Who is the church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jphilapy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Kurt G.:
  1. In Acts 15:
    a. people argue with Paul…at least twice…and Paul can’t stop the arguing. No one is recorded as arguing with Peter, and this was a heavy subject!, After his talk there is no more argument.
Click to expand...
I will go into this whole discussion with you more if I have the time. But for now, wasn’t it james who gave the final descision? In other words Peter gave his testimony that is all. So you can say the judaizers didn’t argue with Peter, but they did with Paul, however couldn’t we make the argument that it was really James they didn’t argue with?

Here is the scenario, first Peter speaks, then Paul and Barnabas speak, then James delievers his final descision. And James does so by saying “Wherefore my judgment is”. Based on that statement alone I would have to say that is the opposite indication that Peter is special. In other words it would appear here that it was James who the people didn’t argue with. And that James had the higher authority.

However I think if we read on we will see what really happend is this was multiple people participating in this process and no one single person really had the authority.

In Acts 15:28 the letter given to Paul and Barnabas says “For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things”

So what I see happening here is the Holy Spirit revealed the descision, some of the saints recognized the descision, they then proceeded to convince the others by arguing via scripture as well as testimonies of God’s working. And notice that the letter says “and to us” indicating more than one person involved in this process. Then James makes the final statement. Which I believe it is safe to say that James did not have the final descision in the process, he was simply stating the consel agreed was the Holy Spirits descision.

Its not only clear that James didn’t have final authority, but it is even clearer that Peter didn’t.

As far as your point about the Judaizers listening to Peter and not Paul, I don’t see it. More than likely they listend to James, but even more than that they listened to the descision of the Holy Spirit which was testified to by reliable witnesses. However even then I doubt they listend to that. They may have been silenced for a moment, but Paul’s epistles demonstrate to us that the judaizers continued to push their message.

One more point, to say that nobody is ever recorded as arguing with Peter, is to argue from silence. As I have so often heard catholics on this list say ‘and there are many more things not recorded’. Well I guess it remains a possibility.

Jeff
 
Hi Kurt,

I hope you get a chance to reply to my last post. However I do wanna reply to this point:
  1. In Galations, Paul appears to be making a case to that Christian community for his authority, and that they need to listen to what he says. He does so by showing them that he chastised “even Cephas, to his face”. I would paraphrase it as “look guys, even the Boss has to listen to me when I’m right”. I understand you may take it another way, but the point is, Paul would not mention “to his face” if Peter were just one of the guys.
    <<
Also Justinmatter wrote:
<<
i would consider the consequenses of your idea. if we all had an equal part in determining theology, we would end up voting on it and the consequenses of that are too horrible to imagine. no offense (if you’re not catholic) but the idea of everyone having the authority to determine theology or doctrine has been tried by protestantism and has proved itself a total disaster at maintaining any sort of unity in doctrine. it seems logical to have a central authority set up by christ. i say logical because to examine the scriptural proofs for it, perhaps you could do a search on this forum’s posts.
When I say all having an equal part, i understand what you are getting at. Bascially in that situation a consensus just will not work. And I agree. However my problem is the idea that the Pope is the final authority. In other words it appears that the Pope does not have to consider anyone elses (name removed by moderator)ut. If the Pope wants to override all believers and command them to believe a certain way then he can. See if that is the case then I think that is wrong. In the case of your post Kurt, you are saying that Paul was able to correct Peter if he is wrong. I guess I just don’t get that impression from the catholic church that anyone is allowed to correct the Pope. Partially it has to do with the idea of ex cathedra. If the pope makes a statement ex cathedra, then he cannot be wrong. Well how exactly does he know he is correct? Do the bishops all discuss this and decide collectively that this is the doctrine to believe? Do they function on a set of principles that anybody can use in descision making? OR are they claiming that all their knoweledge is secret and not known till God shows them? OR does the pope just go into a room alone and for hours prayes and then when he is ready he comes out and states what he believes the Lord has shown him, and all catholics, bishops alike, just accept his ex cathedra without question, without research?

Jeff
 
40.png
jphilapy:
.
it appears that the Pope does not have to consider anyone elses (name removed by moderator)ut. If the Pope wants to override all believers and command them to believe a certain way then he can. See if that is the case then I think that is wrong. Partially it has to do with the idea of ex cathedra. If the pope makes a statement ex cathedra, then he cannot be wrong. Well how exactly does he know he is correct? Do the bishops all discuss this and decide collectively that this is the doctrine to believe? Do they function on a set of principles that anybody can use in descision making? OR are they claiming that all their knoweledge is secret and not known till God shows them? OR does the pope just go into a room alone and for hours prayes and then when he is ready he comes out and states what he believes the Lord has shown him, and all catholics, bishops alike, just accept his ex cathedra without question, without research?

Jeff
Click to expand...
essentialy, it appears to you that the pope can make any decision on his own and (as long as it’s made ex cathedra on a matter of faith and morals) it is considered infallible by the church. am i right?
if that it what it looks like to you, you’re bang on target!!! but why do we believe in infallibility?
the church believes that jesus promised infallibility to peter in mat,16: 18-19
18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
Click to expand...
i shall not go into the debate on “petros” and “petra” or what the rock means or what roch refers to. you’ll get it better from karl keating:
catholic.com/library/Peter_the_Rock.asp

in v18, jesus says the gates of hell shall not prevail against the church and in v19, jesus says- whatever you impose on earth shall be ratified by heaven (the words are taken from a levitical right to impose or remove obligations from on the jews). heaven cannot ratify what is wrong. thus, no matter what methods are used to reach an ex cathedra statement, the statements themselves are infallible. so, the church believes in the doctrine of papal infallibilty. it does not have to do with the pope or bishops doing it autocratically but with the divine promise
 
40.png
justinmatter:
essentialy, it appears to you that the pope can make any decision on his own and (as long as it’s made ex cathedra on a matter of faith and morals) it is considered infallible by the church. am i right?
Click to expand...
Hi Justin, your right that is what I was asking.
40.png
justinmatter:
in v18, jesus says the gates of hell shall not prevail against the church and in v19, jesus says- whatever you impose on earth shall be ratified by heaven (the words are taken from a levitical right to impose or remove obligations from on the jews). heaven cannot ratify what is wrong. thus, no matter what methods are used to reach an ex cathedra statement, the statements themselves are infallible. so, the church believes in the doctrine of papal infallibilty. it does not have to do with the pope or bishops doing it autocratically but with the divine promise
Click to expand...
Well this is the same argument the Eastern Orthodox makes in defense of their own church being the correct one. So the argument that both RC and EO give is that if God’s promise of the church will prevail then there will be a church that prevailed for the last 2000 yrs. Now we know this cannot be true of both the RC and the EO especially when they each consider the other a heretic. So the argument that God will preserve the church does nothing to prove to me that the RC is God’s true church or the EO God’s true Church. And likewise since the arguement for the Pope’s infalibility is essentially the same as the argument for the preservation of the church, I don’t see any reason it holds water. In other words if I accept that the RC is the right church because God promised the pope would be infailible and the gates of hell would not prevail against the gates of the church, then based on the same argument why shouldn’t I accept the EO?

What else ya got for me? And thanks so far for taking the time to answer.

Jeff
 
if I accept that the RC is the right church because God promised the pope would be infailible and the gates of hell would not prevail against the gates of the church, then based on the same argument why shouldn’t I accept the EO?
Click to expand...
if the orthodox church does make such a claim, it can’t hold much water because the primacy verses already mentioned specifically refer to peter. the popes are the successors of peter in a direct line.
there are no mentions of a primacy in constantinople (i mean a primacy other than that of peter’s among the apostles). that was just a claim made by certain orthodox primates.
the catholic church believes that the orthodox priesthood is valid because they haven’t broken the apostolic succession.

the catholic church believes that the EO have broken with the divinely ordained primacy of the pope
%between%
look at this link given below. it should give you enough references from the early church about papal primacy. there are no references like that about a bishop in constantinople except claims by the eastern primate.
catholic.com/library/church_papacy.asp

it’s obvious that long before the schism occured, papal primacy was well recognised.
 
40.png
justinmatter:
the catholic church believes that the EO have broken with the divinely ordained primacy of the pope
Click to expand...
Yeah but the EO believes that the papacy was later introduced by the west and was not instituted by the apostles.

I have done some research and I believe this to be true. But I will still have to get more familiar with the early church fathers to really see what they taught.

Jeff
 
40.png
jphilapy:
On the site NewAdvent.org the article for infalibility says:
“It is only in connection with doctrinal authority as such that, practically speaking, this question of infallibility arises; that is to say, when we speak of the Church’s infallibility we mean, at least primarily and principally, what is sometimes called active as distinguished from passive infallibility. We mean in other words that the Church is infallible in her objective definitive teaching regarding faith and morals, not that believers are infallible in their subjective interpretation of her teaching. This is obvious in the case of individuals, any one of whom may err in his understanding of the Church’s teaching; nor is the general or even unanimous consent of the faithful in believing a distinct and independent organ of infallibility.”

My question is who is the church? This passage is distinguishing between individuals and the church. Now I understand that first of all the word church is never used in scripture. The correct word would be ekklesia. So I guess the correct question here would be, who is the ekklesia? According to scripture the word ekklesia is a designation for:

a) a collective gathering of saints. 1 cor. 16:19
b) a reference to believers in general without a regard for any meeting. eph. 3:10

How can you say that the church cannot err, but the individual can if the individual is the church? And how can you distinguish between the individual and the church?

Jeff
Click to expand...
We are Church 😃 :eek:
 
40.png
jphilapy:
*In Acts 15:28 the letter given to Paul and Barnabas says “For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things” So what I see happening here is the Holy Spirit revealed the descision, some of the saints recognized the descision, they then proceeded to convince the others by arguing via scripture as well as testimonies of God’s working. And notice that the letter says “and to us” indicating more than one person involved in this process. Jeff

Hello, Jeff, and thanks for the mannerly responses. I guess there is nothing but agreement from my side, at least about the Holy Spirit working in (and speaking through) the Church. I do disagree with those who see Acts 15 as “just another battle with those Judaizers” and nothing more. I see it as a pattern of action laid out for Christians to follow, when truly serious doctrinal differences arise within the Body of Christ.
40.png
jphilapy:
In the case of your post Kurt, you are saying that Paul was able to correct Peter if he is wrong. I guess I just don’t get that impression from the catholic church that anyone is allowed to correct the Pope. Jeff
Click to expand...
Jeff, I should have been clearer. Paul admonished Peter for failing to act according to Peter’s very own teachings. Paul did not correct Peter for a wrong teaching. Peter was already opening the doors for Gentiles (Acts 2) before Paul had encountered Jesus, so Peter was preaching right, but was weak when it came to practicing what he preached. I think Papal history is full of such examples, of Popes not practicing properly, and of people admonishing them for their personal faults. It is not a case against infallibility, as has been amply explained by many folks more knowledgeable than I am.

So, I disagree (politely) with your statement that “no one within the Church feels allowed to corrrect the Pope”, with matters of personal living or practice.
40.png
jphilapy:
wasn’t it james who gave the final descision? In other words Peter gave his testimony that is all. Jeff*
**
Maybe I’m trying too hard for a literal interpretation in Acts 15, of James’ comment about Simon’s “speech”. I think the Greek verb used there is identical to the verb used in John 1:18, when Jesus “declares” or “reveals” the Father to us. If that is correct, why not translate it the same way? It could make the difference for many people between seeing Simon’s speech as an “opinion”, and seeing it as an “authoritative declaration”.

Also, sequentially as you pointed out, first there are arguments at the Council, then Peter speaks, then Paul speaks, then James. The fact that James goes back to Peter’s speech, not Paul’s (even though Paul just finished speaking) seems to give some weight to the idea that Peter’s speech was most important. ( I’m biased, I know, but I’m really trying to look at this with an open mind!)

Anyway, can SOMEBODY look up the Greek verbs in those two passages? I can’t, I’m sure there’s a way on the net, but I would get “lost”. All I’ve done is hear about it on one of Tim Staples’ tape sets.

GOD BLESS US ALL!
 
Kurt G.:
Maybe I’m trying too hard for a literal interpretation in Acts 15, of James’ comment about Simon’s “speech”. I think the Greek verb used there is identical to the verb used in John 1:18, when Jesus “declares” or “reveals” the Father to us. If that is correct, why not translate it the same way? It could make the difference for many people between seeing Simon’s speech as an “opinion”, and seeing it as an “authoritative declaration”.

Also, sequentially as you pointed out, first there are arguments at the Council, then Peter speaks, then Paul speaks, then James. The fact that James goes back to Peter’s speech, not Paul’s (even though Paul just finished speaking) seems to give some weight to the idea that Peter’s speech was most important. ( I’m biased, I know, but I’m really trying to look at this with an open mind!)
Click to expand...
Kurt your fine. I am glad that you are willing to discuss this. Some folks would rather just believe what they are told and that ends it. For me God has given me a mind and heart for searching out things and I do. Essentially im a thinker and I appreciate honest discussion where counter points can be given and things better understood without being accused of being some sort of heretic (hairy tic).

Anyway for the record I am not ruling out the seeming importance of Peter, but what ever I do, I need to understand what it is I am looking at. Call me a good berean.

Well you might have a point regarding James referring to Peters words, but I think that could mean different things. For one based on Paul’s own statement of James and Peter being the pillars of the faith it would only be natural for James to refer to Peter, with Paul and Baranabas being the complementing argument to Peter. It would seem that at least in the minds of the people at that time that the 12 apostles held much more wait than the many more that followed. And why Peter? Why not someone else like James own testimony of the gentiles? As far as I can tell only Peter and Paul were given this revelation of the gentiles. So it would once again be natural to refer to Peter. So those be the other way of looking at this.

Jeff
 
Who is the Church?

Pius XII answers this question in his encyclical:

**Mystici Corporis Christi **
****22. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. “For in one spirit” says the Apostle, “were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free.”[17] As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith.[18] And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered-so the Lord commands-as a heathen and a publican.[19] It follows that those are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.
  1. It must also be borne in mind that there is question here of a hidden mystery, which during this earthly exile can only be dimly seen through a veil, and which no human words can express. The Divine Persons are said to indwell inasmuch as they are present to beings endowed with intelligence in a way that lies beyond human comprehension, and in a unique and very intimate manner, which transcends all created nature, these creatures enter into relationship with Them through knowledge and love.[160] If we would attain, in some measure, to a clearer perception of this truth, let us not neglect the method strongly recommended by the Vatican Council[161] in similar cases, by which these mysteries are compared one with another and with the end to which they are directed, so that in the light which this comparison throws upon them we are able to discern, at least partially, the hidden things of God.
 
The Church, simply put in Scripture and the declarations of the Magisterium, is the [Mystical] Body of Christ. Who belongs to this Body? Pope Pius XII was the latest to write it in an encyclical, if I have my facts striaght. He said in Mediator Dei that “the Mystical Body of Christ is one and the same as the Roman Catholic Church”. That is, only Roman Catholics are a part of the Mystical Body of Christ, a part of the Church, and only they have any hope for salvation.
 
40.png
Lisa4Catholics:
Because Jesus appointed Peter the first Pope and in a conversation with Peter told him satan has desired to sift you like wheat (meaning the Church) but I have prayed for you. Then he directed him to feed His sheep. He furthermore promised that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church.Satan hasn’t prevailed either! Amongst, the divisions, the scandals and everything else he can muster up, She still stands strong!God Bless and I love our wonderful Church
Click to expand...
How could Peter be a pope he was married???
 
40.png
Descipleof1:
How could Peter be a pope he was married???
Click to expand...
If Jesus truly wanted a celibate Pope at that time, He could have chosen the apostle John rather than Peter.

While Peter may not have been actually “called” Pope, he certainly held precedence and authority over all the other disciples, having been given alone the “keys”, symbolizing authority, of Heaven (Matt. 16:17-19), in addition to the power of binding and loosing.

Gerry 🙂
 
Regarding the Pope, and Celibacy:
**I’m sure someone will correct this if I’m wrong, but according to Karl Keating (on an audio tape), until just a few years ago, any Catholic man was officially eligible to be Pope. I think Karl was right, but have no immediate proof. **
God Bless Us All!
 
Kurt G. said:
Regarding the Pope, and Celibacy:

I’m sure someone will correct this if I’m wrong, but according to Karl Keating (on an audio tape), until just a few years ago, any Catholic man was officially eligible to be Pope. I think Karl was right, but have no immediate proof.

God Bless Us All!
Click to expand...

My understanding is that even now, it can happen - but it wont. Clerical celibacy is not a matter of faith and morals. Hence, it can change. For a short period of the church’s existance, there were married priest and bishops, even popes!:eek: How did we ever survive?
That is why there is a constant movement to end celibacy in the priesthood, because it could happen. Not likely, but it could.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top