The Catholic Church and Authority

[tom55]

What I believe is definitely a consensus no matter how you look at it. Denying it or thinking that every Roman Catholic in this world actually thinks for themselves and understands God's word, makes it a consensus.
Rather than running around these type of farms trying to convince us that all of Roman Catholicism thinks the way you do maybe you should be on RCC forms to find out what they actually think because I can tell you from personal experience that many Roman Catholics don't think the way you do. I've known many over my lifetime and I was one before actually got saved and released from the bondage that is the RCC.

Why do I have to go to a RCC forum. This is a Christian forum and Catholics (and us soon to be Catholics) are Christian. Am I not welcome here??

Everything I have said is quoted from www.catholic.com, www.newadvent.com, http://ccc.usccb.org/flipbooks/catechism/index.html the bible or from the Early Church Fathers (who were clearly Catholic in their beliefs) and other historical writings that support catholic doctrine. So your statement, "I can tell you from personal experience that many Roman Catholics don't think the way you do" means you are hanging out with Catholics that don't know their faith.

I believe the Church will take you back. You should consider it since your salvation is based on it.

 

[StanJ]

Why do I have to go to a RCC forum. This is a Christian forum and Catholics (and us soon to be Catholics) are Christian. Am I not welcome here??

Everything I have said is quoted from www.catholic.com, www.newadvent.com, http://ccc.usccb.org/flipbooks/catechism/index.html the bible or from the Early Church Fathers (who were clearly Catholic in their beliefs) and other historical writings that support catholic doctrine. So your statement, "I can tell you from personal experience that many Roman Catholics don't think the way you do" means you are hanging out with Catholics that don't know their faith.

I believe the Church will take you back. You should consider it since your salvation is based on it.

I just explained it to you. You have a comprehension problem?

That's pretty much my point with most RC's, they know how to quote the RCC Doctrine but they have no idea what the Bible says. Fortunately you can always turn it around by learning with the Bible says.

I already belong to the church and as such would never go back to the RCC. Jesus said come follow me and let the dead bury the dead.

 

[tom55]

Yes the actual spiritual church is one body but it's the physical institution that's trying to destroy the spiritual entity.
It's people like you that insist on being committed to a physical Institution that is destroying the spiritual church.
What it means is that within the actual spiritual church there are people from within the RCC that don't try to push the agenda of the RCC but just believe in what the Bible teaches and believe that Jesus is their savior. They don't try to replace Jesus with people degrees and a huge physical Institution.
We are to be always vigilant against false teaching and as you seem to be the biggest proponent of false teaching here then yes I reply to your posts on a frequent basis. I'm retired, I have plenty of time.

How do you KNOW what I am saying is "false teaching"? Maybe what you are saying is false. Has that ever crossed your mind? Maybe I am right and you are wrong.

When it comes to scripture are you ever wrong about any of it StanJ??

 

[tom55]

I just explained it to you. You have a comprehension problem?
That's pretty much my point with most RC's, they know how to quote the RCC Doctrine but they have no idea what the Bible says. Fortunately you can always turn it around by learning with the Bible says.
I already belong to the church and as such would never go back to the RCC. Jesus said come follow me and let the dead bury the dead.

I didn't mean to make you angry StanJ. I apologize.

I do not have a comprehension problem. It's just the things you say don't make sense to me and they are not based on scripture or logic.

Why is the Church you belong to right and the one I am joining wrong?

 

[StanJ]

How do you KNOW what I am saying is "false teaching"? Maybe what you are saying is false. Has that ever crossed your mind? Maybe I am right and you are wrong.
When it comes to scripture are you ever wrong about any of it StanJ??

Because I know the Bible and I know what the RCC has taught over the 62 years I've been alive on this Earth. Your doubts are evident but you're so inculcated and deluded that you are unable to break free. Jesus can set you free but only if you confess him as your savior and deny the RCC.
At this point in my life, no I'm not. This really burns the religious people of our day just as Jesus and all the apostles caused the Pharisees to be infuriated with them. It's always the religious that reacted violently to the truth. Always has been always will.

 

[StanJ]

I didn't mean to make you angry StanJ. I apologize.

I do not have a comprehension problem. It's just the things you say don't make sense to me and they are not based on scripture or logic.

Why is the Church you belong to right and the one I am joining wrong?

I'm not angry, no apology needed.

The totally based on scripture and my knowledge of the scriptures but as you seem to not be able to see past RCC doctrines, then you can't understand the spiritual reality. That's why you have to learn the Bible and stop following RCC dogmas.

Again there's only one Church despite other organizations calling themselves that. You speak as if you are already a part of the RCC. How is it you know so much RCC Doctrine and yet are not a part of the RCC? Have you ever confessed Jesus Christ as your savior and received the in filling of the Holy Spirit? That's the first step. You don't just go out and decide to join a church because you like their Doctrine. You get saved and become part of the real Church.

 

[mjrhealth]

How do you KNOW what I am saying is "false teaching"? Maybe what you are saying is false. Has that ever crossed your mind? Maybe I am right and you are wrong.

Because Christ is right so therefore you must be wrong, since He is the truth,.

 

[lforrest]

I don't understand your answers.

I will make my questions less wordy: If two saints pray about the same passage in scripture and they both end up with a different interpretation who has the correct interpretation?

Who is a saint?

I was basically saying I believe that to be an unlikely scenario, where two saints would get competing revelations on the same scripture. If for some reason there were a discrepancy we would have to assume none of them have the correct interpretation. This would mean the only person that knows for sure is Jesus. We can't risk saying that someone knows the truth when they aren't the ones who who wrote the scripture. The way God works I doubt even the authors knew the full implications of what they wrote.

In the example I gave it was a saint as recognized by the catholic church. But I consider all whom are made alive through Christ to be saints.

 

[Mungo]

Good question.

Orthodox Christianity is defined by the creeds. They are the only definitions agreed by the whole church.

Also, who defines what is 'salvational'? The requirements for salvation, according to the New Testament, are minimal:
Confess Jesus as Lord, and believe in the Resurrection. (Romans 10:9)
Believe that Christ died for our sins and rose from the dead. (I Corinthians 15:1-8)

The doctrines on your list are important - but what makes them salvational?

Obviously this makes a difference to how we regard Christians from other denominations or traditions. The longer our list of 'essential' doctrines, the more exclusive we will be. Who decides where to draw the line? If you want to claim to be the one and only true church, all you have to do is declare everyone else a heretic.

"Orthodox Christianity is defined by the creeds. They are the only definitions agreed by the whole church"

Who says orthodox Cristianity is defined by the creeds? You?
And says which creeds? You?
If I disagree, who is right?
You say they are defined by the whole Church. But many who claim to be Christians disagree with some aspect of them.
Or are you claiming that anyone who disagrees is not Christian?
You can end up with a circular argument: The creeds are accepted by the whole church because anyone who does not accept them is not part of the church

"Also, who defines what is 'salvational'? The requirements for salvation, according to the New Testament, are minimal:
Confess Jesus as Lord, and believe in the Resurrection. (Romans 10:9)
Believe that Christ died for our sins and rose from the dead. (I Corinthians 15:1-8)"

Baptism is salvational (Mk 16:16 & 1Pet 3:2)


"The doctrines on your list are important - but what makes them salvational?"
I didn't mean they were all salvational but examples of major differences. But some are

For example, how we are justified - see above. But also false belief can lead to false assurance and loss of sanctifying grace.

 

[Mungo]

Nobody is avoiding the issue of authority, we are just showing that the RCC and the pope are not the ultimate Authority. That's not avoidance no matter how you try to interpret the word. I know that most Catholics except their denominations Doctrine as infallible and that's the biggest issue but it's very hard to argue with those that are inculcated so it's pretty much the only option to show how the church supported Doctrine is wrong. Whether you believe that or not again is between you and God and whether or not God has enough of your attention to show you and you accept it. We may be sheep for Jesus but we also know Jesus's voice and we do not know the voice of the RCC or its pope, so we do not recognize that authority that the sheep of the RCC seem only to be able to understand and accept. Sadly there are a lot of real sheep in the RCC that follow Jesus but are not listen to within their own denomination.
Remember, the New Testament clearly shows that there is only one Shepherd, one Head of the Church and that sure isn't a pope. I suggest you study your Bible and learn what it has to say, instead of putting your institution and your pope against the common Christian because when you do that there's only really one outcome and it's not one you'll be satisfied with. The church is the living/breathing Body of Christ, not an institution headed by one man.
Jesus said he is the way the truth and the light and as such he does set us free. We know Jesus. We know his written word. It's a very simple formula that is available to all who want to hear the real Shepherd's voice.
If a Pope says that bears don't run in the woods and you see a bear run in the woods, who do you believe, your eyes or your pope? Your questions are just as inane. Jesus is the foundation of the church and anyone who builds upon his foundation improperly will see the results as clearly depicted in Scripture. Try reading 1st Corinthians 3 and see if you understand what Paul is conveying?
The rest of your post has nothing to do with the topic of the Catholic church in authority and clearly you have no idea what protestantism is all about, so I'll just leave it as irrelevant.

Stan,

“Nobody is avoiding the issue of authority, we are just showing that the RCC and the pope are not the ultimate Authority.”
The Catholic Church never claims that it is the ultimate authority. It received it’s authority from Christ, who received his authority from God the Father. So the ultimate authority is the God the Father.

“Remember, the New Testament clearly shows that there is only one Shepherd, one Head of the Church and that sure isn't a pope.”
Yes, I there is only one Shepherd, but he has appointed the Pope to look after his sheep here on earth on his behalf.
Yes, I agree there is one Head of the Church, Jesus Christ, but he has appointed the Pope to be his vicar here on earth. The Pope is therefore head of the Church on Earth but Christ is the head of the whole Church which includes those in heaven and in purgatory.

“I suggest you study your Bible and learn what it has to say, instead of putting your institution and your pope against the common Christian because when you do that there's only really one outcome and it's not one you'll be satisfied with. The church is the living/breathing Body of Christ, not an institution headed by one man.”
If you study your Bible Stan, you will read that Jesus founded a Church (Mt 16:18); he founded it on the Apostles (Eph 2:20) and it is described as the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15). He gave that Church one set of doctrines (Jud 3). He appointed the Apostles with Peter as the leader (Mt 16:18-19) and gave them the mission to take the gospel to the ends of the earth. (Mt 28:16-20). He promised he would not leave them on their own (Jn 14:18) but that he would be with them until the end of the age (Mt 28:20). He prayed that it would be one Church (Jn 17:20-23).
That is a visible institutional Church with the authority to forgive sins (Jn 20:23), to bind and loose (Mt 16:19 & 18:18), and to teach (Mt 28:20).

“We know Jesus. We know his written word. It's a very simple formula that is available to all who want to hear the real Shepherd's voice.”
Then why is there so much disagreement about what his written word means?

“If a Pope says that bears don't run in the woods and you see a bear run in the woods, who do you believe, your eyes or your pope? Your questions are just as inane.”
Really! And you call my questions inane. :lol:

“Jesus is the foundation of the church and anyone who builds upon his foundation improperly will see the results as clearly depicted in Scripture”.
And that is exactly what Protestantism has done. The result is there for all to see; over 30,000 different denominations, teachings contradictory doctrines, all claiming the Holy Spirit has led them into the truth.

 

[tom55]

I'm not angry, no apology needed.

The totally based on scripture and my knowledge of the scriptures but as you seem to not be able to see past RCC doctrines, then you can't understand the spiritual reality. That's why you have to learn the Bible and stop following RCC dogmas.

Again there's only one Church despite other organizations calling themselves that. You speak as if you are already a part of the RCC. How is it you know so much RCC Doctrine and yet are not a part of the RCC? Have you ever confessed Jesus Christ as your savior and received the in filling of the Holy Spirit? That's the first step. You don't just go out and decide to join a church because you like their Doctrine. You get saved and become part of the real Church.

Why is your knowledge of scripture superior to that of the men of the RCC? You have read the bible and created your own dogma/doctrines (whatever you want to call them) based on what you read and you THINK you got it right. Why can't the RCC do the same?

I speak as if I am part of the church because over the last year or more I have been researching what you and others have been saying on this forum about the RCC. Instead of listening to you I researched your fallacious claims myself and I learned the truth. And the truth has set me free.

Remember how you used to say 'The RCC teaches/believes/preaches XYZ'? And then I would quote from the catechism what the RCC actually believed and you would still tell me I was wrong even though I quoted the source? Instances like that (and many others) helped me realize who has the truth. So I guess in a small way you helped me run to the RCC which is the church you are sadly running away from.

What church do you go to??

 

[tom55]

I was basically saying I believe that to be an unlikely scenario, where two saints would get competing revelations on the same scripture. If for some reason there were a discrepancy we would have to assume none of them have the correct interpretation. This would mean the only person that knows for sure is Jesus. We can't risk saying that someone knows the truth when they aren't the ones who who wrote the scripture. The way God works I doubt even the authors knew the full implications of what they wrote.

In the example I gave it was a saint as recognized by the catholic church. But I consider all whom are made alive through Christ to be saints.

Some very knowledgeable and saintly men who have started their own churches have disagreed on many issues or translations in the bible. Those men have led thousands if not millions of souls to believe what they believe. So what I presented is not an unlikely scenario. They are taking souls with them.

If one interprets Jesus words "This is my body" literally and another interprets those same words figuratively (a clear discrepancy) how can we "assume none of them have the correct interpretation"? One of them has the correct interpretation. Saying we can't risk that someone knows the truth when they aren't the ones who wrote scripture is not logical or biblical.

 

[lforrest]

Some very knowledgeable and saintly men who have started their own churches have disagreed on many issues or translations in the bible. Those men have led thousands if not millions of souls to believe what they believe. So what I presented is not an unlikely scenario. They are taking souls with them.

If one interprets Jesus words "This is my body" literally and another interprets those same words figuratively (a clear discrepancy) how can we "assume none of them have the correct interpretation"? One of them has the correct interpretation. Saying we can't risk that someone knows the truth when they aren't the ones who wrote scripture is not logical or biblical.

There are instances in the bible where an interpretation is given, such as how 1 Timothy 5 interprets Deuteronomy 25:4 about muzzling an ox. Do you consider Paul the successor to Moses?

 

[Mungo]

Some very knowledgeable and saintly men who have started their own churches have disagreed on many issues or translations in the bible. Those men have led thousands if not millions of souls to believe what they believe. So what I presented is not an unlikely scenario. They are taking souls with them.

If one interprets Jesus words "This is my body" literally and another interprets those same words figuratively (a clear discrepancy) how can we "assume none of them have the correct interpretation"? One of them has the correct interpretation. Saying we can't risk that someone knows the truth when they aren't the ones who wrote scripture is not logical or biblical.

Did you see my post in another thread:

“From the beginning, the fault lines of Protestantism appeared when Zwingli and Oecolampadius (two lesser Reformers) differed with Luther on the Real Presence, and the Anabaptists dissented on the Eucharist, infant Baptism, Ordination, and the function of civil authority…… By 1577, the book 200 Interpretations of the Word, “This is My Body” was published at Ingolstadt, Germany.”
(A Biblical Defence of Catholicism by Dave Armstrong)

That's Protestantism!

 

[Deborah_]

On your website you claim the Apostles Creed as "What you Believe". In the Creed it says, "I believe in the holy catholic (universal) church". If you believed in a "universal church" then you would believe in a church that has the same teaching throughout the world (universe). What you believe is that anyone or denomination can pick and choose what they want to believe and they are probably right or probably wrong. Scripture is not probably right or probably wrong. Scripture is right, it is the truth and it is infallible. Who has the authority to interpret it and claim it infallible?

And why do you define a universal church as one that has "the same teaching throughout the world"? Such a church does not exist. The Catholic church on its own is not universal because so many Christians are outside it.

The one error I found in your website is your argument on transubstantiation. In it you said, "After centuries of debate over the precise understanding of Jesus’ words, it was first promoted as official Catholic doctrine only in 1215, and was then refined a few decades later by Thomas Aquinas."

There was no argument over "the precise understanding of Jesus words". Even though the word "transubstantiation" was used to define the Eucharist as his true body and blood the Church always taught that it was his body and blood. They made it their official doctrine in 1215 to argue against heretics and go on record as official doctrine that it is his true body and blood. (they came up with a word to define it)

The Didache says in reference to the Eucharist, "Do not give what is holy to the dogs.” The early Christians believed it was holy because they believed it to be his body and blood. Ignatius of Antioch referring to "those who hold heterodox opinions," that "they abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again.' Read what Athenagoras of Athens wrote around 180 AD. I could go on and on about how the Church believed that it was his real body and blood BEFORE 1215 AD. It was common knowledge and practice and was only defined in 1215 because of heretics. Just like the Trinity Doctrine you pointed out earlier.

All of us, Catholic and Protestant, would agree that the bread and wine of the Eucharist are Jesus' body and blood. The devil is in the detail: in what sense are they His body and blood? And without going inside the minds of the apostolic Fathers, how sure can we be of what they meant?
"Do not give what is holy to the dogs" is a quote from the Sermon on the Mount; it does not (in original context) refer specifically to the Eucharist but to any holy thing. I would agree that the bread and wine of the Eucharist are holy and should not be given to unbelievers, without having to believe in Transubstantiation.

Irenaeus (also from the second century) writes about the Eucharist and describes it as Christ's body and blood, but he also says, "He (i.e. Christ) has acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as His own blood, from which He bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of the creation) He has established as His own body, from which He gives increase to our bodies." This doesn't sound like transubstantiation to me.

This is why I use the word 'debate' in my article. Even if a full belief in transubstantiation was present within the Church early on, it doesn't seem to have been held universally. And the same goes for many other distinctive Catholic doctrines.

 

[Deborah_]

"Orthodox Christianity is defined by the creeds. They are the only definitions agreed by the whole church"

Who says orthodox Cristianity is defined by the creeds? You?
And says which creeds? You?
If I disagree, who is right?
You say they are defined by the whole Church. But many who claim to be Christians disagree with some aspect of them.
Or are you claiming that anyone who disagrees is not Christian?
You can end up with a circular argument: The creeds are accepted by the whole church because anyone who does not accept them is not part of the church

Indeed we do seem to end up with a circular argument. We can choose whatever definition of Christianity we like, to exclude anyone we want to. What would yours be?

 

[Mungo]

Indeed we do seem to end up with a circular argument. We can choose whatever definition of Christianity we like, to exclude anyone we want to. What would yours be?

Let’s go back to your original statement which I queried:

“As for my opinions (as set out on my website), they have the same status as yours. They should be 'tested' (I John 4:1http://biblia.com/bible/hcsb/1 John 4.1), but I believe they are within the bounds of orthodox Christianity.”

Now you admit that you cannot define what orthodox Christianity is.

That makes your original statement meaningless.


But as this thread is about Authority let me give you something to think about.

“….and in Antioch the disciples were for the first time called Christians.” (Acts 11:26)

What do we know about these Christians in Antioch?

From Acts 15 we know that a dispute arose between Paul and Barnabus and some Judaisers (James’ party). They went to Jerusalem to consult the apostles and elders of the Church. These made a decision and sent a letter to the Christians in Antioch.

When they received the decision, which contained no supporting scripture, they accepted it as authoritative.
So we know that they accepted the authority of the Church and were not sola scriptura.

 

[StanJ]

Why is your knowledge of scripture superior to that of the men of the RCC? You have read the bible and created your own dogma/doctrines (whatever you want to call them) based on what you read and you THINK you got it right. Why can't the RCC do the same?

First of all like I've said many times I was in the RCC for 17 years and learned all about their basic Doctrine then what they do and don't believe. Went to Catholic schools and took the catechism regularly. A lot of things didn't make sense to me but when I tried to question it I was told there's no question and you really believe it or you don't and eventually I didn't. I was saved in 1971 and have been studying the scriptures ever since and everything I have learned has shown me that many things that the RCC teaches is false teaching. those false teachings usually end up being propagated by people such as yourself on sites just like this. I've been defending the truth faith for many years now and God's word has always proven to be true whereas not so much for the teachings of the RCC. I haven't created my own Dogma and I'm sure you can tell that for the most part my beliefs are consistent with most that are on this thread. The problem with the RCC today and for many centuries before this is it they start with false teaching and build on it. Transubstantiation it's just one of the issues but there are many more and as the Bible teaches if you don't start on my Jesus built or on His foundation, then in the end it will all be burned up.

I speak as if I am part of the church because over the last year or more I have been researching what you and others have been saying on this forum about the RCC. Instead of listening to you I researched your fallacious claims myself and I learned the truth. And the truth has set me free.

You researched what we said based on what is contain in the RCC catechism and you decided to accept it rather than the word of God? Here's a verse for you from the Bible not from the RCC catechism. You can either believe it or rejected but it is at the heart of the issue as to why you have a problem with accepting the Bible over the RCC catechism.
Hebrews 11:6 (NET)
Now without faith it is impossible to please him, for the one who approaches God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.

Remember how you used to say 'The RCC teaches/believes/preaches XYZ'? And then I would quote from the catechism what the RCC actually believed and you would still tell me I was wrong even though I quoted the source? Instances like that (and many others) helped me realize who has the truth. So I guess in a small way you helped me run to the RCC which is the church you are sadly running away from.

So you really think that every teacher in the RCC teaches exactly what is in the catechism? No I don't remember specifics but I do remember that you gave up actually responding to what I had to say so to me that is acquiescence to the truth. Now if you have specifics then bring them up now and I'll deal with them. I do remember that your Mo was to try to ambush people which is why you probably didn't get a whole lot of cooperation when asking questions. Nobody likes to discuss with disingenuous people. If truth be known you probably had already made up your mind before you even showed up on this forum. But then again only Jesus knows for sure and he will be your judge in the end.

What church do you go to??

Again this is something that you don't seem to understand, I don't go to church I am part of THE church the Body of Christ. We meet together on a regular basis around the world in small groups, sometimes in the tens, sometimes in the hundreds, and sometimes in the thousands. It is a living breathing spiritual body not an institution made up of Steel and concrete. we don't have a capital city. We don't have millions of dollars in bank accounts. Each one of us ministers to the world as he or she is guided to do. We don't wait for someone to tell us what to do or how to think. We are a living, breathing, active, and spiritual Body of Christ. Jesus is our one and only mediator and head, who talks to each of us individually through his written word.

 

[Deborah_]

Let’s go back to your original statement which I queried:

“As for my opinions (as set out on my website), they have the same status as yours. They should be 'tested' (I John 4:1http://biblia.com/bible/hcsb/1 John 4.1), but I believe they are within the bounds of orthodox Christianity.”

Now you admit that you cannot define what orthodox Christianity is.

But neither can you. If we do not agree on the authority of the creeds, what can we agree on? It will be impossible even to discuss the subject.

But as this thread is about Authority let me give you something to think about.

“….and in Antioch the disciples were for the first time called Christians.” (Acts 11:26)

What do we know about these Christians in Antioch?

From Acts 15 we know that a dispute arose between Paul and Barnabus and some Judaisers (James’ party). They went to Jerusalem to consult the apostles and elders of the Church. These made a decision and sent a letter to the Christians in Antioch.

When they received the decision, which contained no supporting scripture, they accepted it as authoritative.
So we know that they accepted the authority of the Church and were not sola scriptura.

What do you think sola scriptura actually means? Not that Scripture is the only authority but that it is the final authority.
You are also forgetting that the letter was accompanied by delegates from the Council who were able to explain the reasoning behind it - which most definitely did include Scripture. (Acts 15:15)

 

[StanJ]

But neither can you. If we do not agree on the authority of the creeds, what can we agree on? It will be impossible even to discuss the subject.

I am in agreement and support the original Nicene Creed of 325, however I am not in agreement with nor do I support the second one of 381 called the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed.