Apostolic successionKeras,
I have no intention of trying to turn you away from the Catholic Church. I understand you have your faith and conviction and I am fine with that. I think we both are brothers in Christ, though we disagree on a number of issues.
Allow me just to conclude with a few thoughts. First, I just want to be clear that the text does not actually make the implications you are giving. It never says "passed on" or mentions offices or magisterium. It never even implies it. I understand your background teaches these things are implied in these verses, but that is presupposition you have going into the text. Those passages say no such thing about ongoing offices, etc. They just dont. It is fine with me if you think that is what Jesus meant, maybe you are right. But that is not what the passages overtly state.
Second, I think history is my friend. The letter of Athanasius in 367 shows a consensus view of the churches regarding the books of the NT. Even prior to this, we see that even earlier, around 200 AD other writings may indicate the same concepts. However, it was not until much later that the "official" canon was decreed upon by Church councils. Yet my point is that the council was merely affirming what the Church had believed, and was not "creating" a canon. It was merely solidifying what orthodox believers already accepted in the face of heretical groups and teachings.
Yes, Paul was subject to the Church, but he also declared that he did not need approval from those who "seemed influential." (Gal 2:6). Yet, I agree that Paul was not a Lone Ranger and he did seek to work within the guidance of the Church. Yet, he mentions he was not afraid to confront Peter when he was in error. To suggest that this is only because Peter was not in some special seat of teaching authority seems nonsensical to me. Clearly Peter was a leader and his leadership was leading people astray because of hypocrisy. Yet because Peter loved the truth and did not see himself as incapable of error because of position, he was humbled and repented of his misrepresentation of the Gospel. Paul himself declares that "even if an angel" declares a false gospel, they should be condemned. It is not position, but message that matters. The message always usurps position..at least that is how I read those texts.
Again, I know you will not change your mind and I am not trying to. Just trying to clarify my position.
Magisterium
Athanasius
The Canon of Scripture
Paul confronts Peter
the primacy of Peter
I can't reply to this list in one brief post, so I will briefly summarize each of your points.
Apostolic succession
I respectfully submit that your position is full of holes.
The testimony of the early Church is deafening in its unanimous (yes, unanimous) assertion of apostolic succession. What is the biblical support for apostolic succession? | Catholic Answers
Magisterium
By the Magisterium we mean the teaching office of the Church. It didn't just disappear. In Bible times it consisted of Peter and the Apostles. Today it consists of the Pope (who is a bishop, not an apostle) and all the bishops, whose office can be traced back to the Apostles they succeeded. Tradition and Living Magisterium | Catholic Answers
Athanasius
Since 95% of Christians could not read in 367 AD, you will have to clarify what you mean by "consensus".
From Athanasius' 39th Festal Letter in the year 367:
Since, however, we have spoken of the heretics as dead but of ourselves as possessors of the divine writings unto salvation,... the rest of his letter is here. Notice he writes "of ourselves" so he is not acting independently.
The Canon of Scripture The whole Bible was canonized in 397 AD at the Council of Carthage, not by a vote of all believers. The Church did not "create" the canon but discerned false books from inspired books. It was a long complicated process.
Paul confronts Peter
Paul confronted Peter for his behavior, not his teaching. There isn't a shred of evidence they had theological differences. Popes have been rebuked throughout history (e.g., by St. Catherine of Siena, St. Dominic, St. Francis). It doesn’t follow that they have no authority. Jesus rebuked and excoriated the Pharisees, but He told His followers to follow their teaching, even though they acted like hypocrites ((Matt 23:2 ff.).. Paul confronting Peter had nothing to do with infallible teaching because Peter made no teaching while he was hiding. But Peter wrote 2 infallible encyclicals (1 & 2nd Peter).
the primacy of Peter
Where did Peter misrepresent the Gospel? Chapter and verse please.
Paul himself declares that "even if an angel" declares a false gospel, they should be condemned. It is not position, but message that matters. The message always usurps position..at least that is how I read those texts
You’re trying to set the Bible against the Church, which is typical Protestant methodology, and ultra-unbiblical. The Bible never does that. I’ve already given the example of the Jerusalem Council, which plainly shows the infallibility of the Church.
The Bible repeatedly teaches that the Church is indefectible; therefore, the hypothetical of rejecting the (one true, historic) Church, as supposedly going against the Bible, is impossible according to the Bible. It is not a situation that would ever come up, because of God’s promised protection.
What the Bible says is to reject those who cause divisions, which is the very essence of the onset of Protestantism: schism, sectarianism, and division. It is Protestantism that departed from the historic Church, which is indefectible and infallible (see also 1 Tim 3:15).
The one true Church is and always will be in harmony with God’s inspired revelation, the Bible. Thus, we reject any form of Protestantism, because they fail this test. It’s not a matter of one thing being “under” the other. All of that is the invention of the 16th century and the biblically bankrupt and meaningless notion of sola Scriptura. The Bible presents Scripture-Tradition-Church as a “three-legged stool”: the rule of faith. All are in harmony; all work together.
And is any church and any teacher to be rejected who strays from God’s words, as Paul commands?
Sure; this is why we reject any form of Protestantism, because all fail the test of allegiance to God’s Word in Holy Scripture, and the historical pedigree that the fathers always taught was necessary. Every heretic in the history of the world thumbed their nose at the institutional Church and went by Scripture alone. It is the heretical worldview to do so, precisely because they know they can’t prove that their views were passed down through history in an unbroken succession.
Therefore, heresies and Protestantism either had to play games with history in order to pretend that it fits with their views, or ignore it altogether.
It is the pitting of the ultimate source against the secondary, human source (the Church) which is the problem in your approach and that of Protestantism in general. You guys don’t like human, institutional authority and don’t have enough faith to believe that God can and does preserve it, so you try to undermine it by fallacious arguments, as presently.
No doubt you aren’t even aware that you are doing it. To do this is automatic in Protestantism; it’s like breathing. It’s like the fish that doesn’t know it’s in water. It all comes from the rejection of the infallibility of the Church (which is one thing that sola Scriptura always entails).
In Galatians 1-2 Paul is referring to his initial conversion. But even then God made sure there was someone else around, to urge him to get baptized (Ananias: Acts 22:12-16). He received the revelation initially and then sought to have it confirmed by Church authority (Gal 2:1-2); then his authority was accepted or verified by James, Peter, and John (Gal 2:9). So we see that the Bible doesn’t pit the divine call directly from God, against Church authority, as you do. You do it because it is Protestant man-made tradition to do so; period, and because the Protestant has to always undermine the authority of the Church, in order to bolster his own anti-system, that was set up against the historic Church in the first place.
We believe in faith that the Church is infallible and indefectible, based on many biblical indications. It is theoretically possible (speaking in terms of philosophy or epistemology) that the Church could stray and have to be rejected, but the Bible rules that out. We believe in faith that it has not and will not.
Protestants don’t have enough faith to believe that God could preserve an infallible Church, even though they can muster up even more faith than that, which is required to believe in an infallible Bible written by a bunch of sinners and hypocrites.
We simply have more faith than you guys do. It’s a supernatural gift. We believe that the authoritative Church is also a key part of God’s plan to save the souls of men. We follow the model of the Jerusalem Council, whereas you guys reject that or ignore it, because it doesn’t fit in with the man-made tradition of Protestantism and a supposedly non-infallible Church.
Dialogue with a Calvinist: Was Paul a "Lone Ranger"?