Who Has Authority?

[runandsew]

Your problem here is that you are assuming that there must be a central authority from which all truth derives. I hold no such authority, so those churches can go on changing however they like. The church of christ is not an organization of men, but of the spirit.Skeptictank

Why does it have to be either / or, why can’t it be both / and.

Both an organization of men and of the spirit.

It has a physical and a spiritual reality.

But when you say ‘men’ you have to keep in mind that is a church that is based on the foundation of Jesus, It is his church, not ours, and not Peters, but it is Jesus’s Church.
He just left Peter and his sucessors in charge of it, to guide it in its teaching, and to spread the Gospel.

That is what the Catholic Church believes…I think…

 

[Petergee]

Figure of speach my friend. I was reffering to this game of “my church is better because…” I’m not interested in the merits of your church except for the scriptural proof that it is what it says it is.

That’s exactly what I and a lot of other people here have been giving you, but you simply ignore it. We haven’t even mentioned all the good stuff the Church does. Just the basis of the Church as recorded in the Bible.

I know there are good things about the church. There are a lot of good things about a lot of churches, yet if any of them claimed to be THE church of jesus christ, I would probably laugh at them and point out what the bible has to say about the "Church’ of Jesus Christ.

I would politely point out to them that only the Catholic Church corresponds to **all **of the things which the Bible has to say about the Church of Jesus Christ.

So what do your answers boil down to? The church says…

But why do I care what the church says? :confused

Here is what the word of god says.

The word of God says “take it to the Church”. Not surprising when you consider that the Church wrote, edited and published the Bible to express what it had already been teaching for centuries.

The word of god is quite clear on its stance toward homosexuality.

That’s YOUR interpretation, and mine too. I know my interpretation is correct and that pastor is wrong, because I’ve “taken it to the Church”. How do YOU know?

Have you tried talking with that pastor? I think you should recommend to him that he read more of his bible and less of his cosmo magazine.

Skeptictank

This pastor is actually a lot like you. I’ve seen and heard him questioned about why he “marries” couples of the same sex and he invariably gives the same response as you: parrots a sackful of Bible quotes and says that anyone who disagrees with his interpretation of them is a sinner. He’s got several university degrees too.

That’s the problem with your “take it to the Bible” solution. People come up with a variety of answers by selecting only the quotes that seem to support their pre-chosen position and strain their meanings into whatever they want it to mean. And it can be very difficult to apply often cryptic texts thousands of years old written in an alien culture, to questions which didn’t even exist then.

With the “take it to the Church” solution, people are given a straight answer to the current issue. They can choose to obey it or disobey it, but they know where the Church stands on the issue if they bother to look or ask. Some might try to twist what they are told into meanings which weren’t intended, but if they do so publicly, there is a real live human being in authority who is able to say, “Hey, that’s not what I meant!”

 

[Spirithound]

Spirithound;1880433:

ALLFORHIM;1880397:

No one is infallible not even when they have the HS in them. We have all fallen short of the Glory of God. The only infallible human(so to speak)was Christ. Even though a person might have the HS in them they still have their old nature as well–which makes them fallible. I am fallible, so no rest assured you dont have to follow me But, I do have the HS Spirit guiding me so I am able to fight off my sinful nature(not all the times )but I have the power not to sin.

Infallible - able to teach without error
Impeccable - without sin
Now that we have that out of the way, you seem to be contradicting yourself. You said in this post that you do not possess the charism of infallibility…so, maybe you’re saying that even though you’re fallible, the Holy Spirit will still allow you to discern the true meaning of Scripture? This puts us at the point i’m tryng to show you. Why you, in opposition to all the other denominations (however many there are)?

How so?

Hopefully i’ve got that coding right…oh well…on to the apologia

When we say that the Pope possesses the charism of infallibility, we mean that the Holy Spirit will prevent him from teaching error. This means that when the pope reads Scripture, and the Holy Spirit guides him to discern a matter of faith or morals, we, as Catholics know absolutely that the pope is correct in this matter.
So, you believe that the Holy Spirit guides you when you read Scripture. Do you know absolutely that you are correct in a matter of faith or morals that you discern from Scripture? If so, then that is a situation where the label “infallible” may be applied. In other words, you believe that you possess the charism of infallibility (please correct me if i’m wrong in assigning you beliefs). Your beliefs undoubtedly contradict the beliefs of another Protestant, who also believes that he is being guided by the Holy Spirit. Your beliefs even contradict my beliefs, and i believe that my Church was guided by the Holy Spirit. So, since our beliefs contradict (yours, mine, and the nameless Protestant’s), two of us are not being guided by the Holy Spirit. Which ones?

 

[Spirithound]

Your problem here is that you are assuming that there must be a central authority from which all truth derives. I hold no such authority, so those churches can go on changing however they like. The church of christ is not an organization of men, but of the spirit.

So, you’re saying that the Church of Christ is not an organization of men, but of the Spirit.
Logically proceeding from that, any organization that includes men is not the Church of Christ.

 

[Spirithound]

Why does it have to be either / or, why can’t it be both / and.

Both an organization of men and of the spirit.

It has a physical and a spiritual reality.

But when you say ‘men’ you have to keep in mind that is a church that is based on the foundation of Jesus, It is his church, not ours, and not Peters, but it is Jesus’s Church.
He just left Peter and his sucessors in charge of it, to guide it in its teaching, and to spread the Gospel.

That is what the Catholic Church believes…I think…

Yes, Run, you are correct. This is what the C23 believes.

 

[Petergee]

Agreed! Jesus Himself says “I am the Way, the Truth . . .”. If you believe that, then you share the same Truth as us. There’s no contradiction there.

So you could find “no contradiction” between your beliefs, and say, a Catholic Catechism?

We DO act on it, each and every day, as being living witnesses to His Word. We don’t just “sit around” and wait to be saved. We have a mission to “spread the Good News for all to hear” and bring our fellow brothers and sisters closer to Christ.
The greatest commandment is “love your neighbor as yourself”. Jesus Himself said that.

No he didn’t. I’m shocked that someone who professes to know the Bible doesn’t know that Jesus said that the greatest commandment is to ove God with your whole heart, soul, mind and strength. The second greatest is to love your neighbour as yourself.
How do we follow these commandments in practice in our everyday lives is the question. Your interpretation of scripture (or more likely what you have been told is the “right” interpretation of certain selected bits of scripture) gives you an answer. Christ knew that His followers would need something far more solid than that, so He gave it to them in the Church He founded and sent the Holy Spirit into it to guide it into all truth.

 

[Petergee]

Corruption within a church is VERY possible and by getting to know your minister and elders council, it not only assures you of who they are but also what they believe and teach.
The Bible warns of “false teachings” and it’s important to make sure that isn’t happening within your church.
Don’t you check to make sure your priest isn’t teaching false material or do you take it on faith that he’s teaching the Truth?

Good question. The Bible also tells us that our main protection against false teachings is to stay in union with the Church and receive teachings only from those who are authorised by the Church Christ founded.

Yes, several times a priest has said something which didn’t seem quite right to me and so I’ve taken it up with him and he’s explained it further to my satisfaction, or else I’ve looked it up in written teachings by the popes and bishops. If a case arose when a priest was teaching something which was contrary to the Catholic faith, and insisted on continuing to do so after I had politely questioned him and if necessary demonstrated this to him by referring him to authorised written teaching, I would tell the bishop. It has never come to this with me personally, though I know others who have done so.

Currently two far more common problems in the Catholic Church are:

• priests who don’t actually preach contrarily to true doctrines, but make little or no mention of certain important doctrines and tend to leave people with the impression that these doctrines are not that important or even dispensible; and
• people who, when priests DO preach true doctrines which they find disagreeable or hard to understand, instead of asking or looking for solid information on the subject, simply walk away from that parish or even from the whole Church.

 

[Kay_Cee]

I said:

That might prove difficult if you don’t have a Bible to consult, which is the way it was for almost all individuals before the advent of the printing press. How on earth could that be God’s plan if people for one and a half millenia were incapable of carrying it out?

You answered:

You might note that it was shortly after the invention of the printing press that very loyal catholics saw the churches claims for what they are.

False.

God has a way of making things work out.

Skeptictank

First, you did not answer my question at all. Don’t you think God knew when the printing press would be invented? So why would He put into place a system whereby each Christian needed his own copy of the Bible to consult while at the same time knowing such copies of the Bible would not be available?

In addition, why would He put into place such a system for a society in which a great number of people were illiterate?

Second, a *loyal *Catholic is well, *loyal. *He doesn’t leave the Church. And if you believe some of the Church’s claims are false, go ahead a begin a different thread on each one.

 

[Spirithound]

Second, a *loyal *Catholic is well, *loyal. *He doesn’t leave the Church. And if you believe some of the Church’s claims are false, go ahead a begin a different thread on each one.

Weren’t many “loyal” Catholics actually forced to convert to whatever Protestant denom by their government?

 

[RNRobert]

Weren’t many “loyal” Catholics actually forced to convert to whatever Protestant denom by their government?

And in some places (like England) Catholics who refused to abandon their faith were jailed, tortured and even executed.

 

[skeptictank]

So, you’re saying that the Church of Christ is not an organization of men, but of the Spirit.
Logically proceeding from that, any organization that includes men is not the Church of Christ.

Allow me to rephrase that. It doesn’t seem that the holy spirit is limited to a particular group of men, and what they say. Most of the doctrine of the church may be correct, and that may be by the leadership of the Holy Spirit, but there’s no reason the church should be limited to what a group of men has decided to call the “Catholic Church”.

i think we’ve (with, at least, this last portion of the discussion) broken it down to the bottom line. I address this to all of my catholic brothers and sisters participating.

The question seems to be- has god established a visible organization of men on this earth, to be “the pillar and ground of the truth”?

If so, what is the nature of that organization?

The catholic church is quite a visible entity, but why should his church be limited to its walls? I think that, because you as catholics believe everything that the church says, then it would be obvious that the Catholic Church must be THE holy and apostolic church, as spoken of in the bible.

I personally don’t agree with that church, so I can’t accept it as being what you describe it to be. Perhaps if I could agree with all of its precepts, I could agree with your position.

If any of you feel like discussing the sacraments, as they relate to spiritual and biblical truth, or the infallibly declared doctrines, then I’m happy to continue. Otherwise, we will be going around in circles with this topic.

In Christ’s Love,

Skeptictank

 

[skeptictank]

First, you did not answer my question at all.

I apologize. What I was getting at is that, while the church as the “pillar and ground” was certainly usefull all of those years, at some point it betrayed its role, so it would seem that god chose to separate those who would be faithfull to him, and those who would be faithfull to what their eyes could see.

Don’t you think God knew when the printing press would be invented? So why would He put into place a system whereby each Christian needed his own copy of the Bible to consult while at the same time knowing such copies of the Bible would not be available?

The bible is currently available to about 98 percent of the worlds population. I can’t back up that statistic, but you can research that for yourself.

In addition, why would He put into place such a system for a society in which a great number of people were illiterate?

They weren’t illiterate after the puritans started shoving the bible down everyone’s throte, but that’s another story…

Second, a *loyal *Catholic is well, *loyal. *He doesn’t leave the Church.

They were loyal until they realized that the leadership was oppressing the laity and acting contrary to their supposed roles.

And if you believe some of the Church’s claims are false, go ahead a begin a different thread on each one.

another time perhaps.

Skeptictank

 

[sterryfamily]

The question seems to be- has god established a visible organization of men on this earth, to be “the pillar and ground of the truth”?

Didn’t Jesus tell His followers to do what the scribes and pharisees tell them because they derive their authority from the fact that they occupy Moses’ seat?

In all the Old Testament covenants, didn’t God leave men in authority over us? Didn’t these men’s authority pass on through their successors? Didn’t many of these men in authority over God’s people commit grievous sins?

Why would anyone think that the God of the New Testament would behave differently than the God of the Old Testament?

 

[sterryfamily]

The question seems to be- has god established a visible organization of men on this earth, to be “the pillar and ground of the truth”?

Didn’t Jesus tell His followers to do what the scribes and pharisees tell them because they derive their authority from the fact that they occupy Moses’ seat?

In all the Old Testament covenants, didn’t God leave men in authority over us? Didn’t these men’s authority pass on through their successors? Didn’t many of these men in authority over God’s people commit grievous sins?

Why would anyone think that the God of the New Testament should behave differently than the God of the Old Testament?

 

[MariaG]

Did I miss your response to the people who posted against the “important” things that you claim to be accurate #266?

Funny, most people think that if a person gives unreliable testimony even about “little things” it calls into questions their reliability in general yet you seem unconcerned about it?

Good thing I’m not most people then.
You’ll find that I’m open-minded when it comes to alot of things, including religion. I wasn’t a Christian my whole life and maybe it’s my age but I’m still learning more and more each and every day.
I’m constantly searching for more . . . whatever that might be.

Glad you are open minded.

But again, did I miss your response to the posts by others about the “important things”.

I apologize if I missed your response, but you seem to think this site is correct about “big things”. Several posts pointed out numerous errors that site had about the “big things” and yet I can’t recall seeing a response to them?

Did you not see them? Disagree with the analysis? If so, why?

 

[Kay_Cee]

I apologize. What I was getting at is that, while the church as the “pillar and ground” was certainly usefull all of those years, at some point it betrayed its role, so it would seem that god chose to separate those who would be faithfull to him, and those who would be faithfull to what their eyes could see.

So certain New Testament verses have expiration dates?

As to God separating those who are faithful to him from those who are faithful to what their eyes can see: I don’t know how many times I’ve heard Protestants claim Jesus is not present in the Eucharist because it goes against what their eyes can see.

The bible is currently available to about 98 percent of the worlds population. I can’t back up that statistic, but you can research that for yourself.

I was talking about the first one and a half millenia of Christianity, before the advent of the printing press. I asked how AFH’s system of checking a church’s doctrine against the Bible alone could work in a day and age when Bibles were not readily available.

In other words, you still have not answered the question.

They weren’t illiterate after the puritans started shoving the bible down everyone’s throte, but that’s another story…

Again, I was referring to the first 1,500 years of Christianity. Reading the Bible to check doctrines is more than a little difficult for those who cannot read.

They were loyal until they realized that the leadership was oppressing the laity and acting contrary to their supposed roles.

Which, even if true, is no excuse for leaving the truths of Catholicism. Jesus said to obey the Pharisees but not to follow their example.

If the sinfulness of a church leader negates that church’s truths, we would have no Christian truths at all. When Jimmy Swaggart sinned, did that undo any truths he taught?

 

[sterryfamily]

I apologize. What I was getting at is that, while the church as the “pillar and ground” was certainly usefull all of those years, at some point it betrayed its role,

This would necessarily mean that Christ either;
a) was a liar, or
b) didn’t know what he was talking about

since he promised;

1. to send His Spirit to guide His Church into “all truth”
2. that the gates of Hell would never prevail against His Church and
3. that He would be with His Church “to the end of the age”

 

[Blue_Serenity]

So you could find “no contradiction” between your beliefs, and say, a Catholic Catechism?

Most of it I agree with. I haven’t read the Catechism cover to cover so I can’t honestly say I agree 100% with it.

No he didn’t. I’m shocked that someone who professes to know the Bible doesn’t know that Jesus said that the greatest commandment is to ove God with your whole heart, soul, mind and strength. The second greatest is to love your neighbour as yourself.

In the context in what we were talking about, I referenced the “love your neighbor” passage. I know that it’s not the first and my apologies for forgetting to state that. I know it’s a big deal and changes the meaning completely.

Petergee:

How do we follow these commandments in practice in our everyday lives is the question.

For each person it’s different because no two people are the same. We all have different gifts and talents given to us by God to use for His honor and glory.

 

[Blue_Serenity]

Glad you are open minded.

But again, did I miss your response to the posts by others about the “important things”.

I apologize if I missed your response, but you seem to think this site is correct about “big things”. Several posts pointed out numerous errors that site had about the “big things” and yet I can’t recall seeing a response to them?

Did you not see them? Disagree with the analysis? If so, why?

I read their statements and took them in as such: THEIR statements. I’m more than ready to admit when I’m not for certain on something. This is stuff that I need to study IN DEPTH over LONG periods of time to fully understand and discern what is the Truth.

 

[sterryfamily]

I want to applaud Blueserenity’s apparent openness.

The truth doesn’t need laser lights and fancy preachers, it merely needs exposure.

Be sure and check out Keating’s, Catholicism and Fundamentalism. It will show you the origin and fallacy of many of the points on that website.

Thanks.