be God—have credibility. He meant what he said and did what he said he would do.

Further, Christ said he would found a Church. Both the Bible (still taken as *merely a historical *book, not yet as an inspired one) and other ancient works attest to the fact that Christ established a Church with the rudiments of what we see in the Catholic Church today—papacy, hierarchy, priesthood, sacraments, and teaching authority.

We have thus taken the material and purely historically concluded that Jesus founded the Catholic Church. Because of his Resurrection we have reason to take seriously his claims concerning the Church, including its authority to teach in his name.

This Catholic Church tells us the Bible is inspired, and we can take the Church’s word for it precisely because the Church is infallible. Only after having been told by a properly constituted authority—that is, one established by God to assure us of the truth concerning matters of faith—that the Bible is inspired can we reasonably begin to use it as an inspired book.

…

The advantages of the Catholic approach are two: First, the inspiration is really proved, not just “felt.” Second, the main fact behind the proof—the reality of an infallible, teaching Church—leads one naturally to an answer to the problem that troubled the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:30-31): How is one to know which interpretations are correct? The same Church that authenticates the Bible, that attests to its inspiration, is the authority established by Christ to interpret his word.

 

[Erich]

There was nothing written thereafter where Jesus charged them to pass on that particular gift or that they were even able to do so.

In Matthew 28:18-20 we read, “Then Jesus approached and said to them, ‘All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.’”

“Teach”… not “write books” – and nothing there about any deadlines for completion other than “the end of the age” (i.e. surely Jesus realized that the Eleven would not be able to singlehandedly make disciples of all nations in their lifetimes). So, the Apostles would *have *to have had successors in order to complete their mission.

In fact, St. Paul himself refers to the first four generations of apostolic succession when he wrote in 2 Tim 2:2:

And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.

Paul → Timothy → those he entrusts (via imposition of hands) → those they entrust

Again, if it was that important, then the Bible would have mentioned it.

Last time I checked, 2 Timothy is in the Bible

 

[Abu]

Sy Noe #49
“The Code of Canon Law currently does not recognize that someone can leave the Catholic Church. You might become a non-practicing member, but the Church’s laws consider anyone baptized Catholic to always be Catholic.”

Exactly, but the individual has chosen to reject Christ as the Catholic Church has the fullness of His Truth found nowhere else.

You’re also therefore wrong about there never being conflict between Catholic authority and conscience. A baptized or confirmed Catholic, even one catechized properly with the mind informed, can certainly reach a point later along their journey where they don’t hold belief with the certainty you do that the Catholic Church teaches without any possibility of human error. (or for that matter perhaps not any church with humans involved in doing the teaching)

Fancy imagining that one is superior to Msgr Cormac P Burke in explaining the truths of Christ, the former head of the Holy Roman Rota. This is typical self-centeredness which demeans Christ, the Way, the Truth and the Life as there cannot be, and is, no “human error” in the dogma and doctrine of Christ through His Church, as the Christ affirmed clearly and uneqivocally – “And if he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican” (Matthew 18:17).

Certainly Satan is always trying to turn Truth into what seems doubtful or erroneous, but it is those who bury their heads in the sand and decide “I will not to serve” who are in the wrong, not even realising the fidelity and ability of great priests like Fr Thomas Dubay in writing Faith And Certitude, and in the objective certainty of the teaching of Christ Himself through His Church – “the pillar and bulwark of the truth (1 Tim 3:16).” St. Paul says also, “through the Church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places (Eph 3:10).” The Church teaches even the angels! This is with the authority of Christ!

But the selfists choose their own foibles over Christ, St Paul and the other faithful Catholics.

 

[yateanieys]

No, that would be circular reasoning. From Proving Inspiration:

That was an excellent source! Thank you for that. However, what you just referenced is a tract placed in circulation by the Catholic Church. This is exactly what I was talking about. Don’t get me wrong, it’s quite convincing, but toward the end, it says, “We have thus . . . concluded.” Here’s where semantics comes in again: is a conclusion fact? It’s not; it’s a general consensus based on empirical evidence. I personally question evidence that is not biblical.

Can you offer a link to these non-biblical manuscripts as well? That sounds like a fun read, too!

Last time I checked, 2 Timothy is in the Bible

lol okay, I wasn’t clear enough

Where in the Bible does it clearly elaborate on such translation of divine knowledge? In this case, I suppose what I and many others are essentially saying is that phrases like “the ability to teach” is quite ambiguous; it can mean a number of things.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Exactly, but the individual has chosen to reject Christ as the Catholic Church has the fullness of His Truth found nowhere else.
Fancy imagining that one is superior to Msgr Cormac P Burke in explaining the truths of Christ, the former head of the Holy Roman Rota. This is typical self-centeredness which demeans Christ, the Way, the Truth and the Life as there cannot be, and is, no “human error” in the dogma and doctrine of Christ through His Church, as the Christ affirmed clearly and uneqivocally – “And if he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican” (Matthew 18:17).

Certainly Satan is always trying to turn Truth into what seems doubtful or erroneous, but it is those who bury their heads in the sand and decide “I will not to serve” who are in the wrong, not even realising the fidelity and ability of great priests like Fr Thomas Dubay in writing Faith And Certitude, and in the objective certainty of the teaching of Christ Himself through His Church – “the pillar and bulwark of the truth (1 Tim 3:16).” St. Paul says also, “through the Church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places (Eph 3:10).” The Church teaches even the angels! This is with the authority of Christ!

But the selfists choose their own foibles over Christ, St Paul and the other faithful Catholics.

I’m not sure you understand there’s a subtle difference between knowing the CC has the fullness and believing and having faith that She does. I know the CC claims it to be, yes. Not much use furthering our discussion because I don’t see us reaching agreement anytime soon. We shall know if as we believe, He comes again. And will be at His mercy when in faith we face our Creator, Whom alone knows our hearts. But once again continued blessings and peace be with you always.

 

[eazyduzit]

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.

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.”

Thanks for the citations Randy, but none of them proove that infallibility is a gift or charism of the Holy Spirit as was claimed.

As I look at the 7churches in Revelations, and I hope you can agree that they are true churches, I do not see any that claim infallibility and have no need of repentance as the RC Church claims. Except for one, they all needed to repent. From this I would see that listening to God and repenting are what Jesus wants and not claims of infallibility.

It is also interesting that the claim of the “keys” is related to the Key of David. This makes it easy to proove false since Jesus is still the one who holds the Key of David in Rev. 3:7.