The Catholic Church and Authority

[mjrhealth]

Your opinions are in the Bible?

I have no opinions they count for nought in Gods Kingdom as for studying well, havnt yet found a chritian approved by God because they studied but found many aproved of by God because of what Christ did, One glorifies man the other God

 

[TopherNelson]

I don't think mjrhealth will listen to you.

I am referring to all of you.

 

[TopherNelson]

I have no opinions they count for nought in Gods Kingdom as for studying well, havnt yet found a chritian approved by God because they studied but found many aproved of by God because of what Christ did, One glorifies man the other God

You are approved by God? I said "we who study to show ourselves approved and rightly interpret the Word of truth." Notice, I said I studied to show myself approved to God and rightly interpret the Word of Truth. Scripture is foundation. Without knowing the basics, there is no message of Salvation.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 ESV
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

 

[epostle1]

Jesus said:
"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. But 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. If 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.” (Mt 15:17-18)

Jesus’ words only make sense if there is a visible Church with authority over its members; a Church that was founded by Christ himself, not by any man 15+ centuries later.

Of course, you may decide that the Holy Spirit is infallibly telling you that Mt 15:16-17 doesn’t really mean what it appears to mean….

I maintain that there is only one Church that can be traced back to the apostles and contains all the authority that Christ gave it. And that is the Catholic Church. The Orthodox Church is close but it doesn’t accept the authority of the Pope as the successor of Peter.

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; yes. 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.

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.

Paul was under Church authority, in various ways. Of course, all authority ultimately comes from God. 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, and the Catholic 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.

Galatians 1:8-9 is very real; thus, we reject Protestantism where it departs from God’s word. The Bible teaches that the true Church is infallible and indefectible. That is a promise of God. One either accepts it in faith or not. That is the task: does one accept all of what the Bible teaches, or just selectively, with man-made traditions added to it?
There is such a thing as a false church and false gospel, that must be rejected, and there is also the one true Church that cannot fail doctrinally, based on God’s protection. You assert the first thing but reject the second, which is your difficulty (accepting one part of the Bible but not another). We accept both things and have no difficulty.

Was Paul a Lone Ranger?

 

[ScaliaFan]

study the lives of converts to the Catholic faith, if you want to u/stand Catholicism (and or take RCIA classes, which are free)... esp people like Scott Hahn who has read probably more theology books than anyone on the planet..

he studied so hard b/c he wanted to prove Catholicism WRONG... and even when he began to suspect it was not wrong.. his wife almost divorced him b/c she couldn't stand the idea of being Catholic... or even being married to one. It was a lot of ups and downs for a long time but eventually the whole family converted to Catholicism

so i guess anticatholics are not hopeless after all, SF said to self....


:unsure:

 

[ScaliaFan]

study the lives of converts to the Catholic faith, if you want to u/stand Catholicism... esp people like Scott Hahn who has read probably more theology books than anyone on the planet..

he studied so hard b/c he wanted to prove Catholicism was WRONG... and even when he began to suspect it was not wrong.. his wife almost divorced him b/c she couldn't stand the idea of being Catholic... or even being married to one. It was a lot of ups and downs for a long time but eventually the whole family converted to Catholicism

so i guess anticatholics are not hopeless after all, SF said to self....


:unsure:

 

[tom55]

One if its my opinion than I am wrong but if it is truth than are you to argue with Jesus?? Ceratinly I do not come her for you, you have proved to all that you have no interset in the truth but only serve to glorfy your church and its traditions.

As for personal doctrines have none sorry to dissapoint you, everythinhg I speak of is theer where you can read it, again I say, you just need to open your eyes. Its amazing what you can see when you are not blind.

As for being a hypocrit, just look at he church you love and what it has done to the name of God, that is hypocrisy to its worst form. You where far better off when you where ignorant.

Joh 9:40 And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also?
Joh 9:41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.

But you say you can see, and therfore , well you will have to wait and see, so good to have a lving God, who is wel laware of mans arrogance, pride and stupidity.

If "...God is not interested in men's opinions or religious doctrins (doctrines)" then why are YOU on this website giving your opinion and your personal religious doctrines about what God has said to us thru scripture?

 

[tom55]

Some people become upset because we (who study to show ourselves approved and rightly interpret the Word of truth) dare to say they are incorrect about their Christianity.
Like the opinions of ignorant men determine Christian truth or something. There is one truth and these people clearly think every ignorant but heartfelt theology must be true because a poor sucker bets his salvation on it like a duck at a stacked poker game.

When you say "I am referring to all of you" how can you, davidnelson, "rightly interpret the Word of truth" AND accuse others of being "incorrect about their Christianity"? How did you come about this authority?

Are you saying everyone else is wrong and you are right? (that's what I think you are saying)

 

[ScaliaFan]

i dont listen to any human beings any more when it comes to interpretation of the Word and that kind of thing. I am glad i have an infallible Church i can trust...

Humans NEED that... You can tell b/c you can see the way people are searching... and as is often the case, the answer to their search is often right under their nose...

a city on a hill cannot be hid

 

[TopherNelson]

The blind cannot lead the blind.

 

[tom55]

The blind cannot lead the blind.

Do you think 'YOU are approved and YOU rightly interpret the Word of truth'? Dare I say that you are incorrect about your Christianity? (Post #139)

It sounds like you are leading yourself. Is it possible you are blind to your own fallacy?? (You would have to consult yourself for that answer and no one else; which makes you blind)

 

[TopherNelson]

Do you think 'YOU are approved and YOU rightly interpret the Word of truth'? Dare I say that you are incorrect about your Christianity? (Post #139)

It sounds like you are leading yourself. Is it possible you are blind to your own fallacy?? (You would have to consult yourself for that answer and no one else; which makes you blind)

I do not think, I believe. I am approved and I rightly interpret the Word of Truth. I am not leading myself. The Holy Spirit is leading me. You, however is being lead by the Roman Catholic Church. I consult with Jesus. I pray to Jesus, alone. I am not blind, Jesus is my light. The Roman Catholic Church is your light.

Peter isn't the first pope (unless you can prove it otherwise). The catholic church have no authority. Your fallacy is your building a building with invisible bricks.

 

[tom55]

I do not think, I believe. I am approved and I rightly interpret the Word of Truth. I am not leading myself. The Holy Spirit is leading me. You, however is being lead by the Roman Catholic Church. I consult with Jesus. I pray to Jesus, alone. I am not blind, Jesus is my light. The Roman Catholic Church is your light.

Peter isn't the first pope (unless you can prove it otherwise). The catholic church have no authority. Your fallacy is your building a building with invisible bricks.

It appears from your answer you did consult yourself to determine if you were right about what you believe.

I am glad you clarified that you "believe" it. That means you could be wrong.

Since you believe the Holy Spirit is leading you in the truth will the Holy Spirit also let you know when you are wrong?

Other people believe the Holy Spirit is leading them also. When what they say or believe contradicts what you say or believe; who's Holy Spirit is right?? Theirs or yours??

If the Catholic Church has no authority then who does?

What church do you go to when you want to follow Jesus teaching? (Matthew 18:17)

Which church is the pillar and foundation of truth??

 

[TopherNelson]

It appears from your answer you did consult yourself to determine if you were right about what you believe.

I am glad you clarified that you "believe" it. That means you could be wrong.

Since you believe the Holy Spirit is leading you in the truth will the Holy Spirit also let you know when you are wrong?

Other people believe the Holy Spirit is leading them also. When what they say or believe contradicts what you say or believe; who's Holy Spirit is right?? Theirs or yours??

If the Catholic Church has no authority then who does?

What church do you go to when you want to follow Jesus teaching? (Matthew 18:17)

Which church is the pillar and foundation of truth??

The question isn't who's holy spirit is right, it is if they have the spirit or not. The Holy Spirit is the Spiritual of Truth. As I told you, if you cannot prove Peter was the first pope, then there is no point to this argument.

 

[epostle1]

Christ himself is the source of th

I do not think, I believe. I am approved and I rightly interpret the Word of Truth.

That's nice. According to the Bible, you have to be ordained by a bishop (who can trace his lineage back to the Apostles)
or
be called directly by God followed by signs and wonders.
That is how "man of God" is defined in Scripture.
You might interpret correctly most of the time, but you have no direct promise by God that you will get it right all the time. You cannot claim infallibility for yourself because you (unbiblically) deny it to begin with.
I am not leading myself. The Holy Spirit is leading me.

Where in the Bible does the Holy Spirit lead individuals apart from the Church Jesus founded?

You, however is being lead by the Roman Catholic Church. I consult with Jesus. I pray to Jesus, alone. I am not blind, Jesus is my light. The Roman Catholic Church is your light.

This may come as a shock to you, but one of the primary mission of the Catholic Church is to teach people about Jesus. Your comment is redundant.

Peter isn't the first pope (unless you can prove it otherwise).

There is truckloads of evidence that Peter was the first Pope. I have 70+ NT verses clearly indicating Peter as spokesman/leader of the Apostles. Would you like them? Then there is the testimony of the Early Church Fathers, but you have nothing to do with them. You can find the line of succession of Popes in any encyclopedia. Anti-Catholic polemics is your only proof, not facts. You are forced to do violence to all of early church history, so you can only appeal to false revisionism.

The catholic church have no authority. Your fallacy is your building a building with invisible bricks.

Christ himself is the source of the Church's authority.

The Catholic Church makes an amazing claim: it teaches, governs, and sanctifies with the authority of Christ himself.
Catholics believe that this gift of Church authority is one of the jewels that Christ has given to us as an aid to our salvation.
Keep three things in mind:

• There is a large amount of evidence in Scripture to support the Catholic Church's claim to authority, as well as from early Church history.
• The nature and scope of Church authority are widely misunderstood.

Rejection of this claim is usually based on the common misconception of "misplaced worship" — the accusation that Catholics worship the something else (the Church, the Pope, Mary, the Saints, etc.) instead of God.

Christ himself is the source of the Church's authority.
The New Testament shows that Christ deliberately created his Church to be the vehicle of his continuing mission in the world. He promised to remain present in his Church for all time, and He lovingly guides it through the presence of the Holy Spirit.

To ensure the success of this mission, Christ gave his Church the ability to teach, govern and sanctify with Christ's own authority. The Apostles appointed successors to ensure that the Gospel would continue to be handed on faithfully as "the lasting source of all life for the Church" (Vatican II, "Lumen Gentium" 20; also Catechism #860). (but you conveniently reject Apostolic Succession because you don't have any)
The source and guarantee of this Church authority is Christ's continuing presence in his Church — "Lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age" (Mt 28:20).

Was He lying??? Did Jesus take a vacation until the 15th century???

 

[tom55]

The question isn't who's holy spirit is right, it is if they have the spirit or not. The Holy Spirit is the Spiritual of Truth. As I told you, if you cannot prove Peter was the first pope, then there is no point to this argument.

Weird....You didn't answer my questions. If you would answer my questions (or at least try) you would see how wrong you are.

I don't recall this discussion being about Peter being the first Pope. You just threw that in there as a rabbit trail and I refuse to follow it. Can we stay on topic?

 

[mjrhealth]

If the Catholic Church has no authority then who does?

God ,Jesus and teh Holy Spirit

1Jn_5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

What church do you go to when you want to follow Jesus teaching? (Matthew 18:17)

Joh_14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Which church is the pillar and foundation of truth??

There is none our foundation is in Revelation

Mat_16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Something so few have because they dont believe God but would rather believe men and there churches doctrines.

Mat_15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Mar_7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Col_2:22 Which all are to perish with the using after the commandments and doctrines of men?
1Ti_4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

 

[tom55]

God ,Jesus and teh Holy Spirit

1Jn_5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.


Joh_14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.


There is none our foundation is in Revelation

Mat_16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Something so few have because they dont believe God but would rather believe men and there churches doctrines.

Mat_15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Mar_7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Col_2:22 Which all are to perish with the using after the commandments and doctrines of men?
1Ti_4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

Your answers are bizarre and entertaining and your beliefs are anti-Christian.

 

[mjrhealth]

Your answers are bizarre and entertaining and your beliefs are anti-Christian.

No just anti relgion, catholism and all that oposses God, and if it ias entertaining than I guess you dont care too much about your salvation or the truth for that matter. Seems the only thinhg you care about is Catholisom and your churches doctrines whick all are "anti christ". I point people to Christ you send them to your church.Anti Christ you say??

 

[epostle1]

There are some differences between (Roman) Catholics and (Eastern) Orthodox over interpretation of scriptures. There are many differences between Catholics (and Orthodox) and most Protestants. There are many differences between the multitudinous Protestant denominations and church groups.

Who is right?
It all boils down to authority.
Who has the authority to make definitive interpretations of scriptures?
Who has the authority to pronounce which doctrines are true?

Let’s say someone says a particular passage should be interpreted metaphorically. Someone else says it should be interpreted literally. A third person says it has to be interpreted in the light of bible passage X. A fourth person says it should be interpreted in the light of a different passage Y. A fifth person says it is not relevant to the current situation however it is interpreted. A sixth person…….and so on!

Who is right? Whose interpretation do you go along with? Perhaps you come up with your own.

Whatever you do you will be right because the Holy Spirit is leading you personally into all truth (1Jn 2:27).
Right?

Except the others all believe the Holy Spirit is leading them personally into all truth!

Welcome to Protestantism!

Let’s try another scenario.
For 1500 years Christians throughout the world have interpreted a particular passage from one of Paul’s letters as meaning ABC. The some guy – let’s call him Luther - studies scripture and decides it has been interpreted wrongly and means XYZ, and teaches a doctrine based on his interpretation. Now just suppose that Paul himself appears and says “Actually Luther, you are wrong. It does mean ABC”. Who do you believe – Paul or Luther?

Well Paul obviously – he wrote it. But suppose the apostle Peter came along instead and says – “Luther is wrong, Paul meant ABC and Luther’s doctrine is wrong.” Who do you believe? Still Peter - he was an apostle. He was taught by Christ and was given authority by Christ. Luther was not.

But suppose neither Paul not Peter turned up, but Timothy instead. And Timothy says – “Luther is wrong, Paul meant ABC and Luther’s doctrine is wrong.” Who do you believe? Timothy has been taught personally by Paul. Paul has laid hands on him and appointed him to be a minister of Christ Jesus and an overseer in Ephesus; instructed him to pass on to other faithful people the teaching that Paul has given him. Of course I would trust Timothy. He was given teaching and authority by Paul. Luther was not.

That’s how we know what the correct interpretation of scripture is. That’s how we know what true doctrines are. We get them from the apostles because they were given true doctrines by Christ and the authority to teach them by Christ. And they passed them on to faithful people who would pass them on in their turn (2Tim 2:1-2).
We don’t get them from personal opinions of those who have not been given such authority.

It all boils down to authority!

Let’s simplify it another way.

Group 1 proposes a doctrine based on a literal interpretation of scripture.

Group 2 proposes a different doctrine based on a metaphorical interpretation of scripture.

You have three choices.

1. You decide that no-one has any authority and their interpretations are just opinions. In that case there is no absolute truth. But then why study the Bible if all you get are conflicting opinions? You might think there is absolute truth but in fact all you have are differing opinions.

2. You decide that one group is right because you think their interpretation is the most “biblical”. But all you have done is decide that your personal opinion trumps the others. Who gave you the authority to decide which is “biblical”, which is right or wrong? Does a particular group seem ‘right’ to you? But that doesn’t mean it is right. You are not infallible.

3. You look to see where there is a group that God has given the authority to interpret scripture definitively and teach true doctrine.
Such a group must go back to the apostles because they were given the teaching and authority by Christ.
Such a group must have been passed on true doctrine from the apostles and the authority to interpret scripture correctly.
Is there one? Or did Christ abandon his Church to fall into error, despite his promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against it?
No of course not.
There must be such a group, a church - and there is one.

Welcome to the Catholic Church!

Jesus said:
"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. But 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. If 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.” (Mt 15:17-18)

Jesus’ words only make sense if there is a visible Church with authority over its members; a Church that was founded by Christ himself, not by any man 15+ centuries later.

Of course, you may decide that the Holy Spirit is infallibly telling you that Mt 15:16-17 doesn’t really mean what it appears to mean….

I maintain that there is only one Church that can be traced back to the apostles and contains all the authority that Christ gave it. And that is the Catholic Church. The Orthodox Church is close but it doesn’t accept the authority of the Pope as the successor of Peter.

The Catholic Church has the four scriptural marks of the Church Christ founded, as described by Paul and proclaimed in the Nicene Creed – one, holy, catholic and apostolic.

Eph 2:19-22
So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, [catholic]
built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, [apostolic]
in whom the whole structure is joined together [one]
and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit. [holy]

Just to clarify a few things:
Authority to interpret scriptures correctly is not something the Catholic Church (CC) owns for herself. Lots of different churches get most of it right. Any layman can interpret scripture as long as they don't go off the wall. The difference is that the CC can interpret scripture infallibly. As from the first, God speaks to his Church through the Bible and through sacred Tradition. To make sure we understand him, he guides the Church’s teaching authority—the magisterium—so it always interprets the Bible and Tradition accurately. This is the gift of infallibility.

Like the three legs on a stool, the Bible, Tradition, and the magisterium are all necessary for the stability of the Church and to guarantee sound doctrine.

Sacred Tradition (CCC 75–83)
Sacred Tradition should not be confused with mere traditions of men, which are more commonly called customs or disciplines. Jesus sometimes condemned customs or disciplines, but only if they were contrary to God’s commands (Mark 7:8). He never condemned sacred Tradition, and he didn’t even condemn all human tradition.
Sacred Tradition and the Bible are not different or competing revelations. They are two ways that the Church hands on the gospel. Apostolic teachings such as the Trinity, infant baptism, the inerrancy of the Bible, purgatory, and Mary’s perpetual virginity have been most clearly taught through Tradition, although they are also implicitly present in (and not contrary to) the Bible. The Bible itself tells us to hold fast to Tradition, whether it comes to us in written or oral form (2 Thess. 2:15, 1 Cor. 11:2).

Scripture (CCC 101–141)
Scripture, by which we mean the Old and New Testaments, was inspired by God (2 Tim. 3:16). The Holy Spirit guided the biblical authors to write what he wanted them to write. Since God is the principal author of the Bible, and since God is truth itself (John 14:6) and cannot teach anything untrue, the Bible is free from all error in everything it asserts to be true.

Some Christians claim, "The Bible is all I need," but this notion is not taught in the Bible itself. In fact, the Bible teaches the contrary idea (2 Pet. 1:20–21, 3:15–16). The "Bible alone" theory was not believed by anyone in the early Church.

It is new, having arisen only in the 1500s during the Protestant Reformation. The theory is a "tradition of men" that nullifies the Word of God, distorts the true role of the Bible, and undermines the authority of the Church Jesus established (Mark 7:1–8).
Although popular with many "Bible Christian" churches, the "Bible alone" theory simply does not work in practice. Historical experience disproves it. Each year we see additional splintering among "Bible-believing" religions.

Sacred Tradition should not be confused with customs and disciplines, such as the rosary, priestly celibacy, and not eating meat on Fridays in Lent. These are good and helpful things, but they are not doctrines. Sacred Tradition preserves doctrines first taught by Jesus to the apostles and later passed down to us through the apostles’ successors, the bishops.
read more here