Which has more Authority, the Bible or the Church?

[apfrita]

This isn’t really a question in the sense that the question creates a false dichotomy. The Church produced the Bible. The Bible didn’t just fall out from the sky. As a matter of fact, Sacred Tradition preceded Sacred Scripture, because it was Sacred Tradition that dictated what books were to be included in Sacred Scripture (e.g. why the Book of Enoch is not included in the deuterocanonical Bible). Indeed, “Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written” (John 21:25), which indicates to us that not everything can be found in Scripture.

Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are equal; neither has more authority than the other.

Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are equal but the authority to both is given by the Church Magesterium so the real authourity is with the Church Magesterium. Christ did not write the Bible and neither did he tell his disciples to write the Bible. He just taught them and they spread his Word at least for the first few decades after his resurrection through word of mouth which is called the Oral Tradition. Later on as the Church was growing, she must have felt the need to put down some of the Oral Tradition into writing. Many wrote but only few of the writings were given the authority of Scripture by the Church. It is the Church which has been given authority by Jesus when he gave Peter the power to bind and loose on earth and it will be considered bound or loosed in heaven. Sacred Scripture if it is considered as having the same authourity as the Church, then after the Bible was cannonized, any group which goes against the authority of the Church and obeys only the authority of Scripture (sola Scriptura) would be alright, but it is not so. The Bible has only part of the deposit of faith that Christ handed over to his apostles. Since it is part of that deposit, it still has authority. But if there are any questions about understanding of the Scripture, it is only the Church who in the first place gave authority to the Bible as inspired Scripture, who can give the correct interpretation under the umbrella of the Pope and his bishops. So the authority of the Church comes first and then the authority of Scripture. However since the authority of Scripture has been given to it by the church and the canon is closed now, no one, not even the Church will change anything in the Bible. So what is contained in the Bible has the authourity of the Church and it can be safely taught as God’s revelation albeit under the interpretation of the Church itself. Those who have considered the Bible as having equal authority as the Church have jumped to the conclusion, " Why then have two authorities that are equal? I will chose one and neglect the other." And this precisely the error of the Protestant Chuches that have been formed based on Sola Scriptura. As long as any Church is under the authority of the Pope who is the successor of Peter, the promise of Jesus to Peter applies to that Church, otherwise it is not under the safety of Christ and can always go astray. If the Protestant Church formed by Martin Luther based on solely the authority of Scripture was correct in the eyes of God, then there should have been only two churches today: one the Catholic Church under the authority of the Pope and one the Protestant Church under the authourity of Scripture alone. But because of this error of Sola Scriptura, the Protestant Churches have split and resplit to form thousands of denominations, which show that the gates of hell have prevailed against them. The Catholic Church under the authority of the Roman Pontiff has remained One Holy and Apostolic Church.

In fact the stool of the true church built by Christ on Peter stands firm because of three legs together: 1) The Church Tradition 2) The Church Magesterium 3) The Scripture. If any of these are lacking, the stool of the church becomes unstable and will collapse eventually. Only the Roman Catholic Church has all the three and hence it stands firm according to the divine promise of Christ given to Peter.

 

[rbarcia]

Well which came first, the Bible or the Church?

Well, the Old Testament came before the church.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Dei verbum speeks to this and explains it perfectly

article 10 of the Die Verbum

The word of God actually has authority of the Magestrium, why because if the Magestirium (sorry about spelling) had authority over the word of God that means the Magestrium could say what ever they wanted to

for example the Mag could say that women could priest but the Mag actually has no power to do this because in the word of God it was clear only men could be priest.

A less controversial example, Jesus is devine the Mag doesn’t have the power to say that jesus isn’t divine plane and simple, if it did then it would be violating the it serves.

The pope and bishops and priests and the people all must obey the Church. not even the pope is allowed to disobey what the Church teaches.

they all have to obey. but the Bible is not all the Word of God. there is also Tradition which only the Church knows because she was tought from the beggining what it all meant. so, not even the pope is allowed to depart from it.

 

[exnihilo]

The pope and bishops and priests and the people all must obey the Church. not even the pope is allowed to disobey what the Church teaches.

When you use words like obey you are talking about a type of authority the Bible can not have. The Bible contains meaning, which must of course be interpreted from the words. The Church’s teachings must also be interpreted. Ultimately one needs an interpreter for either. What that means is we need people with authority. The Bible not being a person it cant ever be that type of authority. But if the Church declares it to be the Word of God than it certainly has a tremendous amount of authority. And its authority must be greater than the interpreter’s and even the interpretation, since that could be in error.

they all have to obey. but the Bible is not all the Word of God. there is also Tradition which only the Church knows because she was tought from the beggining what it all meant. so, not even the pope is allowed to depart from it.

Assuming the Bible and Tradition to actually be the Word of God, which I believe, then these both have tremendous authority. These authorities must be greater than the authority of the Church since they are the Word of God. Again, neither the Bible or Tradition can exercise command in the same way people can. So the authority to command is greater for the Church.

I would liken it to the US Constitution and Supreme Court. The US Constitution is the foundational document for the United States. It is the greatest authority. Yet, what it actually means is a matter of interpretation. We can all have our personal opinion on its meaning. But ultimately its practical meaning is decided by the Supreme Court. The court does not declare itself to be a greater authority than the constitution. But in a way it must be since it has power to compel and the document itself does not. Interestingly for the Supreme Court the case of its authority is weak since the constitution does not mention the Supreme Court having this sole power to determine the meaning of the constitution. I see the Word of God and the Church as having in many ways a similar type of relationship.

 

[wisdomseeker]

When you use words like obey you are talking about a type of authority the Bible can not have. The Bible contains meaning, which must of course be interpreted from the words. The Church’s teachings must also be interpreted. Ultimately one needs an interpreter for either. What that means is we need people with authority. The Bible not being a person it cant ever be that type of authority. But if the Church declares it to be the Word of God than it certainly has a tremendous amount of authority. And its authority must be greater than the interpreter’s and even the interpretation, since that could be in error.

Assuming the Bible and Tradition to actually be the Word of God, which I believe, then these both have tremendous authority. These authorities must be greater than the authority of the Church since they are the Word of God. Again, neither the Bible or Tradition can exercise command in the same way people can. So the authority to command is greater for the Church.

I would liken it to the US Constitution and Supreme Court. The US Constitution is the foundational document for the United States. It is the greatest authority. Yet, what it actually means is a matter of interpretation. We can all have our personal opinion on its meaning. But ultimately its practical meaning is decided by the Supreme Court. The court does not declare itself to be a greater authority than the constitution. But in a way it must be since it has power to compel and the document itself does not. Interestingly for the Supreme Court the case of its authority is weak since the constitution does not mention the Supreme Court having this sole power to determine the meaning of the constitution. I see the Word of God and the Church as having in many ways a similar type of relationship.

That is what I said. and the holy father also said, he said he had not authority to change anything the Church teaches. the teachings were given to them and they have to safeguard and passed on to all generations without any alteration. the Church is the guardian of the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles. she has a great responsibility in her shoulders.

 

[wisdomseeker]

I’d be interested in hearing this, too.

Also, to comment on some of the other Luther comments…I think he did not intend to build “a new church” but point out all the wrongdoing that was being done with the high priests…and as he should. Seems no one listened to him, tho…I mean, he was indeed a man of God and wanted to make sure the church kept up to proper standards. Why did no one listen to him and make the necessary changes? Had they listened, then maybe a new branch of christianity would not have to have happened…perhaps the high priests and officials at the time refused to be flexible and err the wrongs going on…

it is typical, always blaming somebody else when you do wrong. martin luther did not do wrong because he saw something wrong. he did it because that was his style. a rebellious mind is dangerous and just wait for an opportunity to show its venom. Judas is a perfect example. Jesus did not do neither did the Apostles anything to cause judas to do evil.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Ummm…a rebellious mind can be a good thing. If people are robots and cannot think beyond what they are instructed to think, how else will we improve or advance?

I read all the time that Jesus himself was and is considered a rebel and revolutionary in his time–was he not?!
He boldly went against tradition and all the teachings of the centuries before him…angrily pushing over the tables at the temple…pointing out the wrongdoing of the current administration and telling everyone how it must and can improve and be better.

He wasn’t just a passive guy walking around in a robe, as I’m sure you know.
And those who followed him were rebels, too. Or else they would have just meekly stayed with what they knew and not upset the apple cart and put their lives on the line.

are you comparing martin luther with Jesus?

 

[rainman10]

Welllll…he didn’t specify that he’s gonna build a church called “Catholic”–at least, not in this paraphrase. What if he meant in general a “church” that has all his good teachings…and many churches do teach all his good teachings. Webster’s defines church at the top of its list as “a building for public and especially Christian worship” and there are many of these with different names that teach his words, not only the church someone titled “Catholic”…but many.

Please list some of these churches that teach ALL his good teachings.

 

[wisdomseeker]

**Originally Posted by DaddyGirl
Welllll…he didn’t specify that he’s gonna build a church called “Catholic”–at least, not in this paraphrase. What if he meant in general a “church” that has all his good teachings…and many churches do teach all his good teachings. Webster’s defines church at the top of its list as “a building for public and especially Christian worship” and there are many of these with different names that teach his words, not only the church someone titled “Catholic”…but many. **

First there is a God, and webster is not Him. God defines the Church and not webster.

According to God, there is but One Church, One God, One Spirit. Neither you or webster defines the Church.

 

[TarkanAttila]

Welllll…he didn’t specify that he’s gonna build a church called “Catholic”–at least, not in this paraphrase. What if he meant in general a “church” that has all his good teachings…and many churches do teach all his good teachings. Webster’s defines church at the top of its list as “a building for public and especially Christian worship” and there are many of these with different names that teach his words, not only the church someone titled “Catholic”…but many.

Yet on so many crucial points they disagree.

For example, while most Christians agree that infant baptism is OK, most Baptist communities do not. Seventh-Day Adventists think the Lord’s day is still Saturday, while most other Christians think it Sunday. Some Protestant groups are pro-life, while others are pro-choice. There is an ever-growing number of evangelicals who, in contrast to mainstream Protestantism, reject contraception as an evil in connection with abortion. Most choose to say rote prayer like the Our Father - but some like the Pentecostals say that Jesus said that we should not “babble like pagans” and therefore make up every prayer they say from the top of their heads.

I could go on forever.

 

[TarkanAttila]

Ummm…a rebellious mind can be a good thing. If people are robots and cannot think beyond what they are instructed to think, how else will we improve or advance?

I read all the time that Jesus himself was and is considered a rebel and revolutionary in his time–was he not?!
He boldly went against tradition and all the teachings of the centuries before him…angrily pushing over the tables at the temple…pointing out the wrongdoing of the current administration and telling everyone how it must and can improve and be better.

He wasn’t just a passive guy walking around in a robe, as I’m sure you know.
And those who followed him were rebels, too. Or else they would have just meekly stayed with what they knew and not upset the apple cart and put their lives on the line.

At the same time, they did not form 30,000, 15, or even two different splinter groups to combat the Pharisee’s pride. Christ only reminded people of the true laws: love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength; and love your neighbour as yourself.

Now how does one love the Lord? By giving his entire being to God and surrendering completely to His will, not wanting anything for your own sake. This is an impossible task, but an obedient heart makes it slightly easier [/understatement]. The rebellious heart wants to defy God, thinking it is smarter than He.

Remember, Lucifer was the prettiest, smartest, most perfect angel in Creation - except he had tremendous pride. That pride got him cast into Hell and turned into an abomination. Pride - believing you are somehow superior - is almost always the root of bad rebellion. Communism was the result of the October Revolution. Mass murder was the result of the French Revolution (which was done in hatred of the clergy and the king). Protestantism was the result of a revolution that called not for reform, but schism.

A good rebellion does not result in separation and hatred, but reconciliation and healing. That is why I consider the US rebellion a good rebellion, and the Protestant rebellion a bad one. The US has united people in global concern for others. Protestantism has divided them in more ways than I can count. About the only thing we all can agree on is that Jesus is (one way or another) our King. But we can’t even agree on some of the most basic rules beyond that.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Matt 18,19 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock** I will build my “church”,** and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

Who has theses “keys”, that can bind or loose anything today? Does the Bible have these keys? No! Why? Because Jesus Christ did not say: “I will build my Bible”. However Jesus Christ, did say: “I will build my Church”.

These keys to the kingdom are the words of Jesus. So, yes the bible being the word of God has the keys to the kingdom of God.

Does St. Peter have these Keys that can bind or loose? St. Peter had these Keys that can bind or loose, He does not have them anymore. Why? Because St. Peter is now heaven today.

He does not have them because he is dead.

Why did Jesus Christ, have to leave The Keys to a mere man, a man who denied Him three times? The truth is that these KEYS remain here on earth, in the One Church whom Jesus Christ built on Rock.

The truth is these keys are here on earth in the bible.

Now that Jesus Christ built His One and only Church on Peter, only means that His only Church began over 2000 years ago! Any other church is one to many, and can only be summed up to being, man made, not God made.

Jesus didn’t build His church on Peter. He built it upon Himself.

Matt 16
13When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? **
14And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
15He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? **16And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Jesus asks His disciples who people say that He is and who they think He is. Continueing in this line of thought it is Jesus who is the rock upon which His church was founded.

Truth is no man whether it be “Martin Luther”, nor You or I, can build a church on Peter. Why? Because, we mere man, can not do the building, there is only One builder, and that is Jesus Christ, who already built His Church on Rock over 2000 years ago…

Therefore Martin Luther, etc, etc, are only the builders of men made churches, which was not the will of Jesus Christ. How So? Well, to build a man made church is saying to Jesus Christ, your Church that you built Lord, has been prevailed by Hell, so now us men have to build another. Wrong!

Jesus said of His One Church: “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Surly Martin Luther, etc. etc. did not believe in the Lords Words.

So I beg/Pray all Protestants, come back HOME!

1 Corinthians 10
1Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
2And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
3And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
4And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

Christ’s church is comprised of those that drink of the same spiritual rock that Moses did

 

[wisdomseeker]

Let me try to say it clearer, tho I feel like I’m repeating the same words so not sure how else to convey this to you… I was commenting on your statement that “a rebellious mind is dangerous”… saying that is so not always true, especially in the case of Jesus!
He is the best example of a rebel with a cause!
(No, Wisdomgirl, I am not comparing Jesus to James Dean…)

Did he not show up and boldly present a completely different way of living, a new set of ideals and ideas and religion to the people than what everybody had been following and accepted for centuries?
Did he not speak and act contrary to the authority of the day and ruffle more than a few feathers and stir up trouble and controversy with his words and actions?

That, I think, is a rebel.
Then again, I only have a modern dictionary of the 20th Century to go by for that definition…

Jesus was never a rebellious man. please do not ever say this about our Lord. He was very obedient. all the things you mention has nothing to do with rebellious mind.

Jesus was chastizing the rebellious people and not the other way around. I am starting to wondering about you and your intentions.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Jesus didn’t build His church on Peter. He built it upon Himself.

Matt 16
13When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? **
14And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
15He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? **16And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Jesus asks His disciples who people say that He is and who they think He is. Continueing in this line of thought it is Jesus who is the rock upon which His church was founded.

Mat 16:16 Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.
Mat 16:17 And Jesus answering said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.
Mat 16:18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Mat 16:19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

Notice Christ didn’t change His train of thought in a continuous statement, with lots of ‘AND’ included showing He gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven and the power to bind and loose.

The Father in heaven chose Peter, through divine revelation.

While your interpretation is interesting, it’s not something one can easily agree with, without adding a spin to the discussion.

This is when Christ renamed Simon to Peter. Name changes in the Bible always carried great significance. Name changes in the Old Testament always included explanations. Abram becomes Abraham because God will make of him a great nation. Jacob becomes Israel because he contended and had power with God and with men and prevailed.

Simon becomes Peter, Kipha/rock, because his strength of faith would have Christ’s Church built upon it.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Welllll…he didn’t specify that he’s gonna build a church called “Catholic”–at least, not in this paraphrase. What if he meant in general a “church” that has all his good teachings…and many churches do teach all his good teachings. Webster’s defines church at the top of its list as “a building for public and especially Christian worship” and there are many of these with different names that teach his words, not only the church someone titled “Catholic”…but many.

Act 9:31 αιG3588 THE μενG3303 INDEED ουνG3767 THEN εκκλησιαιG1577 ASSEMBLIES καθG2596 THROUGHOUT οληςG3650 WHOLE τηςG3588 THE ιουδαιαςG2449 OF JUDEA καιG2532 AND γαλιλαιαςG1056 GALILEE καιG2532 AND σαμαρειαςG4540 SAMARIA ειχονG2192 [G5707] HAD ειρηνηνG1515 PEACE, οικοδομουμεναιG3618 [G5746] BEING BUILT UP καιG2532 AND πορευομεναιG4198 [G5740] GOING ON τωG3588 IN THE φοβωG5401 FEAR τουG3588 OF THE κυριουG2962 LORD, καιG2532 AND τηG3588 IN THE παρακλησειG3874 COMFORT τουG3588 OF THE αγιουG40 HOLY πνευματοςG4151 SPIRIT επληθυνοντοG4129 [G5712] WERE INCREASED.

G1577
ἐκκλησία
ekklēsia
ek-klay-see’-ah
From a compound of G1537 and a derivative of G2564; a calling out, that is, (concretely) a popular meeting, especially a religious congregation (Jewish synagogue, or Christian community of members on earth or saints in heaven or both): - assembly, church.

G2596
κατά
kata
kat-ah’
A primary particle; (preposition) down (in place or time), in varied relations (according to the case [genitive, dative or accusative] with which it is joined): - about, according as (to), after, against, (when they were) X alone, among, and, X apart, (even, like) as (concerning, pertaining to, touching), X aside, at, before, beyond, by, to the charge of, [charita-] bly, concerning, + covered, [dai-] ly, down, every, (+ far more) exceeding, X more excellent, for, from . . . to, godly, in (-asmuch, divers, every, -to, respect of), . . . by, after the manner of, + by any means, beyond (out of) measure, X mightily, more, X natural, of (up-) on (X part), out (of every), over against, (+ your) X own, + particularly, so, through (-oughout, -oughout every), thus, (un-) to (-gether, -ward), X uttermost, where (-by), with. In composition it retains many of these applications, and frequently denotes opposition, distribution or intensity.

G3650
ὅλος
holos
hol’-os
A primary word; “whole” or “all”, that is, complete (in extent, amount, time or degree), especially (neuter) as noun or adverb: - all, altogether, every whit, + throughout, whole.

Catholic is an adjective derived from the Greek adjective (katholikos), meaning “universal”.

thefreedictionary.com/catholic

Catholic

[Middle English catholik, universally accepted, from Old French catholique, from Latin catholicus, universal, from Greek katholikos, from katholou, in general : kat-, kata-, down, along, according to; see cata- + holou (from neuter genitive of holos, whole; see sol- in Indo-European roots).]

books.google.com/books?id=Jr0WAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA232&lpg=PA232&dq=kata+holos&source=bl&ots=jxfl2h_JjJ&sig=4cQ8soTtaZObBD7aURdWWUW2Tgo&hl=en&ei=lKKTTb-CL5GDtgeMgLVv&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=kata%20holos&f=false

The model etymology

newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm

St. Ignatius

Chapter 8. Let nothing be done without the bishop

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

That was written around 107AD; about the same time that John authored Revelation. He didn’t introduce the word, with explanation, because everyone already understood what the ‘Catholic’ Church was.

 

[7_Sorrows]

Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are equal but the authority to both is given by the Church Magesterium so the real authourity is with the Church Magesterium. Christ did not write the Bible and neither did he tell his disciples to write the Bible. He just taught them and they spread his Word at least for the first few decades after his resurrection through word of mouth which is called the Oral Tradition. Later on as the Church was growing, she must have felt the need to put down some of the Oral Tradition into writing. Many wrote but only few of the writings were given the authority of Scripture by the Church. It is the Church which has been given authority by Jesus when he gave Peter the power to bind and loose on earth and it will be considered bound or loosed in heaven. Sacred Scripture if it is considered as having the same authourity as the Church, then after the Bible was cannonized, any group which goes against the authority of the Church and obeys only the authority of Scripture (sola Scriptura) would be alright, but it is not so. The Bible has only part of the deposit of faith that Christ handed over to his apostles. Since it is part of that deposit, it still has authority. But if there are any questions about understanding of the Scripture, it is only the Church who in the first place gave authority to the Bible as inspired Scripture, who can give the correct interpretation under the umbrella of the Pope and his bishops. So the authority of the Church comes first and then the authority of Scripture. However since the authority of Scripture has been given to it by the church and the canon is closed now, no one, not even the Church will change anything in the Bible. So what is contained in the Bible has the authourity of the Church and it can be safely taught as God’s revelation albeit under the interpretation of the Church itself. Those who have considered the Bible as having equal authority as the Church have jumped to the conclusion, " Why then have two authorities that are equal? I will chose one and neglect the other." And this precisely the error of the Protestant Chuches that have been formed based on Sola Scriptura. As long as any Church is under the authority of the Pope who is the successor of Peter, the promise of Jesus to Peter applies to that Church, otherwise it is not under the safety of Christ and can always go astray. If the Protestant Church formed by Martin Luther based on solely the authority of Scripture was correct in the eyes of God, then there should have been only two churches today: one the Catholic Church under the authority of the Pope and one the Protestant Church under the authourity of Scripture alone. But because of this error of Sola Scriptura, the Protestant Churches have split and resplit to form thousands of denominations, which show that the gates of hell have prevailed against them. The Catholic Church under the authority of the Roman Pontiff has remained One Holy and Apostolic Church.

In fact the stool of the true church built by Christ on Peter stands firm because of three legs together: 1) The Church Tradition 2) The Church Magesterium 3) The Scripture. If any of these are lacking, the stool of the church becomes unstable and will collapse eventually. Only the Roman Catholic Church has all the three and hence it stands firm according to the divine promise of Christ given to Peter.

 

[rainman10]

Welllll…he didn’t specify that he’s gonna build a church called “Catholic”–at least, not in this paraphrase. What if he meant in general a “church” that has all his good teachings…**and many churches do teach all his good teachings. **Webster’s defines church at the top of its list as “a building for public and especially Christian worship” and there are many of these with different names that teach his words, not only the church someone titled “Catholic”…but many.

I ask, again, please list some of these churches you refer to that teach ALL His good teachings.

 

[wisdomseeker]

OY
I mean the word “rebel” as a compliment!
shaking my head]
You are not understanding the facts–and that’s cool, I understand why.
You must think the word “rebel” is a bad thing, so you will not allow yourself to see the connection between what the word means and put it into context with Yeshua and what he was doing and saying and how radically new and different he and his words and actions were for the times.

I’m done with this specific topic, except to take a sec to inform you that there are many, many, many scholars and priests, etc, who have used this adjective to describe the carpenter’s son in books, articles, sermons…

A few examples:

Christianity Today, posted 2/23/2010, from an article titled: “JESUS WAS A REBEL”:

"It’s not a stretch to say that Jesus was a rebel. He was. He was bucking the system, turning over tables, and saying all sorts of subversive things in the days when he was walking the earth. It is perfectly appropriate, then, for Christians to call Jesus a rebel or a subversive…"

---

A book review quote from Spirituality&Practice website, about the book *Jesus the Rebel: Bearer of God’s Peace and Justice *

“Jesuit priest, peace activist, and author John Dear sees Jesus as a rebel who opposed the culture of violence in his time with an inner peace and a startling love of his enemies. He was a troublemaker for the religious elite, the rulers, the war-making empire, and the establishment.”

---

From sermoncentral.com…a sermon titled “Jesus, the Rebel With a Cause” given by pastor Tim Smith:

sermoncentral.com/sermons/jesus-the-rebel-with-a-cause-tim-smith-sermon-on-jesus-christ-155283.asp?Page=1

And so on, and so forth…

No, what you are doing is putting things on the category of rebels when it should not be there. there was nothing rebellious about Jesus. He was obedient unto death.

Again, He chastized the disobedient and rebellious. The Truth correctiing the distorted and disobedient.

Once you identify the Truth and who the Truth is, you can understand what rebellious means.

 

[1voice]

This isn’t really a question in the sense that the question creates a false dichotomy. The Church produced the Bible. The Bible didn’t just fall out from the sky. As a matter of fact, Sacred Tradition preceded Sacred Scripture, because it was Sacred Tradition that dictated what books were to be included in Sacred Scripture (e.g. why the Book of Enoch is not included in the deuterocanonical Bible). Indeed, “Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written” (John 21:25), which indicates to us that not everything can be found in Scripture.

Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are equal; neither has more authority than the other.

A few thoughts and observations come to mind …

The entire value system is written down. The supporting evidence was far more than what was documented… but the info that is available is more than enough.

Jesus said clearly and specifically that every single word in the Bible had eternal value in his Father’s mind … and in his own. He said that even the smallest marks on the pages have deep, valuable meaning for our individual lives and will be fulfilled completely. That fulfillment, by definition, can have only one interpretation… God’s.
Men can only interpret the Bible if they are in right relationship with God and are led by the Holy Spirit. During that time (when Jesus lived as a man in Israel) the Jewish leadership used the written words in ways that made Jesus angry. He said that they would be judged very harshly based on their bad interpretation of the Bible and their way of implementing that bad interpretation. They had access to gaining the correct interpretation throughout the history of the Jewish people … but the story indicates that they repeatedly chose badly… to their detriment in every case.

… The Church can exist as an established system that interprets itself but that is not Gods criteria for the Church… Just as it was not God’s criteria for Old Testament Israel. Jesus, in the book of Revelation, revealed how he thinks about the Church. Each individual Church community was addressed as individual stand alone entities.Within that autonomy … Each had its strengths and weaknesses and each was judged according to God’s word… Not by their own particular interpretation of that word… In fact … bad interpretation was found within most of the Churches that Jesus addressed… and these were some of the first Churchs that the gates of hell would not prevail against … Jesus indicated here that the thing that the gates of hell would not prevail against was the correct interpretation and the living out of his words. “There is a way (of interpreting the Bible) that seems right … but at the end of that road is destruction.” … That biblical principle was already being seriously violated in the Churches established in its first century … to the point that Jesus had to give severe warnings.
God’s word always comes first in his mind…