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

[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

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

And this is not the same as when one pope reinterprets what a previous pope says?

Pot.  Kettle.
Kettle. Pot.
Get acquainted.

[papist1]

And this is not the same as when one pope reinterprets what a previous pope says?

Pot.  Kettle.
Kettle. Pot.
Get acquainted.

Just because a pope says something, does not make it doctrine, in any way shape or form.  I am not aware of any pope counteracting his predecessor in the chair of peter. Maybe you can give me an example?

Then maybe you can tell me how one can prove their authority for their interpretation of scripture. :)

peace, papist

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

And this is not the same as when one pope reinterprets what a previous pope says?

Pot.  Kettle.
Kettle. Pot.
Get acquainted.

Just because a pope says something, does not make it doctrine, in any way shape or form.  I am not aware of any pope counteracting his predecessor in the chair of peter. Maybe you can give me an example?

Then maybe you can tell me how one can prove their authority for their interpretation of scripture. :)

peace, papist

Not doctrine?

You put authority up as your argument, so by criticizing that authority, in its tendency to redefine what it meant in the past, I've drawn a parallel with the Protestant tendency to redefine what their authority (Sola Scriptura) has said in the past.

The argument is still valid.  The analogy still holds.  Are you really going to argue against the authority that you are putting forward?  What I hear is that this is legitimate authority, but only kind-of, sometimes, and when it's convenient to the argument.

As to examples of popes contradicting prior popes...well, I thought you wanted to keep discussions of 15th century papal indiscretion out of this argument.

Off the top of my head and without actually looking it up...I believe that THE CHURCH, in council, at the behest of the pope and with his approval, anathematized not only Luther but all German Protestants as well as anyone "aiding and betting."  JP @ Vatican (2? 3?) welcomes Protestants as true Christians.

Technically, that's a Pope & Council contradicting a Council which the Pope only tacitly endorsed, but the argument is the same:

Your authority redefines what its predecessors said, too.

[papist1]

And this is not the same as when one pope reinterprets what a previous pope says?

Pot.  Kettle.
Kettle. Pot.
Get acquainted.

Just because a pope says something, does not make it doctrine, in any way shape or form.  I am not aware of any pope counteracting his predecessor in the chair of peter. Maybe you can give me an example?

Then maybe you can tell me how one can prove their authority for their interpretation of scripture. :)

peace, papist

Not doctrine?

You put authority up as your argument, so by criticizing that authority, in its tendency to redefine what it meant in the past, I've drawn a parallel with the Protestant tendency to redefine what their authority (Sola Scriptura) has said in the past.

The argument is still valid.  The analogy still holds.  Are you really going to argue against the authority that you are putting forward?  What I hear is that this is legitimate authority, but only kind-of, sometimes, and when it's convenient to the argument.

As to examples of popes contradicting prior popes...well, I thought you wanted to keep discussions of 15th century papal indiscretion out of this argument.

Off the top of my head and without actually looking it up...I believe that THE CHURCH, in council, at the behest of the pope and with his approval, anathematized not only Luther but all German Protestants as well as anyone "aiding and betting."  JP @ Vatican (2? 3?) welcomes Protestants as true Christians.

Technically, that's a Pope & Council contradicting a Council which the Pope only tacitly endorsed, but the argument is the same:

Your authority redefines what its predecessors said, too.

How does something become official doctrine in the Catholic Church? Do you know?
peace, papist

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

The topic is not official doctrines of the Catholic church, papist, it's authority.

Remember back in the opening post when you framed that?

[papist1]

And this is not the same as when one pope reinterprets what a previous pope says?

Pot.  Kettle.
Kettle. Pot.
Get acquainted.

Just because a pope says something, does not make it doctrine, in any way shape or form.  I am not aware of any pope counteracting his predecessor in the chair of peter. Maybe you can give me an example?

Then maybe you can tell me how one can prove their authority for their interpretation of scripture. :)

peace, papist

Not doctrine?

You put authority up as your argument, so by criticizing that authority, in its tendency to redefine what it meant in the past, I've drawn a parallel with the Protestant tendency to redefine what their authority (Sola Scriptura) has said in the past.

The argument is still valid.  The analogy still holds.  Are you really going to argue against the authority that you are putting forward?  What I hear is that this is legitimate authority, but only kind-of, sometimes, and when it's convenient to the argument.

As to examples of popes contradicting prior popes...well, I thought you wanted to keep discussions of 15th century papal indiscretion out of this argument.

Off the top of my head and without actually looking it up...I believe that THE CHURCH, in council, at the behest of the pope and with his approval, anathematized not only Luther but all German Protestants as well as anyone "aiding and betting."  JP @ Vatican (2? 3?) welcomes Protestants as true Christians.

Technically, that's a Pope & Council contradicting a Council which the Pope only tacitly endorsed, but the argument is the same:

Your authority redefines what its predecessors said, too.

Not true.

A Catholic, who knows and believes what the church teaches, who later commits heresy unrepentantly, is excommunicated. All of the reformers are most likely not in heaven. thats just my take. They caused terrible division, and they were Christian heretics.

True, Christians in other denominations, who have never known the fullness of truth, nor purposefully left it or taught against it after once knowing it, still have the opportunity at salvation.

So your theory is false, and consistent Catholic teaching confirms this point.

Once again, a misunderstanding of Catholic teaching.


Bishop sheen once write that there are not 100 people who hate the Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they believe the Catholic Church to teach.

You fit into that category. unfortunately.

peace, papist

[mclees8]

And this is not the same as when one pope reinterprets what a previous pope says?

Pot.  Kettle.
Kettle. Pot.
Get acquainted.

Just because a pope says something, does not make it doctrine, in any way shape or form.  I am not aware of any pope counteracting his predecessor in the chair of peter. Maybe you can give me an example?

Then maybe you can tell me how one can prove their authority for their interpretation of scripture. :)

peace, papist

Not doctrine?

You put authority up as your argument, so by criticizing that authority, in its tendency to redefine what it meant in the past, I've drawn a parallel with the Protestant tendency to redefine what their authority (Sola Scriptura) has said in the past.

The argument is still valid.  The analogy still holds.  Are you really going to argue against the authority that you are putting forward?  What I hear is that this is legitimate authority, but only kind-of, sometimes, and when it's convenient to the argument.

As to examples of popes contradicting prior popes...well, I thought you wanted to keep discussions of 15th century papal indiscretion out of this argument.

Off the top of my head and without actually looking it up...I believe that THE CHURCH, in council, at the behest of the pope and with his approval, anathematized not only Luther but all German Protestants as well as anyone "aiding and betting."  JP @ Vatican (2? 3?) welcomes Protestants as true Christians.

Technically, that's a Pope & Council contradicting a Council which the Pope only tacitly endorsed, but the argument is the same:

Your authority redefines what its predecessors said, too.

Not true.

A Catholic, who knows and believes what the church teaches, who later commits heresy unrepentantly, is excommunicated. All of the reformers are most likely not in heaven. thats just my take. They caused terrible division, and they were Christian heretics.

True, Christians in other denominations, who have never known the fullness of truth, nor purposefully left it or taught against it after once knowing it, still have the opportunity at salvation.

So your theory is false, and consistent Catholic teaching confirms this point.

Once again, a misunderstanding of Catholic teaching.


Bishop sheen once write that there are not 100 people who hate the Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they believe the Catholic Church to teach.

You fit into that category. unfortunately.

peace, papist

True, Christians in other denominations, who have never known the fullness of truth, nor purposefully left it or taught against it after once knowing it, still have the opportunity at salvation.

Why does this sound so arrogant and condesending? Who is the fullness ot truth and who is it  that has this fullness. When the church was born on the day of pentecost and 120 believers were filled with the Holy spirit did they not have the fullness of truth or did they have to wait another three or four hundred years and be of the RCC to have the fullness. I guess they just had to settle for part of it. Darn the luck! It took over three hundred years untill the glass got full. 

[mclees8]

Just think when you RC's get to heaven and you are standing on some higher cloud you can look down at the poor Protestants that never got the fullness. Its just a darn shame.  Good thing they still made to heaven thought. 

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

Not doctrine?

You put authority up as your argument, so by criticizing that authority, in its tendency to redefine what it meant in the past, I've drawn a parallel with the Protestant tendency to redefine what their authority (Sola Scriptura) has said in the past.

The argument is still valid.  The analogy still holds.  Are you really going to argue against the authority that you are putting forward?  What I hear is that this is legitimate authority, but only kind-of, sometimes, and when it's convenient to the argument.

As to examples of popes contradicting prior popes...well, I thought you wanted to keep discussions of 15th century papal indiscretion out of this argument.

Off the top of my head and without actually looking it up...I believe that THE CHURCH, in council, at the behest of the pope and with his approval, anathematized not only Luther but all German Protestants as well as anyone "aiding and betting."  JP @ Vatican (2? 3?) welcomes Protestants as true Christians.

Technically, that's a Pope & Council contradicting a Council which the Pope only tacitly endorsed, but the argument is the same:

Your authority redefines what its predecessors said, too.

Not true.

A Catholic, who knows and believes what the church teaches, who later commits heresy unrepentantly, is excommunicated. All of the reformers are most likely not in heaven. thats just my take. They caused terrible division, and they were Christian heretics.

True, Christians in other denominations, who have never known the fullness of truth, nor purposefully left it or taught against it after once knowing it, still have the opportunity at salvation.

So your theory is false, and consistent Catholic teaching confirms this point.

You know, citations from the documents have actually been provided in an old thread...shall I dig it up?

We'll go with what you said...it was just a clarification.  That clarification was needed because everyone seemed to think the church's official stand was otherwise.  Probably the centuries of demonstrating it through their actions, but I digress...

Shall we discuss Limbo?  Since you wanted examples.

Oh I know, I know, not ex cathedra, yadda yadda yadda...still a well-documented flip-flop from your authority.  I suddenly feel the compulsion to remind you that the topic is not "official doctrines of the Catholic church" but rather AUTHORITY.

Once again, a misunderstanding of Catholic teaching.

Once again, a willful disregard of history, as is necessary to sustain the belief that the Catholic church has been consistent in its doctrines over the last 2K or so.

Bishop sheen once write that there are not 100 people who hate the Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they believe the Catholic Church to teach.

You fit into that category. unfortunately.

You seem to know so much more about me than I myself do...lol.

I don't hate the Catholic church at all.  Nor do I hate what the Catholic church teaches, for the most part.  Actually, my beliefs on justification are far more Catholic than Protestant, for which I am occasionally raked over the coals here.

I don't believe that there should be a single authority acting on Christ's behalf as vicar/steward/head/king/WHATEVER over the church, and I have a distrinct dislike of edifices of any sort, therefore, I have not chosen to become a Catholic (or a Lutheran - Catholic Lite). 

I actually explored the possibility of joining the Orthodox church, but I dislike their emphatic belief in mystery...that is to say, of holding a position to be true despite being unable to explain it in everyday parlance.

All I really want out of my theology is a position consistent with everyday experience which doesn't create other logical impossibilities.  Your church doesn't have it, but neither do any of the others.   

[trifecta]

Hi all!

Papist is right, IMHO, in his initial post.   Jarrod is right, too.   Historically, the RCC has  some problems with changing doctrine.    So, you both are right (sort of) .

I don't hate the Catholic church at all.  Nor do I hate what the Catholic church teaches, for the most part.  Actually, my beliefs on justification are far more Catholic than Protestant, for which I am occasionally raked over the coals here.

I don't believe that there should be a single authority acting on Christ's behalf as vicar/steward/head/king/WHATEVER over the church, and I have a distrinct dislike of edifices of any sort, therefore, I have not chosen to become a Catholic (or a Lutheran - Catholic Lite). 

Good thinking.  The original church had no absolute rulers as the Pope has today.  Peter was the head of the church, but he could be argued with--see Galatians 1, for example.

Back to the authority question.  The answer is neither the Scriptures nor the Pope.  The answer is the Church.  The church is the pillar and foundation of the truth (1 Tim 3:15).  Who gave the Scriptures authority?  The answer is clearly the Church, but most Protestants prefer to read their scriptures in the way they want to interpret it instead of in the context of the church.

So, what is the church?  Is it you and me and other believers?  No, the Church wouldn't be the pillar and foundation of the truth if it were.  The church was established by Jesus Christ in Matthew 16:18 and passed down to us. The church is perhaps the most beautiful thing created by God.  There are four of these churches that I know of today.  Then, it's time to look at doctrine to see which is the one to be in.

I actually explored the possibility of joining the Orthodox church, but I dislike their emphatic belief in mystery...that is to say, of holding a position to be true despite being unable to explain it in everyday parlance.

Don't pass us by!  I don't want to highjack this thread, so see the Orthodox thread for more detail.

All I really want out of my theology is a position consistent with everyday experience which doesn't create other logical impossibilities.

I'm not sure what you mean here, so I could be wrong in my next sentence.  It sounds like you want to have all your questions answered.  No church will do that, because "The wisdom of man is less than the folly of God." (1 Cor 1:25 - my paraphrase).  Human language itself is not rich enough to explain God. 

Your church doesn't have it, but neither do any of the others.   

Papist is right here.  If God is not the author of confusion, why would he make all these churches, none of which has the truth?  Fortunately, the church is the pillar and foundation of the church.  Papist just has the wrong church (but for 1000 years they were the western part of that true church).

Thanks for reading, especially if you disagree.

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

So, what is the church?  Is it you and me and other believers?  No, the Church wouldn't be the pillar and foundation of the truth if it were.

So...what is the church?  You didn't answer your question to my satisfaction.

If it isn't the people (congregationalism), and it isn't a hierarchy that comes to a point at the top (popery), then it must be somewhere in between (aristocracy).

All I really want out of my theology is a position consistent with everyday experience which doesn't create other logical impossibilities.

I'm not sure what you mean here, so I could be wrong in my next sentence.  It sounds like you want to have all your questions answered.  No church will do that, because "The wisdom of man is less than the folly of God." (1 Cor 1:25 - my paraphrase).  Human language itself is not rich enough to explain God.

I suppose I just think that if you're going to teach something (& especially to dogmatically insist on it), then you ought to have some idea what it means.  After all, if there is no application, no profit to what is said or believed, then what's the point?

And, of course, what you say it means shouldn't contradict observation, or simple logic.

Papist is right here.  If God is not the author of confusion, why would he make all these churches, none of which has the truth?  Fortunately, the church is the pillar and foundation of the church.  Papist just has the wrong church (but for 1000 years they were the western part of that true church).

Common sense suggests that God did not make all these churches, which I believe is your point anyway.

But perhaps it's not a question of him making them so much as preserving them.  Perhaps He DOES keep making new churches because entropy, dogmatism, doctrinal corruption, and churchsploitation keep claiming the old ones.  That certainly seems to fit common sense, and observation.  And also the parable of the vine and its branches, what with all that trimming off the dead so the new can sprout and grow.

Someone said the tree of liberty must needs occasionally be refreshed by the blood of patriots and tyrants.  Perhaps the True Vine must needs be refreshed occasionally by a mulch of reformers, and popes.

But really, to answer your earlier question, I think the church IS composed of people, as determined by how well they're listening, by their response to what they hear.  If it isn't so, then why the "body of Christ" or the "temple of lively stones?"  If not, why do the apostles refer to "the saved," "the church" and "those-who-are-believing" interchangeably?

Jarrod

PS.  Churchsploitation...I just made that up.

[desertknight]

The "Body of Christ" is the faithful, but it is not exclusively the faithful.  It is also Christ.  The NT is explicit in it's call for unity and orthodoxy.  It is explicit in it's call for correct doctrine. 

Titus 1:9  "Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers."

Mark 1:27  "And they were all amazed, insomuch that they questioned among themselves, saying, What thing is this? what new doctrine is this? for with authority commandeth he even the unclean spirits, and they do obey him. "

Acts 2:42  "And they continued steadfast in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers."

Romans 16:17  "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them."

Now the question from the OP is where do we derive authority to decide what is "orthodoxy"?  The NT is very clear on this.  There are numerous examples of that authority, including at least one passage that I quoted, as being from the ministers of Christ's Holy Church.  So then we ask, "who can be a minister?"  Well, again, the NT is very clear.  Why did St. Paul, appointed by our Lord, Himself, go to Jerusalem and be "ordained" by the laying on of hands?  Throughout the NT letters, numerous examples are given as to the offices of the Church and the only proper way in which those offices are given.  Our Lord did not become incarnate to write anything.  He did, as the first act of His ministry after His baptism, appoint 12 rather ordinary men to lead His Church.  The NT is quite clear as to the fact that this same authority was to be passed down in continual succession by the "laying on of hands" at ordination.    That is the model.

How do Protestant's justify theirs?  Where can they trace their authority back to?  If their answer is that their authority derives from the authority of the Bible alone, or the authority was given them by the Holy Spirit alone, than my answer is to examine St. Paul.  He too, was given such authority, but understood that our Lord had established a real, visible, Church, in which that authority had to be properly confirmed at ordination, by those who were already properly ordained themselves.

So again;  Where do Protestants get theirs?

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

As opposed to your unbroken succession of popes...?

It only took me 2 searches on Google to dispose of that silly notion:

In its list of the popes, the Holy See's annual directory, Annuario Pontificio, attaches to the name of Pope Leo VIII (963–965) the following note:

At this point, as again in the mid-eleventh century, we come across elections in which problems of harmonising historical criteria and those of theology and canon law make it impossible to decide clearly which side possessed the legitimacy whose factual existence guarantees the unbroken lawful succession of the successors of Saint Peter. The uncertainty that in some cases results has made it advisable to abandon the assignation of successive numbers in the list of the popes.

[desertknight]

The fact that you did not answer the very question I, and the OP referred to, is telling.  You specifically posed the "unbroken line of Popes" as your argument., but that line is only a part of the total Apostolic Succession.  Of course we Catholics understand that the Bishop of Rome had developed the responsibilities of what exactly that office entailed over time, but that has always been in concordance with what the mission of Our Lord has been, and in what He anointed St. Peter to fulfill.  Your argument falls flat with the understanding that the Catholic Church accepts with complete authority the Holy Orders of, and the Holy Sacraments administered by, the Eastern Orthodox Churches.  How does one explain that?   It is that unshakable NT model that you question.  However, the question remains.

Where do Protestants derive their authority?

[Tantor]

The fact that you did not answer the very question I, and the OP referred to, is telling.  You specifically posed the "unbroken line of Popes" as your argument., but that line is only a part of the total Apostolic Succession.  Of course we Catholics understand that the Bishop of Rome had developed the responsibilities of what exactly that office entailed over time, but that has always been in concordance with what the mission of Our Lord has been, and in what He anointed St. Peter to fulfill.  Your argument falls flat with the understanding that the Catholic Church accepts with complete authority the Holy Orders of, and the Holy Sacraments administered, by the Eastern Orthodox Churches.  How does one explain that?   It is that unshakable NT model that you question.  However, the question remains.

Where do Protestants derive their authority?

Jesus.. there is no other authority for Christians.

And I have never seen the Pope act in a way that would be consistent with Jesus teachings... so if the shoe doesn't fit...

[desertknight]

Jesus.. there is no other authority for Christians.

And I have never seen the Pope act in a way that would be consistent with Jesus teachings... so if the shoe doesn't fit...

Yes, our Lord is the ultimate authority, but you must clearly be opposed to, or ignorant of, the numerous examples in Holy Scripture of our Lord founding a visible Church, and in giving that authority to minister it, to mortal men and they in turn, passing it on through ordination, by the laying on of hands.  Exactly as is practiced today by my Church. 

I'm almost urged to wonder, do Protestants just ignore this?  Do they defend this somehow?

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

The fact that you did not answer the very question I, and the OP referred to, is telling.  You specifically posed the "unbroken line of Popes" as your argument., but that line is only a part of the total Apostolic Succession.  Of course we Catholics understand that the Bishop of Rome had developed the responsibilities of what exactly that office entailed over time, but that has always been in concordance with what the mission of Our Lord has been, and in what He anointed St. Peter to fulfill.  Your argument falls flat with the understanding that the Catholic Church accepts with complete authority the Holy Orders of, and the Holy Sacraments administered by, the Eastern Orthodox Churches.  How does one explain that?   It is that unshakable NT model that you question.  However, the question remains.

Where do Protestants derive their authority?

I probably shouldn't speak for all Protestants, since I certainly don't represent, say...the Lutheran, or Anglican churches, but it seems to me you really don't understand.

I can't answer a question that doesn't make sense.  You may as well ask me how I create air.  I don't create air, so the question is inane.

Likewise, we DON'T derive authority one over another; we submit to God as equals.  This is why we don't call anyone "father" or "mother" but instead opt for "brother" and "sister."

Where I am, the only authority that is exercised is that of an overseer.  This "authority" is not positional, it is a function of experience.  Those who are mature teach, and look in on those who are younger to correct them in behavioral issues, and that is only with their consent.  If you do not wish to be taught by some certain elder, you may choose another.  IF you don't think you have anything to learn from any of them, then you may devote yourself to service rather than study.  If all you want to do is attend the song service, you're allowed (though I doubt you could really consider yourself a part of the church at that point).

There is a preacher/pastor, but the paradigm is not top-down authority.  It works the other way...the pastor is accountable to the eldership, and the eldership is accountable to the membership.

The clergy does not "lord it over" the laity, rather they are their servers; their employees.

The pyramid is upside down.

[Tantor]

Jesus.. there is no other authority for Christians.

And I have never seen the Pope act in a way that would be consistent with Jesus teachings... so if the shoe doesn't fit...

Yes, our Lord is the ultimate authority, but you must clearly be opposed to, or ignorant of, the numerous examples in Holy Scripture of our Lord founding a visible Church, and in giving that authority to minister it, to mortal men and they in turn, passing it on through ordination, by the laying on of hands.  Exactly as is practiced today by my Church. 

I'm almost urged to wonder, do Protestants just ignore this?  Do they defend this somehow?

I'm not ignorant of anything.. I just decern whom are imposters and whom are the real thing.

You will know christians by their fruit... and there is no fruit in the Catholic Church or evident in the Pope.

As far as Jesus setting up a physical church... there is one obscure verse in the Bible that Catholics use to justify their position... yet there are 4 books that cover the ministry of Jesus.. and there is one mention to a 'possible church'... obviously, the importance of the Catholic church wasn't that important to the Holy Spirit because almost every other thing Jesus said or did was recorded in no less then the 4 books of the Bible.

God is not a God of confusion.. he would never have been that vague with something that important.

So the answer to your last question is.. why do we have to defend something that doesn't need defending?  I am in no way accountable to the Roman Catholic Church in any way shape or form.

[desertknight]

Likewise, we DON'T derive authority one over another; we submit to God as equals.  This is why we don't call anyone "father" or "mother" but instead opt for "brother" and "sister."

That is completely at odds with what Holy Scripture says.  The proof of that is what you seem unable, or unwilling, to answer.  The NT is unequivocal as to our Lord appointing His ministers and the authority they exercised and the passing of that very authority down to the Bishops and Presbyters of His Church.  You say it is a question you can't answer.  I say, have you no knowledge of this in your reading of the NT?

[desertknight]

So the answer to your last question is.. why do we have to defend something that doesn't need defending?  I am in no way accountable to the Roman Catholic Church in any way shape or form.

Then there is about 1,600 years of your understanding of the very visible Christian Church that our Lord established, that you are missing.

[Tantor]

The scripture does say to call no one 'father'.  

And the entire premises of 'passing' on authority is no where to be found in scripture in the New Testament.. no where.

[Tantor]

So the answer to your last question is.. why do we have to defend something that doesn't need defending?  I am in no way accountable to the Roman Catholic Church in any way shape or form.

Then there is about 1,600 years of your understanding of the very visible Christian Church that our Lord established, that you are missing.

Nope... 1600 years of going astray to be shed or reformed... it's amazing how the Catholic Church has strayed and invented its own doctrine.. its similarities to Jesus' ministry are nothing but coincidental anymore.

[desertknight]

The scripture does say to call no one 'father'.  

And the entire premises of 'passing' on authority is no where to be found in scripture in the New Testament.. no where.

Acts 6:6 "They presented these men to the apostles who prayed and laid hands on them."

Acts 13:3  "Then, completing their fasting and prayer, they laid hands on them and sent them off."

Acts 14:23  "They appointed presbyters 5 for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, commended them to the Lord in whom they had put their faith."

Acts 15:22  "Then the apostles and presbyters, in agreement with the whole church, decided to choose representatives and to send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. The ones chosen were Judas, who was called Barsabbas, and Silas, leaders among the brothers."

1 Tim.  4:14  "Do not neglect the gift you have, which was conferred on you through the prophetic word with the imposition of hands of the presbyterate."

1 Thes. 5:12-13  "Now we ask you, brothers, to respect those who work hard among you, who are over you in the Lord and who admonish you. Hold them in the highest regard in love because of their work. Live in peace with each other."

Heb. 13:17  "Obey your leaders and defer to them, for they keep watch over you and will have to give an account, that they may fulfill their task with joy and not with sorrow, for that would be of no advantage to you."

Deut. 17:10-11  "According to this decision that they give you in the place which the LORD chooses, you shall act, being careful to do exactly as they direct.  You shall carry out the directions they give you and the verdict they pronounce for you, without turning aside to the right or to the left from the decision they hand down to you."

[Tantor]

Still no pope.

But the authority they had were as servant leaders.. leaders commissioned to keep doctrinal standards.

Why has the Catholic Church strayed from the very thing that they say that they were charged with? Their power went to their heads.. instead of supporting the congregation the opted to rule over it with an iron fist.

Thank goodness they no longer have the political power it used to have or we would still be in the dark ages of ignorance.

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

Likewise, we DON'T derive authority one over another; we submit to God as equals.  This is why we don't call anyone "father" or "mother" but instead opt for "brother" and "sister."

That is completely at odds with what Holy Scripture says.

What you mean is that it is at odds with the interpretation of the Bible that you have been taught.

What do you think this means?:

But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, [even] Christ; and all ye are brethren.  And call no [man] your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.  Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, [even] Christ.  But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.  And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.    (Matthew 23:8-12)

Or these:

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.

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

Or...

Mat 20:25-28  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.  But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

The proof of that is what you seem unable, or unwilling, to answer.

I answered you succinctly: We DON'T derive authority one over another; we submit to God as equals.

The NT is unequivocal as to our Lord appointing His ministers and the authority they exercised and the passing of that very authority down to the Bishops and Presbyters of His Church.  You say it is a question you can't answer.  I say, have you no knowledge of this in your reading of the NT?

A presbyter is an elder.  A bishop is an overseer.  These are the same offices I have referenced in explaining to you how my church works.  This apparently does not resonate with you (is it because they aren't wearing funny hats?), but it matches the Bible perfectly.  But you chose to ignore that part of my post.

Perhaps you can show me where it refers to cardinals and archbishops in the Bible, because I don't remember that hierarchy in either Testament.

As to the laying on of hands by the elders/presbyters for ordination, this is a practice that we also follow.  But it is not so much a delegation of authority, and is not a successorship in any way.  It is a recognition of the gifts and calling of God for service, an opportunity to bless a laborer as he departs into the field, and a job recommendation for the ordained to take with him as he goes.

Jarrod

[desertknight]

Thank goodness they no longer have the political power it used to have or we would still be in the dark ages of ignorance

So now, your argument has changed.  The Catholic Church is not ministered by just the Pope or any Pope.  He is our chief Bishop, and certainly holds the "Keys to the Kingdom.", as Christ ordained, but as important as the chief Bishop is, he is but one Bishop in a Church that is governed by all of the Bishops and Presbyters with our Chief Bishop as our chief Shepard.

[desertknight]

What you mean is that it is at odds with the interpretation of the Bible that you have been taught.

What do you think this means?:

But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, [even] Christ; and all ye are brethren.  And call no [man] your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.  Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, [even] Christ.  But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.  And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.    (Matthew 23:8-12)

I think it means that we are to recognize that our father in heaven is our true father, as every Catholic knows.  Have you ever called your "dad" father?  Do you not realize that even the Apostle Paul referred to himself as "father"?  I guess he is damned as well...

Or these:

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.

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

This is clearly Christ's teaching that in order to be a true Christian one has to practice true humility.  He is teaching that the lowliest beggar is worthy of our acceptance as a brother.  Where in the world are you deriving that this has anything to do with what Holy Scripture clearly defines as the ordained offices of His Church? 

Or...

Mat 20:25-28  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.  But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

Well, Our Lord tells us clearly what this means.  "But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant."

"Let him be your minister", ...yet you say that is not so.  It is a long standing observance that the Bishop of Rome, goes to confession, owns virtually nothing, practices penance and contrition, and washes the feet of the disciples.

I answered you succinctly: We DON'T derive authority one over another; we submit to God as equals.

The NT is unequivocal as to our Lord appointing His ministers and the authority they exercised and the passing of that very authority down to the Bishops and Presbyters of His Church.  You say it is a question you can't answer.  I say, have you no knowledge of this in your reading of the NT?

A presbyter is an elder.  A bishop is an overseer.  These are the same offices I have referenced in explaining to you how my church works.  This apparently does not resonate with you (is it because they aren't wearing funny hats?), but it matches the Bible perfectly.  But you chose to ignore that part of my post.

I haven't ignored it at all.  In fact, it is the very heart and core of the question.  The Catholic Church is governed by the very Bishops, (overseers), Presbyters, (elders), and Deacons, (well, deacons or "servants"), as you say.  That your argument boils down to "funny hats" is really telling.  Is that all it's about?

Perhaps you can show me where it refers to cardinals and archbishops in the Bible, because I don't remember that hierarchy in either Testament.

The position of Cardinal and Archbishop is not in the Bible nor is it a religious office that one is ordained to in the Church.  Just as a secretary of the Chancellor, or the instructor of Sunday school is also not mentioned in the Bible and is also not an ordained office.  The only ordained offices in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, are Bishop, Presbyter, and Deacon...just as in the NT.

As to the laying on of hands by the elders/presbyters for ordination, this is a practice that we also follow.  But it is not so much a delegation of authority, and is not a successorship in any way.

Then that is in complete contradiction to Holy Scripture in the NT. 

It is a recognition of the gifts and calling of God for service, an opportunity to bless a laborer as he departs into the field, and a job recommendation for the ordained to take with him as he goes.  Jarrod

That is in complete agreement with Catholic doctrine.

[desertknight]

I mean this in all honesty.  Reading the Bible for a Protestant must be a tortured and convoluted thing.  One must take out just one or two passages of Scripture, of course, one must never recognize it was the Catholic Church that compiled the Bible, then one must only choose those passages that will bolster the protestant argument.  Hence, "Truly my Flesh is actual or true food.  My Blood, truly drink.", is oh, well, just "symbolism".  Sure...that is why our Lord made such a covenantual sacrament of it at His last supper.  Sure He didn't really appoint ministers to be ordained in His one and true Church.   Protestants are always having to argue against what scripture says.  When Christ clearly appointed St. Peter as chief of the Apostles, it is "NO!, it actually needs to be interpreted as this...".  When the NT obviously establishes that a real visible Church with earthly authority appointed over us is established by our Lord, it is "NO!,it needs to be interpreted as this!"...He really meant for there to be 30,000+ denominations, all preaching completely contradictory things, to "save" people.  More like they "save" people from their bank accounts...

[Tantor]

Thank goodness they no longer have the political power it used to have or we would still be in the dark ages of ignorance

So now, your argument has changed.  The Catholic Church is not ministered by just the Pope or any Pope.  He is our chief Bishop, and certainly holds the "Keys to the Kingdom.", as Christ ordained, but as important as the chief Bishop is, he is but one Bishop in a Church that is governed by all of the Bishops and Presbyters with our Chief Bishop as our chief Shepard.

Actually, my argument hasn't changed at all.  I take what Jesus said as the truth.. you need the funny man in the jewish hat to tell you what Jesus said... as if the Holy Spirit is not enough.

All I read are opinions and more opinions.. that you believe as the truth..

You have been a good little lacky... you certainly wouldnt want to have to think for yourself.

There is no chief bishop.. never has and never will be.. there is only Christ.. and he is not beholding to the Catholic Churches twisted and evil dogma. (Satan has done a admirable job of derailing the 'popular' romanized catholic church).

I wonder how many boys the Pope gets to molest before his fellow cardinals finally give in and tell the authorities.  But then again he is the 'Don' of their religion (the Pope is the Don of the religious Mafia), they need to give him respect and kiss his ring... he can probably get away with it the rest of his life.

Thank goodness the world doesn't put up with him putting out hits on his enemies anymore.

[desertknight]

You have been a good little lacky... you certainly wouldnt want to have to think for yourself.

There is no chief bishop.. never has and never will be.. there is only Christ.. and he is not beholding to the Catholic Churches twisted and evil dogma. (Satan has done a admirable job of derailing the 'popular' romanized catholic church).

I wonder how many boys the Pope gets to molest before his fellow cardinals finally give in and tell the authorities.  But then again he is the 'Don' of their religion (the Pope is the Don of the religious Mafia), they need to give him respect and kiss his ring... he can probably get away with it the rest of his life.

Thank goodness the world doesn't put up with him putting out hits on his enemies anymore.

...And there you have it.  The ultimate Protestant argument.  OMGosh!  So sad.  So pathetic.  I actually will pray for you brother....

""Stop judging, that you may not be judged. For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you. Why do you notice the splinter in your brother's eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye?


...I guess this passage of Holy Scripture needs to be "interpreted" by Protestants as well...

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

I think it means that we are to recognize that our father in heaven is our true father, as every Catholic knows.  Have you ever called your "dad" father?  Do you not realize that even the Apostle Paul referred to himself as "father"?  I guess he is damned as well...

Straight to the stock answer...

Ok, how bout now?

But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, [even] Christ; and all ye are brethren...Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, [even] Christ.  But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.  And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.    (Matthew 23:8-12)

Or these:

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.

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

This is clearly Christ's teaching that in order to be a true Christian one has to practice true humility.  He is teaching that the lowliest beggar is worthy of our acceptance as a brother.  Where in the world are you deriving that this has anything to do with what Holy Scripture clearly defines as the ordained offices of His Church?

He's not saying that humility makes a leader.  He's saying that service makes a leader.  Serving makes one a leader because when you are the one doing things, people look to you.

It's so simple, how do you just ignore it like that?

Or...

Mat 20:25-28  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.  But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

Well, Our Lord tells us clearly what this means.  "But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant." [/quote]
Exactly.  So if leadership is determined by service, what in the world does succession have to do with it?

"Let him be your minister", ...yet you say that is not so.  It is a long standing observance that the Bishop of Rome, goes to confession, owns virtually nothing, practices penance and contrition, and washes the feet of the disciples.

...while controlling trillions in corporately owned assets and living in the worlds largest and most expensive home.  Forgive me if I don't see a footwashing ceremony as a genuine expression of service, in light of this.

The NT is unequivocal as to our Lord appointing His ministers and the authority they exercised and the passing of that very authority down to the Bishops and Presbyters of His Church.  You say it is a question you can't answer.  I say, have you no knowledge of this in your reading of the NT?

A presbyter is an elder.  A bishop is an overseer.  These are the same offices I have referenced in explaining to you how my church works.  This apparently does not resonate with you (is it because they aren't wearing funny hats?), but it matches the Bible perfectly.  But you chose to ignore that part of my post.

I haven't ignored it at all.  In fact, it is the very heart and core of the question.  The Catholic Church is governed by the very Bishops, (overseers), Presbyters, (elders), and Deacons, (well, deacons or "servants"), as you say.  That your argument boils down to "funny hats" is really telling.  Is that all it's about?

Was it easier to focus in on an aside that was meant as a joke than to address the actual argument?  Do better and I'll respond.

Perhaps you can show me where it refers to cardinals and archbishops in the Bible, because I don't remember that hierarchy in either Testament.

The position of Cardinal and Archbishop is not in the Bible nor is it a religious office that one is ordained to in the Church.  Just as a secretary of the Chancellor, or the instructor of Sunday school is also not mentioned in the Bible and is also not an ordained office.  The only ordained offices in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, are Bishop, Presbyter, and Deacon...just as in the NT.

Oh, so you have the unordained guys running the show?  And that's supposed to make it better?

As to the laying on of hands by the elders/presbyters for ordination, this is a practice that we also follow.  But it is not so much a delegation of authority, and is not a successorship in any way.

Then that is in complete contradiction to Holy Scripture in the NT. [/quote]
How so?  Back then, they ordained those who were meritorious and trustworthy.  We do the same.  It's not the ordination that makes the man a leader, it's his merit, his service, and his character.  The ordination is simply a public recognition.

It's like a college degree.  The piece of paper doesn't make me more educated, its just a recognition of what I have already done.

Jarrod

[Tantor]

The truth is pathetic?  That the 'church' murdered so many throughout the ages to keep the power in europe and the new world?.. that these 'bishops' that you call them covered up for so many sins of the priests?... they should have been appalled at what the priests did more then anyone and turned them over to the authorities without trying to cover it up.

If this is an example of the culture of the Catholic Church, then the world would be wise to forceably disband the Roman Catholic church for the good of humankind and Christendom.. at the very least the Pope should be making personal visits to the victims families and personally appologizing for the conduct of his priests and begging their forgiveness and ponying up and paying for all the counciling these young boys and men need to go through.  Jesus has asked us to ask for forgiveness and pay back double for offenses christians make.


I might have done a few bad things in my life but molestation and murder arent on my list of offenses and actually makes me feel sick to the stomach when I think about such crimes.

And I think it is quite reasonable to examine a 'church' that I might be a part of to see if the Holy Spirt has been doing good works among them and that their history is consistent with Jesus' ministry before I would join such an institution. As a matter of fact, scripture tells us to not associate with people that have done what the Catholic Church has done.. flee from them... which is what every serious christian should be doing.

Personally, there is absolutely nothing the Catholic Church has to offer that is appealing to me in any way shape or form.. and its a shame.

[desertknight]

Ok, how bout now?

But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, [even] Christ; and all ye are brethren...Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, [even] Christ.  But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.  And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.    (Matthew 23:8-12)

What is the Sunday school teacher called in your church?  What do you address the person who teaches your children?  Every Protestant minister that I know of is referred to as a Rev. ___, meaning "The  Revered One."

He's not saying that humility makes a leader.  He's saying that service makes a leader.  Serving makes one a leader because when you are the one doing things, people look to you.

It's so simple, how do you just ignore it like that?

I don't at all.  Nor do I get your point.  I have a Presbyter who is the head of my congregation...he leads us in orthodoxy, in the way of Christ.  I have a Bishop, who is the overseer of him, who leads me well...he is the anointed leader of the Church of God, as ordained by Christ.  Where is that in your church?

Exactly.  So if leadership is determined by service, what in the world does succession have to do with it?

It had enough to do with it that our Lord, Jesus Christ instituted it that way.  I can't believe you are ignorant of that fact.  If you would like Jarrod, I will be more than happy to post any number of Biblical references in support of it.

...while controlling trillions in corporately owned assets and living in the worlds largest and most expensive home.  Forgive me if I don't see a footwashing ceremony as a genuine expression of service, in light of this.

I actually don't even really think you believe this. You are too smart of a guy.  As you know the Pope does only live in a temporary basis, the very grand real-estate that the Church may own.  The last Pope, HH John Paul II, when his will was read...owned nothing.  Do you? 

Was it easier to focus in on an aside that was meant as a joke than to address the actual argument?  Do better and I'll respond.

Nope.  No aside was intended.  This is the clear scripture of the NT as given and as my Church adheres to.  How about yours?

Oh, so you have the unordained guys running the show?  And that's supposed to make it better?

No again.  They are not ordained offices and have no authority to administer the Sacraments unless they are ordained into the office of the Presbyter, at least.

It's like a college degree.  The piece of paper doesn't make me more educated, its just a recognition of what I have already done.

You may think that, but that would be in complete contradiction to the Holy Scripture of the NT.  Those positions are there, because our Lord, Jesus Christ, intended as so.  I will pray for you.

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

What is the Sunday school teacher called in your church?  What do you address the person who teaches your children?

Stephanie.

Every Protestant minister that I know of is referred to as a Rev. ___, meaning "The  Revered One."

You must not know very many, and they must all come from "high church."  I've never heard a minister called that, though I have seen it on a few signs.

The point of the verses is still the same - we are all equals before the Lord in position.  Admittedly, everyone is not equal in effort or efficacy, but Jesus told His disciples not to seek to hold authority over others.  We are to answer to God.  Anyone who gets in between and takes the place of God is doing their follower a disservice, because they cannot be a leader and a counselor up to the caliber of God Himself.

He's not saying that humility makes a leader.  He's saying that service makes a leader.  Serving makes one a leader because when you are the one doing things, people look to you.

It's so simple, how do you just ignore it like that?

I don't at all.  Nor do I get your point.   I have a Presbyter who is the head of my congregation...he leads us in orthodoxy, in the way of Christ.  I have a Bishop, who is the overseer of him, who leads me well...he is the anointed leader of the Church of God, as ordained by Christ.  Where is that in your church?

So you don't even understand what I'm saying even?

In my church, we have a number of elders who each are responsible to oversee a small group of people, which they host at gatherings.  These are not assigned as leaders over the people; the people choose where they want to be.  The job of these elders as they host is to engage these people in normal conversations, learn about and share their lives, offer advice, recruit them for charitable service and works, and point the people to other resources within the church that can help them deal with problems or help to build their lives.

These elders take cues from the front office staff regarding events and such, but the monitoring of their behavior is largely the work of all the people they host and talk with, as communication is a two-way street.  It isn't an interrogation, it's a conversation.

Exactly.  So if leadership is determined by service, what in the world does succession have to do with it?

It had enough to do with it that our Lord, Jesus Christ instituted it that way.  I can't believe you are ignorant of that fact.  If you would like Jarrod, I will be more than happy to post any number of Biblical references in support of it.

Yes please.  Likely, what you interpret as succession, I simply see as expansion.

...while controlling trillions in corporately owned assets and living in the worlds largest and most expensive home.  Forgive me if I don't see a footwashing ceremony as a genuine expression of service, in light of this.

I actually don't even really think you believe this. You are too smart of a guy.  As you know the Pope does only live in a temporary basis, the very grand real-estate that the Church may own.  The last Pope, HH John Paul II, when his will was read...owned nothing.  Do you?

What a British thing of you to say.  You don't question whether its true or not, you only wish to know if I actually believe it?

Of course I do, its just a matter of using my eyes.  What does it matter if I personally own nothing, when I corporately control a trillion in assets and don't have to make fiscal reports to any government?

Was it easier to focus in on an aside that was meant as a joke than to address the actual argument?  Do better and I'll respond.

Nope.  No aside was intended.  This is the clear scripture of the NT as given and as my Church adheres to.  How about yours?

So you know my intentions better than I do?  Why do you think I put it in parentheses?  ::rolleyes::

Oh, so you have the unordained guys running the show?  And that's supposed to make it better?

No again.  They are not ordained offices and have no authority to administer the Sacraments unless they are ordained into the office of the Presbyter, at least.

Riiiiight.  They just hold the purse-strings, form policy and marketing strategies at a higher level, and elect the pope.  They're not running things at all...[/sarcasm]