Who/what gave Catholic Church Ultimate Authority?

[Thorolfr]

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.

It is not exactly true that all these churches adhere to almost the same doctrines. For example, many of the Oriental Orthodox churches adhere to miaphysitism which according to Wikipedia, “holds that in the one person of Jesus Christ, Divinity and Humanity are united in one (μία “one”) or single nature (“physis”), the two being united without separation, without confusion, and without alteration.” Among the churches that adhere to this are the Armenian Apostolic Church, the Syriac Orthodox Church, and the Coptic Orthodox Church.

The Catholic Church on the other hand adheres to a dyophysite position and describes the position of the Council of Chalcedon which stated that Christ is the eternal Son of God "made known in two natures without confusion , without change, without division, without separation, the difference of the natures being by no means removed because of the union, but the property of each nature being preserved and coalescing in one prosopon [person] and one hupostasis [subsistence]–not parted or divided into two prosopa [persons], but one and the same Son, only-begotten, divine Word, the Lord Jesus Christ."

 

[Kmon23]

It is not exactly true that all these churches adhere to almost the same doctrines. For example, many of the Oriental Orthodox churches adhere to miaphysitism which according to Wikipedia, “holds that in the one person of Jesus Christ, Divinity and Humanity are united in one (μία “one”) or single nature (“physis”), the two being united without separation, without confusion, and without alteration.” Among the churches that adhere to this are the Armenian Apostolic Church, the Syriac Orthodox Church, and the Coptic Orthodox Church.

The Catholic Church on the other hand adheres to a dyophysite position and describes the position of the Council of Chalcedon which stated that Christ is the eternal Son of God "made known in two natures without confusion , without change, without division, without separation, the difference of the natures being by no means removed because of the union, but the property of each nature being preserved and coalescing in one prosopon [person] and one hupostasis [subsistence]–not parted or divided into two prosopa [persons], but one and the same Son, only-begotten, divine Word, the Lord Jesus Christ."

Yes that is especially true, hence the schism.
However, as I was responding from a protestant context, I was more in regard responding to doctrines such as the Theotokos being holy, being sanctified than imputed righteousness, the real presence, the necessity of the bishops, the sacraments, the liturgical life of the church, praying to saints, confession from a priest, along those lines.
Thanks for the response of course .

 

[jbp]

Thanks for your reply!

So based off this answer it’s actually the Bible that has ultimate authority?

The Bible did not exist yet. It wouldn’t exist in canonical form until the Council of Carthage and Rome in the 4th century and the bible was promulgated by the pope/bishop of Rome

 

[wmscott]

Thanks for your reply!

So based off this answer it’s actually the Bible that has ultimate authority?

I guess I must apologize for such a short and glib answer. I “Assumed” that because you identified yourself as other than Catholic, that being Christian, however I understand Catholics are Christian also. I assumed that you wanted Scriptural references and I did not detail it out as others here has taken the time to do. Sorry

 

[SyroMalankara]

It is not exactly true that all these churches adhere to almost the same doctrines. For example, many of the Oriental Orthodox churches adhere to miaphysitism which according to Wikipedia, “holds that in the one person of Jesus Christ, Divinity and Humanity are united in one (μία “one”) or single nature (“physis”), the two being united without separation, without confusion, and without alteration.” Among the churches that adhere to this are the Armenian Apostolic Church, the Syriac Orthodox Church, and the Coptic Orthodox Church.

The Catholic Church on the other hand adheres to a dyophysite position and describes the position of the Council of Chalcedon which stated that Christ is the eternal Son of God “made known in two natures without confusion *, without change, without division, without separation, the difference of the natures being by no means removed because of the union, but the property of each nature being preserved and coalescing in one prosopon [person] and one hupostasis [subsistence]–not parted or divided into two prosopa [persons], but one and the same Son, only-begotten, divine Word, the Lord Jesus Christ.”*Actually Eastern Catholics united to Rome such as Malankara, Syriacs, Armenians, Coptic can be miaphysite and still fully Catholic and orthodox. Miaphysitism and Dyophitism express the same truth in different but complementary cultural expressions and terms. Both “sides” already agree.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hi Randy,

I LOVE the account of Christ at the beginning of this post! It’ truly amazing the historical evidence can back up Christ’s claim to be God What we agree on is that Christ estbliashed a church. It is true. However where we deviate is non-Catholics say it is the Christian Church and Catholics say it is the Rom Catholic Church. Which is true is a matter of debate

For more than a thousand years, there was only one Church - the Catholic Church. The “Christian” Church was the Catholic Church. And it still is.

There is still only one Church, and it is still the Catholic Church. Other Christians attend “churches” known by various names, but they are imperfect members of the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church. They just don’t know it.

The best part about your post is that you say the Catholic Church refers to the Bible as a historical text to back up their claim of it’s existence. When I originally posted this thread, I thought the Catholic Church claimed it existed because the bible said so, and backed up that claim by saying that only they can interpret the bible correctly – which is circular reasoning. But now I understand the difference

Great. And remember - it is NOT the case that you know the Church is correctly assembled because the Bible tells you so…you know the canon of the Bible is correctly assembled because the Catholic Church told you that this is true.

It’s just that no one every explained that to you in such black and white terms before.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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!!!

True up to a point. At some point in time, the generic name catholic or universal Church became the proper noun, Catholic Church. This happened fairly early.

Protestant Scholar on the use of the Proper Name "Catholic"

One Protestant author who is honest about this history is the renowned Church historian, J. N. D. Kelly. Kelly dates the usage of the name “Catholic” after the death of the Apostle John, but he acknowledges that the original Church founded by Jesus called itself the “Catholic Church”.

“As regards ‘Catholic,’ its original meaning was ‘universal’ or ‘general’ … As applied to the Church, its primary significance was to underline its universality as opposed to the local character of the individual congregations. Very quickly, however, in the latter half of the second century at latest, we find it conveying the suggestion that the Catholic is the true Church as distinct from heretical congregations. . . . What these early Fathers were envisaging was almost always the empirical, visible society; they had little or no inkling of the distinction which was later to become important between a visible and an invisible Church” (J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 5th ed. [San Francisco: Harper, 1978], 190f).

 

[Thorolfr]

For more than a thousand years, there was only one Church - the Catholic Church. The “Christian” Church was the Catholic Church. And it still is.

There is still only one Church, and it is still the Catholic Church. Other Christians attend “churches” known by various names, but they are imperfect members of the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church. They just don’t know it.

Great. And remember - it is NOT the case that you know the Church is correctly assembled because the Bible tells you so…you know the canon of the Bible is correctly assembled because the Catholic Church told you that this is true.

It’s just that no one every explained that to you in such black and white terms before.

This is not how some well known scholars of early Christianity such as University of North Carolina Professor Bart Ehrman see things

In his book *Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths we Never Knew *(Oxford University Press, 2003), p. 1-2, Ehrman writes:

What could be more diverse than this variegated phenomenon, Christianity in the modern world? In fact, there may be an answer: Christianity in the ancient world. As historians have come to realize, during the first three Christian centuries, the practices and beliefs found among people who called themselves Christian were so varied that the differences between Roman Catholics, Primitive Baptists, and Seventh-Day-Adventists pale by comparison.

Most of these ancient forms of Christianity are unknown to people in the world today, since they eventually came to be reformed or stamped out. As a result, the sacred texts that some ancient Christians used to support their religious perspectives came to be proscribed, destroyed, or forgotten – in one way or another lost. Many of these texts claim to be by Jesus’ closest followers. Opponents of these texts claimed that they had been forged….

Then on page 4, Ehrman writes:

Modern Christianity is not lacking in a diversity of its own, with its wide-ranging theologies, liturgies, practices, interpretations of Scripture, political views, social stands, organizations, institutions, and so on. But virtually all forms of modern Christianity, whether they acknowledge it or not, go back to one form of Christianity that emerged as victorious from the conflicts of the second and third centuries. This one form of Christianity decided what was the “correct” Christian perspective; it determined who could exercise authority over Christian belief and practice; and it determined what forms of Christianity would be marginalized, set aside, destroyed. It also decided which books to canonize into Scripture and which books to set aside as “heretical,” teaching false ideas.

And then, as a coup de grace, this victorious party rewrote the history of the controversy, making it appear that there had not been much of a conflict at all, claiming that its own views had always been those of the majority of Christians at all times, back to the time of Jesus and his apostles, that its perspective, in effect, had always been “orthodox” (i.e. the “right belief”) and that it opponents in the conflict, with their other scriptural texts, had always represented small splinter groups invested into deceiving people into “heresy” (literally meaning “choice”; a heretic is someone who willfully chooses not to believe the right things).

The evidence that Ehrman presents in his book seems quite compelling to me.

 

[Randy_Carson]

This is not how some well known scholars of early Christianity such as University of North Carolina Professor Bart Ehrman see things

In his book *Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths we Never Knew *(Oxford University Press, 2003), p. 1-2, Ehrman writes:

Then on page 4, Ehrman writes:

The evidence that Ehrman presents in his book seems quite compelling to me.

Ehrman? Seriously?

 

[Thorolfr]

Ehrman? Seriously?

His arguments are quite interesting. For example, he points out that of 30 fragmentary manuscripts of the New Testament Gospels that date from the second and third centuries, only one contains the Gospel of Mark. By contrast, there are three fragmentary copies of the Gospel of Thomas and three fragmentary copies of the Gospel of Peter from that same period which would seem to indicate that both those gospels were more widespread and more popular than the Gospel of Mark and yet neither one got into the New Testament whereas Mark did. So were the readers of the Gospels of Thomas and Peter just heretics?

 

[Abu]

nms553 #43
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.

As Christ Himself gave St Peter “ultimate papal authority” that reality needs to be understood – and it is readily available.
The first error is in disregarding the mandate of Jesus, the Son of God, in installing Peter as His Supreme Vicar.

**All four promises to Peter alone: **
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later, to the Twelve also].

**Sole authority: **
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

The second error is in disregarding history.
Already, Peter had exercised his supreme authority in the upper room before Pentecost to have Judas’ place filled. At the first Apostolic Council of Jerusalem Peter settled the heated discussion over circumcising the gentiles and “the whole assembly fell silent” (Acts 15:7-12). Paul made sure that his ministry to the gentiles was recognised by, Peter (Gal 1:I8).

The third successor of St Peter, Clement, wrote to the Catholics of Corinth in A.D. 95: “If any man should be disobedient unto the words spoken by God through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger… Render obedience to the things written by us through the Holy Spirit.” (I Clem. ad Cor. 59,1). This Is The Faith, Francis J Ripley, Fowler Wright Books, 1971, p 151; 139-141].

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.

The proof of the failure to follow Christ in the Protestants outside of His Catholic Church is the reality they lack, for to follow Jesus is to follow the teaching of His Church which He established. Thus any teaching or practice which omits the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and any of the seven sacraments, which neglects any doctrine on faith or morals taught by the Magisterium of His Church indicates a lack in following Jesus.

#19
I think it is important to mention that the early catholic Church is the one who gradually broke away from itself, not the Protestants.

That is a terrible distortion of the facts of history and a denial of Christ who expressly protected His Church from error as seen above.

The historical reality should be realised as evidently reflected in the clear understanding by the nomenclature employed, as Catholic was first used by St Ignatius of Antioch in his letter to the Smyrneans, A.D. 107, “Where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” It is from the Greek* katholike* meaning “general” or “universal”. Within 90 years it meant also “orthodox” or faithful to the teachings of Christ. (The Catholic Catechism, Fr John A Hardon, S.J., Doubleday, 1975, p 217).

In about 80 A.D., the Church at Corinth deposed its lawful leaders. The fourth bishop of Rome, Pope Clement I, was called to settle the matter even though St. John the Apostle was still alive and much closer to Corinth than was Rome. Tradition shows Pope St Clement exercising his primacy in about 96, on a matter of schism in the Church of Corinth. Of the same generation as Saints Peter and Paul and when St John the Apostle was probably still living in Ephesus, Pope Clement wrote as one commanding to the Church of Corinth in Greece: “If any disobey what He (Christ) says through us, let them know that they will be involved in no small offence and danger, but we shall be innocent of this sin.” (I Clem. ad Cor. 59,1) This Is The Faith, Francis J Ripley, Fowler Wright Books, 1971, p 151; 139-141].

No other Church has been founded by the Christ, the Son of God, and no other sect or religion has all the marks of Christ’s Church – one, holy, catholic and apostolic.

 

[nms553]

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.

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.

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)

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?

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…

Peace
James

I started to respond but my computer froze. So hopefully this isnt a duplicate.

Anyways, James, I think you and I are becoming good friends I appreciate the compassion. Truly grateful for your kind responses as well as everyone else’s…

I think the fundamental problem with the Cath Church during the reformation was that they ousted anyone who disagreed with them. Luther made attempts to reconcile, but was ultimately excommunicated.

Regarding the Cannon, these books were either old testament or intertestamental books – not NT books. This was one area I studied heavily and a similar argument can be made that the Catholic Church added those books. They were always meant to be inter-testamental historical books, not scriptural. Regardless, those books do not change the message of the bible.

I agree that fixing issues within the church before dismissing the church is crucial. But if the Catholic Church isnt willing to listen → “If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet.” Mt 10:14

Furthermore, when Jesus came he wasted no time condemning falsehood in Mt 23:13 “Woe to you Pharisees!” He outright condemned them for what they were doing and continued on.

Thanks again James!
With best intentions,
Nick

 

[nms553]

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 .

Hello Kmon!

What do you mean they do no use the Apostles Creed? You mean they do not believe the words to be true?

I disagree. The Eucharist was not part of the early Christian Church. The breaking of bread, yes, but certainly no Eucharist. Christian Churches celebrate Communion as a way of remembering that Christ made himself the sacrifice.

doctrine and maintaining the truth is so important, and this is something that many modern denominations do not realize.

Great point and very true, but Christians can say the same about the Catholic Church regarding this matter.

Also all protestant churches have denied the teachings of the early church one way or another

Yes, going against the early church is a horrible thing. You are so correct. But again, Christians claim that the Catholic Church is the one who deviated from the early church.

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.

The Catholic Church also has its history of different doctrines and falling-outs, too.

Great point about the various churches, I am unaware but I will look it up. Very interesting

 

[nms553]

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.)

Amen to this. Absolutely. However, this assumes the Catholic Church is the same as the early christian church. I challenge greatly that it is not even close. To reject the Catholic Church is not to reject the scripture because the Cath Church claims existence when they did not exist.

I need to be clear here that the difference between the early Christian Church and the Catholic Church is not some pin-pointed date in time. The early christian church gradually began to deviate away from the core teachings of the eye witness of Jesus who followed Jesus’ every footsteps. This is even witnessed in the NT. I can also back this up with historical evidence. Rightly so, I know the Catholic Church can claim to back up their view. However, which is true? Just because the Catholic Church claims it is Jesus’ church does not make it so… unless of course Jesus’ intended it to be his church. But did Jesus’ really intend for it to be the captial C Captholic Church? How do we prove that? So the argument “How can you take the bible and reject the Catholic Church who authored it” is simply illogical because, I believe, is not based on factual evidence.

As I stated before, this gets into an entirely different subject than what I originally posted.

 

[nms553]

As Christ Himself gave St Peter “ultimate papal authority” that reality needs to be understood – and it is readily available.
The first error is in disregarding the mandate of Jesus, the Son of God, in installing Peter as His Supreme Vicar.

**All four promises to Peter alone: **
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later, to the Twelve also].

**Sole authority: **
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

The second error is in disregarding history.
Already, Peter had exercised his supreme authority in the upper room before Pentecost to have Judas’ place filled. At the first Apostolic Council of Jerusalem Peter settled the heated discussion over circumcising the gentiles and “the whole assembly fell silent” (Acts 15:7-12). Paul made sure that his ministry to the gentiles was recognised by, Peter (Gal 1:I8).

The third successor of St Peter, Clement, wrote to the Catholics of Corinth in A.D. 95: “If any man should be disobedient unto the words spoken by God through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger… Render obedience to the things written by us through the Holy Spirit.” (I Clem. ad Cor. 59,1). This Is The Faith, Francis J Ripley, Fowler Wright Books, 1971, p 151; 139-141].
The proof of the failure to follow Christ in the Protestants outside of His Catholic Church is the reality they lack, for to follow Jesus is to follow the teaching of His Church which He established. Thus any teaching or practice which omits the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and any of the seven sacraments, which neglects any doctrine on faith or morals taught by the Magisterium of His Church indicates a lack in following Jesus.
That is a terrible distortion of the facts of history and a denial of Christ who expressly protected His Church from error as seen above.

The historical reality should be realised as evidently reflected in the clear understanding by the nomenclature employed, as Catholic was first used by St Ignatius of Antioch in his letter to the Smyrneans, A.D. 107, “Where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” It is from the Greek* katholike* meaning “general” or “universal”. Within 90 years it meant also “orthodox” or faithful to the teachings of Christ. (The Catholic Catechism, Fr John A Hardon, S.J., Doubleday, 1975, p 217).

In about 80 A.D., the Church at Corinth deposed its lawful leaders. The fourth bishop of Rome, Pope Clement I, was called to settle the matter even though St. John the Apostle was still alive and much closer to Corinth than was Rome. Tradition shows Pope St Clement exercising his primacy in about 96, on a matter of schism in the Church of Corinth. Of the same generation as Saints Peter and Paul and when St John the Apostle was probably still living in Ephesus, Pope Clement wrote as one commanding to the Church of Corinth in Greece: “If any disobey what He (Christ) says through us, let them know that they will be involved in no small offence and danger, but we shall be innocent of this sin.” (I Clem. ad Cor. 59,1) This Is The Faith, Francis J Ripley, Fowler Wright Books, 1971, p 151; 139-141].

No other Church has been founded by the Christ, the Son of God, and no other sect or religion has all the marks of Christ’s Church – one, holy, catholic and apostolic.

Hello Abu!

I want to say that every point you make is right on the money! However, this assumes that Christ intended the Catholic Church (the Roman Catholic Church, whatever term we what to use) to be HIS church. If Christ did not intend for the Catholic Church as we see today to be HIS church, then none of the above arguments hold water. Because it would be saying an ‘effect’ came from a ‘cause’ that never took place

 

[nms553]

So at this rate each reply I post I get 5 responses It’s very hard to keep up. I want to thank everyone from the bottom of my heart. Truly incredible people, I wont even begin to name all of you who help me tremendously. I was able to get my original question answered before this thread turned into more or less of a debate I will check in from time to time, otherwise I will see you guys on some other threads.

Please say a prayer for me in order to seek truth and unity, as I will do the same for you all!

 

[JRKH]

Anyways, James, I think you and I are becoming good friends I appreciate the compassion. Truly grateful for your kind responses as well as everyone else’s…

I am glad. I too enjoy your style. Great conversation.

I think the fundamental problem with the Cath Church during the reformation was that they ousted anyone who disagreed with them. Luther made attempts to reconcile, but was ultimately excommunicated.

I believe that you can only make this statement because you have not read the lives of some of the saints from about that time or indeed many other times in Church history.
St Francis (ca 1200) disagreed with many things going on in the Church and said so.
St Teresa of Avila and St John of the cross - contemporaries ca 1550 earnestly sought reform in the Church.
St Catherine of Sienna (ca 1380) likewise was troubled and preached the need for reform.
While each of these (and many others) “disagreed” with the Church - or some aspect of it at that time - none of them was “ousted”.
I am sure others who are more knowledgeable than I can name off others who sought reformation yet remained within the Church.
So we can safely say that your broad statement above does not hold up.

Regarding the Cannon, these books were either old testament or intertestamental books – not NT books. This was one area I studied heavily and a similar argument can be made that the Catholic Church added those books. They were always meant to be inter-testamental historical books, not scriptural. Regardless, those books do not change the message of the bible.

You missed the point of my remarks.
The point is not about the books themselves, but about the mindset that - in one breath says - “The Bible (which had existed for 1000 years) is the word of God and must be the sole rule of faith” - and then in the very next breath says - This and this and this (in the 1000 year old canon) is wrong and must be removed.
Do you not see the contradiction here???

As to the removal of the books not changing the message of the bible…This might depend on what you mean by “message”. It can certainly affect doctrine and interfaith dialogue.
For example…
A protestant asks where is purgatory in the bible and, among other things, I point to Second Maccabees and the reference to praying for the dead. The protestant dismisses this as “not being in the bible”. But yes it IS in the bible - and I can show him it is in the bible - but he will never find it in the bible he is using…

I agree that fixing issues within the church before dismissing the church is crucial. But if the Catholic Church isnt willing to listen → “If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet.” Mt 10:14

Nice quote - but the question must be raised…Who was the one who would not listen?

Consider this…
15"If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother.16But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and** if he refuses to listen even to the church,** let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (Mt 18:15-18)

Furthermore, when Jesus came he wasted no time condemning falsehood in Mt 23:13 “Woe to you Pharisees!” He outright condemned them for what they were doing and continued on.

Yes - Jesus did condemn the pharisees - but did he condemn their authority or the necessity of the Jews obeying them?
Look higher in Mt 23 - to verses 1-3 and we find…
1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, 2 saying: "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do. (NKJV).

So - before Jesus started in condemning the Pharisees for what they did, he upheld their authority as leaders of the Old Covenant Church

Sorry - but it appears, once again, that the protestant argument just does not hold up to scriptural scrutiny.
Jesus upheld the Pharisee’s teaching authority even while condemning their personal actions.
Jesus told the disciples to “tell it to the Church” and to Listen to the Church on pain of expulsion.
He didn’t say we couldn’t argue and debate.
He didn’t say that all of the people in the Church - even leaders - would be lily white and pure.
What he DID say was to listen to and to submit to the judgement of the Church.

Thanks again James!
With best intentions,
Nick

You are welcome…

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Hello Kmon!

I disagree. The Eucharist was not part of the early Christian Church. The breaking of bread, yes, but certainly no Eucharist. Christian Churches celebrate Communion as a way of remembering that Christ made himself the sacrifice.

Lutherans and Anglicans (fellow protestants) will disagree with you on this…AND…they consider this to be a matter touching on salvation for Scripture clearly point to Jesus saying Unless you eat my body you have no life in you (in John 6) and Paul states that if one does not properly perceive the body and blood, they eat and drink judgement on themselves.

So - - -

Doesn’t this make this matter as (or even more) important than the argument in Acts about circumcision?
Shouldn’t those who claim to hold to “Sola Scriptura” follow the biblical model and come together in council and prayerfully determine which view is correct in this extremely important matter?
Would you submit to such a council’s decision if it went against your own belief?

Peace
James

 

[JustaServant]

Hello Kmon!

What do you mean they do no use the Apostles Creed? You mean they do not believe the words to be true?

I disagree. The Eucharist was not part of the early Christian Church. The breaking of bread, yes, but certainly no Eucharist. Christian Churches celebrate Communion as a way of remembering that Christ made himself the sacrifice.

Great point and very true, but Christians can say the same about the Catholic Church regarding this matter.

Yes, going against the early church is a horrible thing. You are so correct. But again, Christians claim that the Catholic Church is the one who deviated from the early church.

The Catholic Church also has its history of different doctrines and falling-outs, too.

Great point about the various churches, I am unaware but I will look it up. Very interesting

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=941204

 

[Abu]

nms553 #76
Hello Abu!
I want to say that every point you make is right on the money! However, this assumes that Christ intended the Catholic Church (the Roman Catholic Church, whatever term we what to use) to be HIS church. If Christ did not intend for the Catholic Church as we see today to be HIS church, then none of the above arguments hold water. Because it would be saying an ‘effect’ came from a ‘cause’ that never took place

As the reality in post #71 is acknowledged by you to be “right on the money”, it is delusional and contradictory to then wonder “if Christ did not intend for the Catholic Church as we see it today to be HIS church” – when He specifically and irrevocably, as God, told us of HIS Church, built on St Peter as His Supreme Vicar, which you now know:
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19)

But further, the Christ warned:
“if he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector” [Mt 18:17], as you have already been shown.

And, to those on whom He founded HIS Church, “I am with you always even to the end of the world.” [Mt 28:30].

Fancy assuming that the Christ, the Son of God, is wrong, but you know better!