Who Has Authority?

[sterryfamily]

.

Really? Peter and Paul had some very real disagreements… And Peter, not once, but three times, said ‘I never knew him’. Don’t misunderstand me, I love Peter, but what was correct teaching among the apostles was always what was agreed collectively in the context of the church - not just ‘Peter said this, therefore it’s right’. They discerned in the context of the groups experience and sense of God.

In the council of Jerusalem, it is when Peter finally speaks that all fall silent. This closed the matter

.
Of course it isn’t. The Bible without the Holy Spirit would be nothing but a collection of historic writings. We need the involvement and inspiration of God. I just don’t reckon God reserves his inspiration to a hierarchy. If GOd wants to speak to a Anglican archbishop, or a Mennonite volunteer worker, and reveal God’s truth to them, God will. I don’t believe God limits Godself to one institution.

According to the early Church fathers, the Spirit guided the heirarchy to lovingly shepherd us. The idea that the Spirit guides each individual into “all truth” would have been laughable. (Ask any two or three or hundred people with differing interpretations of a scriptural passage how they know their interpretation is true and they will tell you it comes from the Holy Spirit. - Clearly not.)

 

[sterryfamily]

.
I don’t believe God limits Godself to one institution.

As He limited himself to His chosen people, Israel, in the Old Testament, so in the New Testament He sends His Spirit to guide the Church He promised us.

 

[jmcrae]

Hierarchy of apostles when Jesus first left yes. The Church foundation was to be built upon Peter. But where was the command to pass it on?

In Matthew 16:18, as you’ve already been told at least a hundred times. “I give you the keys” is the signal that this is a mayoralty or a prime ministership; it’s not just “Hey Simon, I’m renaming you Peter (which means “rock”) just for the kicks of it; it doesn’t really mean anything very important since I’m really “the rock;” not you, and by the way, I’m giving you a set of keys for no specific reason.” No, Jesus is making him the leader of the whole Church and giving him the authority (“keys”) to set policy for that Church (which is why in Acts 15 he could get rid of the kosher law, even though there was nothing in Scripture giving any precedent for that, and admit gentiles into the fellowship of the Church despite there being no precedent for that either) and pass it down through the generations until the end of time.

Most of the NT was written in Greek. Church comes from the Greek word Ekklesia (sp?) which means “an assembly.” Christ said, where two are more are gathered in my name, there He is in the midst of them. So a church doesn’t even need a physical structure, only a spiritual one. A church can be in a park, your house, or on a boat. [/quopte]

So if a group of atheists get together for a barbecue, this is a Church? Jesus is among them?

Peter and the original apostles were the foundation. Like any house, first you must have a foundation. They went out and built that foundation on the word of Christ through the witnessing of the word.
The road can lead to two valid paths:

1. The apostolic succession is the house that is being built. Further justifying it you could say, why would one build a foundation and not a house.
2. Once the foundation (Peter’s teachings) was built, why continue building it. He and the other apostles spread the word so that it would auto-populate. The disciples they influenced would make disciples of others.

Into the same Church though - not some different one.

 

[RNRobert]

.

Really? Peter and Paul had some very real disagreements… And Peter, not once, but three times, said ‘I never knew him’. Don’t misunderstand me, I love Peter, but what was correct teaching among the apostles was always what was agreed collectively in the context of the church - not just ‘Peter said this, therefore it’s right’. They discerned in the context of the groups experience and sense of God.

Yes, Peter and Paul disagreed, but it was about practice, not doctrinal issues. The Popes do teach in concert with the Bishops (which is why they have councils). But remember, it was Peter, and Peter alone, who declared that Gentiles were to enter the church.

Of course it isn’t. The Bible without the Holy Spirit would be nothing but a collection of historic writings. We need the involvement and inspiration of God. I just don’t reckon God reserves his inspiration to a hierarchy. If GOd wants to speak to a Anglican archbishop, or a Mennonite volunteer worker, and reveal God’s truth to them, God will. I don’t believe God limits Godself to one institution.

If a Jehovah’s Witness says that God told him Jesus was merely an Angel, and an Episcopalian says God told him he Jesus was God, who is to be believed? They can’t both be right. Similarly, if a Lutheran believes the Bible teaches that Jesus is present in the Lord’s Supper, and a Baptist believes that its nothing more than a memorial meal, who is to be believed? Is God the author of confusion? Who is the ultimate arbiter? Remember, Jesus, Paul, Jude, and John had harsh words for false teachers. If two people proclaim two contradicting doctrines, they can’t both be true. Whichever one is true, then the other must be shunned.

 

[shawn34_a]

As He limited himself to His chosen people, Israel, in the Old Testament, so in the New Testament He sends His Spirit to guide the Church He promised us.

You can’t possibly believe that if your Catholic. I thought the Muslims, because they share in the same faith of Abraham, were included in God’s plan of salvation.

 

[jmcrae]

You can’t possibly believe that if your Catholic. I thought the Muslims, because they share in the same faith of Abraham, were included in God’s plan of salvation.

Being included in the plan of salvation in no way equates to being saved or even close to it. All it means is that they are not predestined to damnation; there is hope for them if they choose to convert.

 

[sterryfamily]

You can’t possibly believe that if your Catholic. I thought the Muslims, because they share in the same faith of Abraham, were included in God’s plan of salvation.

The church has always taught that all people are included in God’s plan of salvation. It is, however, up to us to accept it or reject it.

 

[mrs_abbott]

The church has always taught that all people are included in God’s plan of salvation. It is, however, up to us to accept it or reject it.

:yup:

 

[KathleenElsie]

The church has always taught that all people are included in God’s plan of salvation. It is, however, up to us to accept it or reject it.

 

[Spirithound]

.Hi, Im not so sure you can back that up. According to Orthodoxy they have. Obviously protestants do as well otherwise they would not have broke away.

Have you read anything by the Early Church Fathers? Perhaps something by St. Augustine, other than The Confessions? No matter…I, and my fellow Catholics, can answer any alleged change in doctrine. Unfortunately, there’s just too much to go over if we were to prove everything ourselves.

There are divisions amongst catholics as well as protestants.

No…not really…all those ppl who claim to be Catholic, but support abortion, or disbelieve another Church doctrine are not in communion with the Church.

Actually all of the protestants I know(and we go to different denoms)all believe in the same doctrines of faith.

Then you need to discuss more. I suggest discussing baptism (infant/adult, immersion/sprinkling, regenerative/symbolic), or predestination. If at the end of an hour of discussion you still agree, ask each other why you attend different churches.

I dont label anyone in the Christian faith a heretic That would be judgemental.

Again, I respectfully disagree (and I hope i have been respectful). It’s simply holding your brother or sister in Christ up to a higher standard of holiness. Calling someone a heretic is not the same as telling them they’re going to hell. It’s sort of along the lines of…2 guys are walking along the sidewalk, and a pretty girl walks by. The first guy says to the second, “Hey Trevor, I noticed that you were looking at that girl. I hope you aren’t entertaining lustful thoughts.”
Cheers, and God bless

 

[Petergee]

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.
…
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.

What? You’re claiming that in the FOURTH century there were “future protestants” among the Pope and bishops who decided on the canon of scripture? Name one of them?

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.

Yes but that’s the gist of it.

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.

There’s your problem. You’ve made up your own religion and THEN looked around for any old (or new) church which more or less matched the beliefs you made up for yourself. Instead of doing what Christ told us to do, to join the Church He founded.

 

[Petergee]

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. *
There’s no authority necessary to say what you’re supposed to blieve. It’s all in the Bible. Open it up and take a peak inside.

I repeat, who gave YOU the authority to teach us that “It’s all in the Bible”? There are only 2 possibilities. Either you made this idea up for yourself, or someone told you that this is an essential Christian belief. What was his/her authority to teach this?

And how can you back up your last statement there that I bolded? (
An opinion which not one Christian in the first 1500 years of Christianity held.)

Show me one quote from a Christian before 1520 which states that “Christian beliefs are supposed to be rooted in scripture” and I’ll humbly retract this factual statement.

 

[Petergee]

.Hi, Im not so sure you can back that up. According to Orthodoxy they have. Obviously protestants do as well otherwise they would not have broke away. Divisions have happened since day 1 because it seems to be human nature. There are divisions amongst catholics as well as protestants.

The fact that catholics argue with each other has nothing to do with the fact that the Catholic church has not changed the faith it received from Christ. The Apostles argued with each other, but I hope you’re not going to suggest that the apostles taught different faiths.

Actually all of the protestants I know(and we go to different denoms)all believe in the same doctrines of faith.

You really need to get out more. There are a massive number of contradictory doctrinal postitions between the thousands of protestant churches.

That is why we have the bible so we can discern what is right and what is false teaching. That is why it is extremely important to study the bible so when someone teaches you something you can say you know that sounds like what it says in the bible or that doesnt sound right–let me go check what the bible says.

I ask you too - who gave you the authority to lay down this law that every belief is only valid if it agrees with your or anyone else’s interpretation of the Bible? Jesus certainly did’t teach it. He gave Peter and his other apostles authority to teach in His name. He never said, “i’m going to get some dudes in the futture, who have no importance themselves, to agree on a group of books, and from then on I want everyone who follows me to be guided only by those books, not by you and your successors.”

I dont label anyone in the Christian faith a heretic: That would be judgemental.

No, it’s just stating a fact. To be judgmental would be to say to someone “You are going to Hell”.

 

[Montalban]

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.

sign

For the last time (hopefully) I HAVE NEVER SAID YOU HAVE TO BE IN UNION WITH THE POPE’S PERSONAL SIN.

You DO have to be in union with him as a person in that office regardless of whether he sins or not. To a point whether he sins or not is totally irrelevant. Regardless of what he does, you must be in communion with him, to be Catholic.

And you’re not just in union with his teachings, but with his position, by virtue of the belief that his person is a successor to the person of Peter.

 

[Montalban]

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.

The right to bind and loose was given to all the Apostles.

 

[Eddy]

sign

For the last time (hopefully) I HAVE NEVER SAID YOU HAVE TO BE IN UNION WITH THE POPE’S PERSONAL SIN.

You DO have to be in union with him as a person in that office regardless of whether he sins or not. To a point whether he sins or not is totally irrelevant. Regardless of what he does, you must be in communion with him, to be Catholic.

And you’re not just in union with his teachings, but with his position, by virtue of the belief that his person is a successor to the person of Peter.

I don’t doubt that this is your sincerely held belief. But it does seem to veer dangerously close to giving your allegience to an institution or a person, rather than to God. Is it conceivable that a Pope might speak outside the will of God, and therefore you would have to be ‘in union’ with him, rather than in Union with God? After all, all have sinned and all have fallen short of the glory of God.

I’m not sure the distiction between doctrine/practice is clear cut. And while the final decision is Peter and Paul’s ( and therefore shared) it is done in concert, not just with a small, selected group of leaders, but with the whole people of God who chose to get involved. They acted in accordance with communal discernment of a very broad group of people. Not just a group of men who they themselves had selected to take part…

In terms of people declaring contradictory truths, I agree - it happens. It also happens within the Catholic church - the majority of Western Catholics (and the majority of Western Catholic Academic theologians) disagree with several aspects of church teaching. Which begs the question, what is the Church- the whole people of God, or the hierarchy? If you say the whole people of God, then some teaching is out of step with the people’s communal discernment If you say the hierarchy then it seems to me you risk denying the working of the Holy Spirit among all those who follow Jesus.

As I think about it, perhaps the issue is the Protestants have too much faith in the Holy Spirit’s action, the Catholics too little

There will be variation between people’s views of what God says - but that existed in the early church - with the controversies with the Montanists for example. The individual’s view must be examined in view of Scripture, and in light of the communal discernment of what God is saying. There can, I think rightly, be room for disagreement, so long as certain essentials are not compromised. I’m not sure Christianity is meant to be so overdefined as to leave no room for mystery or for the individual discernment of what it means to follow God in their unique circumstance.

 

[Montalban]

I don’t doubt that this is your sincerely held belief. But it does seem to veer dangerously close to giving your allegience to an institution or a person, rather than to God. Is it conceivable that a Pope might speak outside the will of God, and therefore you would have to be ‘in union’ with him, rather than in Union with God? After all, all have sinned and all have fallen short of the glory of God.

It’s not my belief. It’s Catholic belief. Sure, you’re in union with God, but the unifying factor is the Pope that makes you Catholic.
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

Take away union with the Pope and you can still have union with God, by being Christian, but you’re no longer Catholic.

There will be variation between people’s views of what God says - but that existed in the early church - with the controversies with the Montanists for example. The individual’s view must be examined in view of Scripture, and in light of the communal discernment of what God is saying. There can, I think rightly, be room for disagreement, so long as certain essentials are not compromised. I’m not sure Christianity is meant to be so overdefined as to leave no room for mystery or for the individual discernment of what it means to follow God in their unique circumstance.

There can’t be disagreement with the Pope, because Catholics believe he’s the sole successor to Peter - the only holder of the keys, the chief shepherd, etc.

 

[sterryfamily]

sign

For the last time (hopefully) I HAVE NEVER SAID YOU HAVE TO BE IN UNION WITH THE POPE’S PERSONAL SIN.

You DO have to be in union with him as a person in that office regardless of whether he sins or not. To a point whether he sins or not is totally irrelevant. Regardless of what he does, you must be in communion with him, to be Catholic.

And you’re not just in union with his teachings, but with his position, by virtue of the belief that his person is a successor to the person of Peter.

We are “the communion of saints” and are in communion with all who follow Christ and his Church. What’s the point? It doesn’t mean we follow after a pope’s errors or sins or anybody else’s for that matter. Again, what’s your point?

 

[sterryfamily]

The right to bind and loose was given to all the Apostles.

You are correct. It was given to all the apostles generally and to Peter and his successors specifically. Also, Peter was the one Christ commanded to tend and feed His sheep and Peter was the one who’s name Christ changed to Rock and Peter was the one to whom Christ gave the keys of authority.

You are right.

 

[sterryfamily]

I don’t doubt that this is your sincerely held belief. But it does seem to veer dangerously close to giving your allegience to an institution or a person, rather than to God. Is it conceivable that a Pope might speak outside the will of God, and therefore you would have to be ‘in union’ with him, rather than in Union with God? After all, all have sinned and all have fallen short of the glory of God.

I’m not sure the distiction between doctrine/practice is clear cut. And while the final decision is Peter and Paul’s ( and therefore shared) it is done in concert, not just with a small, selected group of leaders, but with the whole people of God who chose to get involved. They acted in accordance with communal discernment of a very broad group of people. Not just a group of men who they themselves had selected to take part…

In terms of people declaring contradictory truths, I agree - it happens. It also happens within the Catholic church - the majority of Western Catholics (and the majority of Western Catholic Academic theologians) disagree with several aspects of church teaching. Which begs the question, what is the Church- the whole people of God, or the hierarchy? If you say the whole people of God, then some teaching is out of step with the people’s communal discernment If you say the hierarchy then it seems to me you risk denying the working of the Holy Spirit among all those who follow Jesus.

As I think about it, perhaps the issue is the Protestants have too much faith in the Holy Spirit’s action, the Catholics too little

There will be variation between people’s views of what God says - but that existed in the early church - with the controversies with the Montanists for example. The individual’s view must be examined in view of Scripture, and in light of the communal discernment of what God is saying. There can, I think rightly, be room for disagreement, so long as certain essentials are not compromised. I’m not sure Christianity is meant to be so overdefined as to leave no room for mystery or for the individual discernment of what it means to follow God in their unique circumstance.

You make it clear, Eddy, that you are familiar with early Church history. You must therefore be aware that all early Christians were united to the fact that one MUST remain within the Catholic Church as handed down through the apostles.