Where does the Catholic Church get its authority to teach

[paul_c]

We have been having a long discussion on sola scripture with AmericanJosiah here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4862641&postcount=1

He has steadfastly argued that there is no scriptural support for the Catholic Church’s authority to hold and teach the one true Christian faith. His basic argument is that the words “Catholic Church” are never mentioned in scripture. He has challenged the Catholics to prove the the Catholic Church is actually the Apostolic Church, with the auhtority to bind and lose and to define authentic Christian doctrine.

Lets go to it…

 

[MarcoPolo]

Fortunately, I am able to copy-paste my same answer to threads Josiah has been in in the past…what a time-saver!

Regarding who “validates” who, I would approach it like this. Who validates the authority of the first Church leaders, the Apostles? When they claim authority are they “validating themselves?” Does their authority come from themselves? We don’t have any letters from Jesus stating Who God commissioned. We have apostles (or their associates) writing down that Jesus gave them authority. Is this circular? I say no. Does this demonstrate that we must consider the testimony of the early Church to know the truth? I say yes.

A study of the early Church reveals coherence in the Resurrection, martyrs attesting to the truths of the faith (such as Justin Martyr who died for his beliefs in the Real Presence, regenerative quality of baptism, or other ancient Fathers who embraced the Deuterocanon, etc…), and the earliest letters of the Church. An important study is of St. Irenaeus who debated with the Gnostics who authentically held apostolic succession (Against Heresies. 3.3.1-3ff). Note that the debate was NOT whether or not succession existed, but rather who had it. The Gnostics not only clung to a different set of Scripture, but had no known capacity to demonstrate succession. Irenaeus wrote around 170-180. Justin around 150-160. And long before them, Clement explicitly stated around 90 A.D. the following: “Our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned, and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry.” (Clement, Letter to the Corinthians , #44). According to multiple antiquated historical accounts of Church history, this Clement is likely the very same Clement referred to as Paul’s “fellow worker” in Philippians 4:3. (See Jerome, : Also, Eusebius, Church History, Book III, Chapter 4, #10) and others.) All of these Church Father’s espousing apostolic succession, a Church hierachy, as well as foundational Catholic dogma, wrote well before the formation of the Canon of the New Testament. We take the truth of the Gospel on the testament of the early Christians and the death’s they welcomed, the miracles they performed—it is these testaments which demonstrate that the commission of the Church is divine. And it is their surviving accounts which demonstrate identification of the true Church as one with a successive line of bishops. In following centuries, other succession accounts can be read that dovetail from Irenaeus’. And so by this, by the doctrines taught in the early Church, by the canon of Scripture that was assembled, the Catholic Church is identified as that same Church given the divine commission.

It is by patterns such as this which we identify God as the one who validates the authority of the Catholic Church.

 

[TEPO]

Why would the catholic Church need scriptural permission to teach? Is’nt the bible just a snapshot of the beginnings of the Church, which explains the truths of Jesus and why we are Christian?

Should’nt the Church continue marching on after the last page of the bible was written?

Haven’t the Popes continued the work of the Apostles in advising the faithful how to best apply their “works” as the times move on?

 

[Heavens_Flowers]

Uhhh guys Jesus Christ himself gave the Catholic church, authority to teach his words, when he made the apostle Peter the first Pope of his church. It wasn’t called Catholic then, just Christian. Catholicus is a greek work( I believe I spelled wrong) which means universal. So Catholic church simply means a universal church in Christ.

 

[Erich]

His basic argument is that the words “Catholic Church” are never mentioned in scripture.

That’s because the Bible wasn’t originally written in English (KJV-only types notwithstanding).

Acts 9:31 Then the church throughout all* Judea, Galilee and Samaria enjoyed a time of peace. It was strengthened; and encouraged by the Holy Spirit, it grew in numbers, living in the fear of the Lord.

*In the original Greek, it is:
Acts 9:31 ἡ μεν ουν **εκκλησια καθ᾽ ὁλης **της ιουδαιας και γαλιλαιας και σαμαρειας ειχεν ειρηνην οικοδομουμενη και πορευομενη τω φοβω του κυριου, και τη παρακλησει του ἁγιου πνευματος επληθυνοντο.

The term in bold commonly translated as ‘church throughout all’ is
in Greek '”εκκλησια καθ᾽ ὁλης”—pronounced "Ekklesia Kath olos” or the Church Universal or some might say The Catholic Church, since Kath olos is the same term used by Ignatius for the Church in his letter to the Smyrnaeans.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

He has steadfastly argued that there is no scriptural support for the Catholic Church’s authority to hold and teach the one true Christian faith. His basic argument is that the words “Catholic Church” are never mentioned in scripture. He has challenged the Catholics to prove the the Catholic Church is actually the Apostolic Church, with the auhtority to bind and lose and to define authentic Christian doctrine.

Lets go to it…

1. I never said that CATHOLICS have no responsibility to teach. You have been teaching a lot here, and I’ve NEVER suggested that you should not. Our discussion has been singularly to the point of ACCOUNTABILITY. Are teachers ACCOUNTABLE for what they teach as doctrine? And if so (and, in keeping with your Catechism # 87, you’ve carefully dodged that), then WHAT is the most sound canon/norma normans for that evaluation?
2. Your apologetic that the most sound way to determine if a teacher is correct is for that teacher to exempt himself from accountability, himself insist that he exclusively is incapable of error in these matters, and that all that is moot in the singular case of he himself alone, rather all must whatever he himself exclusively says “with docility” “as Jesus speaking” BECAUSE Jesus said that, in exclusive reference to The Catholic Church. Your whole apologetic depends on Jesus insisting that specificly THE CATHOLIC CHURCH is infallible, incapable of error, and whatever IT exclusively says is to be accepted with docility as He Himself speaking. Problem is: You can’t find any verse that even so much as MENTIONS The Catholic Church - about anything, for anything, concerning anything, from Jesus or any Apostle. Nor can you find anything about any teacher being infallible, incapable of error and unaccountable. What you find is Jesus boldly and repeatedly warning us about false teachers, Jesus praising the Ephesian Christians for doing the opposite of what you suggest, praising them for regarding their teachers as accountable, for testing/arbitrating them, and declaring them to be false (Rev. 2:2 for this example).

Friend, if I posted that it is a matter of highest certainty and importance that I myself alone am the most handsome man in the world - because Jesus said so, I just have a hunch your first question would be: Where? GOOD question, too, since my whole apologetic depends on that point (if that, it IS that point). Now, if I responded, “Well, actually, I’m not once so much as even mentioned by Jesus” I just think you’d likely laugh your head off. And frankly, you should.

.

 

[Non_Serviam]

That’s because the Bible wasn’t originally written in English (KJV-only types notwithstanding).

Acts 9:31 Then the church throughout all* Judea, Galilee and Samaria enjoyed a time of peace. It was strengthened; and encouraged by the Holy Spirit, it grew in numbers, living in the fear of the Lord.

*In the original Greek, it is:
Acts 9:31 ἡ μεν ουν **εκκλησια καθ᾽ ὁλης **της ιουδαιας και γαλιλαιας και σαμαρειας ειχεν ειρηνην οικοδομουμενη και πορευομενη τω φοβω του κυριου, και τη παρακλησει του ἁγιου πνευματος επληθυνοντο.

The term in bold commonly translated as ‘church throughout all’ is
in Greek '”εκκλησια καθ᾽ ὁλης”—pronounced "Ekklesia Kath olos” or the Church Universal or some might say The Catholic Church, since Kath olos is the same term used by Ignatius for the Church in his letter to the Smyrnaeans.

SO by this logic you also accept that the Baptist church is mentioned in the NT?

The sentence in Acts makes no grammatical sense if you translate it with “universal” instead of “throughout all” as it refers to a specific, limited parcel of land-just a coincidence the same words are used, as there was no “catholic” brand at this point, just like John being referred to as a baptist before the secondary meaning evolved-the terms used in the first part of Acts are “followers of the Way” and “Christians”.

As to the question of teaching authority-it was the later “Catholics” who taught that they had exclusive teaching authority a circular argument rejected by both groups of Orthodox and anyone who is familiar with Lord Acton.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Who validates the authority of the first Church leaders, the Apostles?

Those men are not The Catholic Church.

There’s nothing that says they were infallible, incapable of error, unaccountable and exempt from norming. In fact, most of Jesus’ ministry was CORRECTING them - odd if they were incapable of being wrong. And didn’t He call one of them “Satan?” Which one was that?

And you forget that JESUS (God) established them. NEVER calling them infallible/unaccountable. But you have yet to show where Jesus so much as even MENTIONED The Catholic Church. About anything, for anything, concerning anything, in any regard - about infalliblity or anything else.

Clement explicitly stated around 90 A.D. the following: “Our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned, and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry.” (Clement, Letter to the Corinthians , #44).

Without discussing the point Clement makes, where is he even claiming that The Catholic Church specifically and exclusively is infallible/unaccountable, and that whatever it says is simply to be accepted with docility? Yes, the ordained ordained - and the office continues to this day, in virtually every denomination (The Catholic Church no less or no more than any other), but this has nothing to do with teachers therefore being unaccountable for what they teach, particularly as doctrine.

To the question, I don’t know that The Catholic Church has a teaching function (how does an institutional entity teach anything???) but certainly CATHOLICS do. And all the Catholics here exercise that - so they must think that they do. I see nothing that says that only those registered in congregations legally affiliated with The Catholic Church (or any other denomination) may or may not teach (it seems a wide variety do here). The more relevant issue is: Are they accountable for the doctrines they teach? Was Jesus correct to repeatedly and boldly warn us about false teachers (never exempting The Catholic Church)? Was He right to praise the Ephesians Christians for regarding teachers as accountable, for testing/norming them, for arbitrating the issue and for declaring those teachers as false (Rev. 2:2)? That one MAY teach is not the same as Is ONE unaccountable for what is taught?

.

 

[kepha1]

1. I never said that CATHOLICS have no responsibility to teach. You have been teaching a lot here, and I’ve NEVER suggested that you should not. Our discussion has been singularly to the point of ACCOUNTABILITY. Are teachers ACCOUNTABLE for what they teach as doctrine? And if so (and, in keeping with your Catechism # 87, you’ve carefully dodged that), then WHAT is the most sound canon/norma normans for that evaluation?

This has been covered before:
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=6261059#post6261059 post #347 and it hasn’t been dodged. So far, it is you that have dodged by abondoning the thread, and now you are here with the same accusation.

Text without context is a pretext. Let’s try #86, 87, and 88.

85 “The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.” 47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

86 “Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith.” 48

87 Mindful of Christ’s words to his apostles: “He who hears you, hears me”, 49 the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.
88 The Church’s Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these."

In the Catholic vision the pope teaches in the name of the episcopate and the episcopate teaches in the name of the Church and the Church teaches in the name of Christ, and Christ teaches in the name of God. All this “accountability” nonsense is just fist shaking based on prejudice.

 

[kepha1]

1. Your apologetic that the most sound way to determine if a teacher is correct is for that teacher to exempt himself from accountability,

WRONG. The teacher, the Church, the pillar and ground of truth, is superintended by the Holy Spirit to teach without error on matters of faith and morals. Your system, by your own admission, is fallible and I suggest that you are projecting and force fitting your definition of “church” as a rule and guide to what you think the Catholic Church should be.

himself insist that he exclusively is incapable of error in these matters, and that all that is moot in the singular case of he himself alone,

WRONG. At no time throughout the history of the Church has any official teaching been the sole product of one person. The whole Church is involved, under the superintendence of the Holy Spirit.

rather all must whatever he himself exclusively says “with docility” “as Jesus speaking” BECAUSE Jesus said that, in exclusive reference to The Catholic Church.

Your whole apologetic depends on Jesus insisting that specificly THE CATHOLIC CHURCH is infallible, incapable of error, and whatever IT exclusively says is to be accepted with docility as He Himself speaking.

Well, yer close…but THE CATHOLIC CHURCH is incapable of teaching error on faith and morals exclusively apart from the Holy Spirit. It’s a negative charism you can’t seem to grasp.

Problem is: You can’t find any verse that even so much as MENTIONS The Catholic Church - about anything, for anything, concerning anything, from Jesus or any Apostle.

WRONG.
I would refer you to “A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew” (The International Critical Commentary by Protestant scholars Dale C. Allison & W. D. Davies). After looking at 10 different proposed ways of interpreting the text, they agree that the PAPAL understanding as applying to St. Peter’s authority is the most correct one.

Nor can you find anything about any teacher being infallible, incapable of error and unaccountable.

That is correct.

What you find is Jesus boldly and repeatedly warning us about false teachers, Jesus praising the Ephesian Christians for doing the opposite of what you suggest, praising them for regarding their teachers as accountable, for testing/arbitrating them, and declaring them to be false (Rev. 2:2 for this example).

Yes, He does. But you claim no one has any authority to declare a false teacher, except a mystical body of true believers with each of them having equal apostolic authority. In your ship, everyone is the captain except the captain. Just because YOU have no authority to declare anything false doesn’t mean the Church Jesus founded has the same non-authority that you admit to having.

Friend, if I posted that it is a matter of highest certainty and importance that I myself alone am the most handsome man in the world - because Jesus said so, I just have a hunch your first question would be: Where? GOOD question, too, since my whole apologetic depends on that point (if that, it IS that point). Now, if I responded, “Well, actually, I’m not once so much as even mentioned by Jesus” I just think you’d likely laugh your head off. And frankly, you should.

If I thought that is how Church authority worked, I would object too.

 

[kepha1]

Those men are not The Catholic Church.

Those men are not the Catholic Church according to your revisionist false definition. This is something you have dodged. You cannot not or will not accept our own definition of our own Church, and it has been proven repeatedly that the Catholic Church is inferred directly from Scripture. Since you insist so strongly that the Catholic Church is not in the Bible, when was it founded, and by whom? Consantine? Charlton Heston? You’ll dodge this question because historical revisionism is too full of holes.

There’s nothing that says they were infallible, incapable of error, unaccountable and exempt from norming.

Isa. 35:8, 54:13-17 - this prophecy refers to the Church as the Holy Way where sons will be taught by God and they will not err. The Church has been given the gift of infallibility when teaching about faith and morals, where her sons are taught directly by God and will not err. This gift of infallibility means that the Church is prevented from teaching error by the power of the Holy Spirit (it does not mean that Church leaders do not sin!)

Acts 9:2; 22:4; 24:14,22 - the early Church is identified as the “Way” prophesied in Isaiah 35:8 where fools will not err therein.

Matt. 10:20; Luke 12:12 - Jesus tells His apostles it is not they who speak, but the Spirit of their Father speaking through them. If the Spirit is the one speaking and leading the Church, the Church cannot err on matters of faith and morals.

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus promises the gates of Hades would never prevail against the Church. This requires that the Church teach infallibly. If the Church did not have the gift of infallibility, the gates of Hades and error would prevail. Also, since the Catholic Church was the only Church that existed up until the Reformation, those who follow the Protestant reformers call Christ a liar by saying that Hades did prevail.

In fact, most of Jesus’ ministry was CORRECTING them - odd if they were incapable of being wrong. And didn’t He call one of them “Satan?” Which one was that?

Mark 8:33 - non-Catholics sometimes use this verse to down play Peter’s authority. This does not make sense. In this verse, Jesus rebukes Peter to show the import of His Messianic role as the Savior of humanity. Moreover, at this point, Peter was not yet the Pope with the keys, and Jesus did not rebuke Peter for his teaching. Jesus rebuked Peter for his lack of understanding.

And you forget that JESUS (God) established them. NEVER calling them infallible/unaccountable. But you have yet to show where Jesus so much as even MENTIONED The Catholic Church. About anything, for anything, concerning anything, in any regard - about infalliblity or anything else.

WRONG.
Is it really necessary to explain the difference between “terms” and concepts? Lots of “terms” are not found in the Bible. Like “Bible”. “Ascension” is not in the Bible so should we throw out that concept too?

citations from scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

We have been having a long discussion on sola scripture with AmericanJosiah here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4862641&postcount=1

He has steadfastly argued that there is no scriptural support for the Catholic Church’s authority to hold and teach the one true Christian faith. His basic argument is that the words “Catholic Church” are never mentioned in scripture. He has challenged the Catholics to prove the the Catholic Church is actually the Apostolic Church, with the auhtority to bind and lose and to define authentic Christian doctrine.

Lets go to it…

The Catholic Church does not receive her authority from Scripture, but directly from Christ, the Church Christ established upon Peter in Matthew 16:18. Remember also that the pillar and foundation of TRUTH is the Church 1 Tim 3:15.

 

[puzzleannie]

He has steadfastly argued that there is no scriptural support for the Catholic Church’s authority to hold and teach the one true Christian faith. His basic argument is that the words “Catholic Church” are never mentioned in scripture. …

Lutheran church, Methodist Church, reformed church, Calvinist church, Mennonite, etc are mentioned in scripture I take it, at least in his translation of the bible.

 

[Erich]

SO by this logic you also accept that the Baptist church is mentioned in the NT?

“John the Baptist” does not refer to his denomination. Neither does “Joseph the Carpenter” or “Matthew the Tax Collector”

The sentence in Acts makes no grammatical sense if you translate it with “universal” instead of “throughout all” as it refers to a specific, limited parcel of land-just a coincidence the same words are used, as there was no “catholic” brand at this point, just like John being referred to as a baptist before the secondary meaning evolved-the terms used in the first part of Acts are “followers of the Way” and “Christians”.

The Catholic Church has to refer to all the believers of that time including where St Paul was. So it would also include Rome where St. Peter was, and Egypt where St Mark was, and India where St Thomas was, etc.

So, that “specific, limited parcel of land” of which you speak is really the whole known world at the time.

 

[kepha1]

Without discussing the point Clement makes, where is he even claiming that The Catholic Church specifically and exclusively is infallible/unaccountable, and that whatever it says is simply to be accepted with docility? Yes, the ordained ordained - and the office continues to this day, in virtually every denomination (The Catholic Church no less or no more than any other), but this has nothing to do with teachers therefore being unaccountable for what they teach, particularly as doctrine.

I’m sorry you cannot read the quote by Clement when it is right in front of you. But here is another question for you to dodge: Clement was recognized throughout Christendom as the forth Pope, and the Apostle John was still alive, so why wasn’t John the Pope?

To the question, I don’t know that The Catholic Church has a teaching function (how does an institutional entity teach anything???) but certainly CATHOLICS do. And all the Catholics here exercise that - so they must think that they do. I see nothing that says that only those registered in congregations legally affiliated with The Catholic Church (or any other denomination) may or may not teach (it seems a wide variety do here). The more relevant issue is: Are they accountable for the doctrines they teach? Was Jesus correct to repeatedly and boldly warn us about false teachers (never exempting The Catholic Church)? Was He right to praise the Ephesians Christians for regarding teachers as accountable, for testing/norming them, for arbitrating the issue and for declaring those teachers as false (Rev. 2:2)? That one MAY teach is not the same as Is ONE unaccountable for what is taught?

You are contradiction yourself. On what basis does anyone have to declare a teacher as false? And who are they accountable to? The committee that hired the minister?

 

[Non_Serviam]

“John the Baptist” does not refer to his denomination. Neither does “Joseph the Carpenter” or “Matthew the Tax Collector”

Never said it did-just pointed out an equivalent fallacy to the one that you engaged in.

The Catholic Church has to refer to all the believers of that time including where St Paul was. So it would also include Rome where St. Peter was, and Egypt where St Mark was, and India where St Thomas was, etc.

So, that “specific, limited parcel of land” of which you speak is really the whole known world at the time.

Did you read the passage that you quoted earlier? Let me refresh your memory:

Acts 9:31 Then the church throughout all* Judea, Galilee and Samaria enjoyed a time of peace. It was strengthened; and encouraged by the Holy Spirit, it grew in numbers, living in the fear of the Lord.

Ok, first take a blue crayon and a map of the world and trace the outline of Judea, Galilee and Samaria. Next take a red crayon and indicate within those borders where Rome, Egypt and India are located.

(hint: they aren’t)

Now do you understand why “universal” is the incorrect translation for this passage? Luke was referring to the entire area of a specific geographical area, NOT the “whole known world at the time”.

 

[cfrancis]

1. Your apologetic that the most sound way to determine if a teacher is correct is for that teacher to exempt himself from accountability, himself insist that he exclusively is incapable of error in these matters, and that all that is moot in the singular case of he himself alone, rather all must whatever he himself exclusively says “with docility” “as Jesus speaking” BECAUSE Jesus said that, in exclusive reference to The Catholic Church. Your whole apologetic depends on Jesus insisting that specificly THE CATHOLIC CHURCH is infallible, incapable of error, and whatever IT exclusively says is to be accepted with docility as He Himself speaking. Problem is: You can’t find any verse that even so much as MENTIONS The Catholic Church - about anything, for anything, concerning anything, from Jesus or any Apostle. Nor can you find anything about any teacher being infallible, incapable of error and unaccountable. What you find is Jesus boldly and repeatedly warning us about false teachers, Jesus praising the Ephesian Christians for doing the opposite of what you suggest, praising them for regarding their teachers as accountable, for testing/arbitrating them, and declaring them to be false (Rev. 2:2 for this example).

Using your “Sears Measuring Tape” analogy from the other thread, you’ll note that the Sears Measuring Tape contains an index, as it were: it tells you what constitutes the norm; in this case (assuming standard measurements) fractions of an inch, probably down to 1/32 of an inch. Some at some time defined that norm.

Where in Scripture, the norm according to you, is the norm likewise defined?
Wouldn’t the norm have to do this in order to be considered the norm?

 

[kepha1]

CATHOLIC comes from the Greek word Katholikos, which was later Latinized into Catholicus.
It means ‘Universal’, which in itself means, ‘of or relating to, or affecting the entire world and ALL peoples therein’. It means, ALL encompassing, comprehensibly broad, general, and containing ALL that is neccessary. In summation, it means ALL people in ALL places, having ALL that is necessary, and for ALL time.

It is inferred in Matthew 28:19-20,
"Go, therefore and make disciples of ALL nations…teaching them to observe ALL that I have commanded you; And behold, I am with you ALL days, even unto the consummation of the world."
That is a statement of Universality, Katholicos, Catholicus, Catholic.

Rom. 1:8 ….and you belong to that Church whose faith St. Paul describes as being "proclaimed (KATanggeletai) in the whole universe (en HOLO to kosmo)”

Thus the word KATAHOLOS or Catholic in English originated from Scriptures - Romans 1:8

“Where the Bishop appears, there let the people be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”
St. Ignatius of Antioch’s letter to the Smyrneans, paragraph 8, of 106 A.D.,
Undoubtedly the word was in use before the time of this writing which is over 250 years before Constantine was born.

Written records of the prefix “CATHOLIC” describing a character of the Christian Church:
Ignatius, Letter to the Smyrneans 106AD;
Martyrdom of St. Polycarp 155AD;
Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis 202AD;
Cyprian, Unity of the Catholic Church 251AD;
Cyprian, Letter to Florentius, 254AD

“Christian is my name, and Catholic my surname. The one designates me, while the other makes me specific. Thus am I attested and set apart… When we are called Catholics it is by this appellation that our people are kept apart from any heretical name.”
Saint Pacian of Barcelona, Letter to Sympronian, 375 A.D.

The artifacts found in the Roman Catacombs of the first 3 centuries of church history prove the first Christians were Catholic in practice and belief.

 

[Erich]

Never said it did-just pointed out an equivalent fallacy to the one that you engaged in.

Apples and onions.

“Ekklesia Kath olos” refers to the Church which (at least in Judea, Galilee, and Samaria) enjoyed a time of peace – remember that it was being persecuted elsewhere.

“John the Baptist” refers to a single person, John the Baptizer.

 

[paul_c]

1. I never said that CATHOLICS have no responsibility to teach. You have been teaching a lot here, and I’ve NEVER suggested that you should not. Our discussion has been singularly to the point of ACCOUNTABILITY. Are teachers ACCOUNTABLE for what they teach as doctrine? And if so (and, in keeping with your Catechism # 87, you’ve carefully dodged that), then WHAT is the most sound canon/norma normans for that evaluation?

Josiah, the real issue is not whether teachers are accountable for what they teach as doctrine. Of course they are. The question is WHO they are accountable to. The answer to this is clear. Teachers are accountable to those that commissioned them as teachers and told them what to teach. In the case at hand, the Catholic Church is accountable to Jesus. Within the church, teachers are are accountable to their bishops and the bishops are accountable to the Pope. The Pope is accountable to Jesus.

You have an inverted view, common to protestantism, that the teachers are accountable to the students. How can this be? How can a student judge whether what the teacher says is true, other than to go to a higher authority? And at that point, the teacher is being held accountable to the higher authority, not the student. In a world with freedom, intelligent students engage teachers who have the desired knowledge and established credentials. Some students aren’t interested in the truth, however, and engage teachers who tell them what they want to hear or provide easy lessons.

1. Your apologetic that the most sound way to determine if a teacher is correct is for that teacher to exempt himself from accountability, himself insist that he exclusively is incapable of error in these matters, and that all that is moot in the singular case of he himself alone, rather all must whatever he himself exclusively says “with docility” “as Jesus speaking” BECAUSE Jesus said that, in exclusive reference to The Catholic Church. Your whole apologetic depends on Jesus insisting that specificly THE CATHOLIC CHURCH is infallible, incapable of error, and whatever IT exclusively says is to be accepted with docility as He Himself speaking. Problem is: You can’t find any verse that even so much as MENTIONS The Catholic Church - about anything, for anything, concerning anything, from Jesus or any Apostle. Nor can you find anything about any teacher being infallible, incapable of error and unaccountable. What you find is Jesus boldly and repeatedly warning us about false teachers, Jesus praising the Ephesian Christians for doing the opposite of what you suggest, praising them for regarding their teachers as accountable, for testing/arbitrating them, and declaring them to be false (Rev. 2:2 for this example).

Josiah,
Jesus and the apostles, do indeed warn us repeatedly about false teachers. And how do they tell us to tell if the teachers are false? By their fidelity to Jesus’s teachings as taught by the apostles and by their fruits.

As for the bible never mentioning the Catholic Church, surely you are intelligent enough to recognize that a rose by any other name is still a rose. In the New Testament, the Church founded by Crhist was originally called " the way". Eventually, followers of the Way were called Christians, starting in Antioch as described in ACTS and then as heretical groups emerged, Catholic Christians to distinguish those that followed the apostles. It is easy to prove that it is in fact the same church. Although we don’t believe that Scripture contains all truth, everything in it IS truth. and one of those truths that is documented is that Jesus commissioned Peter to lead his flock. (Matthew 16: 16-18, John 21). We have the same doctrine and we can show continuity of leadership succession all the way back to Peter and the apostles. Our commission is Peter and the Apostle’s commission as described in Matthew 28:

18 Then Jesus approached and said to them, “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
19 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,
20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.”

What Jesus taught them, they taught us. As such, we are accountable for what we teach to the Bishops, the Pope,and ultimately to Christ.

Non-Catholic groups can all trace thier lineage back to their founders. Yours for instance, was Martin Luther. The group of heretics described in Rev 2.6 was founded by Nicolas. (the Nicolaitins). Followers of these groups teach what they have been taught by their founders. For instance, assumably, you follow the teachings of Martin Luther and try to teach the same. If anyone asks you by what authority do you teach, what is your answer? Is it not by Luther’s authority, who said we should follow the bible alone?

Friend, if I posted that it is a matter of highest certainty and importance that I myself alone am the most handsome man in the world - because Jesus said so, I just have a hunch your first question would be: Where? GOOD question, too, since my whole apologetic depends on that point (if that, it IS that point). Now, if I responded, “Well, actually, I’m not once so much as even mentioned by Jesus” I just think you’d likely laugh your head off. And frankly, you should.

Yes, you weren’t commissioned by Christ, but the Catholic Church was. This is witnessed in Scripture, in which you profess to believe,