The Primacy of the Bishop of Rome

[MEE]

Originally posted by CatholicConvert:
Carol --

Oh dear. I have to wonder if that is good or bad?



Brother Ed

Well, let me see....I like your wit and sense of humor. If that is a good thing, then your looks must be good also. Does that say much?

MEE

 

[CatholicConvert]

Carol --

That was SO nice. Thank you. You just really made my day a whole lot brighter!!

Brother Ed

 

[Australian Baptist Student]

Hi Ed,
Ever noticed how the same thing can be seen from two diferent angles? One of the earliest "proofs" of Roman supremacy is often quoted as being when Victor of Rome excommunicated the quartodecimans for celebrating the death and ressurection of Jesus on the day taught by the apostle John. That he felt he could do so shows he was pope, so the argument goes. Now, from that precise same act (the idea of throwing people out of the church for celebrating the death and ressurection of Jesus [on ANY day, let alone one with apostolic practice to back it up]) many other people would argue that, what ever Victor was, a sucsessor to the fisherman he wasn't.
Perhaps more importantly, we are taught not to trust in genealogies or lines of sucsession. Dont say we have Abraham as our father, I tell you God is able from these stones to raise up children of Abraham. Likewise, and in a letter written to Rome(!) Paul teaches that we only hold our position by faith, and that if we loose that faith, so goes our position. That is, our position cannot withstand the loss of faith. Even if I accepted your original argument (which I do not), you cant have a few Borgias, and then happily go back to supremacy. Take away faith and your supremacy is gone. You are saved by faith in Jesus, not by faith in church history. Jesus died for YOU, the church did not. We gather together for mutual edification, but our headship is in Jesus.
Take care, Colin

 

[thessalonian]

Hi Colin,

I find your logic interesting but somewhat lacking. The quadrametian problem was much deeper than your glossy history. The Pope wished to standardize the day Easter was celebrated for unity in the church and to establish a Church Calendar. Something foreign to Baptists who's pastor picks the favorite scripture. He may well never get to many verses in the Bible.
The Catholic Church on the other hand has what is called a liturgical year. The same scriptures are read worldwide in the Catholic Church. Part of the Quadrametian problem was that they rejected his authority to do this. The odd thing about it is that they were the only little group to reject his authority to set easter. And the other odd thing is that when he excommunicated them the rest of the Church recognized his authority to do so. These facts blow a hole in your arguements, implying that he was just some power hungry man or whatever your theory is.

As for your setting up a dichotomy between the Church and Christ, that does not work either. The Church is the "pillar and support of the truth". Without it the truth is not carried on. The truth is not defended and those who are outside the Church do not have the fullness of Christ. So it is not the Church or Christ, it is Christ through his Church. Yes Jesus died for our sins but the Church is the body of Christ. It is a living, breathing, visible organism, contrary to Baptist invisible Church theory. It is a light on a hill for all to see. (will I get the "the Church is not a building arguement here, I sure hope not). It has been visible and knowable to all generations. That is why history is important. Yes the faith is in Jesus Christ, but that faith is in his words. And his words allow for a prevailing Church through time. One that we can know. The invisible Church theory makes Matt 18 unittelligible. How can a pentecostal and a Baptist settle their dispute by taking it to the Church? They cannot. There is one true Church with the fullness of the truth. The rest have varying degrees of the Church but are more a result of mans inner desire for God (romans 2:15) than any truths gleaned from the Bible.

Blessing Colin

 

[LisaMC]

Okay,

Obviously you guys never read what's right in front of you. And you guys can argue "it ain't so" all you want in spite of the obvious. But, anyone else who reads what is posted knows that black is black and white is white. (I sure wish I could remember which catholic theologian it was that said, and I'll paraphrase, "If the Holy Mother Church tells me black is white I am bound to believe it so."

First, number one rule concerning RCism: Unanimous Consent of the Fathers.

Furthermore, to check unbridled spirits, it decrees that no one relying on his own judgment shall, in matters of faith and morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, distorting the Holy Scriptures in accordance with his own conceptions, presume to interpret them contrary to that sense which holy mother Church, to whom it belongs to judge of their true sense and interpretation, has held and holds, or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers, even though such interpretations should never at any time be published.--The Council of Trent, 4th Session, the Canonical Scriptures, Rockford:Tan (1978), pp. 18-19

The First Vatican Council, meeting in 1869-70, reaffirmed Trent's position:

And as the things which the holy Synod of Trent decreed for the good of souls concerning the interpretation of Divine Scripture, in order to curb rebellious spirits, have been wrongly explained by some, we, renewing the said decree, declare this to be their sense, that, in matters of faith and morals, appertaining to the building up of Christian doctrine, that is to be held as the true senseof Holy Scripture which our holy Mother Church hath held and holds, to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scripture; and therefore that it is permitted to no one to interpret the Sacred Scripture contrary to this sense, nor, likewise, contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.--Philip Schaff, Dogmatic Decrees of the Vatican Council, as found in The Creeds of Christendom, Vol II, New York:Harper (1877), p. 242

The so-called Unanimous Consent does not, nor ever did exist.

Now, CC,

Lisa --

You are not doing your Baptist buddies a lot of favors by proving the existence of St. Peter in Rome. Kinda plays right into our hands.

Whatever you think . . .

You are engaging in the very thing you accuse us of -- reading into the text.

How so?

It says that Peter and Paul founded the Church. That can have a variety of meanings, however, for you to keep your Protestant defense shield on alert, you INSIST that it places St. Peter and St. Paul on equal footing.

Actually, what puts Peter and Paul on equal footing (as well as the other eleven apostles) is:

Hbr 8:11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

Mar 9:35 And he sat down, and called the twelve, and saith unto them, If any man desire to be first, [the same] shall be last of all, and servant of all.

1Cr 1:12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.

1Cr 1:13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?


Mat 20:21 And he said unto her, What wilt thou? She saith unto him, Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on the left, in thy kingdom.

Mat 20:22 But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able.

Mat 20:23 And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but [it shall be given to them] for whom it is prepared of my Father.

Mat 20:24 And when the ten heard [it], they were moved with indignation against the two brethren.

Mat 20:25 But Jesus called them [unto him], and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.

Mat 20:26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;

Mat 20:27 And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:

Mar 10:40 But to sit on my right hand and on my left hand is not mine to give; but [it shall be given to them] for whom it is prepared.

Mar 10:41 And when the ten heard [it], they began to be much displeased with James and John.

Mar 10:42 But Jesus called them [to him], and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them.

Mar 10:43 But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister:

Mar 10:44 And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all.

Luk 22:23 And they began to enquire among themselves, which of them it was that should do this thing.

Luk 22:24 And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest.

Luk 22:25 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.

Luk 22:26 But ye [shall] not [be] so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.

It amazes me how the RCC can take an obscure verse such as Matt 16:18, build a whole theological system from it (and intelligent people such as you guys buy it ), and completely ignore explicit verses which teach completely contrary to the teachings of the RCC.

It does nothing of the sort.

But it does.

I continue to be amazed at Protestants who toss proof texts at us and say "SEE SEE SEE!!!"

<snort>Uh . . . ukaayyy . . . .

and then refuse to accept the texts we give for our positions.

(foregoing the fact that you have provided no such texts to me, I will respond on the basis of the responses other RCs have given me) I don't refuse to accept the texts you post. My point is that the required "unanimous consent of the Fathers" that your belief system is based upon, does not exists. Apparently, they didn't only conflict with each other, but they contradicted themselves on occasion. I'm not trying to prove that the ECFs beliefs were in complete alignment with Evangelical beliefs. My belief is not dependent upon them or the RCC, but on the guidance I receive from the Holy Spirit.

You torture the Scriptures and take things out of context and expect us to just roll over and say "Oh. My bad!!!! How could I be so dumb!!

Now, that's just downright funny!!!

We torture Scripture? Hey, can you blame us for thinking that if anybody can buy into the many outrageous teachings of the RCC which blatantly contradict Scripture, that there is a small hope that in a moment of clarity you may receptive to the obvious and see the light?

Where do I go to convert to being a ____________(whatever)?" just on the strength of your saying that a verse has a certain meaning.

Poor Ed.

Augustine's ideas do NOT speak for the whole Church at that time anymore than the rebellious Catholic theoligian/heretics of today speak for the whole Church.

Now you just played into my hands and admitted that Unanimous Consent is non-existant. However, Augustine was one of the most highly regarded of the Church Fathers, and he's not the only ECF who did not hold to the same belief as the RCC on Peter the Rock.

Yet, no doubt, if this board is here in 500 years, [now there's an interesting thought!!] someone will dredge up the rantings of some dissident and claim that the Church had no official position, which is just ludicrous.

Who is ranting? Now look who's getting testy.

You know, if you wish to believe in this way, why not become a Oneness Pentecostal?

Because, they are just as lost as many Catholics are.

It is amazing, given the volume of writings of the Early Fathers in favor of the Real Presence, the Primacy of Rome, etc., how you Protestants can go back and dig until you find one dissenting voice and base your whole theology on that person's single statement.

So, given the fact of the huge volumes of writings by the fathers, how much digging would we have to do to find writings contradicting your beliefs, if ECF writings were as pro-RC as you would have one believe? Believe me, the quotes I post are not hard to find.

find one dissenting voice and base your whole theology on. . .

Are you calling Augustine a dissident?

If such were even close to true, how come your doctrines and teachings did not crop up until the heretics Luther (yeah, beatin' on him again!!) and Calvin (that goes double for him!!) showed up.

But, those teaching did exist. Don't believe it? Just read your Bible. The RCC just took great liberties and got away with it for centuries because of illiteracy and the lack of accessibility to Biblical texts. Luther and others broke away when they saw the inevitibility of laity discovering the Truth on their own.

And don't give me that tired old saw about "Oh, the TRUE GOSPEL disappeared off the earth until they showed up"

Nope. It didn't disappear. It's always been around.

Makes ya sound like one of dem Mormon morons.

Do you have any idea what that comment sounds like. . . . ?

[ January 20, 2003, 04:20 PM: Message edited by: LisaMC ]

 

[LisaMC]

Carson,

I don't understand how Peter and Paul's joint founding of the church in Rome results in the automatic negation of Peter's position as the Prime Minister to the Davidic King. Your conclusion is what we call a non sequitur.

Well, my exact words were that that statement "sort of" negated it, not absolutely. However, my comment may be a non sequitur if I based my belief solely upon that comment. However, you're one to be throwing that accusation around. How many RC teachings are based upon non sequiturs? Please . . .

Not necessarily, but obviously my view of the Catholic diocese of Rome is quite a bit more in line with what Irenaeus speaks of than your complete rejection.

According to you. However, you're going to have to justify that comment by proving that Iraneaus' beliefs were more in line with yours than mine?

So, if everyone must agree with me, and if I say that we should all go to the movies, must we all go to the movies?

I'm simply wondering why he didn't just say all other churches must "obey" or "submit." Agreement insinuates equal authority.

Again, do you agree with the faith of the Bishop of Rome?

No.

Or do you disagree?

Yep.

Who - you or I - holds the faith of Irenaeus?

Most likely neither are in 100% alignment.

Clearly, Irenaeus points out the succession of the episcopate in Rome up until the present day. When "Church" is mentioned, it automatically implies the leadership of the bishop.

Another non sequitor on your part.

No, that's not what Irenaeus writes. He says that Rome has "superior origin" and because of this origin, with it "all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition".

Non sequitor. Let me point out one more time what Iraneaus said:

1. It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to "the perfect" apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Churchbut if they should fall away, the direst calamity.

2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority -- that is, the faithful everywhere -- inasmuch as the Apostolic Tradition has been preserved continuously by those who are everywhere. [Ad hanc enim eoclesiam propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam, hoc est eos qui sunt undique fideles, in qua semper ab his qui sunt undique, conservata est ea quâ est ab apostolis traditio]

Iraneaus clearly could have listed the successions of all bishophrics.

Why are you concerned with whether the Catholic faith is in line with the faith of Irenaeus?

I'm not. Like I told Ed, I'm just showing you the fallacy of the RCC claim of "unanimous consent" among the ECFs.

The content of your creed is obviously much further than the Catholic creed from Irenaeus, and if you lend him any credibility, you should first examine the stark contrast in your own creed before you begin to criticize the faith of others.

And you base this non sequitur on what evidence?

[ January 20, 2003, 04:43 PM: Message edited by: LisaMC ]

 

[CatholicConvert]

Okay Lisa --

I will choose to believe those Early Fathers who made doctrinal statements which support baptismal regeneration, the Real Presence in the Eucharist, and other distinctly Catholic (and Orthodox, which I am) positions.

You may choose to believe those Early Fathers who make statements which support the denial of such positions.

And ultimately, you and I will stand before the Lord and explain ourselves to Him.

 

[MEE]

Originally posted by LisaMC:

You know, if you wish to believe in this way, why not become a Oneness Pentecostal?

Because, they are just as lost as many Catholics are.

** OUCH! Hey, now that is getting too close for comfort!

A "ONENESS PENTECOSTAL" lost? I think NOT!!!!

MEE

 

[LisaMC]

CC,

1. Notice Iraneaus states the Church of Rome was founded by Peter and Paul. Sort of negates the claim that Peter alone was Pope.

Baloney!! That is like saying that a general and a captain in the army worked together on a project but they were equals!

Before you make that statement, you have to prove that Peter was the General. Which you haven't, because you can't . . .

You are totally reading into this to try to prove your point.

How so?

2. This church is referred to as very, very great. That does not necessarily equal to superior authority.

I don't know Greek. Do you? Do you know the nuance of the Greek word used here? I don't. Do you? Once again, you are building strawmen of nothing.

If you don't know Greek, upon what basis to you make that claim? No, I don't know Greek, but please tell me why you believe the Holy Spirit can protect the passing on of oral apostolic traditions, and not see to it that the Bible is translated well enough for us all to get the Gospel.

3. Iraneaus says that it is necessary that every church agree with this church due to it's pre-eminent authority.

I read this and my jaw almost came unhinged.

As mine does when reading a majority of RC teachings and arguments.

Tell you what, try that nonsense on your husband sometime when he is taking his position as head of the household!!

I disagree with my husband often. Guess . . . I'm hellbound . . . .

1Pe 2:13 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;

1Pe 2:14 Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.

Do you believe that we should submit to governing authorities unquestioningly? Even when the government opposes christianity?

"Oh yes, honey, I agree with you, but I am NOT going to obey you!!"

Iraneaus says nothing about obeying. You are reading into the text.

You really do NOT understand covenantal authority at all, do you?

Yes, I do. The covenantal authority of my faith is God, not the church I attend.

Go to Matthew 21: 33-46 and read. Jesus condemns the Jewish nation and prophesies its downfall. And in verse 45, it says that the chief priests and Pharisees knew that He spoke of them.

I often wonder how RCism continually ignores those reprimands from Christ. The RCC is repeating the same errors. However, it is said that History repeats itself. So . . . .

The position of authority is also the place of authority. When the king speaks, the kingdom speaks.

Uh huh, God in heaven.

More hogwash. He chose it because the line of succession ran through St. Peter, who, as you so nicely proved for us, was IN ROME AS BISHOP.

It's hogwash in black-n-white. You may choose to pretend you don't see, but the rest of us know it's there.

God Bless ya, Ed

[ January 20, 2003, 10:55 PM: Message edited by: LisaMC ]

 

[neal4christ]

Neal, honestly!!!!

Right here on this very board there are several flavors of non-Catholics, each of whom is submitting to Christ as Head.

I am being honest, Ed. Are each of them TRULY submitting to Christ as Head? It is one thing to say it and another to do it........

Yet we see that each one is well entrenched in his/her position, and that sometimes, the disagreements get considerably testy with each other. Each one proves himself/herself correct with the Bible and proves others wrong with the same Bible. And you don't think that is just a tad off?

And Catholics don't disagree in areas of theology? Yes it is a tad off, but just because you (I am not saying you Ed, just a general term for anybody) can take a verse out of context and twist it does not mean your position is Biblical. I still stand by what I say, that if people would truly die to self and live for Christ, things would be different.

Everyone of the people on this board have faith in Christ. Yet there is no unity. I'm sorry, but there has to be a single mind in regards to moral and doctrinal issues.

This is where I differ with you. I try not to judge someone's salvation, but there are probably some here without it. Remember, there will be many who say, "Lord, Lord" and shall not enter the Kingdom.

I agree with the lack of unity. And I see this from a lack of dying to self and living for Christ.

And I disagree about there having to be a single mind for everyone (i.e. someone making all the decisions). Are we not going to stand before Christ one day and answer for ourselves? What is the point of us answering individually if there is someone to make all the decisions for us? And there is nothing Biblical about a pope making the decisions for everyone to follow. Look at Philippians 2:1-4. Paul did not say, "Here, follow what Peter says and be of one mind", but rather he leaves it up to the people there in Philippi to do that. And this is a passage where I think we as Christians today are lacking greatly. I am not disagreeing that there is a lack of unity among Protestants, but if you look at many of the reasons, a lot of them boil down to fulfilling selfish desires, a lack of love for others, and a lack of humility.

Neal

[ January 21, 2003, 04:26 AM: Message edited by: neal4christ ]

 

[CatholicConvert]

Neal -

I am being honest, Ed. Are each of them TRULY submitting to Christ as Head? It is one thing to say it and another to do it........

Since I am not able to see your expresssion and hear the tone of voice, I am not sure exactly how you mean this. May I kindly say that this could be construed in this way:

"If everyone was truly submitting to Christ then they would all believe as I do."

Now that may not be what you meant to convey, but that is how it comes across.

Do not Catholics disagree in areas of theology?

No. Not at all. There is one understanding of what baptism is and what it does, not several as you find among non-Catholics. There is one understanding of Who the Eucharist is and what happens when we partake, not several.

Everything is laid out quite nicely in the Catholic Catechism. One agrees with the Catechism or one is not Catholic. Pure and simple. I have a bumper sticker on my car which says

"You cannot be Catholic and Pro-Choice"

That is the truth. The uneqivocable teaching of the Church is that life is to be respected from conception to natural death. Those who take other position simply are not Catholic. And I don't care how many times they go to Mass.

I still stand by what I say, that if people would truly die to self and live for Christ, things would be different.

And do you know what that would produce in a person if he does that -- 1 Corinthians 13. To die to self is to become love, for God is Love and the point of our journey is to become one and unified with Him.
And I disagree about there having to be a single mind for everyone (i.e. someone making all the decisions). Are we not going to stand before Christ one day and answer for ourselves? What is the point of us answering individually if there is someone to make all the decisions for us?

You would never try to run an army the way you are suggesting. The Lord's Army is no different. One Supreme Commander, one divine Head, Who gives orders through His next in line, the Holy Father, who in turn, working with the bishops, gives marching orders to the faithful.

The individual judgement we are to go through is a judgement of our works, not our developement of doctrine.

I am not disagreeing that there is a lack of unity among Protestants, but if you look at many of the reasons, a lot of them boil down to fulfilling selfish desires, a lack of love for others, and a lack of humility.

So again I ask this without trying to be smarmy to you: everyone who agrees with you on this board is exhibiting selflessness and charity, and everyone who doesn't is showing selfishness and lack of love?

Do you see what I am getting at?

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

 

[g_1933]

No, I am not. I think if people would truly look to and submit to Christ as Head, things would be much better off. I think a lot of the problems we have now is because of faith in men, not faith in the One we should have it in.

I think that this is a wonderful statement. I have only been posting on this board for a short time but I have already come to love doing so. I want to ask all of you that while these discussions are normally kept civil, how do they appear to any non-believers that happen here? Do you think that they are pointed toward Christ? Whether you are Catholic or Calvinist or Baptist or whatever, if you claim Christ then isn't the priority to serve Him and to show Him to others? How can bickering over doctrine accomplish this? Would it not be better to discuss these sort of things in private with each other? I realise that it is important to defend the faith and to defend correct doctrine but are we leading others astray? Will someone read this and say "Wow, God is surly a loving and caring God", or will they say "These followers of Christ can't even agree with each other, why should I listen". This is a Baptist Board, the only reason I mention this is because I was a member of a "Christian Forum" that turned out to be a Catholic Forum. I found this out by denouncing a certain Catholic belief and I was swarmed by everyone, including the moderators! I was not proud of that incident and I did not handle it very well and it certainly did not show forth the love of God. What I am saying is that if there cannot be agreement, there is a place for both sides.

I hope that no one is offended by this but I feel that we are doing nothing to further Christ with this sort of discussion. Is that not the purpose of forums like this? Sorry for the length of this I just wanted to explain myself clearly.

Love in Christ,
Grayson

 

[Carson Weber]

I think if people would truly look to and submit to Christ as Head

As a Catholic, I submit to Jesus as the head of the Catholic Church.

"As Lord, Christ is also head of the Church, which is his Body (Eph 1:22). Taken up to heaven and glorified after he had thus fully accomplished his mission, Christ dwells on earth in his Church. The redemption is the source of the authority that Christ, by virtue of the Holy Spirit, exercises over the Church. The kingdom of Christ is already present in mystery, on earth, the seed and the beginning of the kingdom. (Eph 4:11-13)" (Catechism of the Catholic Church 669).

The reality of the matter - that is, what the Bible tells us - is that the Father sent the Son who in turn, and in the same way, sent the Apostles whom he formed during his public ministry.

John 20:21-23, "Jesus said to them again, 'Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.' And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.'"

When those first Christians received the sacraments & teaching from the Apostles, they were listening to and receiving Christ himself.

The question isn't whether Christ is our head. The question is: who did Christ appoint to speak in his name?

God bless,

Carson

 

[LisaMC]

Carson,

"As Lord, Christ is also head of the Church, which is his Body (Eph 1:22). Taken up to heaven and glorified after he had thus fully accomplished his mission, Christ dwells on earth in his Church.

Christ established His church, Matt 16:18.

The redemption is the source of the authority that Christ, by virtue of the Holy Spirit, exercises over the Church.

Um, Christ sent the Holy Spirit after His ascension.

Jhn 14:26 But the Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Jhn 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, [even] the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

Jhn 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

The kingdom of Christ is already present in mystery, on earth, the seed and the beginning of the kingdom. (Eph 4:11-13)" (Catechism of the Catholic Church 669).

I'm not sure where the "mystery" part comes from in that Scriptural passage.

Eph 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

Eph 4:12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

Eph 4:13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

I do especially like verse 4:14, though:

Eph 4:14 That we [henceforth] be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, [and] cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

Exactly how are we suppose to protect ourselves from deception?

The reality of the matter - that is, what the Bible tells us - is that the Father sent the Son who in turn, and in the same way, sent the Apostles whom he formed during his public ministry.

John 20:21-23, "Jesus said to them again, 'Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.' And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.'"

What did Jesus mean, " . . . If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained?" Let's see what Augustine thought:

Augustine

On Christian Doctrine

Chapter 18.-The Keys Given to the Church.

17. He has given, therefore, the keys to His Church, that whatsoever it should bind on earth might be bound in heaven, and whatsoever it should loose on earth might be, loosed in heaven;14 that is to say, that whosoever in the Church should not believe that his sins are remitted, they should not be remitted to him; but that whosoever should believe and should repent, and turn from his sins, should be saved by the same faith and repentance on the ground of which he is received into the bosom of the Church. For he who does not believe that his sins can be pardoned, falls into despair, and becomes worse as if no greater good remained for him than to be evil, when he has ceased to have faith in the results of his own repentance.

The authority bestowed on the Apostles by Christ is simply this: If a person seeks forgiveness and repentance, then he should be forgiven. The Apostles were not given authority to judge worthiness of forgiveness. If a sinner asked for or believed his sins could be remitted, the apostles were to accept his repentance.

When those first Christians received the sacraments & teaching from the Apostles, they were listening to and receiving Christ himself.

Can you provide any evidence for the Apostles hearing personal confessions from the repentant? Actually, as a rule, the apostles didn't even perform baptisms. Neither did Christ. So, why do you insist that the authority of the Apostles is passed on, when clearly the powers of the apostles were not. Exactly, when did the powers to heal and cure end? Can the Pope now tell a man to get up and walk who has been crippled his entire life?

The question isn't whether Christ is our head. The question is: who did Christ appoint to speak in his name?

Who? Where?

Actually, the answer is nobuddy.

1Jo 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Hbr 8:11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

Hbr 8:10 For this [is] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

Hbr 10:16 This [is] the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;

Jam 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all [men] liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

1Cr 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

1Cr 2:5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

[ January 21, 2003, 01:33 PM: Message edited by: LisaMC ]

 

[LisaMC]

Here's another interesting point I noticed while reading Iraneaus:

Against Heresies

Book III

Chapter 3

3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric . . . .

Where did Peter and Paul go? Iraneaus says they having founded and built up the Church, committed it to Linus. So, I'm confused. Were Peter and Linus Pope at the same time in Rome? Or did Peter rule from elsewhere?

 

[DHK]

Carson posted:

The question isn't whether Christ is our head. The question is: who did Christ appoint to speak in his name?

The answer is given in Scripture.

Mat. 18:18, Jesus addresses the church and speaks to the church about binding and loosing, concerning judgements made by a local church with respect to church discipline. This has nothing to do with the head of the church, nothing whatsoever.

Mat. 28:18-20, Jesus speaks to the eleven, giving them the Great Commission to go into all the world and teach all nations. He appointed the eleven.

Acts 1:8, Jesus, again speaking to the eleven commanded them to be witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, in unto the uttermost parts of the earth. He appointed the eleven.

Acts 1:15, There were now 120 disciples praying together awaiting the coming of Holy Spirit. It is reasonable to conclude that Jesus appointed these 120 to speak in His name as they obviously did.

Acts.2:41 There were 3,000 souls that were saved here. They also spoke in Jesus name, as the church increased daily. Every believer is appointed to speak in His name.

BTW, isn’t this thread on the Primates of Rome. I suppose that would be the RCC.

DHK

 

[neal4christ]

"If everyone was truly submitting to Christ then they would all believe as I do."

Ed, I don't know if you have seen too many people who think like that or if you think like that. Alright, remember, I don't like labels. I am a Christian first and foremost, a son of God by adoption. Ed, I do not have the pride or conceit to think that I have everything figured out about God. And guess what, I don't submit to God all the time, I still have selfish desires that get in the way at times! No, in no way, shape, or form was the statement meant as you took it. It means exactly what it says, If people would TRULY, not just with words or in arrogant pride, submit to Christ, things would be a lot different!

There is one understanding of what baptism is and what it does, not several as you find among non-Catholics. There is one understanding of Who the Eucharist is and what happens when we partake, not several.

I could say that about Baptists, that we have certain basic beliefs that we agree on.

Those who take other position simply are not Catholic.

That argument does not float. They still call themselves Catholic. For that matter, I could just say anyone who does not believe the way we Baptists do aren't Baptists. But there are those who don't and still call themselves Baptists. And there are many who call themselves Christians and are not. Try using that argument on one of the threads about Islam and Christianity and see how far that will get you.

And do you know what that would produce in a person if he does that -- 1 Corinthians 13.

Agreed.

You would never try to run an army the way you are suggesting. The Lord's Army is no different. One Supreme Commander, one divine Head

Exactly! Christ is the Head, He is the Commander!

The individual judgement we are to go through is a judgement of our works, not our developement of doctrine.

Interesting. So it doesn't matter what someone believes, just as long as they do good?

everyone who agrees with you on this board is exhibiting selflessness and charity, and everyone who doesn't is showing selfishness and lack of love?

No Ed. I have never once claimed perfection. You don't see what I am getting at. People are selfish by nature! It gets in the way of much! Will everyone always agree on everything? No. But many of the dividing issues in the Church today are results of people holding on to selfish desires and seeking self first, not Christ. There are many out there who do not have salvation and yet 'play' church every week. You don't think that causes problems? Many churches are run by a select group of people who will not give up power for anything. They are not submitting to Christ, they are submitting to the god of self!

I guess I will be bowing out of this discussion as there is not much coming of it. My next to last post (on the 18th) was basically ignored and none of the issues were addressed, and Biblical evidence was ignored in my last post. It is turning into a game of semantics now. I don't have much time to do all this because I have much to prepare for this week (youth tomorrow, my first sermon on Sunday ). Last word to you, my friend.

Neal

[ January 22, 2003, 05:23 AM: Message edited by: neal4christ ]

 

[Australian Baptist Student]

Hi there,
the idea that people should be kicked out of the church for minor diferences is in itself not a minor matter. Jesus showed charity to those who did not come under the disciple's authority (Mark 9:38) and more pertinantly, Romans 14, 4-12 (written to Rome) explicitly commands charity re days. The quartodecimans cited apostolic tradition as their authority, (an argument accepted by the their opponents (Irenaeus in Eusebius, History eccl 5:24). So Victor goes against apostolic teaching and practice to enforce uniformity. How can he then claim to head an "apostolic" church? Power proved more important to Rome than either apostolic teaching or apostolic tradition. The Bible gives Christians freedom and generosity towards one another in many areas. The kingdom of God is about joy in the Holy Spirit. Read Romans 14:10.
Again, this is evidence that Victor was not a true sucsessor to Peter. Corruption and power plays were already creeping into the church.
Take care, Colin

 

[CatholicConvert]

Neal --

I think it is wise to allocate your time carefully among your responsiblities.

May God bless you in all you do for Him.

Brother Ed

 

[thessalonian]

Austraillian Student:

What's the big deal, Adam just ate a piece of fruit for crying out loud. And who were those two in Acts that died on the spot when they didn't give all there money to the Church? Minor things it would seem. Rejection of legitimate authority is never a minor thing. People of different races and tongues recognized Pope Victors authority to excommunicate. Excommunation is not intended for the condemnation of the soul but as a drastic measure to call it back. Kind of a wakeup call. These people called themselves Catholic (I am quite sure the Quadramecians did) and yet rejected the Pope's authority over them. I am also quite sure that Catholics who traveled in their area fully accepted the Pope's excommunication of them and so did not attend their Chrurch services.