Who/what gave Catholic Church Ultimate Authority?

[nms553]

The same people who were the “eye-witnesses and firsthand-witnesses” were also the folks who founded the Catholic Church.

The early Church - the Church founded by Christ as promised in Matthew 16:18 - was that which was originally known as “the Way” (cf. Acts 24:14). Later, those individuals who followed Christ began to be called “Christians” beginning at Antioch (cf. Acts 11:26). As early as 107 A.D., those same individuals referred to themselves collectively as the “Catholic Church”. In a letter to the Church of Smyrna, Ignatius of Antioch wrote:

You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery (priest) as you would the Apostles. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, A.D. 107, [8,1])

Notice that Ignatius does not take pains to introduce the term “Catholic Church”; instead he uses it in a manner suggesting that the name was already in use and familiar to his audience. This further suggests that the name, Catholic Church, had to have been coined much earlier in order to have achieved wide circulation by the time of this writing. In other words, the Christian assembly was calling itself the Catholic Church during the lifetime of the last Apostle, John, who died near the end of the first century. John, the beloved disciple, may have thought of himself as a member of the Catholic Church!

The Catholic Church began with Peter and the Apostles and continued without interruption or cessation through their disciples (Ignatius, Irenaeus, Polycarp, Clement, Justin Martyr, etc.) down to the present day. As a side note, it appears that the believers in Antioch may have coined both terms still in use today: “Christian” and “Catholic Church” – terms they used to describe the one body of believers in Christ.

Hello Randy,

But catholic simply means universal. In just several decades the church had exploded. So much as to take down the government. There’s no doubt the church had started out as a bunch of rag-tag believers and now developed into a universal church. Amazing how god works!!!

 

[spina1953]

HI nms 553: your post 41 I am responding to. You are correct that Catholic means universal but Christ gave Peter and the rest of the Apostles the Authority to teach and the Catholic Church has from that time onwards only taught what Jesus taught the Apostles and they have passed it down from one era to the next unchanged. The CC has not and did not nor does it have any reason to take down the government as you say. The purpose of the Catholic Church is to bring the Good News to all and to God through Christ, that authority comes from Jesus Himself.

 

[nms553]

The passage quoted above from Matthew tells us that Jesus named Peter as His royal steward and gave him the “keys to the kingdom of heaven" as the symbol of his authority to speak in His name. Since Jesus is an eternal king, the office of royal steward in His kingdom will never end. Peter died as a martyr as Jesus foretold, but the successors of Peter have taken his place in the perpetual office that Jesus established in His royal court.

Hell again Randy, trying to catch up on lunch break

I think there are a couple things here:

We essentially see the same thing in Mt 18:18 – which Catholic’s like to call apostolic succession. The only difference is that Peter is head of the Jews, likewise Paul to the Gentiles. But we also learn that Jew and Gentile become one. So each have their own very special authority, but not ultimate papal authority.

The other thing to keep in mind is the holy spirit. All who have been baptized in spirit have received the Holy Spirit. So I say we even see apostolic success in all genuine Christian churches today – not just the catholic church.

 

[SyroMalankara]

I believe any Christian Church who teaches the good news as witnessed in the bible is as old as the first-century church itself.

I agree, but who can decide how much of the good
news needs to be witnessed, and what is a deviation?

Also, if you look at all the cultures from that region and the believers of the local churches in Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, etc, none of them see the post-1950s era (protestantism/evangelicalism/fundamentalism/etc) as teaching the good news authentically. None of those denominations are present in any substantial way in the areas that Christ or His Apostles walked, talked, preached and healed.

 

[SteveVH]

But catholic simply means universal. In just several decades the church had exploded. So much as to take down the government. There’s no doubt the church had started out as a bunch of rag-tag believers and now developed into a universal church. Amazing how god works!!!

Actually the Church started out very well organized through the Apostles, with Peter as their leader. That is why Paul went to the Apostles for approval before going out and preaching. That is why they met in a council to decide issues such as circumcision for the Gentiles. An organized authority had been established and the Christians at that time recognized this authority.

This was nothing close to having churches spring up on every corner all making their own decisions and interpretations of the faith, each disagreeing with the other while at the same time claiming guidance from the Holy Spirit. This has only happened among the Protestant faith traditions subsequent to the so-called “Reformation”.

Peace.

Steve

 

[nms553]

A couple questions to ask yourself if you don’t believe in the authority of the Church.

1. Under whose authority was the Bible compiled? A: The Catholic Church
2. If you don’t believe in the authority who compiled the Bible (The Catholic Church) and you believe that the Bible contains all of the truth required for belief and salvation… under which book in the Bible does it say that the books in the Bible are all of the books which are inspired by God or that any of them are for that matter?

1. The first-century church – not the Catholic Church. big difference. I guarantee you the Catholic Church today does not hold to the same teachings as the first-century church – regardless of what the Catholic Church says about itself.
2. I believe in the church guided by the Holy Spirit from day 1 (not the Cath Church). This is truly what Protestantism is all about. I believe the bible is not only inspired but a record of the first-century church (Jesus’ church) which proclaims true salvation.

I think it is important to mention that the early catholic Church is the one who gradually broke away from itself, not the Protestants. Im speaking metaphorically.

 

[nms553]

I agree, but who can decide how much of the good
news needs to be witnessed, and what is a deviation?

Also, if you look at all the cultures from that region and the believers of the local churches in Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, etc, none of them see the post-1950s era (protestantism/evangelicalism/fundamentalism/etc) as teaching the good news authentically. None of those denominations are present in any substantial way in the areas that Christ or His Apostles walked, talked, preached and healed.

Unfortunately yes,

The same could be said for areas of Asia, India, and Africa where the Catholic Church is also non-existent. Although, I hear there are more Christians in Asia than the communist party now, WOOHOO!!

 

[nms553]

Actually the Church started out very well organized through the Apostles, with Peter as their leader. That is why Paul went to the Apostles for approval before going out and preaching. That is why they met in a council to decide issues such as circumcision for the Gentiles. An organized authority had been established and the Christians at that time recognized this authority.

This was nothing close to having churches spring up on every corner all making their own decisions and interpretations of the faith, each disagreeing with the other while at the same time claiming guidance from the Holy Spirit. This has only happened among the Protestant faith traditions subsequent to the so-called “Reformation”.

Peace.

Steve

Also good points, Steve. Rag-tag in a sense that they started out as a small group of ordinary men.

I also do not disagree with you about churches springing up willy-nilly. Yes, we do see that today in every form of religion, but luckily the bible is very clear about the message of salvation. After-all, salvation is the end goal for all of us. There is a lot more unity in the Christian Church than people give credit for – thanks to the Holy Spirit.

I do believe that any church that actively seeks the will of God and approaches the podium with fear and trembling will by guided by the Holy Spirit.

 

[nms553]

Greetings nms553,

The Holy Bible is a record of the life of Christ. Included in the Bible are the many acts by which Jesus created the Church (some were referred to in the first response to your question).

Obviously a book can’t found a Church, only God can.

Cheers,
Curundu

Amen

 

[nms553]

Just curious, are you here to prove us Catholics wrong, or are you sincerely investigating the matter with an open mind? If the latter, then you might ask yourself, “What came first?” As a matter of historical fact, the society Jesus founded came first, and then the Bible. That society had a visible structure, and its pastors exercised real authority, both moral and political, over the faithful.

In addition, please consider that (1) sola scriptura is not taught anywhere in the Bible; and (2) no Christian believed that the Bible was the sole rule of faith until the Reformation.

Ultimately I cannot prove anything. I honestly seek the will of God. My biggest fear is the day I have to answer to Him and give an account of what I have done. I used to be Catholic but left.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Unfortunately yes,

The same could be said for areas of Asia, India, and Africa where the Catholic Church is also non-existent. Although, I hear there are more Christians in Asia than the communist party now, WOOHOO!!

This is not true at all. India’s native Christians are called the St. Thomas Christians, converted by the Apostle Thomas in 52AD. They are all Catholic and Orthodox (incl. Assyrian Church of the East). More recently, within the last 100yrs, there are protestant/reform fractions.

Africa is home to the Coptic, Eritrean, Ethiopian Churches. All are Orthodox, with minority Catholic. None are natively protestant.

 

[ffg]

Ultimately I cannot prove anything. I honestly seek the will of God. My biggest fear is the day I have to answer to Him and give an account of what I have done. I used to be Catholic but left.

Ahhh! Great thread.

Perhaps consider a different verb nms553…

Instead of ‘seeking’ God’s will -

If someone believes God left instruction detailed in the Bible -

If said person was to ‘Do’ God’s will, as detailed in the Bible -

Said person might find the understanding they think they are ‘seeking’ by analyzing God’s word vs. obeying it.

Now the trick is in the action, it’s hard to do that obey thing, even the best of us get it wrong.

But I bet the person who does, finds what they are seeking (A relationship with God and all of that glorious Mercy).

God Bless!

 

[Ignatius]

Hello,

I am a Christian just doing a little research. I am having trouble understanding why the Catholic Church claims it is the one true church?

I’m told that Mt 16:18-19 declares that Peter was the first pope and that the Church is the ultimate authority under God, but this verse cannot be used to prove that declaration because only the Catholic Church can properly interpret the bible. So to me this seems like circular reasoning. Who gave the Catholic Church the ultimate authority?

It’s founder, Jesus Christ gave it the Authority through His Apostles based on His Authority when he sent them out just before His ascension.

Matt 28:16-20
16 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee onto a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.
17 And when they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some doubted.
18 And Jesus came and spoke unto them, saying, “All power is given unto Me in Heaven and on earth.
19 Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,
20 teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.” Amen.

 

[nms553]

This is not true at all. India’s native Christians are called the St. Thomas Christians, converted by the Apostle Thomas in 52AD. They are all Catholic and Orthodox (incl. Assyrian Church of the East). More recently, within the last 100yrs, there are protestant/reform fractions.

Africa is home to the Coptic, Eritrean, Ethiopian Churches. All are Orthodox, with minority Catholic. None are natively protestant.

Maybe I don’t understand the wording

I’m not sure the demographic of Catholic vs. Christian churches can accurately describe which is the true church. There are parts around the world where neither exist – it doesn’t mean both are false.

 

[SyroMalankara]

You seem to be missing the point.

The faith communities that were converted by the Apostles themselves, and their immediate followers - all are either Catholic or Orthodox.

 

[nms553]

Ahhh! Great thread.

Perhaps consider a different verb nms553…

Instead of ‘seeking’ God’s will -

If someone believes God left instruction detailed in the Bible -

If said person was to ‘Do’ God’s will, as detailed in the Bible -

Said person might find the understanding they think they are ‘seeking’ by analyzing God’s word vs. obeying it.

Now the trick is in the action, it’s hard to do that obey thing, even the best of us get it wrong.

But I bet the person who does, finds what they are seeking (A relationship with God and all of that glorious Mercy).

God Bless!

I will respectfully disagree
Proverbs 8:17: “those who seek me diligently find me”
Jeremiah 29:13: “ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart”

First you seek, then you do.

 

[JRKH]

Hello again James!

Howdy…

What you express here is the common understanding in the protestant community…I grant you that. However, it just does not stand up to scrutiny.

1. I would say that these instructions still apply to the Christian Church today. Christian churches model themselves after the apostles.

If they truly modeled themselves after the apostles, they would seek to come together and resolve the deep theological differences between them. Come together - not split apart…This is what the Apostles did in Acts 15. This is what Paul did when he went up to Jerusalem and laid his teachings before those who were the “Pillars of the Church” (Peter among them) to make sure he was not “teaching in vain”.
Sorry - I do not see the Apostles in the many of the Church models today.

1. Because of the bible and the Holy Spirit, Christian Churches can be unified. In fact, most of the hundreds of Christians I know believe in a unified message: the Apostles Creed

Agreed, many will hold to the Apostles creed - or even the Nicene Creed - Yet does this mean that they are united?
Consider the following areas where there is disagreement and yet in each case, at least one group considers it a matter that touches on salvation.

• Some hold that water baptism is necessary - others do not
• Some hold to the real presence in the Bread and Wine - others claim it is only symbolic.
• Some say that it is possible to lose your salvation after baptism, others hold to the view that once you have accepted Christ, you cannot lose your salvation.

These are just three items that - at least one protestant group holds important to salvation yet another group teaches the opposite. Yet each of these groups hold to the Apostles Creed and each holds to Sola Scriptura.

Does this sound like the kind of unity that Jesus prayed for in John’s gospel or that Paul calls for when he says:
I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. (1 Cor 1:10)
I think that you will agree with me that These are calls to a deep and profound unity…Something more than “we all agree with the Apostles creed” (but disagree on baptism, or the real presence or OSAS)

Regarding a single body. There is no doubt Jesus’ prayer for unity is true and alive today. When I look at the Christian Church I see that unity. The reformers were not protesting because of a vendetta, they protested to bring the church back to the first-century church Jesus intended.

The reformers, in most cases, had good intentions but almost the first thing they did was to go against the bible.
First - - Nothing that they did was in council. Each reformer pretty much went their own way. In Truth it has to be said that Luther did not really intend to scrap the idea of an authoritative Church. Yet - in effect - that is what he and the others did. So with no authoritative body how does one “Tell it to the Church”? This was a fundamental problem with the reformation from the very beginning.
And it must be said that the original reformers are - themselves - to blame for rather than submitting themselves to each other in prayerful council (the biblical model) they each set up their own competing group…We see the results of this today with the many many denominations.

Secondly - - The reformers did a most amazing thing. They declared the Bible the “sole authority” and God’s holy and complete word - - - and then - almost immediately - they changed the bible.
Unbelievable but true.
For 1000 years the Bible had existed with 73 books. The Gutenberg Bible has 73 books in it. But Luther, the father of Sola Scriptura, decided that the OT needed to be changed and moved 7 of the OT books to a separate section and declared by Luther to be not inspired.
Later - to save money on printing, these seven books were removed completely - leaving the protestants with a bible of 66 books.

Note in the above that none of this occurred in council!!
Remember the Biblical model? Remember how the Canon of Scripture was originally assembled? Yup - By Spirit guided Church council.

Can anyone look at the reformation - and what happened there and honestly say that they were following the biblical model?

Of course there are Christian Churches who have abused it, too. This resembles Paul and Peter’s teachings regarding false teachers.

Which is why Jesus said to “Tell it to the Church” “Listen…to the Church”, and why the Apostles held the first council in Jerusalem and why the Church has continued to hold councils down through the centuries. To weed out falsehoods and false teachers. The Church is following the Biblical model.
The protestant communion on the other hand has no such option. They cannot follow Jesus command to tell it to the Church because they have dismissed the very thing that Christ instituted to deal with such issues.
So the false teachers and false teachings can go merrily on their way…

Sorry to ramble on so… I suspect with all the replies you might be feeling overwhelmed.
I hope you do not feel attacked. Definitely not my intention. But I must share with you the things that I learned in studying Scripture and hope that they help you to understand the Catholic view on these things. That we have sound foundations for our belief in Scripture and the Church.

Peace
James

 

[nms553]

You seem to be missing the point.

The faith communities that were converted by the Apostles themselves, and their immediate followers - all are either Catholic or Orthodox.

I see what you mean.

I will probably have to read/create a new thread as this gets into a different discussion.

 

[Kmon23]

Hello again James!

1. I would say that these instructions still apply to the Christian Church today. Christian churches model themselves after the apostles. This leads to point 2.
2. Because of the bible and the Holy Spirit, Christian Churches can be unified. In fact, most of the hundreds of Christians I know believe in a unified message: the Apostles Creed

Regarding a single body. There is no doubt Jesus’ prayer for unity is true and alive today. When I look at the Christian Church I see that unity. The reformers were not protesting because of a vendetta, they protested to bring the church back to the first-century church Jesus intended.

Of course there are Christian Churches who have abused it, too. This resembles Paul and Peter’s teachings regarding false teachers. However, just because a Christian believes in a young or old earth or that only Hymns should be sung in church, does not warrant disunity.

You say that hundreds of Christians believe in a unified message, the Apostle’s Creed. But what about all the Eastern Churches from the apostolic times to today that have never used the Apostle’s Creed?

Also, unity also means a unity of faith. Clearly different denominations do not hold to this. Some disagree on the nature of salvation, which I think is very important. The Eucharist, which St. Ignatius said was to one’s own downfall if one were to reject the Real presence, also has such wildly differing opinions in Protestantism. Also, how can their be a Eucharist without someone who has the ordination to do so? Just because I want this bread to become the food of immortality does not make it so. This is why the early church believed how important it is to be with the bishop. This is unanimous in the early church.

There have been many saints and martyrs who died for the faith, to maintain the purity of the truth. St. Maximus the Confessor had his tongue and hand cut off for arguing against the heresy known as Monothelitism. Many protestants would say that whether Christ having one or two wills do not matter, but this is an incredible disservice to the many saints who suffered and died to maintain truth throughout the centuries, especially in the early church. In a church since the Apostolic times, doctrine and maintaining the truth is so important, and this is something that many modern denominations do not realize. This is why Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, although very similar in their doctrinal agreements, are in schism and will not commune with one another as the unity of faith has been broken. The idea of a community, to be in communion with all other members of the body of Christ, to be in communion as churches to form the Church, is a crucial belief that has been maintained since two millenia ago, and again, is something many modern denominations do not adhere to.

Also all protestant churches have denied the teachings of the early church one way or another, such as the sacramental nature of the church, the liturgy, and many doctrines. One thing that I have already previously said is that the early church was unanimous on the transferring of authority to ordination of bishops, and this is NOT maintained by any protestant denomination.

I do not see unity in modern day Christendom when concerning the different denominations. John Calvin and Martin Luther, two key reformers, did NOT have unity in any way. They had a falling out on different doctrines from their own exegesis of sola scriptura, and ultimately they couldn’t stand the presence of one another. I think this is telling already that there is no unity in protestantism. What is truth and how do we know it is truth when a church down the road says differently? This is one of the thoughts I had to deal with when I was a nondenominational attending many different churches, and is what led me to search for the apostolic churches that truly have a connection with the early church and Apostles, and ultimately Christ himself as He was the one who gave the Apostles their authority.

I also have one last question. Why is it that in the spreading of Christianity in the early church, both in the West and in the East, many churches that developed independently of each other (such as the church in Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, etc.), why is it that all those churches still today still adhere to almost the same doctrines? Is this not telling about the authenticity of the doctrines held by any of the apostolic churches today? They developed independently but received and maintained the same doctrines and beliefs in the first millenia. This alone tells me that the doctrines that Protestants reject, are actually true, that there really is one deposit of faith handed down to us in the form of oral tradition and eventually Holy Scripture.

And just to be sure, I’m sorry if I sound sort of mean. I’m just rambling at this point (sort of busy with something). I really enjoy this thread, and hopefully you and maybe all of us can learn something new .

 

[CommonWeal]

I LIKE THIS…

If I may take the analogy a bit further…to show apostolic succession.
You are told to pass on the book - and to teach the next generation.
So as you give give the book to many and while some want to argue, others listen and are eager to learn from one who got it from their parent. Then, from these, you choose worthy ones to likewise go and teach and give the book etc…They do the same…Thus we have a succession of teachers, each taught both by word of mouth as well as by letter, what the true meanings are…

Sorry if the above is not explained well… but I hope “NMS” gets the gist.

Peace
James

These analogies remind me of one of my favorite passages from G. K. Chesterton’s The Catholic Church and Conversion:

What is any man who has been in the real outer world, for instance, to make of the everlasting cry that Catholic traditions are condemned by the Bible? It indicates a jumble of topsy-turvy tests and tail-foremost arguments, of which I never could at any time see the sense. The ordinary sensible sceptic or pagan is standing in the street (in the supreme character of the man in the street) and he sees a procession go by of the priests of some strange cult, carrying their object of worship under a canopy, some of them wearing high head-dresses and carrying symbolical staffs, others carrying scrolls and sacred records, others carrying sacred images and lighted candles before them, others sacred relics in caskets or cases, and so on. I can understand the spectator saying, “This is all hocus-pocus”; I can even understand him, in moments of irritation, breaking up the procession, throwing down the images, tearing up the scrolls, dancing on the priests and anything else that might express that general view. I can understand his saying, “Your croziers are bosh, your candles are bosh, your statues and scrolls and relics and all the rest of it are bosh.” But in what conceivable frame of mind does he rush in to select one particular scroll of the scriptures of this one particular group (a scroll which had always belonged to them and been a part of their hocus-pocus, if it was hocus-pocus); why in the world should the man in the street say that one particular scroll was not bosh, but was the one and only truth by which all the other things were to be condemned? Why should it not be as superstitious to worship the scrolls as the statues, of that one particular procession? Why should it not be as reasonable to preserve the statues as the scrolls, by the tenets of that particular creed? To say to the priests, “Your statues and scrolls are condemned by our common sense,” is sensible. To say, “Your statues are condemned by your scrolls, and we are going to worship one part of your procession and wreck the rest,” is not sensible from any standpoint, least of all that of the man in the street.
(Emphasis mine.)