Catholicity key to Church Unity

Christ instituted one office of preaching the gospel and administering the sacraments. Scripture and Tradition teach that it is only by human right that the office of Bishop is distinct from the office of pastor. Apostasy can be found within both episcopal and congregational churches.

 

So "WHO" were the NT saints relying on to "interpret for them"?

Hmmm. No infallible Pope appealed to in this text.

In Christ,

Bob

 

The office of Bishop - or Elder is common to all.

What is "missing" is the idea of magic sacrament.

An idea that evolved over time according to the RCC.

</font>[/QUOTE]In Christ,

Bob

 

The pope or Antichrist certainly did pervert the one office of bishop, priest, pastor, or elder (which ever term you prefer) from an office of service to multiple offices of power over men. However, it was Christ that instituted the office of steward of the mysteries(if you prefer that term to "sacraments"). And the church is bound to observe this one office until the Lord returns.

Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God. Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful. 1 Cor. 4:1.2

If churches wish to form higher tier organizations, they may do so. As long as it is understood that the people appointed to higher tier positions have no spiritual authority over the parish pastor.

[ April 18, 2004, 06:41 AM: Message edited by: John Gilmore ]

 

I could not agree more. Hence - God the Holy Spirit - our "infallible Guide". If He is "insufficient" or "not good enough" -- we have a huge problem.

Recall that the Jews of Christ's day were very much tied to "a leader" in the church and very much "divided" between Sadducee and Pharisee when it came to doctrine.

It is hard to believe that there is anyone alive that does not know that no matter what Christian denomination you belong to - there is ALWAYS a group of leaders at the top telling everyone else what they "think" on every single doctrinal issue.

That is what all groups hold "in common". Just like the Catholics have their bishops and popes telling them that the Protestants are wrong (and telling them why the Eastern Orthodox church is wrong - BTW) - so also each non-Catholic church has it's leaders telling them that the Catholic church is in doctinal error as well as spelling out the differences for every other group as well.

Indeed "even unto the ends of the Earth" - for all time - The Spirit of Christ continues to build up the Church and "lead into all truth".

As the text of 1John 2 so explicitly states.

Indeed - begining with early fathers like Moses and moving on down through church history to Paul and Peter and Matthew - we find the teaching is clear and unity is just as easy for us today as it was for the people reading and listening to Paul in the first century. They did not need to wait a century or two to be "in unity".

But did that mean there were no "divisions" in the first century? We see division in 1Cor 3 - but the cure was to keep coming back to the Bible and the words of Paul.

So it is today.

Having each church simply listen to its own magesterium - does not promote denominational "unity" across churches.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I agree that many Protestant churches have erred by placing pastors under the spiritual control of deacons or voters assemblies. But the situation is not without precedent. Popes erred by placing priests under the control of bishops.

Bishops, deacons, and voters have useful roles to play in advising and even removing pastors for just cause. But men who been appointed to human offices have no spiritual authority over men who have been called by Christ to preach, baptize, absolve, administer communion, and excommunicate (Office of the Keys). The local pastor or priest is the highest office in the church.

 

Jude,

You said, 'I don't see where 'passing Popes', or better, the continuation of the office of
Bishop is against Scripture.'

In Revelation chapters one through three, we do not see a Pope ruling over the seven churches of Asia. Each church was autonomous with its own pastor/elder. The Apostle Paul speaks of himself as being an apostle of Jesus Christ, but not like the human, machinations of an ecclesiastical body who invented an earthly pope.

The Apostle Paul made three missionary journeys in establishing and revisiting said churches, but he never proclaimed himself the first pope. Paul the Apostle calls himself a 'servant.' [Romans 1:1]

We have no pattern or example to follow that we should exalt a human man, to be the Vicar of Christ. Pastors/Elders should prefer one another, in love and humility, in the Presence of God and among other Christians. Extending the hand to be kissed is utter foolishness and marks that kind of person as welcoming veneration and some might even say worship.

There is no Scriptural pattern in the Bible that would suggest this kind of undue reverence. God is to be worshiped and not a flesh and blood man or woman.

The office of a bishop is Scriptural. [I Timothy 3:1-4] The office of Pope is what is unBiblical.
The Lord knows all of his pastors and people; there is no purpose to the office of a supreme Pontiff.

 

No, we have the written Word to tell us what to think. Bishops and other leaders were just guides (overseers) to insure that the congregations were maintaining pure doctrine, but no KINGS or other such exalted positions. They were not to make up doctrine and establich new teachings by their own authority (In Christ' name), but that is what we see they began doing, in practice. I you insist on just following what a leader tells you, then what if that leader himself goes corrupt. Well, then, there would be other equal overseers to check that. But with what you seem to be suggesting, and what happened in progress, is if the leader changes or addes new doctrine and practice, then we must assume God changed or added it. (Or God added it all along, but chose not to write it down. NOW how can we know what is truth?) Yeah, the RCC may have maintained somewhat of an institutional homogeneity for a while, but they are really the ones who got the ball of doctrinal confusion with multiple interpretations of scripture rolling.

 

Please correct me if I am wrong but I seem to recall an earlier post where you said apostolic sucession was necessary for the validity of Holy Communion. If the office of Bishop is a later development of human invention, why would you say that apostolic succession is necessary for the validity of sacraments? And why would the ECUSA declare altar fellowship with the ELCA (accept their sacrament) when the ELCA does not have apostolic succession bishops and denies, in the Book of Concord, the necessity for having them?

 

Jude,

Correct me if I am wrong about what I thought you were saying.

First, you exalt the Magisterium and their attempts to promote true doctrine and then you says this about their decisions.

You said, 'Finally, don't confuse 'Catholicity' with being 'Roman Catholic'. The Roman
Church certainly did -also- ADD to the Catholic faith (for example, the notion
of purgatory and the Immaculate Conception of Mary, and also the notion of
her being a 'mediatrix', mandatory celibacy for clergy, indulgences, etc.), and
she must also repent of these things IF the Church is to be re-united.'

To me and other non-Roman Catholics we see this as like our Protestant straying people like Pastor Tilton, who apparently likes to talk about money more than that Jesus can forgive the sinner's sins. Pastor Hinn likes to have his crusades so he can built that multi-million dollar home by the water-side.

I am not judging their salvation. Only Almighty God knows if they are in the faith. They clearly seem to have their minds on the checks rather than the Christ.

I see Roman Catholicism's add on theology through the ages as creating great confusion in the people of God who are trying to figure this all out so they have a wise theological understanding. This is why we must always return to the Bible, God's Word, as our only source of authority rather than some contented old men sitting in their 'ivory towers' thinking about some new idea to spawn on the naive and respecting people of God.

In Protestantism the people have the freedom to go to a denomination that they believe has their truth correct and where they can have peace of mind and heart.

Do you believe all of the doctrines and concepts that you wrote above in your paragraph?

Regards . . .

 

I wasn't talking about Arius, but rather the ones whose teachings were accepted as official. But then you don't agree with the RCC on doctrines like the ones you just mentioned, but that is what I had more in mind.

If we can't agree on God's perfect Word, then how much better will we do with the word of some man, who is fallible, regardless of what anyone says. There are still different branches of the Catholic church (such as Gibson's branch, which rejects the current popes, all the nominals who think they can practice how ever much they want and still be "good" Catholics, etc), and the fact that you acknowledge the the RCC has these wrong doctrines they need to repent of proves that this magisterium is quite fallible and becomes a stumblingblock to the truth when it is exalted as the authority, and not the Bible alone. How are we going to remove these doctrines then, unless they admit thay are fallible interpreters who made a mistake, just like everyone else; including all those hundreds of Protestant bodies.