The ROOT of our differences is the AUTHORITY we claim.....

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

the heirarchy of the church are our servants as well as our leaders, just as Jesus stated, that the leader among you is the greatest servant.

wow, what wycliffian planet did you drop down from?

peace, papist

That was never in dispute in this thread.

The discussion here was about where ecclesiastical authority comes from.

I maintained the point that authority was a consequence of servanthood, in opposition to the RCC's belief in authority as a result of apostolic succession.

If you have something to add, please do.  If you just didn't want to miss posting in every thread on the first page of this forum, by all means continue down that path instead.

The church would agree with you that authority is a consequence of servanthood.

Jesus gave the church apostles to serve and guide and feed the sheep and lambs and asked peter to be his earthly shepherd of this flock(His whole flock, lambs and sheep).

As a result, these servants of Christ and His flock are equally leaders and have the promise from Christ that the gates of hell shall never prevail against them, and they have not. 

Jesus, as He sent these bishops out two by two told them "he who hears you, hears me, and he who rejects you, rejects me, showing that they had his authority in what they preached.

peace, papist

And how does that pertain to ordination, papist?

Specifically, my contentions here have been that ordination does not confer authority, and that ordination merely recognizes authority that is derived from service.

[Giver]

Most debates in these types of forums are secondary topics.

The actual topic we should be discussing is AUTHORITY.

Let me give you an example.

I went to over 18 different denoms and non denoms of protestant bible believing churches.   I asked each of these pastors, who claimed the Bible Alone as their authority, what baptism was, if it was necessary, how to perform it(immersion, pouring, sprinkling of water, no water at all), and if it removed the stain of original sin from ones soul or was it just symbolic in nature?

I received several different and contradictory answers from each pastor.

Which one of these pastors was correct in their interpretation of scripture as it pertains to the utmost important doctrine of Baptism?  How do we know which one is correct? Is the definition of doctrine relative, and it does not matter what is true and what is not?

Each of these pastors would never back down from his/her own interpretation, and each would claim they are correct. This is the BIG question. Who is correct, and how do we know who is correct, and by what authority vested in the person interpreted gives them the ability and authority to make such claim as to what is deemed "true" and what is deemed "erroneous"?   

This situation is almost always turned back on scripture, for when I ask them by what authority they believe this, they inevitably answer that they are being led by the Holy Spirit in their interpretation of scripture. So is the Holy Spirit a relativist? Does the Holy Spirit teach contradicting things from one church to another and each contradictory point of teaching is correct? In other words, when one church teaches that scripture says Baptism is not necessary, they are correct, and then when another teaches it is necessary, they are also correct?  This would be ridiculous. God is of ORDER and UNITY, not Chaos and Division. God does not contradict Himself, for He is TRUTH, and Truth does not change.

BTW, the first person to part from everyone else in their understanding of baptism was John Calvin. Does that mean that everyone else, including the original "reformers" were wrong for the first 1600 years of Christianity? By what measuring stick can one prove this? The Bible? of course :)

Is there a church authority that has the authority of God on doctrinal matters? It seems the apostles decided doctrinal matters IN scripture, why would God all of a sudden change His mind and let the individual start deciding these matters for themselves?  Who then can claim what heresy is, if everyone is right all of the time? There would be no heresy if this were so.

The circular argument used by most sola scripturists dos not wash, it only begs the question, again and again, "who/what is the authority on matters of doctrine and interpretation of scripture"?

In my reading of scripture, I have not found any proof text for sola scriptura. @ tim 3:15-17 is far from this, as it pertains to the OT scriptures(that timothy knew from infancy) and at the end it is "useful" for "every good work" and since good works don't save us, it must not be "necessary" as most claim. I mean the apostles didn't have a new testament, nor did they have the canon of the OT which was not decided until 382ad along with the new.

So what is your authority, and if it is scripture alone, where in scripture does God teach that scripture alone is the authority. and how can one prove his authority in interpreteing scripture?

peace, papist

No matter who tell one anything about God, they are to ask Jesus if it is right or wrong.

(1 Corinthians 2:716)”The hidden wisdom of God which we teach in our mysteries is the wisdom that God predestined to be for our glory before the ages began.  It is a wisdom that none of the masters of this age have ever known, or they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory, we teach what scripture called the things that no eye has seen and no ear has heard, things beyond the mind of man, all that God has prepared for those who love him. These are the very things that God has revealed to us through the Spirit, for the Spirit reaches the depths of everything, even the depths of God After all, the depths of a man can only be known by his own spirit, not by any other man, and in the same way the depths of God can only be known by the Spirit of God.  Now instead of the spirit of the world, we have received the Spirit that comes from God, to teach us to understand the gifts that he has given us.  Therefore we teach, not in the way in which philosophy is taught, but in the way that the Spirit teaches us: we teach spiritual things spiritually.  An unspiritual person is one who does not accept anything of the Spirit of God: he sees it all as nonsense; it is beyond his understanding because it can only be understood by means of the Spirit.  A spiritual man, on the other hand, is able to judge the value of everything, and his own value is not to be judged by other men. As scripture says;’ who can know the mind of the Lord, so who can teach him?’  But we are those who have the mind of Christ.”


In a Church service Paul tells us that two or three prophets should speak and the rest should attend to them.  In this case the Holy Spirit may give someone a better understanding or way to explain what God wanted people to understand.

What it all comes to is we are to let God teach us not man. 

[papist1]

Most debates in these types of forums are secondary topics.

The actual topic we should be discussing is AUTHORITY.

Let me give you an example.

I went to over 18 different denoms and non denoms of protestant bible believing churches.   I asked each of these pastors, who claimed the Bible Alone as their authority, what baptism was, if it was necessary, how to perform it(immersion, pouring, sprinkling of water, no water at all), and if it removed the stain of original sin from ones soul or was it just symbolic in nature?

I received several different and contradictory answers from each pastor.

Which one of these pastors was correct in their interpretation of scripture as it pertains to the utmost important doctrine of Baptism?  How do we know which one is correct? Is the definition of doctrine relative, and it does not matter what is true and what is not?

Each of these pastors would never back down from his/her own interpretation, and each would claim they are correct. This is the BIG question. Who is correct, and how do we know who is correct, and by what authority vested in the person interpreted gives them the ability and authority to make such claim as to what is deemed "true" and what is deemed "erroneous"?   

This situation is almost always turned back on scripture, for when I ask them by what authority they believe this, they inevitably answer that they are being led by the Holy Spirit in their interpretation of scripture. So is the Holy Spirit a relativist? Does the Holy Spirit teach contradicting things from one church to another and each contradictory point of teaching is correct? In other words, when one church teaches that scripture says Baptism is not necessary, they are correct, and then when another teaches it is necessary, they are also correct?  This would be ridiculous. God is of ORDER and UNITY, not Chaos and Division. God does not contradict Himself, for He is TRUTH, and Truth does not change.

BTW, the first person to part from everyone else in their understanding of baptism was John Calvin. Does that mean that everyone else, including the original "reformers" were wrong for the first 1600 years of Christianity? By what measuring stick can one prove this? The Bible? of course :)

Is there a church authority that has the authority of God on doctrinal matters? It seems the apostles decided doctrinal matters IN scripture, why would God all of a sudden change His mind and let the individual start deciding these matters for themselves?  Who then can claim what heresy is, if everyone is right all of the time? There would be no heresy if this were so.

The circular argument used by most sola scripturists dos not wash, it only begs the question, again and again, "who/what is the authority on matters of doctrine and interpretation of scripture"?

In my reading of scripture, I have not found any proof text for sola scriptura. @ tim 3:15-17 is far from this, as it pertains to the OT scriptures(that timothy knew from infancy) and at the end it is "useful" for "every good work" and since good works don't save us, it must not be "necessary" as most claim. I mean the apostles didn't have a new testament, nor did they have the canon of the OT which was not decided until 382ad along with the new.

So what is your authority, and if it is scripture alone, where in scripture does God teach that scripture alone is the authority. and how can one prove his authority in interpreteing scripture?

peace, papist

No matter who tell one anything about God, they are to ask Jesus if it is right or wrong.

(1 Corinthians 2:716)”The hidden wisdom of God which we teach in our mysteries is the wisdom that God predestined to be for our glory before the ages began.  It is a wisdom that none of the masters of this age have ever known, or they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory, we teach what scripture called the things that no eye has seen and no ear has heard, things beyond the mind of man, all that God has prepared for those who love him. These are the very things that God has revealed to us through the Spirit, for the Spirit reaches the depths of everything, even the depths of God After all, the depths of a man can only be known by his own spirit, not by any other man, and in the same way the depths of God can only be known by the Spirit of God.  Now instead of the spirit of the world, we have received the Spirit that comes from God, to teach us to understand the gifts that he has given us.  Therefore we teach, not in the way in which philosophy is taught, but in the way that the Spirit teaches us: we teach spiritual things spiritually.  An unspiritual person is one who does not accept anything of the Spirit of God: he sees it all as nonsense; it is beyond his understanding because it can only be understood by means of the Spirit.  A spiritual man, on the other hand, is able to judge the value of everything, and his own value is not to be judged by other men. As scripture says;’ who can know the mind of the Lord, so who can teach him?’  But we are those who have the mind of Christ.”


In a Church service Paul tells us that two or three prophets should speak and the rest should attend to them.  In this case the Holy Spirit may give someone a better understanding or way to explain what God wanted people to understand.

What it all comes to is we are to let God teach us not man. 

All here claim that God is guiding them. That is not the question.

The question is the means by which God reaches us with His Truth.

Where in the NT does it say that we need a book with everything in it, and thats it?
Did the apostles operate that way?
Did the people always go to a book to find their answers, or did they go to the church leaders Jesus appointed?

The answer is emphatically, no. The Bible never claims to be the sole authority, it never shows us that it is somehow the sole authority, and the people within the NT did not operate in this fashion concerning their concerns about doctrine and the like. They went to the church.

There was a chuirch long before there was a book called the Bible.

peace, papist

[Giver]

Most debates in these types of forums are secondary topics.

The actual topic we should be discussing is AUTHORITY.

Let me give you an example.

I went to over 18 different denoms and non denoms of protestant bible believing churches.   I asked each of these pastors, who claimed the Bible Alone as their authority, what baptism was, if it was necessary, how to perform it(immersion, pouring, sprinkling of water, no water at all), and if it removed the stain of original sin from ones soul or was it just symbolic in nature?

I received several different and contradictory answers from each pastor.

Which one of these pastors was correct in their interpretation of scripture as it pertains to the utmost important doctrine of Baptism?  How do we know which one is correct? Is the definition of doctrine relative, and it does not matter what is true and what is not?

Each of these pastors would never back down from his/her own interpretation, and each would claim they are correct. This is the BIG question. Who is correct, and how do we know who is correct, and by what authority vested in the person interpreted gives them the ability and authority to make such claim as to what is deemed "true" and what is deemed "erroneous"?   

This situation is almost always turned back on scripture, for when I ask them by what authority they believe this, they inevitably answer that they are being led by the Holy Spirit in their interpretation of scripture. So is the Holy Spirit a relativist? Does the Holy Spirit teach contradicting things from one church to another and each contradictory point of teaching is correct? In other words, when one church teaches that scripture says Baptism is not necessary, they are correct, and then when another teaches it is necessary, they are also correct?  This would be ridiculous. God is of ORDER and UNITY, not Chaos and Division. God does not contradict Himself, for He is TRUTH, and Truth does not change.

BTW, the first person to part from everyone else in their understanding of baptism was John Calvin. Does that mean that everyone else, including the original "reformers" were wrong for the first 1600 years of Christianity? By what measuring stick can one prove this? The Bible? of course :)

Is there a church authority that has the authority of God on doctrinal matters? It seems the apostles decided doctrinal matters IN scripture, why would God all of a sudden change His mind and let the individual start deciding these matters for themselves?  Who then can claim what heresy is, if everyone is right all of the time? There would be no heresy if this were so.

The circular argument used by most sola scripturists dos not wash, it only begs the question, again and again, "who/what is the authority on matters of doctrine and interpretation of scripture"?

In my reading of scripture, I have not found any proof text for sola scriptura. @ tim 3:15-17 is far from this, as it pertains to the OT scriptures(that timothy knew from infancy) and at the end it is "useful" for "every good work" and since good works don't save us, it must not be "necessary" as most claim. I mean the apostles didn't have a new testament, nor did they have the canon of the OT which was not decided until 382ad along with the new.

So what is your authority, and if it is scripture alone, where in scripture does God teach that scripture alone is the authority. and how can one prove his authority in interpreteing scripture?

peace, papist

No matter who tell one anything about God, they are to ask Jesus if it is right or wrong.

(1 Corinthians 2:716)”The hidden wisdom of God which we teach in our mysteries is the wisdom that God predestined to be for our glory before the ages began.  It is a wisdom that none of the masters of this age have ever known, or they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory, we teach what scripture called the things that no eye has seen and no ear has heard, things beyond the mind of man, all that God has prepared for those who love him. These are the very things that God has revealed to us through the Spirit, for the Spirit reaches the depths of everything, even the depths of God After all, the depths of a man can only be known by his own spirit, not by any other man, and in the same way the depths of God can only be known by the Spirit of God.  Now instead of the spirit of the world, we have received the Spirit that comes from God, to teach us to understand the gifts that he has given us.  Therefore we teach, not in the way in which philosophy is taught, but in the way that the Spirit teaches us: we teach spiritual things spiritually.  An unspiritual person is one who does not accept anything of the Spirit of God: he sees it all as nonsense; it is beyond his understanding because it can only be understood by means of the Spirit.  A spiritual man, on the other hand, is able to judge the value of everything, and his own value is not to be judged by other men. As scripture says;’ who can know the mind of the Lord, so who can teach him?’  But we are those who have the mind of Christ.”


In a Church service Paul tells us that two or three prophets should speak and the rest should attend to them.  In this case the Holy Spirit may give someone a better understanding or way to explain what God wanted people to understand.

What it all comes to is we are to let God teach us not man. 

All here claim that God is guiding them. That is not the question.

The question is the means by which God reaches us with His Truth.

Where in the NT does it say that we need a book with everything in it, and thats it?
Did the apostles operate that way?
Did the people always go to a book to find their answers, or did they go to the church leaders Jesus appointed?

The answer is emphatically, no. The Bible never claims to be the sole authority, it never shows us that it is somehow the sole authority, and the people within the NT did not operate in this fashion concerning their concerns about doctrine and the like. They went to the church.

There was a chuirch long before there was a book called the Bible.

peace, papist

The Bible is the Written Word of God, and as such anything that contradict that Word is not of God.  The Church contradicts the written Word of God.  So it must not be of God.
Christians are all given the Holy Spirit.  It is each person’s responsibility to listen to the Holy Spirit and do what he tells us.
What others say is not something we are held responsible for.  We are going to be judge on how we lived the Word of God.  The Holy Spirit will guide us.
Galatians 5:16“Let me put it like this if you are guided by the Spirit you will be in no danger of yielding to self-indulgence....”.

[Angelos]

This is a really interesting thread. I agree with the Catholic/Orthodox point of view that Jesus built a Church and that he hand-picked Apostles and that he gave these Apostles significant powers. So these were not just nice people, they had real God given authority. I also agree that the Church was careful about valid Apostolic succession so not every lunatic can claim to represent Christ's church on earth.

Having said that, unfortunately for the Catholic/Orthodox churches, the Apostolic chain somewhere, somehow became corrupted. Unfortunately, some Bishops and some Popes, throuout history, were corrupt and immoral. I believe the Catholic church acknowleges that. So I think it's fair for all faithful to not blindly obey any ordained priest/bishop because we know that, despite valid ordination, corrupt priests/bishops/popes do exist.

So on that point, I think Protestants are right that "valid" ordination is not sufficient and maybe God decides to use as servants people without valid ordination. We can not dismiss offhand every Protestant minister, as we can not accept offhand every Catholic/Orthodox priest.

In one area though I completely agree with Catholics/Orthodox and that is core dogma. The dogmas of the Protestant churches are all over the place and for me despite some corrupt popes the core dogmas of the Catholic/Orthodox churches are, well, "Orthodox"

[Giver]

This is a really interesting thread. I agree with the Catholic/Orthodox point of view that Jesus built a Church and that he hand-picked Apostles and that he gave these Apostles significant powers. So these were not just nice people, they had real God given authority. I also agree that the Church was careful about valid Apostolic succession so not every lunatic can claim to represent Christ's church on earth.

Having said that, unfortunately for the Catholic/Orthodox churches, the Apostolic chain somewhere, somehow became corrupted. Unfortunately, some Bishops and some Popes, throuout history, were corrupt and immoral. I believe the Catholic church acknowleges that. So I think it's fair for all faithful to not blindly obey any ordained priest/bishop because we know that, despite valid ordination, corrupt priests/bishops/popes do exist.

So on that point, I think Protestants are right that "valid" ordination is not sufficient and maybe God decides to use as servants people without valid ordination. We can not dismiss offhand every Protestant minister, as we can not accept offhand every Catholic/Orthodox priest.

In one area though I completely agree with Catholics/Orthodox and that is core dogma. The dogmas of the Protestant churches are all over the place and for me despite some corrupt popes the core dogmas of the Catholic/Orthodox churches are, well, "Orthodox"

I agree, but it is so sad; close just isn’t good enough.   There a so few, if any, of the elders of either Church that walk in the Spirit of the Lord.  The Churches are not walking in the Word of God, and because of that people are blindly trying to follow God with out the help of the Holy Spirit.   

[ex cathedra]

Most debates in these types of forums are secondary topics.

The actual topic we should be discussing is AUTHORITY.

Let me give you an example.

I went to over 18 different denoms and non denoms of protestant bible believing churches.   I asked each of these pastors, who claimed the Bible Alone as their authority, what baptism was, if it was necessary, how to perform it(immersion, pouring, sprinkling of water, no water at all), and if it removed the stain of original sin from ones soul or was it just symbolic in nature?

I received several different and contradictory answers from each pastor.

Which one of these pastors was correct in their interpretation of scripture as it pertains to the utmost important doctrine of Baptism?  How do we know which one is correct? Is the definition of doctrine relative, and it does not matter what is true and what is not?

Each of these pastors would never back down from his/her own interpretation, and each would claim they are correct. This is the BIG question. Who is correct, and how do we know who is correct, and by what authority vested in the person interpreted gives them the ability and authority to make such claim as to what is deemed "true" and what is deemed "erroneous"?   

This situation is almost always turned back on scripture, for when I ask them by what authority they believe this, they inevitably answer that they are being led by the Holy Spirit in their interpretation of scripture. So is the Holy Spirit a relativist? Does the Holy Spirit teach contradicting things from one church to another and each contradictory point of teaching is correct? In other words, when one church teaches that scripture says Baptism is not necessary, they are correct, and then when another teaches it is necessary, they are also correct?  This would be ridiculous. God is of ORDER and UNITY, not Chaos and Division. God does not contradict Himself, for He is TRUTH, and Truth does not change.

BTW, the first person to part from everyone else in their understanding of baptism was John Calvin. Does that mean that everyone else, including the original "reformers" were wrong for the first 1600 years of Christianity? By what measuring stick can one prove this? The Bible? of course :)

Is there a church authority that has the authority of God on doctrinal matters? It seems the apostles decided doctrinal matters IN scripture, why would God all of a sudden change His mind and let the individual start deciding these matters for themselves?  Who then can claim what heresy is, if everyone is right all of the time? There would be no heresy if this were so.

The circular argument used by most sola scripturists dos not wash, it only begs the question, again and again, "who/what is the authority on matters of doctrine and interpretation of scripture"?

In my reading of scripture, I have not found any proof text for sola scriptura. @ tim 3:15-17 is far from this, as it pertains to the OT scriptures(that timothy knew from infancy) and at the end it is "useful" for "every good work" and since good works don't save us, it must not be "necessary" as most claim. I mean the apostles didn't have a new testament, nor did they have the canon of the OT which was not decided until 382ad along with the new.

So what is your authority, and if it is scripture alone, where in scripture does God teach that scripture alone is the authority. and how can one prove his authority in interpreteing scripture?

peace, papist

Holy baptism washes away sins . all sins---- past present and future.  not just the stain of original sin.

why
sola scripture
it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out why

Your word is truth  John-- 17:17

God is not a man that he should lie numbers-- 23:19

also check out
jerimiah 14;14
 1 thess2:13
2 tim3;16-17
all scripture is God breathed

2 nd peter 1:21
hebrews 4:12
romans 15;4
John5:39
2 timothy 3:15


and jude 4

[ex cathedra]

news flash

1248-1298 Franciscan priest Peter olivia was first to anounce infallability of the pope.

1324
pope John XX11 Denounce infallability as Sataonic in the bull Qui quorundam.

[mclees8]

This is a really interesting thread. I agree with the Catholic/Orthodox point of view that Jesus built a Church and that he hand-picked Apostles and that he gave these Apostles significant powers. So these were not just nice people, they had real God given authority. I also agree that the Church was careful about valid Apostolic succession so not every lunatic can claim to represent Christ's church on earth.

Having said that, unfortunately for the Catholic/Orthodox churches, the Apostolic chain somewhere, somehow became corrupted. Unfortunately, some Bishops and some Popes, throuout history, were corrupt and immoral. I believe the Catholic church acknowleges that. So I think it's fair for all faithful to not blindly obey any ordained priest/bishop because we know that, despite valid ordination, corrupt priests/bishops/popes do exist.

So on that point, I think Protestants are right that "valid" ordination is not sufficient and maybe God decides to use as servants people without valid ordination. We can not dismiss offhand every Protestant minister, as we can not accept offhand every Catholic/Orthodox priest.

In one area though I completely agree with Catholics/Orthodox and that is core dogma. The dogmas of the Protestant churches are all over the place and for me despite some corrupt popes the core dogmas of the Catholic/Orthodox churches are, well, "Orthodox"

I agree, but it is so sad; close just isn’t good enough.   There a so few, if any, of the elders of either Church that walk in the Spirit of the Lord.  The Churches are not walking in the Word of God, and because of that people are blindly trying to follow God with out the help of the Holy Spirit.   

I tell you the truth there is corruption through out this thing we call Christianity. Giver is right that ultimately it is the Holy Spirit that guides us into all truth. The one who learns from the spirit will walk in the spirit and be guided of Him. 

The Catholics argument here is a claim of authority passed down but that is all that they can claim. We must understand the nature of apostasy for we know that apostasy took place and it corrupted authority. Yes there was authority passed down but when ever Pride, ambition, and love of position comes in the Holy Spirit walks out. What remains then is only a religious man who claims authority not knowing the Holy Spirit is no longer guiding him.  such was the case with the Bishops of Rome Who who lied and forged their way to power desiring that they be the supreme authority of all Christiandom. and the riligious law of the land.

What does the bible tell us about the word of God.   Heb 4:12 2 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Yes the word of God is powerful and a supernatural authority for those who are of the spirit but it is only a book that is used abused as a mater of convenience  by carnal authority.   Thus the argument for authority by the RCC is just what it is and all that it is.
a carnal argument

[banished]

mclees8,

I have been a Charismatic for quite a few years now, and the so called, "walking in the Spirit" has been abused a billion times more than the few mistakes that the Catholic has made.  I am still a Charismatic, but we have limited it to Praise and Worship music service only.  How can you call yourself a Christian when you don't recognize the authority of the Pope?  Do you believe that the Holy Spirit is putting different interpretations in the minds of more than 225 religions in America?  Do you believe that Jesus is a God of confusion?  Do you believe that Jesus is pulling tricks on the 225 religions?

Lets face it, Jesus gave the keys to Peter, and he was the first Pope.  Though out the New Testament the Apostles had to remind the early churches not to figure things out for themselves, or listen to false teachers.  Christians are to follow the teachings of the Pope, and that is the way Jesus intended it to be.  Which brings us up to the point of a few bread crumbs and grape juice that the Protestants call Communion in remembrance.  They can't even get that straight.

Richard

[Tantor]

Can you show me where the word Pope appears in anything that Peter wrote?

[desertknight]

This came up on another thread and it's important to keep in mind that the word 'Pope' is just a term of endearment that is Latin slang for, "Daddy".  We have come to identify it as the title of the Bishop of the Holy See, but he has several other titles.  Eastern Catholic Archbishops may use the title, 'Pope' as well if they wish and many have.  It is through the authority vested in him by the Church, that is key.  What he is titled is not.  He fulfills the role of Peter in being the chief earthly shepherd of the Church after our Lord's Ascension.  With the death of Judas and the ordination of Paul, the Bishops exercised their authority to guide the Church and provide for it's continuing leadership.  She does so with every passing 'Pope'.  

St. Peter was married and was probably just a simple fisherman with a limited education.  He would have been uncomfortable in a funny hat, I'm sure, but that is not a doctrinal issue of faith, just one of ascetics and custom.  Believe it or not, Catholics fully accept that the role of the Papacy has evolved over time.  The first 'Pope' who exercised his leadership authority over the whole Church, that is recorded outside of Scripture, is HH Clement I, ordained by Peter, and who helped to settle a dispute over displaced ministers in Corinth.  The history of Pope's exercising authority has had it's ups and downs, their right to do so, has not.  A Pope's infallibility is intertwined with the infallibility of the whole Church.  Peter exercised it when he was brow beaten by Paul, and the Holy Spirit, into recognizing that gentiles did not need to be circumcised.  None of these men were perfect, and in complete contradiction to what one poster previously stated, even with pride and imperfections, (Even Peter denied Christ three times and was also told, "Get thee behind me, Satan!" for his failures.), the Holy Spirit does not leave the Church, when pride, sin, or corruption enters.  If that be so, then Christ would have to be lying when He promised at Pentecost that he would send the Holy Spirit to reside with the Church, "until the end of time."  In that, the Church has infallibility on matters of faith and morals, the interpretation of the Word and practice of the faith.

The notion of the Church being governed by a 'congregational' polity may appeal to man's taste since the Reformation, and with the spread of Enlightenment ideas, but Christ has a Kingdom and not a democracy.  Protestantism, in essence, is a democracy.  Everybody gets to vote on what they want to believe, i.e., how they interpret Scripture.  If enough don't like that, well then they just leave and start their own, "church".  But Holy Scripture has a very different model.  Christ's first act of His ministry was to go out, find twelve ordinary sinners, and invest them with immense authority.  To speak and act in His name.  To be His 'vicar', His stand in after His Ascension.  Scripture clearly says this authority was passed on through the laying on of hands at ordination.  There is no Christian historical evidence of any other model.   There were Christian groups that may not have liked it, we know that from Paul's consternation with them and with those who acted as ministers, as Paul said, "without a mandate from us."  Very telling, that line of Paul's.  A "mandate".  That is what Holy Orders are.  The "mandate" of the one Body of Christ to preach and teach in His name.  

[farouk]

It's still apples and oranges.

It's still tradition versus Scripture, and there is nothing to be said, if the Word of God, the Bible, is not regarded as the final authority.

Period.

[desertknight]

That idea is not only not in Scripture, it is contradicted by Scripture (1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 1 Timothy 3:15, 2 Peter 1:20-21, 2 Peter 3:16). It is a concept unheard of in the Old Testament, where the authority of those who sat on the Chair of Moses (Matthew 23:2-3) existed. In addition to this, for 400 years, there was no defined canon of "Sacred Scripture" aside from the Old Testament; there was no "New Testament"; there was only Tradition and non-canonical books and letters. Once Scripture was defined from the many competing books, Bibles were hand-copied and decorated by monks, were rare and precious, so precious, that few people ever laid eyes on an authentic copy of a Bible, and after the fall of the Empire, few could read it.  Do you think that the lack of printing presses affected the salvation of those who could not peruse Scripture as we have the luxury of doing?

Who do you think decided, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, on what the canon of the Bible was?  Answer;  The Bishops and scholars of the Catholic Church.

[farouk]

dk:

Wrong.

The popes and bishops of Rome had nothing to do with the books of the New Testament.

Fundamentalist and evangelical Christians stick to the Bible's authority, period.

I'm busy and I will go do something else, Friend.

That idea is not only not in Scripture, it is contradicted by Scripture (1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 1 Timothy 3:15, 2 Peter 1:20-21, 2 Peter 3:16). It is a concept unheard of in the Old Testament, where the authority of those who sat on the Chair of Moses (Matthew 23:2-3) existed. In addition to this, for 400 years, there was no defined canon of "Sacred Scripture" aside from the Old Testament; there was no "New Testament"; there was only Tradition and non-canonical books and letters. Once Scripture was defined from the many competing books, Bibles were hand-copied and decorated by monks, were rare and precious, so precious they had to be chained down in the churches so that they would not be stolen. Do you think that the lack of printing presses affected the salvation of those who could not peruse Scripture as we have the luxury of doing?

Who do you think decided, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, on what the canon of the Bible was?  Answer;  The Bishops and theologians of the Catholic Church.