Who Has Authority?

[Montalban]

I going to blow you mind but here goes :
******THE OLD TESTAMENT IS SCRIPTURE.

JUST AS TRUE AND VALID AS THE NEW TESTAMENT.

It doesn’t blow my mind at all. I noted that Jesus was quoting from the old because the new wasn’t written.

I said…

Montalban:

Did He teach by Scripture alone? No. The “Scriptures” He taught with were different from the ones in the New Testament, because the New Testament didn’t exist.

Did the Apostles teach by Scripture alone? No. They also taught from the Old Testament because the New Testament did not exist.

And the fact remains Jesus did not teach from Scripture alone. Nor did the Apostles.

The Ethiopian found scriptures and a desire to learn insufficient; he had to be taught too. None of this you’ve bothered to deal with in the slightest.

ok what are the so called non biblical sources u think the church needs , how do you know they are vaid and true

I, unlike you, do not set myself up as the ultimate arbiter of what is true.

you have only the word of the CC

This is false. I’m not Catholic at all. I’m Orthodox.

face it many bad people have had leadership positions in the church.
do u trust everything that has passed throught their hands.

Rather strange argument to make.

Face it many individuals have had the Bible in their hands and lead themselves to all sorts of crack-pot ideas. So ‘individuality’ is not a guarantee either… by using your own measure. And note again, I’m not Catholic. I’m not going to defend popes at all.

 

[Montalban]

Montalban:

That would only be true if they believed in the same kind of leadership as Catholics do.

jmcrae:

That’s a double standard, don’t you think?

Not at all. If they don’t believe in an infallible leader and they judge someone else’s infallible leader against the claims of infallibility, then they are, as I see it perfectly justifiable in doing so. In fact it would be quite logical to judge someone against the claims that they make, as opposed against the claims of their own belief.

“We left the Church because the leader did a bad thing - but it’s okay if our leaders do bad things. We don’t leave just because our leaders are bad, because we’re here to worship Jesus.”

Which makes me want to ask, “What were you here for, when you were in the Catholic Church?” And what changed when you became Protestant?

Well one can of course argue that they both did bad things, but it is less of a problem in their over-all scheme if they think that person has less consequences to the system as a whole.

For instance, if a school-principal stole $12,000,000 and the President stole $100,000 the consequences to the USA’s politics would be greater in the latter example, even though more was stolen by the former.

So they would be the type who see school principals as the head, and you see the President. You might be able to point to another dozen principals all guilty of other crimes, but the single instance of the leader of the ‘free world’ committing a crime is still a much more serious event, due to the higher level of authority claimed by that office.

Montalban:

To be Catholic, you must be in communion with the Pope in Rome.

jmcrae:

To be Protestant, you have to be in communion with like-minded Protestants.

Maybe they can have a church of ‘one’?

Montalban:

To be a Protestant you might only need have a personal relationship with God, so no matter how corrupt your own teachers are, they’d reason that it doesn’t matter because there’s no ‘mediator’ between them and God.

jmcrae:

The Pope doesn’t prevent anyone from having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Not even the worst Pope ever stopped anybody from praying or from attending Mass.

The Pope is however an extra stage in the church, absent from the early church as evidenced in the writings of Ignatius
“In like manner, let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the Father, and the presbyters as the Sanhedrim of God, and assembly of the apostles. Apart from these, there is no Church.”

Ignatius -

“The Epistle to the Trallians”, Chapter III

ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-18.htm#P1604_276864

(there’s no ‘bishop of bishops’ between the bishop and Jesus)

 

[santaro75]

JESUS CHRIST is the head of the church and has all authority as he stated in the bible.

There fore his church has authority. His church is the invisible body of believers that believe in him.

He alone is the rock, the corner stone, the way, the truth and the light! only he is the living bread and the living water. Only his blood can take away our sins.

so the answer is, Jesus christs church!

 

[BobCatholic]

There is nothing in this world more important than the salvation of our souls. I am not interested in a “close-enough Christianity.” That is not what our Savior intended.

Yup. Galatians 1:9, we gotta stick to the ORIGINAL GOSPEL, not any other gospel.

And protestants expect us to believe that:

God, through the Holy Spirit, used Godly men to write down the scriptures, copy the scriptures, translate the scriptures, preserve the scriptures, and make sure that you could hold in your hands the scriptures which you claim are authoritative. They were preserved in this manner. They were preserved 100% from error.

However, for some reason, the Apostolic Interpretation of Scripture was passed from the Apostles to the first generation of followers and then lost, for it doesn’t exist anymore “apart from scripture”

Right. That’s an interesting bill of goods they’re selling

 

[jmcrae]

JESUS CHRIST is the head of the church and has all authority as he stated in the bible.

There fore his church has authority.

So far, I agree with you.

His church is the invisible body of believers that believe in him.

No where in the New Testament (or the Old, as far as I know) do we find Christ’s Church described as “invisible” - quite the contrary. Saul/Paul could see it; the Emperor of Rome could see it - everyone could see it. It was locatable in space and time. Its membership could be known by non-members. Its places of worship and its customs were shared by all of the membership.

Christ established a visible institution, and put particular people (the Apostles) in authority over it, with Peter over all. They appointed successors, who in their turn appointed successors, on down to the present day - His Church is still here today, following the same teachings and using the same Sacraments as we had back then.

If the Church had been invisible, the Council of Jerusalem (recorded in Acts 15) could not have occurred, since no one would have recognized its authority, nor would they have felt required to submit to its conclusions or obey its commands - yet they did, which shows us that the Church had temporal (earthly) authority to tell the membership what to believe and how to behave. Nobody could have been called “a Christian” who disobeyed the Jerusalem Council, or who privately through Scripture alone came to a different conclusion than what the Holy Spirit showed to the leaders of Christ’s Church at that Council.

He alone is the rock, the corner stone, the way, the truth and the light! only he is the living bread and the living water. Only his blood can take away our sins.

so the answer is, Jesus christs church!

So then, get going and get into it - quit your man-made 15th (16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th, or even 21st) century imitator, and get into the real thing - the original - the one that Christ actually founded in 33 AD.

 

[shawn34_a]

The Catholic Church never erred in its teaching as far as dogma or doctrine. Some of its members were abusing their positions and erred in their actions. The Reformation was a lot more than a refuttal of abuses. It was one man’s theology dictating how he felt Christianity should be. The abuses he was right about. Many of his other beliefs, no!!! He started a snowball of self-proclaimed “authorities” and a complete mess of Christian unity.

There is only One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Do not capitalize Catholic in your closure. Check your references for it is lower case referring to universal, not the Religion. That too is how it was explained to me in the RCIA.

 

[shawn34_a]

That would only be true if they believed in the same kind of leadership as Catholics do.

To be Catholic, you must be in communion with the Pope in Rome.

To be a Protestant you might only need have a personal relationship with God, so no matter how corrupt your own teachers are, they’d reason that it doesn’t matter because there’s no ‘mediator’ between them and God.

Just a question. We know that Satan will have his own Trinity which will consist of satan, the antichrist, and false prophet. If the false prophet is a corrupt Pope, how will you respond when forced to worship the beast? Being in communion with the Pope in Rome, are you going to worship him as commanded? Why would not Satan go after the Catholic church for it is the largest denomination?
I personally prefer being in communion with Christ, not the Pope. Rome has to much money, power, and influence to not be concerned. They also don’t have the prettiest history either. I know it’s suppose to be the people and not the church itself, but does it matter if you accept the mark of the beast?

 

[PaulDupre]

Just a question. We know that Satan will have his own Trinity which will consist of satan, the antichrist, and false prophet. If the false prophet is a corrupt Pope, how will you respond when forced to worship the beast?

Whatever gave you the idea that the “false prophet” will be a corrupt pope?

 

[shawn34_a]

Whatever gave you the idea that the “false prophet” will be a corrupt pope?

Look at the history of the Holy Roman Empire. It always consisted of a political and spiritual leader. In each instance the spiritual leader was the pope.
Now in Daniel’s dream, the iron represented the Roman Empire. You notice that it’s the only instance in which an element was carried forward and mingled with clay. History has shown that the clay and iron do not mix. For each time there was a clash and falling apart due to a power struggle between the two.
If there is going to be a one world government and religion in the end times, wouldn’t it make sense that the pope would head up the one world religion. Catholic in itself means universal. Being that it’s the largest religious sect, wouldn’t it make sense that the antichrist would attack it?

 

[sterryfamily]

Do not capitalize Catholic in your closure. Check your references for it is lower case referring to universal, not the Religion. That too is how it was explained to me in the RCIA.

Actually, from the earliest hostory, the capital is proper. Catholic comes from the Greek Kata + Holos meaning "according to the whole. While it can be used to refer to the universal body of “Catholics” it most commonly referred to the bishops in union with Rome. It was used to point to Church councils as they meeted out church belief that was passed down apostolically. Whenever doctrine was challenged, the bishops met in council to determine what the “whole” church believed.

 

[sterryfamily]

Just a question. We know that Satan will have his own Trinity which will consist of satan, the antichrist, and false prophet. If the false prophet is a corrupt Pope, how will you respond when forced to worship the beast? Being in communion with the Pope in Rome, are you going to worship him as commanded? Why would not Satan go after the Catholic church for it is the largest denomination?
I personally prefer being in communion with Christ, not the Pope. Rome has to much money, power, and influence to not be concerned. They also don’t have the prettiest history either. I know it’s suppose to be the people and not the church itself, but does it matter if you accept the mark of the beast?

Actually Satan HAS been attacking the Catholic church for 2000 years. He is very interested in confusing the masses and tearing apart the Church that Jesus Christ established for us in Heaven and on earth. That is why he uses his earthly agents to spread false and misleading information about her and why he has for centuries.

 

[shawn34_a]

Actually, from the earliest hostory, the capital is proper. Catholic comes from the Greek Kata + Holos meaning "according to the whole. While it can be used to refer to the universal body of “Catholics” it most commonly referred to the bishops in union with Rome. It was used to point to Church councils as they meeted out church belief that was passed down apostolically. Whenever doctrine was challenged, the bishops met in council to determine what the “whole” church believed.

Maybe it changed somewhere along the line, but while going through the RCIA it was lower cased. To date at the church I attend, the programs handed out before mass have it lower cased.

 

[Petergee]

Not at all. If they don’t believe in an infallible leader and they judge someone else’s infallible leader against the claims of infallibility, then they are, as I see it perfectly justifiable in doing so. In fact it would be quite logical to judge someone against the claims that they make, as opposed against the claims of their own belief.

You are confusing infallibility (the Holy Spirit protecting the pope and all the bishops from teaching doctrinal error) with impeccability (sinlessness). Infallibility doesn’t come into the question. Some of the medieval popes were notorious sinners. This has nothing to do with their infallibility.

Well one can of course argue that they both did bad things, but it is less of a problem in their over-all scheme if they think that person has less consequences to the system as a whole.

For instance, if a school-principal stole $12,000,000 and the President stole $100,000 the consequences to the USA’s politics would be greater in the latter example, even though more was stolen by the former.

So they would be the type who see school principals as the head, and you see the President. You might be able to point to another dozen principals all guilty of other crimes, but the single instance of the leader of the ‘free world’ committing a crime is still a much more serious event, due to the higher level of authority claimed by that office.

Not really. If a man is a thief, that has an effect on whatever institution he is charge of, whether it is the UN, the USA, a school or just his own family. If a Christian leader commits a sin, that has a similar effect on his church, no matter how big or small it is. If a protestant says “catholicism is doctrinally wrong because some popes were grievous sinners”, it is breathtakingly hypocritical to say “(my denomination of) protestantism is doctrinally correct in spite of the fact that some of its leaders were/are grievous sinners”.

The Pope is however an extra stage in the church, absent from the early church as evidenced in the writings of Ignatius
“In like manner, let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the Father, and the presbyters as the Sanhedrim of God, and assembly of the apostles. Apart from these, there is no Church.”

Ignatius means that anyone who is cut off from the bishops, priests and deacons is not part of the Church. It is a severe distortion of his words to claim that he means “you must not have any other title or level of authority in the church other than bishop, priest and deacon”. If you argue that St Ignatius is implying there must be no Pope, you must, to be consistent, also argue that he means there must be no patriarchs, archbishops, exarchs, eparchs, Parish Priests, abbots, monks, nuns, Presidents of the Parish Council, etc.etc.

It’s a very weak argument to say that just because Ignatius doesn’t mention the word Pope in this phrase, that he is opposed to the idea of even having a pope. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

(there’s no ‘bishop of bishops’ between the bishop and Jesus)

You seem to have a severe misunderstanding of what Catholics claim the Pope to be. He is not a “bishop of bishops”. Whoever told you that phrase is being mischievous. The pope is the bishop of Rome. Catholics believe there are only three orders of the Sacrament of Holy Orders - deacon, priest and bishop. A man who becomes pope does not take on any imagined higher order than bishop. He merely becomes leader of the other bishops and the Church in succession to Peter, as Christ commanded as recorded in the Gospels.

 

[Petergee]

Maybe it changed somewhere along the line, but while going through the RCIA it was lower cased. To date at the church I attend, the programs handed out before mass have it lower cased.

When talking about the Church, it really makes no difference to the meaning whether Catholic has a small or large C. Capital letters were only invented several centuries after the word Catholic had been used to describe the Church. Maybe your RCIA leaders had some silly idea that using a small c displays their modesty or humility. The normal convention in English is that adjectives which are proper names describing the attributes of formally constituted groups of people have a capital letter. eg “French lessons”, “the Jones family”, “the Catholic Church”.

 

[jmcrae]

Do not capitalize Catholic in your closure. Check your references for it is lower case referring to universal, not the Religion. That too is how it was explained to me in the RCIA.

Your RCIA teacher made an error - the “catholic” in the Creeds refers to the Catholic Church.

When our Creeds were being formulated in 70 AD and again in 325 AD, there was only one Church, so there was no separation in meaning - the Catholic Church (the religion) is the catholic church - the world-wide community of persons who believe the universal truth about Jesus Christ.

 

[Flying_Bison]

Many here have said that the Church invented the Papacy, there was no leader or position of distinction etc.

So, when was the Papacy (bishop of Rome) given the role of head of the church? Why was their not multiple little churches all claiming authority until the institution of the Pope?

Why do Anglicans believe that the Pope is the legitimate successor of Peter, but don’t believe that he has authority, but many other protestants don’t even think Peter had authority etc.

The reason is that there is sound evidence from history that the Bishop of Rome had a Special place in the Church.

The Roman empire in the west was all but destroyed by the sixth century. It had no political power and was lost in barbarism. The East became the Byzantine Empire. It was the most dominant Empire in the World. Why did they even listen to a Bishop in a Western Barbarian city when they were the Center of Culture and learning in the world? This is because it was the See of Peter, the head of the Church.

To deny the Primacy of the bishop of Rome is simply to deny history. The bible proves that peter was the leader of the Apostles and as early as the 2nd century it had certainly emerged that the successor of Peter in Rome was known in the Church.

The reason that this was never questioned in the early church is because it was universally accepted. It was not until 1054 that the East separated from the west that Papal authority was questioned. The East was rich and the most powerful empire in the world. They were not going to let some guy in Rome have authority.
Same with Henry VIII.
Same with Martin Luther.
People only began to challenge the primacy of Rome when it challenged personal beliefs and freedom. Not because Rome is wrong, but because having a Pope does not allow all to interperet as they please.

 

[Montalban]

882: The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, “is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.” “For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.”

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/882.htm

Montalban:

Not at all. If they don’t believe in an infallible leader and they judge someone else’s infallible leader against the claims of infallibility, then they are, as I see it perfectly justifiable in doing so. In fact it would be quite logical to judge someone against the claims that they make, as opposed against the claims of their own belief.

Petergee:

You are confusing infallibility (the Holy Spirit protecting the pope and all the bishops from teaching doctrinal error) with impeccability (sinlessness). Infallibility doesn’t come into the question. Some of the medieval popes were notorious sinners. This has nothing to do with their infallibility.

No. I’m not. I understand the difference. I am not even arguing against this system, but illustrating why a Protestant can criticise Catholicism, even when both have a corrupt leader. You are pegging a lot more authority on one person than they are. It is thus a lot more critical to your faith than to theirs. ESPECIALLY when you have to be in communion with the Pope to be Catholic. So even if the Pope is personally in error, you still have to be in communion with them. You could have a Pope who is in an immoral relationship, and even though you as a Catholic might personally feel that it is sinful, you still must be in communion with him in order to be defined as Catholic. In that sense the difference between his personal belief and his ability to speak infallibly is irrelevant.

Petergee:

Not really. If a man is a thief, that has an effect on whatever institution he is charge of,

Only to the degree that he has charge of it. That is the point. If the ‘head’ of one church is only, say, an 'honorary head, and has no real power then it’s totally different from a Pope. And the other difference as mentioned is that you must be in communion with the Pope. A protestant could just walk away from that church, go to another and still remain Protestant.

The point about ‘similar’ effect doesn’t work because of the fluidity of the meaning of ‘church’ for that Protestant.

Petergee:

Ignatius means that anyone who is cut off from the bishops, priests and deacons is not part of the Church. It is a severe distortion of his words to claim that he means “you must not have any other title or level of authority in the church other than bishop, priest and deacon”. If you argue that St Ignatius is implying there must be no Pope, you must, to be consistent, also argue that he means there must be no patriarchs, archbishops, exarchs, eparchs, Parish Priests, abbots, monks, nuns, Presidents of the Parish Council, etc.etc.

It’s not a distortion. You can cease communion with your priest, go to another priest and still be Catholic as long as you are linked by communion to the Pope. For Ignatius the link of communion stops at the bishop.

He stated all churches headed by a bishop are Catholic (Smyrnaeans 8), not the Pope, not a bishop of bishops, not power held only reference to Rome.

He stated nothing should be done without the bishop (Smyrnaeans 8), not Pope, not reference to Rome. RCC teaching allows the Pope to interfere in a bishopric.

The structure of the church has no place above Bishop (Trallians 3), not Pope, no reference to Rome

The bishop holds all power (Trallians 7), not Pope, not only in reference to Rome

He states that there’s no one above the bishop, save for Jesus (Letter to Polycarp; Romans 9), not the Pope, not only in reference to Rome

He stated all churches headed by a bishop are Catholic (Smyrnaeans 8), not the Pope, not a bishop of bishops, not power held only reference to Rome.

He stated nothing should be done without the bishop (Smyrnaeans 8), not Pope, not reference to Rome. RCC teaching allows the Pope to interfere in a bishopric.

The structure of the church has no place above Bishop (Trallians 3), not Pope, no reference to Rome

The bishop holds all power (Trallians 7), not Pope, not only in reference to Rome

He states that there’s no one above the bishop, save for Jesus (Letter to Polycarp; Romans 9), not the Pope, not only in reference to Rome

 

[Montalban]

Petergee:

It’s a very weak argument to say that just because Ignatius doesn’t mention the word Pope in this phrase, that he is opposed to the idea of even having a pope. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

It’s precisely because he excludes the Pope it’s important. He says there is no other church besides these that he names. The very fact therefore that the Pope is not there is the very point.

Petergee:

You seem to have a severe misunderstanding of what Catholics claim the Pope to be. He is not a “bishop of bishops”. Whoever told you that phrase is being mischievous. The pope is the bishop of Rome. Catholics believe there are only three orders of the Sacrament of Holy Orders - deacon, priest and bishop. A man who becomes pope does not take on any imagined higher order than bishop. He merely becomes leader of the other bishops and the Church in succession to Peter, as Christ commanded as recorded in the Gospels.

SO many Catholics make this very mistake.
881: The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the “rock” of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock. “The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head.” This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church’s very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/881.htm

That is, he’s a bishop above all other bishops.

“The title Universal Bishop may also be used in the sense of Bishop of Bishops…”

ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ152.HTM

Even the Church recognises it, as a back-handed compliment…

Tertullian. Tertullian’s bitter polemic, “De Pudicitia” (about 220), was called forth by an exercise of papal prerogative. Pope Callistus had decided that the rigid discipline which had hitherto prevailed in many Churches must be in large measure relaxed. Tertullian, now lapsed into heresy, fiercely attacks “the peremptory edict”, which “the supreme pontiff, the bishop of bishops”, has sent forth. The words are intended as sarcasm: but none the less they indicate clearly the position of authority claimed by Rome. And the opposition comes, not from a Catholic bishop, but from a Montanist heretic.

newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm

In fact Catholic Answers uses this very quote as a ‘proof’ of the Papacy

Tertullian

I hear that there has even been an edict set forth. . . . The Great Pontiff-that is, the bishop of bishops *-issues an edict: “I remit, to such as have discharged penance, the sins both of adultery and of fornication.” (Modesty 1 [A.D. 220])

catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0107frs.asp

And not just once!

catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9702frs.asp

"Only an acontextual rendering of history can lead an anti-Catholic apologist to declare, as does James White, that there was no “concept of a single universal head of the Church over everyone else.” There are explicit references to the pope being considered such. St. Ignatius (ca. 110), bishop of Antioch, speaks of the Roman Church as having “presidency” (Letter to the Romans) while Tertullian (220), in his heretical phase, mocks the pope as “bishop of bishops” (On Modesty). The bishop of Rome was addressed by the fathers at the Council of Arles (314) as their “most holy lord”; at Sardica (342)-attended by bishops of West and East, including Athanasius-the pope was addressed as the “head”; and at Milevis (416) as “chief.”

At Ephesus (431) no objection was made when the papal legates spoke of the pope as the “holy head,” and by way of being Peter’s successor as “head of the whole faith” and “head of the Apostles.” Nor at Chalcedon were objections raised to the pope being called “the head of all the churches” and “archbishop of all the churches” by the papal legates. The emperor Constantinople III (680) refers to the pope as “sacred head.” Other examples are rife.

catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9904fea2.asp

Thus they are arguing that in effect he is a ‘bishop of bishops’

Thus, he doesn’t simply have an honorific role. He can actually interfere in every bishopric. He can establish positions in which a person reports directly to him, and not the bishop. Thus the true context of Ignatius is understood. To him there is no position higher than a bishop, save for Jesus.*

 

[Petergee]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Montalban
Not at all. If they don’t believe in an infallible leader and they judge someone else’s infallible leader against the claims of infallibility, then they are, as I see it perfectly justifiable in doing so. In fact it would be quite logical to judge someone against the claims that they make, as opposed against the claims of their own belief.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Petergee
You are confusing infallibility (the Holy Spirit protecting the pope and all the bishops from teaching doctrinal error) with impeccability (sinlessness). Infallibility doesn’t come into the question. Some of the medieval popes were notorious sinners. This has nothing to do with their infallibility.

No. I’m not. I understand the difference. I am not even arguing against this system, but illustrating why a Protestant can criticise Catholicism, even when both have a corrupt leader. You are pegging a lot more authority on one person than they are. It is thus a lot more critical to your faith than to theirs. ESPECIALLY when you have to be in communion with the Pope to be Catholic. So even if the Pope is personally in error, you still have to be in communion with them. You could have a Pope who is in an immoral relationship, and even though you as a Catholic might personally feel that it is sinful, you still must be in communion with him in order to be defined as Catholic. In that sense the difference between his personal belief and his ability to speak infallibly is irrelevant.

Despite your denial, it seems that you do not understand the difference between a pope “teaching doctrinal error” and a pope “committing personal sin” (“error” as you call it). Or more likely, given your hectoring polemic tone, you are deliberately trying to obscure the clear differnce between them. All popes are sinners. Catholics are most definitely NOT obliged to be in communion with their pope’s sin. In fact they are compelled NOT to be in communion with his sin. They are compelled to be in communion with his doctrinal teaching. And we know that the Holy Spirit will never allow a pope to teach that “immoral relationships” are moral. We don’t “personally feel” this, we know it.

Only to the degree that he has charge of it. That is the point. If the ‘head’ of one church is only, say, an 'honorary head, and has no real power then it’s totally different from a Pope. And the other difference as mentioned is that you must be in communion with the Pope. A protestant could just walk away from that church, go to another and still remain Protestant.

As millions of them do all the time. But as protestants are constantly reminding us, “protestant” is not a single church. So to say that he “still remains protestant” in that sense is misleading. He has left the protestant denomination which he previously regarded as right and now regards as wrong, and joined another church with different beleifs. He now says that his new church’s beliefs are the right ones. But its source of authority is just as illusionary as that of his previous church. The original question still goes unanswered - who gave them authority to interpret scripture correctly?? The silence from protestants in this thread is deafening.

It’s not a distortion. You can cease communion with your priest, go to another priest and still be Catholic as long as you are linked by communion to the Pope.

Wrong. If both priests are in communion with the pope, you are in communion with the first-mentioned priest as well. Catholics believe we are in communion with all other catholics, most of whom we will never meet in this life.

For Ignatius the link of communion stops at the bishop.

NO, he didn’t say anything of the sort, no matter how you try to twist and add to his words.

 

[shawn34_a]

Your RCIA teacher made an error - the “catholic” in the Creeds refers to the Catholic Church.

When our Creeds were being formulated in 70 AD and again in 325 AD, there was only one Church, so there was no separation in meaning - the Catholic Church (the religion) is the catholic church - the world-wide community of persons who believe the universal truth about Jesus Christ.

I just checked my Celebrating the Mass book given out during the RCIA class. It too has it lower cased. It makes reference to the universal church of Christ, not the denomination.