What's Your Authority?

[eazyduzit]

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:

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

Last time I checked, 2 Timothy is in the Bible

2TI.2:2 does not say “infallible people” are needed to carry it out, but only “faithful people” who (v.15) “study to show themselves approved unto God…rightly dividing the word of truth”.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.

I do understand. However, it seems to me that people have ideas in their minds that are based in part on misinformation. Correcting those false notions can help.

For example, someone believes that purgatory was invented by the Catholic Church to sell indulgences. That’s false information. Once they see that the Jews actually believed that the living could pray for the dead, then some of Jesus’ teachings start to make more sense.

At some point, the person is able to move from from disbelief to “I didn’t know that”. And from that point, faith is a lot easier to reach.

 

[Randy_Carson]

That was an excellent source! Thank you for that. However, what you just referenced is a tract placed in circulation by the Catholic Church.

:nope:

That was written by the folks at Catholic Answers, a lay organization dedicated to helping people explain and defend the Catholic faith.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.

Nope.

If I ask you to drive my car to Montana, you have the keys and full responsibility and authority on the trip. However, they are still my keys even though you are using them.

Jesus gave Peter the keys which symbolize the office of the Royal Steward, but everyone knows that the king is still in charge when he’s in town.

Peter has full authority while He is away.

 

[yateanieys]

That was written by the folks at Catholic Answers, a lay organization dedicated to helping people explain and defend the Catholic faith.

Duly noted, sir. Thank you

Now, what are these manuscripts called so that I may research more? or would you be so kind as to provide another link from a non-Catholic source?

 

[Sy_Noe]

:nope:

That was written by the folks at Catholic Answers, a lay organization dedicated to helping people explain and defend the Catholic faith.

I’m not saying yateanieys didn’t already know Catholic Answers is not a forum of the Catholic Church. But I do sometimes fear there are many people who think it is owned by the Catholic Church simply based on the name its founder, attorney Karl Keating, chose to open a PO box in for his business. So it is good to point out CA is merely a lay organization business

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8199777&postcount=2

 

[Randy_Carson]

Duly noted, sir. Thank you

Now, what are these manuscripts called so that I may research more? or would you be so kind as to provide another link from a non-Catholic source?

My apologies, but what manuscripts are you referring to?

 

[Abu]

Sy Noe #57
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.

The “subtle difference” is in fact a chasm separating truth from error, for:

1. It the Christ who established the Catholic Church as His own – the claim is NOT constructed, it is a reality from Christ.
2. As Christ wrote nothing, the ONLY proof and substantiation is from His own St Peter and His apostles who were given His mandate in His Church as they stated in the Sacred Scriptures, which we have ONLY because His Catholic Church declared which writings and no others to be the Word of God.
3. Thus all of the errors of false ideas, teaching and practice have been precisely because others chose to make up their own selfist interpretations and form thousands of sects all teaching something different.

The continuity of truth from the Christ, who is God, and His Church is unassailable and is resisted due only to human frailty and confusion – the results of the Fall.

eazyduzit #58
I would see that listening to God and repenting are what Jesus wants and not claims of infallibility.

As is clear from the Sacred Scriptures Jesus established His Church, and since “infallibility” means “freedom from error in teaching the universal Church in matters of faith or morals”, Christ clearly imparted that to His chosen St Peter and his successors:
“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)

The denigration of Christ by implying that He didn’t, or did not know what He was doing, or it could not be after St Peter, shows that the Sacred Scriptures are falsely misinterpreted or denied for personal reasons.

 

[yateanieys]

My apologies, but what manuscripts are you referring to?

The ones mentioned in the Catholic Answers link

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]

Your boldness abounds, brother. Can’t say as I like your attitude.

I do not demean Jesus by saying that the Church itself has no authority. Of course, I said that in reference to the Catholic Church. The actual Church, however, is not a denomination. John 3:16 does not say that “For God so loved the world that sent his only Catholic Church that whosoever believeth in it shall not perish, but have eternal life.” The Church, by biblical definition is made up of those who accept Jesus’ ultimate sacrifice and believe in his teachings (1 Corinthians 12:13, Ephesians 1:22-23, John 3:16), not what a self-proclaimed elite few dictate to everyone else that he said. So, yes, I do demean the “sanctity” of the Magisterium, but not the Church as a body of believers and as the Body of Christ.

The Bible plainly says that those who ask shall receive and those that knock, the door will be opened to them. I have asked and I believe with all my heart that I have received. I suppose we’ll all find out eventually whether or not we have placed trust in the right power, earthly or otherwise, but I place my faith in the Lord and trust Him with all my heart as the Bible says I should.

As far as twisting the scriptures, I could say the same of the Catholic Church since it takes Scripture and interjects other words to fit it’s own (dare I say) agenda. Maybe I’m wrong, but since when does man have more authority in assigning meaning to Scripture than the Word of God? I believe there’s a reason the Bible doesn’t spell it out according to the Catholic faith word for word, but it then proceeds to spell out other verses, such as John 3:16. I believe there’s a reason the catechism clings to one verse as the ultimate source for the necessity of water baptism for salvation (John 3:5), despite any reasonably similar wording appearing anywhere else in Scripture. The same goes with apostolic succession (John 20:22).

And you’re right about the fullness of truth, but only in regards to a full interpretation of the Bible. Did you ever think that, maybe—just maybe—all Christian denominations DO, in fact, preach the fullness of truth. For instance, what if the absolute fullness of truth were just based on a few simple verses (i.e. John 3:16 and Exodus 20), and the rest of what was written in the Bible was what the Word of God used to back that up and make it more of a challenge to have that kind of faith? If I’m not mistaken, all Christian faiths (except the faux denominations like the Christian Identity) include in their plan for salvation the belief and acceptance of Jesus Christ as the Messiah and they encourage the Church to follow the Ten Commandments. They all bicker about EVERYTHING else, but what if? In that case, this forum wouldn’t even matter. If you were baptized by water, then hey, it wasn’t necessary, but good on ya! Oh, how we’d all be laughing our ethereal hind parts off in Heaven when we get there! “But, we seriously, should’ve spent more time fishing!”

The point is, no one can rightfully say that it is or is not, so for the Catholic Church to say that their denomination is the only true denomination is kinda, well…you know, douchey. I’m not saying that my denomination is any more right or wrong than yours. I’m simply saying that I think the Catholic Church has made a mountain out of a mustard seed!

Also, thanks for calling me a heretic; that’s a mighty fine accusation you got there. We were having a healthy discussion until you came along with your ad-hominem attacks marching around as clever Scripture references. How markedly Christian of you. Need I remind you that you are replying to a thread posted in the Non-Catholic Religions forum? I suggest you read this . . . and also Matthew 7:1-2.

 

[Abu]

yateanieys #67
The actual Church, however, is not a denomination.

Of course the Catholic Church is not a denomination, all of the Protestant ones are:
1) WordWeb:
“Denomination: A group of religious congregations having its own organization and a distinctive faith”

2) Modern Catholic Dictionary by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.
therealpresence.org/cgi-bin/getdefinition.pl
DENOMINATION. A legally distinct group of believers, especially among Protestants. Different denominations exist within a single Protestant tradition, e.g., Lutheran. They are not necessarily different, though they generally are, in their faith, worship, and form of church government.

…for the Catholic Church to say that their denomination is the only true denomination is kinda, well…you know, douchey. I’m not saying that my denomination is any more right or wrong than yours. I’m simply saying that I think the Catholic Church has made a mountain out of a mustard seed!

As it is NOT a denomination but Christ’s only Church, this is evidently reflected in understanding clearly by the nomenclature employed as **Catholic was first used by St Ignatius of Antioch in his letter to the Smyrneans, A.D. 107, “Where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” It is from the Greek katholike meaning “general” or “universal”. Within 90 years it meant also “orthodox” or faithful to the teachings of Christ. **(The Catholic Catechism, Fr John A Hardon, S.J., Doubleday, 1975, p 217).

As you don’t have the Tradition of the Fathers and Doctors of Christ’s Catholic Church from the beginning, how can you know unless you are shown? As the eunuch said to Phillip: “How can I know unless some man shows me?” (Acts 8:31). Jesus did not leave us orphans; He gave us His Church and She gave us the Bible.

Of course not knowing that the New Testament was written by those in the Church established by Christ, who installed St Peter as His Supreme Vicar, those so confused also are quite unable to reasonably explain why the Protestant sects don’t have:

1. The Eucharist (Holy Mass), Christ’s seven sacraments, the primacy and infallibility of His Pope, Her Tradition and all of Her Sacred Scriptures, such as:
2. The doctrine of Purgatory in 2 Maccabees 12:46: “It is a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from their sins.”

 

[yateanieys]

1. Modern Catholic Dictionary by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J

.
therealpresence.org/cgi-bin/getdefinition.pl
DENOMINATION. A legally distinct group of believers, especially among Protestants. Different denominations exist within a single Protestant tradition, e.g., Lutheran. They are not necessarily different, though they generally are, in their faith, worship, and form of church government.Wait, wait…was that written by…a Catholic? gasp I LOVE how you put **DENOMINATION **in all caps, but not the actual dictionary definition. You’re serious aren’t you? Come on, Abu!

Now, not only are you quick to judge, but I see you’re slow to learn as well

As it is NOT a denomination but Christ’s only Church…

…and there you go lol you’re doing it again! :tsktsk:

 

[yateanieys]

He gave us His Church and She gave us the Bible.

Most definitely, the Word of God gave us the Bible. The Church (as in the body of believers) was inspired to write it. You might want to amend your definition, brother.

 

[yateanieys]

(The Catholic Catechism, Fr John A Hardon, S.J., Doubleday, 1975, p 217).

Erich, this is exactly what I was talking about earlier with the Catholic Church referring to itself instead of the Bible. Abu bolded nearly the whole thing as if it was Scripture. I can only assume that he considered this “passage” the most valuable asset to his argument, but it actually serves as the least valuable asset (well, behind the DEFINITION thing anyway lol).

 

[Sy_Noe]

Of course the Catholic Church is not a denomination, all of the Protestant ones are:
1) WordWeb:
“Denomination: A group of religious congregations having its own organization and a distinctive faith”

2) Modern Catholic Dictionary by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.
therealpresence.org/cgi-bin/getdefinition.pl
DENOMINATION. A legally distinct group of believers, especially among Protestants. Different denominations exist within a single Protestant tradition, e.g., Lutheran. They are not necessarily different, though they generally are, in their faith, worship, and form of church government.
As it is NOT a denomination but Christ’s only Church, this is evidently reflected in understanding clearly by the nomenclature employed as **Catholic was first used by St Ignatius of Antioch in his letter to the Smyrneans, A.D. 107, “Where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” It is from the Greek katholike meaning “general” or “universal”. Within 90 years it meant also “orthodox” or faithful to the teachings of Christ. **(The Catholic Catechism, Fr John A Hardon, S.J., Doubleday, 1975, p 217).

Well by your Word Web definition the CC is made up of religious congregations which collectively have their organization and distinctive faith. Your parish is a congregation as are the Catholic parishes somewhere else. They fall under the CC umbrella organization and have the distinctive Catholic faith. Your other definition is from a Catholic dictionary. Just because a Catholic dictionary and Catholics claim denominations are “especially among Protestants”, I’m not sure is a strong enough argument to make to well, Protestants. Nice try but if you’re serious, I’m afraid your point fell, well a bit short. What the CC claims is enough for faithful Catholics though.

 

[yateanieys]

What the CC claims is enough for faithful Catholics though.

Most apparently

 

[eazyduzit]

The “subtle difference” is in fact a chasm separating truth from error, for:

1. It the Christ who established the Catholic Church as His own – the claim is NOT constructed, it is a reality from Christ.
2. As Christ wrote nothing, the ONLY proof and substantiation is from His own St Peter and His apostles who were given His mandate in His Church as they stated in the Sacred Scriptures, which we have ONLY because His Catholic Church declared which writings and no others to be the Word of God.
3. Thus all of the errors of false ideas, teaching and practice have been precisely because others chose to make up their own selfist interpretations and form thousands of sects all teaching something different.

The continuity of truth from the Christ, who is God, and His Church is unassailable and is resisted due only to human frailty and confusion – the results of the Fall.
As is clear from the Sacred Scriptures Jesus established His Church, and since “infallibility” means “freedom from error in teaching the universal Church in matters of faith or morals”, Christ clearly imparted that to His chosen St Peter and his successors:
“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)

The denigration of Christ by implying that He didn’t, or did not know what He was doing, or it could not be after St Peter, shows that the Sacred Scriptures are falsely misinterpreted or denied for personal reasons.

Sorry, but no one “denigrates” Christ by observing the scriptures. In Acts 17:11, the Bereans are called more noble because they searched the scriptures to prove Paul’s message for themselves. The Holy Spirit was not offended.
All I am doing is making observation of the churches. I assume you agree that the Corinthian Church is a true church? Yet, did it not need correction? Peter is even mentioned in 1Cor3:22, but instead of saying to follow the infallible one, he says “let no man glory in men. For all things are yours.” And he also said in the same chapter, “For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid,which is Jesus Christ”.

Why would Paul here mention Peter and then not say that he is the one foundation? Is Paul denigrating Jesus Christ?

Infallibility was not working in the book of Acts and it still does not work today.

 

[Abu]

yateanieys #70
Most definitely, the Word of God gave us the Bible. The Church (as in the body of believers) was inspired to write it. You might want to amend your definition, brother

False.

Christ gave us the Catholic Church and no other, and Her members wrote the New Testament which His Church declared to be the Word of God.

The “Bible” is a collection of inspired texts and this was defined by the Catholic Church and no other – 46 books in the O.T. and 27 books in the N.T., as the Sacred Word of God. Luther 1500 years later than the foundation of Christ’s Church chose to eliminate seven authorized books and suit his own wishes, passions and desires.

Thus, after the loss of the authority established by Christ, arose the errors which led to the loss of some of the Sacred Scriptures and the malpractice of private interpretation.

 

[yateanieys]

Christ gave us the Catholic Church and no other, and Her members wrote the New Testament which His Church declared to be the Word of God.

False.

John 1:1 - “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

The Bible is NOT the Word of God; the Word of God existed before the godhead collectively decided to create man, much less the trees that were cut down to fund the paper the Bible was written on.

I guess this prompts the question as to, specifically and exactly - 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.

 

[yateanieys]

Luther 1500 years later than the foundation of Christ’s Church chose to eliminate seven authorized books and suit his own wishes, passions and desires.

Please don’t ignore why they were removed. The were removed because they weren’t part of the original Hebrew canon. When it comes to the definition of biblical canon, I’m going to stick with that of God’s Chosen over the Romans anyday.

The reason those books remain in the CC’s Bible is because a good number of the “original” doctrines of the early Roman church can only be supported by appealing to these books (i.e. purgatory, which is solely apocryphal).

 

[yateanieys]

. . . [The Catholic Church] wrote the New Testament [and] declared [it] to be the Word of God.

Missed that part. It’s funny how it sounds when you change a few things around. The Word of God existed before CREATION, Abu. The CC did not create the Word of God. Jesus was the physical incarnate of the Word of God, so you’re essentially saying that the CC stripped Jesus of said title and slapped it on a book that they themselves compiled (with a bunch of deutero-canonical stuff they found, mind you)?