What's Your Authority?

[SteveVH]

I think it might be a bit of a red herring to focus on the count-form of the title in this case. What’s your opinion on the verses that were quoted?

Not sure what you mean by the “count-form”. But I am not the one who was focusing on this. You were. As to what I think of the verses:

In Mt.23:8, Jesus instructs: “be not ye (plural) called rabbi: for one is your Master, that is Christ; and ye are all brethren”.

This is saying that all are to be equal and no one is to be a teacher over the others.

And then in v.10 Jesus again says “Neither be ye (plural) called masters: for one is your
Master, that is Christ”.

But v.9 is different for it is in the singular. “And call no (one) man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven”. It is no problem to call your Pastors(plural) “Fathers”(plural), but there is not to be one man on earth to be singled out as the one(holy) Father, for “one is your father, which is in heaven”.

Since Paul explains it:

“For I became your father in Christ Jesus when I preached the Good News to you. … Christ, yet you would not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father …” (1 Cor 4:15)

Was Paul contradicting Jesus?

It is in Christ that our priests, bishops and our Pope have become our spiritual fathers. Christ was making the point to the Pharisees who were acting as the ultimate authority, rather than looking to God as the source of all authority.

Keep in mind that if Christ meant what you are implying then we cannot call any man teacher either. You cannot view these verses outside of the entire context of the gospel.

God bless.

Steve

 

[Sy_Noe]

If we are left as mere humans trying to prove by faith and truth an infinite being God, we are indeed left orphans. I have to totally disagree with you.

Tell me how do you feel you have the power to Prove by your faith and truth that God exists. Because if you have this power PLEASE use it. I beg you. Go on line and use this power of your faith and truth and make believers of all who do not believe in God.

Because Jesus Christ on earth could not even do it. And he died and came back, and people still denied him.

But I do disagree that NONE of us hold the correct understandings of things that are meant to be. God left us the Church, so we are taught all we need to know, Do you think Jesus left something out? With his Church we are PROMISED the FULLNESS of the truth. That promise of the HS came from Jesus and that HS came to the CC on the day of Pentecost.

We are free to agree to disagree. I have no problem with us doing so. And I never claimed such power so I’ve no clue what you’re talking about there. All I know is we both believe by faith in God and by faith in that part of the NT story of a resurrected Christ Savior. Walk in peace.

 

[Erich]

In Mt.23:8, Jesus instructs: “be not ye (plural) called rabbi: for one is your Master, that is Christ; and ye are all brethren”.
This is saying that all are to be equal and no one is to be a teacher over the others.

And then in v.10 Jesus again says “Neither be ye (plural) called masters: for one is your Master, that is Christ”.

From this link:

   		 			 				In the Bible the concept of fatherhood is not restricted to just our   earthly fathers and God. It is used to refer to people other than   biological or legal fathers, and is used as a sign of respect to those   with whom we have a special relationship.

For example, Joseph tells his brothers of a special fatherly relationship God had given him with the king of Egypt: “So it was not you who sent me here, but God; and he has made me a father to Pharaoh, and lord of all his house and ruler over all the land of Egypt” (Gen. 45:8).

Job indicates he played a fatherly role with the less fortunate: “I was a father to the poor, and I searched out the cause of him whom I did not know” (Job 29:16). And God himself declares that he will give a fatherly role to Eliakim, the steward of the house of David: “In that day I will call my servant Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah . . . and I will clothe him with [a] robe, and will bind [a] girdle on him, and will commit . . . authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah” (Is. 22:20–21).

This type of fatherhood not only applies to those who are wise counselors (like Joseph) or benefactors (like Job) or both (like Eliakim), it also applies to those who have a fatherly spiritual relationship with one. For example, Elisha cries, “My father, my father!” to Elijah as the latter is carried up to heaven in a whirlwind (2 Kgs. 2:12). Later, Elisha himself is called a father by the king of Israel (2 Kgs. 6:21).
…
The imperative “call no man father” does not apply to one’s biological father. It also doesn’t exclude calling one’s ancestors “father,” as is shown in Acts 7:2, where Stephen refers to “our father Abraham,” or in Romans 9:10, where Paul speaks of “our father Isaac.” There are numerous examples in the New Testament of the term “father” being used as a form of address and reference, even for men who are not biologically related to the speaker. There are, in fact, so many uses of “father” in the New Testament, that [your] interpretation of Matthew 23 (and the objection to Catholics calling priests “father”) must be wrong.
…
A careful examination of the context of Matthew 23 shows that Jesus didn’t intend for his words here to be understood literally. The whole passage reads, “But you are not to be called ‘rabbi,’ for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called ‘masters,’ for you have one master, the Christ” (Matt. 23:8–10).

The first problem is that although Jesus seems to prohibit the use of the term “teacher,” in Matthew 28:19–20, Christ himself appointed certain men to be teachers in his Church: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations . . . teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.” Paul speaks of his commission as a teacher: “For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle . . . a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth” (1 Tim. 2:7); “For this gospel I was appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher” (2 Tim. 1:11). He also reminds us that the Church has an office of teacher: “God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers” (1 Cor. 12:28); and “his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers” (Eph. 4:11). There is no doubt that Paul was not violating Christ’s teaching in Matthew 23 by referring so often to others as “teachers.”

Fundamentalists themselves slip up on this point by calling all sorts of people “doctor,” for example, medical doctors, as well as professors and scientists who have Ph.D. degrees (i.e., doctorates). What they fail to realize is that “doctor” is simply the Latin word for “teacher.” Even “Mister” and “Mistress” (“Mrs.”) are forms of the word “master,” also mentioned by Jesus. So if his words in Matthew 23 were meant to be taken literally, Fundamentalists would be just as guilty for using the word “teacher” and “doctor” and “mister” as Catholics for saying “father.” But clearly, that would be a misunderstanding of Christ’s words.

 

[yateanieys]

Not sure what you mean by the “count-form”.

Count-forms!

But I am not the one who was focusing on this. You were.

Actually, I was focusing on your focusing on grammar. No need to get defensive. I just wanted to know what you thought, that’s all. I was well-aligned with the Scripture as stated by the person you replied to, just not the whole singular/plural thing

In any case, I am thankful for explaining it, though—duly noted! :yup:

Peace be with you

 

[SteveVH]

Count-forms!

Actually, I was focusing on your focusing on grammar. No need to get defensive. I just wanted to know what you thought, that’s all. I was well-aligned with the Scripture as stated by the person you replied to, just not the whole singular/plural thing

In any case, I am thankful for explaining it, though—duly noted! :yup:

Peace be with you

Yeah, sorry, I got my posters mixed up. Apologies.

God bless.

Steve

 

[yateanieys]

Where are the Protestants capable of doing likewise? We Protestants feel no sin for the disunity of the Reformation. We would not know how to confess our sin for the continuing disunity of the Reformation. We would not know how to do that because we have no experience of unity.

that’s one man’s opinion, and one that’s very generalizing. Protestants might not be unified on a massive scale like the CC, but unification can happen with few the same as many. I agree that we feel no sin for disunity, but that’s because we don’t feel it’s a sin, much less that we even are disunified. This is why we never say we’re protestants. Each sect has its own unifying bonds, but the main one is that we are all unified by God and a common understanding. Just because we have different opinions. I’ve even seen a couple instances of member of the Catholic Church debating here about hot topics and and agreeing to disagree, and yet they’re unified. Protestants are the same way, we ARE unified, it a just that we prefer to fellowship with others that closest align to our oown opinions. I mean, if ever there was an all-unifying anything, we’d all willingly be a part of it.

 

[Abu]

yateanieys #203
Each sect has its own unifying bonds, but the main one is that we are all unified by God and a common understanding.

The “common understanding” is belied by the common misunderstanding of Christ and the foundation of His Church authorized by Him to teach the world what He mandated.

Thus you are still quite unable to reasonably explain why the Protestant sects have rejected Christ’s command to “listen to the Church”, and about those who don’t, He describes as “like the heathen and the publican”, and why you 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.” [Way back to post #68].
3. Are hopelessly confused over the gravity of indulging in many sinful activities such as abortion, contraception, euthanasia etc.

Which explains why they need to really follow Christ through His Church, without which all are making up their own conclusions in a welter of confusion.

 

[yateanieys]

The “common understanding” is belied by the common misunderstanding of Christ and the foundation of His Church authorized by Him to teach the world what He mandated.

Dearest, Abu,

I love you, brother, but no. Now, before you decide to comment on the first thing you disagree with in this post and disregard anything beyond the third or fourth line (as you seem fond of doing), I ask that you PLEASE READ THE WHOLE THING IN ITS ENTIRETY before replying. I would seriously appreciate that. No sarcasm this time. And, yes, I’m making it a long one

Anyway, the Bible is so far removed from the original scrolls they were based on. Those who compiled didn’t even have access to the copies of the copies of the copies of the copies of the originals. So many hands have touched the Bible, whether in regards to who wrote what, who’s got what type of authority to say what the words mean literally or figuratively, which interpretation is more important or what books are considered canon and what’s not.

Let’s move on to something slightly different. I appreciate you cooperation.

I think the important thing is that God has provided us (non-Catholics) a way to relate to those whose opinions, learning styles, and ideologies align with our our own while still gathering under the same roof for the same ultimate purpose: to love God, to follow His commandments (to the best of our abilities) to fellowship with each other, to praise and worship Him for everything He does, and to further the Kingdom of God by spreading the word of the Gospel.

Again, think about it, if only for the remainder of my post, then you can forget everything I said.

There are roughly 1.2 billion Catholics (at least as of a 2013). But notice how there are also 0.8 billion Protestants. Both these numbers are constantly rising. However, the number of believers in Christ (whether Catholic or Protestant, or whatever) versus the world population has been in steady decline over time as the population has grown; this can be seen statistically over the past 100 years or so.

Maybe God knew that (even though Islam still isn’t as big as Christianity) the Muslim population growth rate would eventually shoot far ahead of the Christian growth rate and that they would start catching up to our numbers. PRC estimates that in just another decade or so, they will take up a quarter of the world population or more. Maybe 500 years ago, He was simply sending the Spirit upon specific people to branch out and start adopting different styles to teach more peoples about the good Lord in a way that wouldn’t turn them away or bore them to tears or whatever their reason for not attending church.

Have you ever thought that maybe we’re all right? Catholics, Catholic Charismatic Renewal, Baptists, Methodists, Pentecostals, Lutherans, etc.? Maybe God was simply trying to reach out to those who didn’t respond well to certain methods of the Catholic Church—the once Mike Tyson of the religious world.

Maybe God knew that the Catholics would hang on those “tried and true” traditions. Maybe He knew that the CC would pound out Scripture like a machine, and enforce full cooperation in the name of individual growth and salvation. Maybe he knew that a lot of people wouldn’t agree with the CC being closed to peoples’ opinions on what was “written” and also what the Church’s duties were and also that the CC was the “only” Church. Maybe he gave the people that shunned those practices another way to come to Him.

Maybe the only way He could get a bunch of stubborn, energetic people (like me and my fellow charismatic Pentecostals) to go to Church and to get interested in the Word of God was to branch off from the CC (the main authority since a millenium prior) and found something that was more geared toward those stubborn, yet energetic and on-fire-for-the-Lord people.

I’m glad the Church branched out; that way, we could stay away from what we consider to be boring, choosy, overly-political, or whatever (which we would have otherwise done anyway) to discover or even rekindle a relationship with Him, and learn about Jesus’ sacrifice for us in an environment that makes us feel comfortable.

 

[yateanieys]

(yup, a two-fer just for you, Abu )

I’ve attended Catholic Church, and DISCLAIMER:I don’t mean to bash the CC here; this is just my personal opinion. This is just what I observed from the ONE TIME I WENT to an AMerican Catholic Church. I don’t care if I explain something wrong, or that European Churches are the bomb, that’s not the point. So, please, I beg of you, my dearest Abu, if I don’t describe the proper Catholic Sunday in full detail, then cut me some slack, brother. Again one-time, observation only. Here’s what I observed: When the prayers are said and the whole crowd solemnly drones about some line or stanza that half of them are reading from a laminated prayer sheet, it’s sounds ridiculous. There are kids in the Church who just want to get the heck out of there and their parents are constantly nudging them to participate. Some kids had learned to say everything in accordance with the rhythm of the sermon, but it seems they end up spending so much time listening for process-specific prayer cues that they seem to miss why they’re saying it all in the first place. It all becomes just a rhythm of cues to fit in some words at the appropriate time. To me, that seems like it would encourage meaningless habits.

That wasn’t so hard was it? I know you’d think my Church was weird too, but that’s what we’re here to do: share ideas and encourage one another, however that may be

Anyway, I attended a Catholic Church because I was ready for a change, and I was very hopeful, too. It’s not that I couldn’t stand being there, it’s just that there was something missing. I wanted to sing! I did sing some old dusty hymns out of a book that was thicker than the bible itself, but I wanted something exciting instead of one old lady playing an organ and some other slightly younger woman hitting deafening high notes and singing off key during the chorus.

Quick side note: I’ll tell you, the Catholic Church has the acoustics down pat! The sound in that Sanctuary was magnificent. Still, I’d suggest that particular church stop spending so much on pipe organs and stained glass and invest in some decent sound equipment, for the love of ears!

When it comes to opening a service, I want to jump around and feel that tingling in my bones and that familiar wave of God come down like rain every once in a while when I’m lost or when I need to cry or when my heart is in need of fine tuning or just because He knows I love that feeling! The Catholic Church simply doesn’t provide that for me. I enjoyed my time there and met a couple new people and I actually got a lot out of the surprisingly short sermon! But as far as comfort, God knows exactly what I need, and He tailored my Assemblies of God Church so that it fits my hand like a glove! The Catholic Church, however, fits my hand like a Lincoln Towncar!

I brought this up earlier (the abridged version) in another thread and instead of someone insulting me directly, that person took the “it sounds like a place for people who have issues with authority” approach to judging me and my fellow Protestants. Really? It seems rather obvious as the word ‘protest’ in in the name. We don’t protest God, we just protest your way of handling things. And, so what if we do? What have you got? I’d wager you’ve all your own issues, too, but I know the Lord would rather we not sit around and speculate on each others subjective “issues” and proceed to bicker about authority (note the figurative ‘maybes’ in this post, so don’t even think about it ).

HOWEVER, tradition and discipline is the perfect way for some people; the Catholic Church supplements their daily life. They learn great in that environment, they feel comfortable and they thrive, but there are 800 million people who need a different way. The CC can’t force people to Christ. Get over it, we’re sorry we had to break up, but it wasn’t working out.

The CC pushed us away and God provided us with another way as he always does for His followers. One door closed and God opened two more, and then two more, and the four more, and so on. We had to branch off to start attracting more people to the Lord that the CC would have NEVER reached otherwise. We don’t stone a woman for hiding that she lost her virginity anymore, in fact, Biblical life is NOTHING like it is now. Personally, I say times change; get with the program. The old is constantly being reformed into the new in the Bible. The Catholic Church I visited had a mildly funny surfer guy priest that seemed really cool and could relate his sermon to anyone, but the tradition in that place was about as stale as last year’s Saltines.

Again, my point here isn’t to bash and it might sound bad to others when it’s put that way, so I’m sorry if it what I said offends you. But, I believe that if it wasn’t for the many other branches of Christianity, then God would have about half as less few heads to count in the Church. Even at the current growth rate (which has been growing itself), Protestants will jump ahead of Catholics in a few decades at most. When that happens, we’ll all still be reading from the same book, we’ll all still be worshiping the same God and praying to Him daily, we’ll all still be doing our best to follow His commands and try our best to turn from sin and repent when we don’t, and Catholic and Protestants alike will still love each other while doing their duty to further the Kingdom of God…

…but the Catholics are still gonna be the only ones saying their church is “THE Church” but that’s cool though. Plus, maybe we’ll all have a better understanding of mutual respect by then, Lord willing!

As I said much earlier in this thread, if you can handle me, I can definitely handle you.

God Bless you, Abu.

 

[Abu]

yateanieys #206
many hands have touched the Bible, whether in regards to who wrote what, who’s got what type of authority to say what the words mean literally or figuratively, which interpretation is more important or what books are considered canon and what’s not.

Such chaos in feeling is precisely why there is so much confusion. What the Apostles wrote was carefully conserved and it is only the confused and the irreligious who do not accept Christ as the Son of God, that He chose the Twelve, with St Peter as the head, and the miracles which were worked in His Name by St Peter and others.

Have you ever thought that maybe we’re all right?

When have grave contradictions ever equated to truth?

The CC pushed us away and God provided us with another way as he always does for His followers.

False. Those who rejected Christ in His mandate to follow His Church only in teaching on faith and morals, and obedience, pulled themselves away from Him and His Church and fell into multitudinous errors by denying Him. The Christ taught clearly “And if he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican” (Matthew 18:17).

How could or would God deny Himself?

The Sacred Scriptures cannot be denied, and they plainly show Christ establishing His Church with St Peter as head and they then show how St Peter is recognised after He is the Vicar of Christ:–
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).

From the N.T. we know that Christ promised that His Church would last until the end of time, which would mean the constitutional permanence of the office of head of His Church which He had bestowed on Peter alone. (Mt 16:18). Early Church history, e.g. St Irenaeus, taught by St Polycarp who had been a disciple of St John the Apostle, wrote in his great work *Adversus Haereses *in Bk 3, Sect 2 “The blessed Apostles, after founding and building up the Church (in Rome), handed over to Linus the office of Bishop.”

Peter often spoke for the rest of the Apostles (Mt 19:27; Mk 8:29; Lk 12:41; Jn 6:69). The Apostles are sometimes referred to as “Peter and his companions” (Lk 9:32; Mk 16:7; Acts 2:37). Peter’s name always heads the list of the Apostles (Mt 10:1-4; Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:14-16; Acts 1:13). Finally, Peter’s name is mentioned 191 times, which is more than all the rest of the Apostles combined (about 130 times).

After Peter, the most frequently mentioned Apostle is John, whose name appears 48 times. Peter is conspicuously involved in all the Church’s important “firsts.” Peter led the meeting which elected the first successor to an Apostle ( Acts 1:13-26). Peter preached the first sermon at Pentecost (Acts 2:14), and received the first converts (Acts 2:4 1). Peter performed the first miracle after Pentecost (Acts 3:6-7), inflicted the first punishment upon Ananias and Saphira (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic Simon the magician (Acts 8:2 1).

Peter is the first Apostle to raise a person from the dead (Acts 9:36-4 1). Peter first received the revelation to admit Gentiles into the Church (Acts 10:9-16), and commanded that the first Gentile converts be baptized (Acts 10:44-48).

The denial of this reality for multitudinous self-expression is what has caused the errors that followed.

 

[Chong]

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

The mission of God on earth from the time of Adam is redemption of man.
The OT was a shadow of Christ. So the main focus now is Christ, no teaching should shift our focus from Christ. Apostle Paul says in Gal1:8: But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. These words are very strong. The main difference between Catholics & Protestants is the Traditions. When we go back to the Bible, we agree on principle, but when we bring-in the traditions we differ.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The mission of God on earth from the time of Adam is redemption of man.
The OT was a shadow of Christ. So the main focus now is Christ, no teaching should shift our focus from Christ. Apostle Paul says in Gal1:8: But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. These words are very strong. The main difference between Catholics & Protestants is the Traditions. When we go back to the Bible, we agree on principle, but when we bring-in the traditions we differ.

Where does the Bible teach the doctrine of sola scriptura?

Are you clear on the difference between tradition(s) and Tradition?

CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
SECOND EDITION

PART ONE
THE PROFESSION OF FAITH
SECTION ONE
“I BELIEVE” - “WE BELIEVE”

CHAPTER TWO
GOD COMES TO MEET MAN

ARTICLE 2
THE TRANSMISSION OF DIVINE REVELATION

74 God “desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth”:29 that is, of Christ Jesus.30 Christ must be proclaimed to all nations and individuals, so that this revelation may reach to the ends of the earth:

God graciously arranged that the things he had once revealed for the salvation of all peoples should remain in their entirety, throughout the ages, and be transmitted to all generations.31

I. THE APOSTOLIC TRADITION

75 "Christ the Lord, in whom the entire Revelation of the most high God is summed up, commanded the apostles to preach the Gospel, which had been promised beforehand by the prophets, and which he fulfilled in his own person and promulgated with his own lips. In preaching the Gospel, they were to communicate the gifts of God to all men. This Gospel was to be the source of all saving truth and moral discipline."32

In the apostolic preaching. . .

76 In keeping with the Lord’s command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways:

• orally “by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit”;33
• in writing “by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing”.34

. . . continued in apostolic succession

77 "In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority."35 Indeed, "the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time."36

78 This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, "the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes."37 "The sayings of the holy Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer."38

79 The Father’s self-communication made through his Word in the Holy Spirit, remains present and active in the Church: "God, who spoke in the past, continues to converse with the Spouse of his beloved Son. And the Holy Spirit, through whom the living voice of the Gospel rings out in the Church - and through her in the world - leads believers to the full truth, and makes the Word of Christ dwell in them in all its richness."39

**II. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTURE

One common source. . .

80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal."40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own “always, to the close of the age”.41

. . . two distinct modes of transmission

81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42

"And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."43**

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."44

Apostolic Tradition and ecclesial traditions

83 The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus’ teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.

Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church’s Magisterium.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a2.htm#I

 

[eazyduzit]

Not sure what you mean by the “count-form”. But I am not the one who was focusing on this. You were. As to what I think of the verses:

Since Paul explains it:

"For I became your father in Christ Jesus when I preached the Good News to you. … Christ, yet you would not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father …" (1 Cor 4:15)

Was Paul contradicting Jesus?

It is in Christ that our priests, bishops and our Pope have become our spiritual fathers. Christ was making the point to the Pharisees who were acting as the ultimate authority, rather than looking to God as the source of all authority.

Keep in mind that if Christ meant what you are implying then we cannot call any man teacher either. You cannot view these verses outside of the entire context of the gospel.

God bless.

Steve

As I thought I explained in my post, it is not a contradiction to call oneself a father to any one group. Jesus was saying not to single out any one person on earth as the universal father,because one is your father in heaven. Is this not a commandment also? I would never deny anyone the right to believe what they want, because I believe that God is not trying to have unity through a kind of enforcement system, or what used to be called “The Inquisition”,but rather by writing His commandments in our hearts.

It seems that we are always thinking in terms of “unity”, but in Jn.17 Jesus was praying for “oneness” and not “unity”. This is something deeper than unity or uniformity. Sometimes you must pull down before you build up.

 

[eazyduzit]

From this link:

You missed the point. Jesus was speaking of the “rabbinical” way of teaching in which the rabbi’s teaching carries a kind of binding authority in its interpretation.

 

[SteveVH]

As I thought I explained in my post, it is not a contradiction to call oneself a father to any one group. Jesus was saying not to single out any one person on earth as the universal father,because one is your father in heaven.

You are simply interjecting your own meaning to this verse. Lets look at it again:

"And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." (Matthew 23:9 KJV)

Where in the world does Jesus say not to “single out any one person on earth as the universal father”? He says “call no man on earth your father”. You added to the text when you wrote:

Originally Posted by eazyduzit
“And call no (one) man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven”.

(Emphasis mine)

The fact that you had to add the word “one” in order to bolster your private interpretation should tell you something. To extend this to mean that we should not single out one person on earth as the universal father is changing the original meaning of the text which has been explained to you.

If we take Jesus’ words literally then we should call no man father, period. As Paul has demonstrated, this simply is not the case. He became their father through Jesus Christ, just as the Bishop of Rome has become our universal “Holy Father” through Jesus Christ.

Is this not a commandment also?

Not within the meaning you have given.

It seems that we are always thinking in terms of “unity”, but in Jn.17 Jesus was praying for “oneness” and not “unity”. This is something deeper than unity or uniformity. Sometimes you must pull down before you build up.

We are one because we are one Body in Christ. If we are one, then how can we not be united in what we believe? How can we be one and yet still be divided? Yes, we have one Father who is in heaven, the source of all authority; the source of all fatherhood, and he has appointed his representative on earth, who, through Christ, is to father the Church so that we remain one; united in the truth revealed to us through Christ.

Peace, my friend.

Steve

 

[yateanieys]

Such chaos in feeling is precisely why there is so much confusion.

I don;t agree with your use of the word ‘chaos’ in this case. Chaos by definition is seemingly random hysteria, no rhyme or reason, and no one can make sense of it. However, it’s only confusing to you. It makes perfect sense to me and others like me; therefore, it is not chaotic.

It’s not our fault you can’t understand something that makes perfect sense. And, we’re not asking you to agree; we simply ask that you acknowledge that maybe you don’t have all the answers like you think you do. Of course, I know now that’s like trying to push the tide back with a dinner fork. I acknowledge that I might be wrong in my faith, and I continually pray for my salvation, but I am by no means insecure in my faith in the Lord. Also, saying that Protestants need to take the Lord seriously is the exact holier-than-thou attitude that Paul warned us against.

When have grave contradictions ever equated to truth?

Another Catholic believer in this thread said that there are numerous sects of faith and that it’s ridiculous to think that any one of them have the fullness of truth. I agree. It’s not a contradiction, it just makes more sense in regards to the way the world has changed. In order to reach more people, it seems to me that God could have very well allowed the Church to branch out. Just because the Church branches out doesn’t mean the Church has failed; it means the Church has grown.

False. Those who rejected Christ in His mandate to follow His Church only in teaching on faith and morals, and obedience, pulled themselves away from Him and His Church and fell into multitudinous errors by denying Him.

How could or would God deny Himself?

And I ask you, how could anyone claim to know exactly how God wanted everything to be or that an alteration wasn’t necessary to accommodate his children in some way? You can’t because you can’t know what God knows. This is why I say it’s a possibility. Again, Scripture says a lot of things, but Scripture was written by man. God told us that if anyone changes the words in the Bible, then it would not bode well for them. He wouldn’t have told us this if it was never going to happen.

As far as saying MAYBE we’re all right, maybe we are. As I said earlier in a reply to you. Instead of bickering over our differences, maybe we should start acknowledging the things we have in common. For instance, Catholics and Protestants both share these ideologies:

• the birth, life, death, and resurrection of the Christ, Jesus of Nazareth
• The Ten Commandments were sent by God as a moral behavior guide
• Love your neighbor as yourself
• Fishers of men further the Kingdom of God
• John 3:16

and those are just a few. But, my point is maybe those common factors across faiths are the only things that truly matter. Saying that every word in the Bible should apply to modern times is a fool’s errand. Again, if I marry a chick and then find out later that she wasn’t a virgin and I had wasted a perfectly good dowry on an adulterous woman, then is it okay for me to drag her into the village square and stone her to death? No.

Even though the people that changed the Bible will be punished, perhaps God allowed still it to happened to make it more of a challenge to believe. I mean, having these discussion don’t make either you or me leave the faith because we can’t get along. No! In fact, it serves to make us both more adamant about our faith. The more we disagree, the stronger our faith grows to the point where we feel we need to tell someone about the good news! What does it matter if a nonbeliever hears it from a Catholic or a Protestant? God wants us to bring them to Him by showing them what they’re missing. Some people who don;t agree with the Protestant way will go to the Catholics and say, maybe there is something to this whole “God” thing. The same goes vice versa.

 

[yateanieys]

The denial of this reality for multitudinous self-expression is what has caused the errors that followed.

Let me tell you a story about a man that I knew.

This man was the most godly man I have ever met, and numerous people considered him the same. When he was in his 30s, the Lord turned his life around and he gave his life to Christ. The Lord saw fit to send him a good wife not shortly after that. This woman always said “I chased him until he caught me.” His faith is what eventually brought her to the Lord. They both lived on opposite sides of the country; she lived on the west coast, he lived on the east side, and even though she had three kids by another man (who committed suicide before his oldest was five years old), she put faith in God as well as her husband and prayed that everything would work according to God’s plan for them. She bore him six children, 5 sisters, and the youngest was a boy, and they all had a talent for music just like their father.

This man was on fire for God! As a Journeyman electrician in the 70s, he volunteered to do the electric work. The church he was a member of was expanding to a new area and building a new Church and they needed lights. Well, not only did he help with that and continue to help the church even well after his retirement as a Master electrician, but he also was on the board of deacons at his Church. He would go out of his way to help any member of the church (or even a Joe Schmoe at the gas station if he asked).

He traveled to several countries (Ecuador, Jamaica, Mexico, Peru, and a few others) numerous times and helped found and build roughly 20 different churches, the majority of which were built in areas that had never even heard the name Jesus. He did even more work around the areas near his home, especially at the retirement center near his church. There he would visit the old folks and play gospel music for them with a few others every other Sunday. Sometimes they’d leave that one and go straight to the next retirement home. Sometimes, they just felt the urge to keep worshiping the Lord and spreading good cheer to people that were desperately in need of a change in the nursing home humdrum.

The man had a faith that you could sense; the man was radiant with the light of the Lord!

He was rather quiet, but always made time for God. He praised God with every other sentence out of his mouth and thanked God not once, not twice, but countless times per day. He sang and worshiped God for His greatness and mercy. This man had dedicated his life to doing the work of God and I can’t wait to find out just how many lives he’s touched when I get up to Heaven. I can’t wait to see him again with every one of the lives he’s helped bring to the Lord right there with him and Jesus.

He died not 6 years ago from stage-4 adrenal cancer. It ate him alive. On the day he died, it was roughly 8:00am when he started getting the “death rattle.” All of the family members were contacted and everyone rushed to his home to say their peace. He was on his twin-size bed in a 14’ x 12’ room. All of his daughters, sons, his wife’s children, and all of the grand-kids (plus two great-grand-kids at the time) were crammed like sardines in that room.

They all began to sing “I’ll Fly Away,” which is his favorite Gospel hymn. They sang the chorus and then first verse. By that time, the influx emotion was suffocating everyone, but they all pushed through the chorus one more time to send him off. Literally right as the last word was sang, he left his body and was on his way to where he deserves to be.

That was the most life-altering miracle that I have ever witnessed in person.

That man was my grandfather. He played a huge role in my life, especially during my younger years. You see, I was born a bastard and he filled a void in my life that my biological father was too much of a coward to fill himself. We would read the Bible together and sometimes talk serious and sometimes laugh and cut up.

He was also the one who eventually brought me Jesus. If it weren’t for his dedication to me and moreover the Lord, there’s no telling what shape I’d be in today. I may have never been saved if it weren’t for his influence.

In the end, he deserved everything the Lord provided him with because he was in love with his Creator and was always prepared to do whatever the Lord asked of him.

He was also 100% Pentecostal.

So, are saying you believe my grandfather won’t go to Heaven simply because he wasn’t a Catholic? Do you mean to say that the work of the Lord that he dedicated every waking moment of his life to was completely worthless? that all those people who have found the Lord in one of those churches he built (who wouldn’t even know Jesus if it weren’t for the ministry of him and several others) aren’t really truly “saved” and my grandfather just provided them with a complete lie against his own will?

 

[benhur]

(Protestants have) a self inflated life raft. The barque of Peter may be:

an old ship,
creaky and leaky at times,
troubles in the engine room and
the cargo in the hold may be rotting,
tossed about by the winds and stormy seas.

she will make it to port at last

You seem to stress the ship that gets you there. Seems like both the raft and barque have “problems”. The qualities necessary for the passengers on board to be admitted into the promised land, to have "good’’ passports is more important, for both the the raft and barque get to port. Otherwise the ship voyaged on is in vain.

Both the raft and the barque are on the salvific path, going in the wake of predecessors. There are ties of Truth to the Mother Ship.

 

[sallybutler]

So, are saying you believe my grandfather won’t go to Heaven simply because he wasn’t a Catholic?

I believe you grandfather can go to Heaven. However, I also believe that is between him and God.

He sounds like a wonderful man.

 

[yateanieys]

I believe you grandfather can go to Heaven. However, I also believe that is between him and God.

He sounds like a wonderful man.

Well, thank you for your honesty. I agree as well. We can never judge a book by its cover, for only God truly knows what’s written on the pages of our hearts.