Posted on 01/31/2010 2:03:15 PM PST by NYer
So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. 2 Thessalonians 2:15
According to most Evangelicals, a Christian needs only to believe those teachings found in Scripture (a.k.a. the Bible). For these Christians, there is no need for Apostolic Tradition or an authoritative teaching Church. For them the Bible is sufficient for learning about the faith and living a Christian life. In order to be consistent, they claim that this "By Scripture Alone" (sola Scriptura) teaching is found in Scripture, especially St. Paul's Letters.
The passage most frequently used to support the Scripture-Alone belief is 2 Timothy 3:16-17. St. Paul writes:
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect (complete, adequate, competent), equipped for every good work. [2 Tim. 3:16-17, RSV]
According to those that hold this belief, Scripture is sufficient since it is "profitable for teaching" and makes a Christian "perfect, equipped for every good work." On closer examination though, it becomes apparent that these verses still do not prove this teaching.
Verse 16 states a fundamental Christian doctrine. Scripture is "inspired by God" and "profitable for teaching" the faith. The Catholic Church teaches this doctrine (CCC 101-108). But this verse does not demonstrate the sufficiency of Scripture in teaching the faith. As an example, vitamins are profitable, even necessary, for good health but not sufficient. If someone ate only vitamins, he would starve to death. Likewise, Sacred Scripture is very important in learning about the Christian faith, but it does not exclude Sacred Tradition or a teaching Church as other sources concerning the faith.
St. Paul in verse 17 states that Scripture can make a Christian "perfect, equipped for every good work." In this verse he is once again stressing the importance of Sacred Scripture. In similar fashion, the proverb, "practice makes perfect," stresses the importance of practice but does not imply that practice alone is sufficient in mastering a skill. Practice is very important, but it presumes a basic know-how. In sports, practice presupposes basic knowledge of the game rules, aptitude and good health. Elsewhere in Scripture, "steadfastness" is said to make a Christian "perfect and complete, lacking in nothing." [James 1:4] Even though the language (both English and Greek) in this verse is stronger, no one claims that steadfastness alone is enough for Christian growth. Faith, prayer and God's grace are also needed. Likewise in verse 17, St. Paul presumes God's grace, Timothy's faith and Sacred Tradition (2 Tim. 3:14-15).
Verses 16-17 must be read in context. Only two verses earlier, St. Paul also writes:
But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it... [2 Tim. 3:14]
Here St. Paul suggests Tradition. Notice that Paul did not write, "knowing from which Scripture passage you learned it" but instead he writes, "knowing from whom you learned it." He is implying with the "whom" himself and the other Apostles. Earlier in the same letter, St. Paul actually defines and commands Apostolic Tradition - "what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also." [2 Tim. 2:2] Also if St. Paul were truly teaching the sufficiency of Scripture, verse 15 would have been a golden opportunity to list the Books of Scripture, or at least give the "official" Table of Content for the Old Testament. Instead Paul relies on Timothy's childhood tradition:
...and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the Sacred Writings (a.k.a. Scripture) which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. [2 Tim. 3:15, RSV]
Even though profitable in instructing for salvation (but not sufficient), St. Paul still does not list which Books. He also does not suggest personal taste or opinion as Timothy's guide. Instead Paul relies on Timothy's childhood tradition to define the contents of Scripture. Verses 14-15 show that verses 16-17 presuppose Tradition.
Verse 15 brings up the problem of canonicity, i.e. which Books belong in Scripture? Through the centuries the Books of Scripture were written independently along with other religious books. There were smaller collections of Books, e.g. The Books of Moses (Torah), that were used in Synagogues. The largest collection was the Greek Septuagint which the New Testament writers most often cited. St. Paul in verse 15 probably referred to the Septuagint as Scripture. Only after the Councils of Carthage and Hippo in the 4th century A.D. were all of the Books of Scripture (both Old and New Testaments) compiled together under one cover to form "the Bible." Already in Jesus' time, the question of which Books are Scripture, was hotly debated. As an example, Esther and the Song of Solomon were not accepted by all as Scripture during Jesus' day. The source of the problem is that no where in the Sacred Writings are the Books completely and clearly listed. Sacred Scripture does not define its contents. St. Paul could have eliminated the problem of canonicity by listing the Books of Scripture (at least the Old Testament) in his Letters, but did not. Instead the Church had to discern with the aid of Sacred Tradition (CCC 120). Canonicity is a major problem for the Scripture-Alone teaching.
As a final point, verse 15 suggests only the Old Testament as Scripture since the New Testament was written after Timothy's childhood. Taken in context, verses 16-17 apply only to the Old Testament. "All Scripture" simply means all of the Old Testament. If verses 16-17 were to prove that Scripture is enough for Christians, then verse 15 would prove that the Old Testament is enough!
Some Christians may cite 1 Corthinians 4:6 as more proof for the Scripture-Alone belief:
I have applied all this to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brethren, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favour of one against another. [1 Cor. 4:6, RSV]
This verse does not condemn Sacred Tradition but warns against reading-between-the-lines in Scripture. The Corinthians had a problem of reading more into the Scripture text than what was actually there. The main question with this verse is which Sacred Writings are being referred to here? Martin Luther and John Calvin thought it may refer only to earlier cited Old Testament passages (1 Cor. 1:19, 31; 2:9 & 3:19-20) and not the entire Old Testament. Calvin thought that Paul may also be referring to the Epistle Itself. The present tense of the clause, "beyond what is written" excludes parts of the New Testament, since the New Testament was not completely written then. This causes a serious problem for the Scripture-Alone belief and Christians.
Bible verses can be found that show the importance of Sacred Scripture but not Its sufficiency or contents. There are Bible verses that also promote Sacred Tradition. In Mark 7:5-13 (Matt. 15:1-9), Jesus does not condemn all traditions but only those corrupted by the Pharisees. Although 2 Thessalonians 2:15 does not directly call Sacred Tradition the word of God, it does show some form of teachings "by word of mouth" beside Scripture and puts them on the same par as Paul's Letters. Elsewhere the preaching of the Apostles is called the "word of God" (Acts 4:31; 17:13; 1 Thess. 2:13; Heb. 13:7). The Scripture-Alone theory must assume that the Apostles eventually wrote all of these oral teachings in the New Testament. At least for St. John, this does not seem to be the case (John 21:25; 2 John 12 & 3 John 13-14). Also no Apostle listed in the New Testament which Books belong in Scripture. Now these oral teachings were eventually written down elsewhere to preserve their accuracy, e.g. St. Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians, written 96 A.D. (Phil. 4:3) or St. Ignatius' seven letters written 107 A.D. Clement's letter is found in the Codex Alexandrinus (an ancient Bible manuscript) and was even considered by some early Christians to be part of Scripture.
Both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are the word of God, while the Church is "the pillar and bulwark of the truth." [1 Tim. 3:15] The Holy Spirit through the Church protects Both from corruption. Some Christians may claim that doctrines on Mary are not found in the Bible, but the Scripture-Alone teaching is not found in the Bible. Promoters of Scripture-Alone have a consistency problem, since this is one teaching not found in Scripture.
Mahoney Was Deposed About Alleged Molestation In Archdiocese -- Report
1 John 5:11
And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
13 These things have I written unto you that believe
on the name of the Son of God;
that ye may know that ye have eternal life,
and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
“Where is what you assert taught clearly and unambiguously?”
I wonder if you are just trying to pull my leg ... or are just a doubting Thomas until Christ tells you directly.
There are many quotes from the New Testament that directly and repeatly answer that question:
Mt 16:18
And so I say to you, you are “Rock”, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
Mt 16:19-20
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Jn 20:21
(Jesus) said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.”
Mt 10:40
Whoever receives you receives me, and whoever receives me receives the one who sent me.
Lk 10:16
Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.
Mt 28:18-20
Then Jesus approached and said to them, “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.”
Christ is revealed instituting a perpetually enduring truth-teaching, truth-handling authority in the Apostles.
Mt 28:20
... teaching them (all nations) to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.
Much has changed, but no doctrine has changed. This is why the Catholic Church still happily reads form every book in the Bible and doesn’t pit one against the other.
The “she” in Genesis 3:15 is not like Luther’s “allein”. St. Jerome had to make a gender distinction that does not exist in Hebrew. A modern translator who translates “he will crush your head” makes the same distinction equally arbitrarily.
The Jewish canon has not been settled till Jamnia, AD 90 or so. This was AFTER the rabbis booted the Christians out of their synagogues. Call them what you will prior to that, after Jamnia they werre in no way “Church”.
I hear often a certain caution against the parables coming from Protestant “hermeneutucs”, but off the top of my head cannot be sure if it started with Luther. If not, good for him. Consider this issue withdrawn, for now.
Sorry. The tragedy’s all mine.
That post wasn't directed specifically at you, but if the shoe fits.........
Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 7:21)
would be meaningless.
I agree, although I’ve heard some claim that God is never without a temple with man. The significance might be in identifying what He is using as His temple when the sacred building we had associated with His temple is removed.
I am 16 years old, proclaim that Jesus is my savior and that I am SAVED
You can proclaim yourself to be a hamburger but that doesn’t make it so.
Thank you for making my point exactly....if you read the rest of my post, it pointed out that exact conclusion....saying that you believe in Jesus, therefore you are “saved” is total nonsense. I pointed out that there was a whole lot more to salvation than proclaiming “I am saved”.....a lot of protestants don’t believe that!!
...the Catholic church. She makes few mistakes overall and never errs in matters of faith and morals...
Mahoney Was Deposed About Alleged Molestation In Archdiocese — Report
the Catholic Church, like every institution on earth, is made up of fallable human beings. No Catholic, even the Pope is above error....that having been said, Christ promised His church, the Catholic Church, that He would keep Her free of error, and as of this date 2-1-10, He has kept His promise. He did not promise to keep her free from idiots who didn’t know how to do their job. Have there been sex scandals within the church hierarchy, of course there has. However, if you will check the figures, there have been MANY more sex scandals within the protestant community, as there have been among teachers, scout leaders etc. etc.. The difference being....the Catholic church, as an institution, has wealth, the local minister, scout leader, teacher, has very little....follow the money
My question was, “Where is what you assert taught clearly and unambiguously?”
You responded: “I wonder if you are just trying to pull my leg.”
No, you are pulling your own leg. Your contention is that the Church of Rome has a lock on the truth, and all Protestants are wrong. For the time being I will not argue the Protestants part, although I refuse to accept such a label. I refuse because it is just that, a label, and a pejorative one at that, coined by Rome.
Let’s make this simple:
You put forth a syllogism, to wit:
Major premise: Christ has given His church authority to teach His truth on earth.
Minor premise: The see of Peter is the only head of Christ’s church on earth.
Therefore: Only the see of Peter has Christ’s authority to teach His truth on earth.
You keep proving the major premise, which I and every serious Christian, accept without reservation. But you fail to prove the minor premise; and thus your conclusion is nothing more than your assertion. Prove the minor premise from Scripture and the vast conspiracy that is Protestantism (I still don’t like or accept the term) will believe you, and probably the Orthodox as well.
The minor premise has never been proven from Scripture. It has only been asserted with varying degrees of acceptance:
For the first quarter of Christendom’s 2000 year existence this was not believed or accepted by the church at large. The bishop of Rome was just that, the bishop of Rome.
For the next quarter of its existence there was a grudging acknowledgement by most of some degree of Roman authority, but that quarter ended with a disagreement between the church of the east (Constantinople) and the church of the west (Rome), a disagreement that ultimately went in favor of the east.
For the third quarter of Christendom’s existence the Roman Pontiffs basically ignored the east, pretending nothing had changed, and pushed very hard for total acceptance of their authority throughout the west, in so doing, emphasizing truly novel teachings not found in the Holy Scriptures as being necessary, such teachings before had only been whispered as pious opinion.
This set the stage for the fourth quarter of Christendom’s existence which began with the explosion that was the Reformation, which itself was only the effort to strip away the unscriptural novelties and get back to Apostolic and Creedal doctrine and practice.
As long as the Roman Pontiff (with the help of his acolytes) puts himself in the place of Christ as head of the church and supreme teaching authority, and then not only teaches novelties, but denies and anathematizes the central teaching of the Holy Scriptures, the warnings of Sts. Paul, Peter, and John regarding such a usurper (there is another more familiar title for him) will continue to hold the attention of many, many of Christ’s disciples. And they will heed Christ, not the bishop of Rome for one simple but powerful reason: “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish.” (John 10:27-28)
So, ADSUM, in keeping with the title of this thread, “Where Is That Taught in the Bible?”, where is the minor premise proven in the Bible? You have only your dubious opinion regarding Matthew 16:18ff. And it just doesn’t agree with entire rest of the Bible.
“Much has changed, but no doctrine has changed. This is why the Catholic Church still happily reads form every book in the Bible and doesn’t pit one against the other.”
No, I suppose not. You just pit every book of the Bible against your oral tradition.
“The “she” in Genesis 3:15 is not like Luther’s “allein”. St. Jerome had to make a gender distinction that does not exist in Hebrew. A modern translator who translates “he will crush your head” makes the same distinction equally arbitrarily.”
Huh? Where did you learn Hebrew?
“The Jewish canon has not been settled till Jamnia, AD 90 or so. This was AFTER the rabbis booted the Christians out of their synagogues. Call them what you will prior to that, after Jamnia they werre in no way “Church”.
The deuterocanonical books were not included in the temple archive as canonical Scripture, and this before the time of Christ. Again, read 1 & 2 Maccabees. Also, take note that Christ never quotes from them as Scripture, nor do the Apostles.
I will leave it there.
Goodnight.
From your recent post:
• Your contention is that the Church of Rome has a lock on the truth, and all Protestants are wrong.
• Major premise: Christ has given His church authority to teach His truth on earth
• Minor premise: The see of Peter is the only head of Christ’s church on earth.
• You keep proving the major premise, which I and every serious Christian, accept without reservation. But you fail to prove the minor premise; and thus your conclusion is nothing more than your assertion. Prove the minor premise from Scripture and the vast conspiracy that is Protestantism (I still don’t like or accept the term) will believe you, and probably the Orthodox as well.
Ah, the doubting Thomas that wants to assert your own authority to decide.
I am not aware that the Catholic Church has a lock on the truth (others may also understand and practice the truth, yet Jesus gave the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven to Peter and his successors), but even you concur that it was the Church established by Jesus Christ. I am not aware of any other persons other than Peter, the Apostles and their successors that Jesus gave His and His Father’s divine authority to establish His Church.
• Mt 28:18-20
Then Jesus approached and said to them, “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.”
• Mt 16:19-20
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Can you show me where any other church was established by Jesus Christ or that the Catholic Church is not the true church established by Christ? All Protestant churches were established centuries later by men with no direct connection to Jesus and his Apostles.
Who else in your opinion should be the co-head of Christ’s Church?
It does make a difference what Christian church one belongs to. Ultimately the question of differences is a very serious question of truth. What is true and how is truth determined? For Biblical truth, it is important to realize that the Bible as a defined canon of just so many books and no others came from the Church of Rome and her authority.
The Bible itself says that all truth is not contained therein. As we say in the text, the Bible is the book of the Church; the Church is not a church of the Bible. The same authority who defined what books are included in the Bible also has the authority to interpret those books and it is an exclusive authority. It is not given to everyone as the Bible itself clearly states. Hence, we Catholic Christians hold two authorities for determining truth: the Bible and the Holy Spirit.
The nature of truth dictates that the same thing (e.g., a scripture verse) cannot be both true and not true at the same time. In other words, the same scripture verse cannot have two differing and contradictory interpretations. Only one can be true. The question must be asked, if scripture is directed to Christians and if it is the true Word of God, can God leave us to not know how to determine what interpretation is true among many differing interpretations?
We are a Church with a living teaching magisterium, teaching authority. In cases of determining truth from error, the Church alone, in those who share the teaching authority—the bishop of Rome and the bishops worldwide—have that authority to decide without any possibility of error. History records the tragedy of losing a teaching authority: the multiplication of Christian fellowship communities and translations of the Bible. But, there is a basis of common truth, the clear truths of the written Word of God: that God is one and three, that God reveals to humankind, that Jesus is the Son of God, that Jesus founded His Church, that the Word of God can be known among us, that the Holy Spirit is with us, that Jesus will come again.
In some instances, many of us did not receive proper teaching in our Faith because of the weaknesses of priests and religious of the past. In some cases, even they may have been ignorant of the teachings of our Faith. Before we cast stones, we need to remember that Christ said He comes to call sinners and that the healthy do not need a physician.
These shortcoming may be the liability of a worldwide community. God knew what He was doing when He left the deposit of faith in earthen vessels of men and women. There would be ignorance and abuse ... but He still deigned to leave His Word with men and women.
God gave man “Free Will” to love and accept him and to honor Him by following His will. His Love is overwhelming as well as His Mercy. Our leaders are to serve GOD and to help us get closer to HIM. Most are Holy men, but some are not. Only GOD knows the whole truth.
I want to LOVE GOD with all my heart, soul and mind; I believe that the Catholic Church Community will help me achieve that goal.
Mt 22:36-40
“Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?” He said to him, “You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment. The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments.”
I sense a love of God within you, but I pray that the HOLY SPIRIT will enlighten you to the truth.
It was St. Peter alone that was the "rock" upon which Christ established His Church (Matthew 16:18). And it was St. Peter alone that was given the task of "feeding" Christ's sheep (John 21:15-17 ). Scripture clearly points out St. Peter as Christ's representative on earth. Christ did not ask the other Eleven to feed and tend His sheep. If you read The Acts Of The Apostles, it is clear that St. Peter leads the Apostles. Therefore, since the Apostles are to be replaced as they die (Acts 1:20-26), then it follows that whoever succeed(s) St. Peter is leader of the Church. There is only to be one shepherd of the Church (John 10:16). For the Apostles did not argue amongst themselves whether there was a "greatest" at all, but who amongst them was the greatest (Mark 9:34; Luke 9:46).
Is there to be only one Church or many? According to Scripture, Christ wanted us to be one (John 17:22-23). We are all as a Church to be of one mind and to think the same (Philippians 2:2; Romans 15:5). There is only to be one "faith" (Ephesians 4:3-6), not many. For the Church is Christ's Body and Christ only had one Body, not many. Also, since the Church is Christ's Bride (Ephesians 5:29), can Christ be married to more than one wife (essentially a spiritual form of the the sin of polygamy)? No, Christ can only have one wife (i.e., one Church, not many).
Sola Fida also ignores the fact that Satan and his minions also believe in and acknowledge Jesus(James 2:19).
Sola Scriptura forgets that even Satan knew scripture and that he used it as a means of tempting Christ just as he continues to use it to tempt us.
I’m sorry, but faith and knowledge are not the same thing. Faith alone means placing your faith in Christ as your Savior. Demons do not do this, obviously - although they believe in God, and tremble. It is possible to know that God exists and still reject Him. Demons do this, but they do not have saving “faith”. Additionally, just because Lucifer knows Scripture does not mean it is wise to reject it as the sole authority. On the contrary, the fact that he uses it out of context to confuse mankind is all the more reason to take Scripture in its entirety but NOT TO READ INTO Scripture what clearly is not there as one would be doing with “traditional dogma”.
Regarding Genesis 3:15, I should not have said "gender distinctions". There is no question that a reader of modern Hebrew would translate nothing but "he" for "הוא", and therefore find it grammatically coordinated with "זרעה", "her seed". The choice that would stand for the modern translator as it stood for St. Jerome would be whether to do that, or translate in the plural, "they" and "her children", which has a biblical warrant. This is the from a Jewish source (we don't have to agree with Uri Yosef's theology to agree with his knowledge of biblical Hebrew):
Examples such as the above clearly demonstrate the plural application of the singular Hebrew pronouns הוא (hu), he/they, and אתה (atah), you/pl. you, and these add credence to the correct translation of Genesis 3:15 – the one using they and the implicit [plural] you.
St. Jerome translated "ipsos", singular masculine. But the plain reading of the passage strongly suggests an error here, as the seed, all the more so "of a woman", a physical impossibility, cannot be crushing heads. The context is the predicted enmity between the snake and the woman, not the snake and some future seed. So a strong Jewish tradition existed to interpolate a feminine singular on assumption of a copyist error. Hence, and in the presence of Hebrew renderings in feminine, "ipsa" eventually found its way into the Vulgate:
When Jerome did his translation of Scripture into Latin—the translation known today as the Vulgate—he followed the Septuagint’s "he/his" reading.
You can say all you want about the deuterocanonical books, but the facts are that the Church had them as canonical as early as the cannon became settled in late 4c at the Carthage council, and they were in the Septuagint. Luther tossed them because he didn't like what is in them (and you agree with him), namely that they teach prayers for the dead.
“You put forth a syllogism, to wit:
Major premise: Christ has given His church authority to teach His truth on earth.
Minor premise: The see of Peter is the only head of Christ’s church on earth.
Therefore: Only the see of Peter has Christ’s authority to teach His truth on earth.
You keep proving the major premise, which I and every serious Christian, accept without reservation. But you fail to prove the minor premise; and thus your conclusion is nothing more than your assertion. Prove the minor premise from Scripture and the vast conspiracy that is Protestantism (I still don’t like or accept the term) will believe you, and probably the Orthodox as well.
The minor premise has never been proven from Scripture. It has only been asserted with varying degrees of acceptance:
For the first quarter of Christendom’s 2000 year existence this was not believed or accepted by the church at large. The bishop of Rome was just that, the bishop of Rome.”
“As long as the Roman Pontiff (with the help of his acolytes) puts himself in the place of Christ as head of the church and supreme teaching authority, and then not only teaches novelties, but denies and anathematizes the central teaching of the Holy Scriptures, the warnings of Sts. Paul, Peter, and John regarding such a usurper (there is another more familiar title for him) will continue to hold the attention of many, many of Christ’s disciples. And they will heed Christ, not the bishop of Rome for one simple but powerful reason: “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish.” (John 10:27-28)”
Exactly, Belteshazzar!! Excellent points all! Thanks for your post. It is right on the mark!
Eh, no. The Church does teach primacy of the chair of Peter among other bishops. What exactly that primacy means is subject to some legitimate dispute, which the Orthodox East and the Roman Catholic West are happily resolving these days.
But the Church never taught that only the Chair of Peter can teach. All bishops can teach. Protestants, to be sure, cannot, but all consecrated bishops can teach, east and west.
Primacy of Peter:
31 And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: 32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren. (Luke 22, plus of course, the grant of the Keys and the renaming, and the charge to feed the sheep, all singularly given St. Peter)
Continuity of the chair of Peter:
14 Being assured that the laying away of this my tabernacle is at hand, according as our Lord Jesus Christ also hath signified to me. 15 And I will endeavour, that you frequently have after my decease, whereby you may keep a memory of these things. 16 For we have not by following artificial fables, made known to you the power, and presence of our Lord Jesus Christ; but we were eyewitnesses of his greatness. (1 Peter 1)
Teaching authority of every bishop
the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. (Acts 20:28)Be ye followers of me [St. Paul], as I also am of Christ. (1 Corinthians 4:16, 11:1, cf. John 20:21)
Sanctify them in truth (John 17:17)
Lack of authority of unconsecrated ministry:
13 Now some also of the Jewish exorcists who went about, attempted to invoke over them that had evil spirits, the name of the Lord Jesus, saying: I conjure you by Jesus, whom Paul preacheth. 14 And there were certain men, seven sons of Sceva, a Jew, a chief priest, that did this. 15 But the wicked spirit, answering, said to them: Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are you? 16 And the man in whom the wicked spirit was, leaping upon them, and mastering them both, prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded. (Acts 19)And how shall they preach unless they be sent (Romans 10:15)
He that is not with me, is against me: and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth (Matthew 12:30, Luke 11:23, cf. John 10:12)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.