Who Has Authority?

[jmcrae]

What kind of sources (specifically) are you looking for??? I’ll be glad to help, if I can.

For example, what is the historical link between Martin Luther and historical Christianity? (Who, outside of the Catholic Church (which excommunicated him for the things that he was teaching, so he obviously didn’t get his authority from anybody in the Catholic Church), who, in himself or herself having the chain of command unbroken from the time of the Apostles, ordained him as a Lutheran priest in an unbroken Apostolic succession, and granted him legitimate authority to teach the things that he taught in the name of Jesus Christ? Or any other Protestant leader.)

 

[Montalban]

Petergee:

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 difference between them.

I’m not at all. It’s simply irrelevant because regardless of what he does, you’ve still got to be in communion with him to be Catholic.

Petergee:

All popes are sinners. Catholics are most definitely NOT obliged to be in communion with their pope’s sin.

I didn’t say that. I said you have to be in communion with the person.

Petergee:

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.

It isn’t because he is still Protestant. He may not still be ‘Baptist’, or ‘Methodist’.

Petergee:

He has left the protestant denomination which he previously regarded as right and now regards as wrong, and joined another church with different beliefs. 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.

I am not supporting the Protestant position about ‘authority’ at all; I think that their church doesn’t have any. What I’m saying is that it is not hypocritical for them to be critical of a Papacy whilst their own leadership is in ‘error’ (as I continue to prefer to call it). The reason is because your leader and theirs are not the same type of leader with regards authority that they have. Yours has absolute authority - for you must remain in communion to be Catholic. They can break free and still be Protestant. Even if they’re not in communion with any leadership.

Montalban:

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.

Petergee:

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.

That’s only assuming that both priests are in communion, which is to add to what I said. I said you can leave a priest and go to another and be Catholic as long as the second is in communion with the Pope. That’s the end of that fact. It doesn’t matter to your ‘Catholicity’ whether you’re in communion with the first, whether he’s in communion with the Pope, or whether therefore he is, through the Pope in communion with you. Your catholicity depends on communion with the Pope.

A Protestant’s Protestantism doesn’t depend on being in communion with any church leader (except Jesus). And again, I must repeat, I am not arguing the merits of this in the sense that I don’t believe that the Protestant idea of an invisible church is correct. I must simply say again that I am arguing that they are not hypocritical because their own type of leadership differs from yours

Petergee:

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

I didn’t twist his words. He says what for him is the church and it doesn’t include a papacy, which is a level of office created above the bishop, as my various CATHOLIC sources showed. You appealing to incredulity, rather than deal with those sources is up to you.

In short; a ‘Moderator’ of the Presbyterian church holds different power, place and respect within that church to what the Pope does within the Catholic church. Any errors made by either are of course regretable, but the consequences to their own churches will differ because they hold different types of positions.

 

[Montalban]

Have you been ‘saved’ lately?

 

[Petergee]

If the Pope were to announce tomorrow that he has committed multiple murders and adulteries and intends to keep doing so, of course all Catholics would be very upset. But this would have no effect on the fact that he retains his apostolic teaching authority and that all who wish to call themselves Catholic must remain in communion with him. Your argument is baseless.

 

[Montalban]

If the Pope were to announce tomorrow that he has committed multiple murders and adulteries and intends to keep doing so, of course all Catholics would be very upset. But this would have no effect on the fact that he retains his apostolic teaching authority and that all who wish to call themselves Catholic must remain in communion with him. Your argument is baseless.

I didn’t argue it would have an effect on his apostolic teaching AT ALL.

I simply note that he, as a person in error is of more concern to you, because you still must be in communion with him, whilst he’s in error.

A Protestant can simply up and leave to another Protestant church if he’s upset with his leadership.

You’re stuck with a bad pope, if you get one BECAUSE you must be in communion with him to be Catholic (and not I say ‘with him’, not his sin. You don’t have to agree with him at all, or approve of his actions, but you still must be in communion with him)

He is the ‘unifying’ factor in your church. He thus plays a more crucial role in your church, than say the Moderator of the Presbyterian church does for a Protestant.

You simply, repatedly keep addressing points I’m not making

 

[shawn34_a]

You make a few mistakes here;

1. Christ told us He came to establish His Church. He promised His Spirit would guide that Church into “all truth”, that He would be with that Church “until the end of the age”, and that the gates of Hell would never prevail against that Church.
2. That Church didn’t come from the Bible, rather, it gave us the Bible in the late 4th century as a part of the deposit of faith.

Church defined according to the times of Christ
The word translated “church” in the English Bible is ekklesia. This word is the Greek words kaleo (to call), with the prefix ek (out). Thus, the word means “the called out ones.” However, the English word “church” does not come from ekklesia but from the word kuriakon, which means “dedicated to the Lord.” This word was commonly used to refer to a holy place or temple. By the time of Jerome’s translation of the New Testament from Greek to Latin, it was customary to use a derivative of kuriakon to translate ekklesia. Therefore, the word church is a poor translation of the word ekklesia since it implies a sacred building, or temple. A more accurate translation would be “assembly” because the term ekklesia was used to refer to a group of people who had been called out to a meeting. It was also used as a synonym for the word synagogue, which also means to “come together,” i.e. a gathering. “Body of Christ” Since believers have been united with Christ through spiritual baptism, they are sometimes corporately referred to as the body of Christ. (Rom. l2:4-5; 1 Cor. l2:11,13,l8,27; Col. l:l8; Eph. 5:30) The idea seems to be that the group of Christians in the world constitute the physical representation of Christ on earth. It is also a metaphor which demonstrates the interdependence of members in the church, while at the same time demonstrating their diversity from one another. (Rom. 12:4; 1 Cor. 12:14-17)

Matthew 18:19 “Again£ I say to you that if two of you agree on earth concerning anything that they ask, it will be done for them by My Father in heaven. 20For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.” This should sound real familiar from mass,

The Catholic Church is not God’s Church. The Church of Christ is an assembly of people that come together in God’s name.

Please, if you quote scripture, include the verse so that we can insure the proper context of it.

 

[Flying_Bison]

Besides the Catholic Church, (not including eastern churches)can any Protestant prove that they have a historical link to Early Christianity? Please prove with either beliefs, structure, or authority.

Nobody seems to ever answer my questions. They simply give bible verses that have absolutely no relation to the questions asked.

The silence is deafening. Before quoting scripture it would be wise to understand how the first christians interpreted it. They were taught, many of them, directly from the apostles.

So, quoting scripture and disregarding early Christian beliefs is simply ones modern interpretation, which is very biased from personal belief. No protestant CAN show proof of proper interpretaion of the scripture.

So, come on please show us how Protestantism can be a direct descendant of early Christian teachings an beliefs. This would validate interpretation of scripture.

I am still waiting for an answer.

 

[Flying_Bison]

Shawn you are wrong.

History shows us that the Apostles believed that a visible Church was needed to continue teachings.

Why would they have a Church with structure if it was useless? Check your Bible, the apostles had the Council of Jereusalem, apointed successors (eg. the successor to Judas), and had authority to make rule, specifically Peter was the head.

Why did Paul contiually call for Christian Unity?

For 1500 years there was no printing press most people couldn’t read. It was the Church that continued the faith. The Catholic Church kept the scriptures so the would not be destroyed.

Your NT Scripture was authorized by the Catholic Church as authentic. So, you must believe that the CC had some authority to do so because you believe that this is the real new testament.

2 peter states that scripture is not ones personal interpretation. Well, who’s is it? The only body in the time of 2 Peter that had authority to interpret was the Catholic Church.

If you can find a historical link between those that were close descendants of the Apostles and you interpretation I’ll buy it. Otherwise, it is simply your own slanted scriptural interpretation, which is biased toward your already held belief that there is not visible Church begun by Christ.

 

[shawn34_a]

The silence is deafening. Before quoting scripture it would be wise to understand how the first christians interpreted it. They were taught, many of them, directly from the apostles.

So, quoting scripture and disregarding early Christian beliefs is simply ones modern interpretation, which is very biased from personal belief. No protestant CAN show proof of proper interpretaion of the scripture.

So, come on please show us how Protestantism can be a direct descendant of early Christian teachings an beliefs. This would validate interpretation of scripture.

I am still waiting for an answer.

The first point I’d agree. Teachings were done by word of mouth or eye witness testimony.

Second point I would disagree with you. Christian beliefs are suppose to be rooted in scripture. Based on Jewish jurisprudence (2 or more witnesses are considered conclusive evidence), we can eliminate many of the misinterpretations of the scripture. Why do you think we have the Trinity? 1 of the 3 presense of God can testify for the other 2 (conclusivie evidence). Why do we have multiple Gospels? Conclusive evidence to the testimony of Christ.
One must only know where to look in the Bible to find multiple instances of the same event.

I’ve been asking for proof regarding multiple things in this forum from a Catholic standpoint. They generally are not able to quote scripture. Rather the typical response is a quote from someone other than Jesus. If all Catholic teachings are rooted in the Bible, how come Catholics have such a tough time justifying their positions with scripture? Maybe it’s because in a lot of cases, they cannot.

 

[shawn34_a]

Shawn you are wrong.

History shows us that the Apostles believed that a visible Church was needed to continue teachings.

Why would they have a Church with structure if it was useless? Check your Bible, the apostles had the Council of Jereusalem, apointed successors (eg. the successor to Judas), and had authority to make rule, specifically Peter was the head.

Why did Paul contiually call for Christian Unity?

For 1500 years there was no printing press most people couldn’t read. It was the Church that continued the faith. The Catholic Church kept the scriptures so the would not be destroyed.

Your NT Scripture was authorized by the Catholic Church as authentic. So, you must believe that the CC had some authority to do so because you believe that this is the real new testament.

2 peter states that scripture is not ones personal interpretation. Well, who’s is it? The only body in the time of 2 Peter that had authority to interpret was the Catholic Church.

If you can find a historical link between those that were close descendants of the Apostles and you interpretation I’ll buy it. Otherwise, it is simply your own slanted scriptural interpretation, which is biased toward your already held belief that there is not visible Church begun by Christ.

I don’t think so.

Easier points first. The CC and the Protestant denominations were all part of one physical Church at the time. Not until the reformation did they split off. So when you say the CC approved the Bible, lets not forget the that future Protestants also approved the Bible.

Not sure which verse your referencing in 2 Peter, but the word of God is God breathed. It is the true works of God.

The problem with early teachings they did not all preach the same teachings. This is what the call for unity was about. People were still following Mosaic laws for such things as circumcision. Thus the apostles needed to sort through the differences. Whether or not they needed a building remains to be said. As mentioned, the NT was not yet compiled for the foundation of the Church was not completed. The foundation was completed with John in Revelations.

The word ‘church’ in the New Testament is translated from the Greek word ‘ekklesia’ which comes from two words ‘ek’ meaning ‘out’ and ‘kaleo’ meaning to ‘call.’ An ekklesia or ‘calling out’ was not just an assembly. The words agora and paneguris as well as heorte, koinon, thiasos, sunagoge and sunago can all mean an assembly. The word ekklesia was a political term, not a religious term. Jesus was the King and the Bible used the term ekklesia for a good reason. In classical Greek “ekklesia” meant "an assembly of citizens summoned by the crier, the legislative assembly."1

Jesus himself said in Matthew 18:19 “Again£ I say to you that if two of you agree on earth concerning anything that they ask, it will be done for them by My Father in heaven. 20For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.” This should sound real familiar from mass,as I mentioned earlier.
He did not say that it had to be in a church or synagogue. This was mans interpretation. The Holy Spirit is with us where ever we gathered in him name. The Church is the whole assembly of Christians. Only Catholics seem to disagree with this. I’m Catholic and this drives me so crazy. They think they’re so righteous and everyone else is wrong.

OK. Many of the teachings of Christ were done through the witnessing of his works. So when we witness a priest, bishop, cardinal, or pope doing something reprehensible, it’s the CC then.

The true answer is in the gospel. Look to see what the original word was that was used.

 

[Petergee]

I didn’t argue it would have an effect on his apostolic teaching AT ALL.

Then you have no case. The Popes’ (and other bishops’) apostolic teaching is the whole point. Protestants say that they or their forbears had to leave the Church, because the Popes’ and bishops’ apostolic teaching must be false, because, they irrationally say, some Popes and bishops have been gravely sinful. Yet they hypocritically fail to apply the same rule to their own leaders. The precise role played by the leaders of each church is immaterial.

 

[Petergee]

The first point I’d agree. Teachings were done by word of mouth or eye witness testimony.

Second point I would disagree with you. Christian beliefs are suppose to be rooted in scripture.

What is **your **authority for telling Christians what they are “supposed” to believe? In fact your unfounded assertion contradicts itself, because there is nothing in scripture which supports it. It’s just your opinion. An opinion which not one Christian in the first 1500 years of Christianity held.

 

[Montalban]

Then you have no case.

So you say, having not even addressed the position of the Pope in relation to the Church - which I gave evidence for. Far from admitting you were wrong you simply go on.

The ‘bishop of bishops’ is a fact. The pope’s relationship to you is more binding than a Protestant in his relationship with his ‘leader’.

The Popes’ (and other bishops’) apostolic teaching is the whole point. Protestants say that they or their forbears had to leave the Church, because the Popes’ and bishops’ apostolic teaching must be false, because, they irrationally say, some Popes and bishops have been gravely sinful. Yet they hypocritically fail to apply the same rule to their own leaders. The precise role played by the leaders of each church is immaterial.

I have never denied that it is a shame when both leaders might be in error. What I have argued is that it is more problematical to you, because you must remain in ‘communion’ with your errant leader.

Once again you simply address an argument I’ve not made

 

[Petergee]

I don’t think so.

Easier points first. The CC and the Protestant denominations were all part of one physical Church at the time. Not until the reformation did they split off. So when you say the CC approved the Bible, lets not forget the that future Protestants also approved the Bible.

Only in the sense that in their youth they agreed with what the Catholic Church had decided more than 1000 years before they were born. Later they decided to throw out several books and parts of books, and tried to throw out several more, which contained passages which contradicted their novel teachings.

The true answer is in the gospel. Look to see what the original word was that was used.

As St Augustine said , "I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not influence me to do so."
Against the letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D.

Christ is the “Original Word”. He founded the Catholic church 40 to 70 years before the gospels were written and 350 years before the Pope and the Catholic bishops decided to recognise them as scripture. You recognise their authority to have done this. Why do you go to someone else for authority to interpret the books they have written, edited, published and preserved for so many centuries before your spiritual forebear Luther dreamed up the idea of “the Bible alone” to give some basis to his organisation after it was cut off from the Church which Christ founded?

 

[shawn34_a]

Only in the sense that in their youth they agreed with what the Catholic Church had decided more than 1000 years before they were born. Later they decided to throw out several books and parts of books, and tried to throw out several more, which contained passages which contradicted their novel teachings.
As St Augustine said , "I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not influence me to do so."
Against the letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D.

Christ is the “Original Word”. He founded the Catholic church 40 to 70 years before the gospels were written and 350 years before the Pope and the Catholic bishops decided to recognise them as scripture. You recognise their authority to have done this. Why do you go to someone else for authority to interpret the books they have written, edited, published and preserved for so many centuries before your spiritual forebear Luther dreamed up the idea of “the Bible alone” to give some basis to his organisation after it was cut off from the Church which Christ founded?

The Protestant church and the Catholic church were the same church for the first 1500 years. Not until the reformation did they split. During the time of the apostles, division existed and that was the reason for the Council of Jerusalem.

Bible differences:
At the time the Christian Bible was being formed, a Greek translation of Jewish Scripture, the Septuagint, was in common use and Christians adopted it as the Old Testament of the Christian Bible. However, around 100 A.D., Jewish rabbis revised their Scripture and established an official canon of Judaism which excluded some portions of the Greek Septuagint. The material excluded was a group of 15 late Jewish books, written during the period 170 B.C. to 70 A.D., that were not found in Hebrew versions of the Jewish Scripture. Christians did not follow the revisions of Judaism and continued to use the text of the Septuagint.
Protestant reformers in the 1500s decided to follow the official canon of Judaism for the Old Testament rather than the Septuagint, and the excluded material was placed in a separate section of the Bible called the Apocrypha. Protestant Bibles included the Apocrypha until the mid 1800s, but it was eventually dropped from most Protestant editions.
The Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches continue to base their Old Testament on the Septuagint. The result is that these versions of the the Bible have more Old Testament books than Protestant versions. Catholic Old Testaments include 1st and 2nd Maccabees, Baruch, Tobit, Judith, The Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), additions to Esther, and Susanna and Bel and the Dragon which are included in Daniel. Orthodox Old Testaments include these plus 1st and 2nd Esdras, Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151 and 3rd Maccabees.
The Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox New Testaments are identical.

twopaths.com/faq_bibles.htm

The teaching of the differences seem consistent through multiple sources.

When you say the pope and the bishops decided on what to adopt, you exclude the fact that the future Protestants decided too. They were the same church then. They only had different labels. Don’t get fixated on titles when you are talking prereformation for they were all one body within the Catholic church.

St Augustine would not believe in the gospel if not for the Catholic Church? I’m sure there is a lot more to it then just that. My beliefs stem from Jesus Christ and his word, not from anyone church. They may provide clarification or some additional insight, but my faith established before going to church.

 

[sterryfamily]

I have never denied that it is a shame when both leaders might be in error. What I have argued is that it is more problematical to you, because you must remain in ‘communion’ with your errant leader.

Once again you simply address an argument I’ve not made

Dude, what you are not getting is that Catholics are never “in union” with a pope’s personal sin. We are not in union with his error, we are in union with the teachings the Holy Spirit gives us through him which can never err.

 

[sterryfamily]

Christ promised to all of us that whatever he binds on earth will be bound in heaven, that Christ will send His Spirit to guide His Church into all truth, and that He is with that Church until the end of the age.

 

[sterryfamily]

My beliefs stem from Jesus Christ and his word, not from anyone church. They may provide clarification or some additional insight, but my faith established before going to church.

Your problem is that God communicated with and governed His people throughout salvation history through the use of covenants, all with covenant signs and covenant mediators.

Christ told us He came to establish his Church, not His book. He appointed its leaders and established its government and hierarchy and passed it on to us through his apostles. He speaks of the blood of the new covenant. Then he told that Chruch that any who reject them reject Him and the One who sent Him.

 

[Flying_Bison]

Well, I asked a simple question to the Protestants on the forum. Show me that they have a link to early Christianity.
I have not got ONE good answer.

Why? I am just given erronous facts that prove nothing and attacks on the CC.

The bible is the sole rule of faith = Assumption by Protestants and Not part of the early Church.

Body of Christ is invisible = Not to early Christians, they had a direct hierarchy that dictated and preserved Oral Traditions to avoid cooruption. This heirarchy is found in the BIBLE.

Catholics are Sinners = Guilty as Charged, that does not mean that the teachings are corrupted only the teacher is corrupted. Thomas Jefferson had sex with his slaves, do we then burn the Declaration of independence. Paul was a sinner, so was peter, so was Augustine, Thomas doubted … The Church has always had sinners, this does not make their teachings erronous.

Give me some EVIDENCE that your Protestant ideas are in line with EARLY Christians interpretations of Christianity.

Still Waiting…

 

[Flying_Bison]

Catholics beliefs come directly from Jesus Too!!!

When protestant say I follow Jesus. OK Great, So, do catholics.

The real question is what does following Jesus entail. To protestants it means throwing out all historical teachings of Christianity and self-interpretations of the Bible.

To Catholics it means taking beliefs from multiple sources, such as early Christian teachings AND Sacred scripture to determine the teachings of Jesus. It also means that the Church which is a direct descendant of the Apostles has greater authority to interpret than an idividual.

So who’s interpretaion is correct is the real question.

Catholic teaching has maintained its authenticity for 2000 years. Catholicism really does not change. History can prove that.

Protestantism changes every generation with new ideas of what Jesus really wanted. They are so corrupted by modern ideologies that interpretaion of the same book have varied so widely that their are ~ 30,000 different Protestant sects.

Lutherans - Calvinist - Methodists - Baptist - Presbyterians - Weslyans - Anglicans - Local “bible” churches - anabaptists - non-denoms (which by definition is a denom) - Etc. Who is right. All are reading the same book but have widely varying interpretaions.

So, by protestant definition the Body of Christ is a bunch of people claiming to be Christians, interprting chritianity any which way they please. OK everyone is welcome to have an opinion.