Who Really Speaks For God?

The Highway ^ | May 24,2015 | John H. Armstrong

[RnMomof7]

Serious evangelical dialogue with Roman Catholicism finds it virtually impossible to avoid the issues raised by the institution of the papacy. These issues were central in the sixteenth-century division, and they remain problematic for modern discussion as well. It is hard for many Catholics in the West to understand the serious concerns evangelicals have regarding the papacy, since they often think of John Paul II as a benevolent and kind gentleman who warmly radiates love for Christ and non-Catholics.

In a special commentary on the Feast Day (1971) honoring St. Peter and St. Paul, the Vatican radio declared, “The Church does not exist without the Pope. The Pope does not exist without the Church. He who believes in the Church believes in the Pope. He who believes in the Pope believes in the Church. Pope and Church are inseparable realities.” This understanding, which sounds so completely foreign to the evangelical mind, is perfectly natural to Catholic teaching, with its fully developed doctrine of ecclesiastical authority.

THE PRIMACY OF THE POPE

The teaching of papal authority grew out of the church’s early relationship to society around it. Linear historical succession to Peter (believed to be the first pope by Roman Catholics) is a matter that may well be debated till the end of the age. What is beyond serious debate is the clear influence early Roman law and cultural practice had on the church. This background helps us understand something of the development of papal authority over the centuries.

What can be seen, and this considerably prior to the Middle Ages, is an increasingly unified institutional church organized along lines both juridical (that is, pertaining to the law, in this case Roman law) and monarchical (that is, following the pattern of a single head, or monarch). An evolution was going on during these centuries that led, by the ninth century, to a church directed by the human authority of a single leader — a pope. The dogma of the papacy gradually developed until it reached its apex in Vatican Council I (1870). This dogma added to the rupture that took place between the churches of the East (Orthodox Church) and the West (Roman Catholic Church) on July 16, 1054.

This division, described by the Catholic Encyclopedia, happened “when Cardinal Humbert, the head of a papal delegation in Constantinople, placed a document of excommunication on the altar of Hagia Sophia, the cathedral church of Constantinople.” Why was this done? “The official reasons for this were the removal of the filioque [a word meaning “from the Son,” which was used to teach that the Holy Spirit proceeded equally from both the Father and the Son] from the Creed; the practice of married clergy and some liturgical errors (for example, the use of leavened bread instead of unleavened bread for the Eucharist)” (Stravinskas 1991, 707).

This division, existing down to our time, has been addressed by recent ecumenical dialogue, especially since 1966 when anathemas were lifted by Pope Paul VI and Athenagoras I. One of the perennial problems, however, that remains between East and West is the papacy of the Roman Catholic Church.

The same problem existed with regard to the division of the sixteenth century. Luther began his reforming efforts as a loyal subject of the Pope, but in time he concluded that the whole papal system was unsound. His language, often harsh and offensive to modern readers, must be understood against the backdrop of his times and the way the papacy responded to him. Neither Catholic nor Protestant should be proud of some of the language hurled about in the sixteenth century, and hopefully these vital doctrinal differences can be considered by us without the invectives of the past.

What exactly is the Roman Catholic doctrine of the pope? The Catholic Encyclopedia once again helps us:

The Bishop of Rome . . . exercises universal jurisdiction over the whole Church as the Vicar of Christ and the Successor of St. Peter. The term “pope” derives from the Latin for “father.” . . . In Western Christianity this term refers to the Roman Pontiff, called His Holiness the Pope, who governs the universal Church as the successor to St. Peter. . . who possesses, “by virtue of his office, . . . supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary jurisdiction power in the Church (Canon 331). (Stravinskas 1991, 761)

This supreme head of the Christian church is said to carry out his pontificate through the office of bishops, cardinals, and various other offices of the Roman Curia (a body of official agencies that assists the pope).

WHAT IS THE BIBLICAL BASIS FOR THE PAPACY?

Roman Catholic apologists never tire of quoting Matthew 16:18-19 when asked to defend the papacy. In this passage, Jesus asked Simon Peter who people said He was. Peter answered that “Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets” (v. 14). Then our Lord asked the disciples, “Who do you say that I am?” After Peter answered, seemingly for the whole group, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (v. 16), Jesus told Peter that the Father had revealed this truth to him. Then Jesus added the oft-quoted words: “I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven” (vv. 18-19).

The Catholic argument goes essentially like this: Peter is the rock in this passage. Christ promises to build His church on the rock. Thus, Peter is the first head, or rock, of the church, and the popes (more than 260 historically) who have followed him (supposedly in unbroken succession) are the heirs of this promise to Peter.

Protestants often try to interpret the reference to the rock in a way that shows why Peter could not be the rock in this passage. Personally, I am in agreement with evangelical scholar D. A. Carson when he writes, “If it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretation, it is doubtful whether many would have taken ‘rock’ to be anything or anyone other than Peter” (Carson 1986, 368). What, then, can we say about Roman Catholic reference to this text in establishing the doctrine of the papacy through Peter as the first pope?

Catholic conclusions from this text suffer from what Carson refers to “as insuperable exegetical and historical problems” (Carson 1986, 368). For example, after Peter’s death his so-called successor would have had authority over a living apostle, John, a prospect that simply cannot be demonstrated. What is actually said in Scripture is that Peter was the first disciple to confess Jesus in this manner, and by this confession his prominence continued into the early years of the church (Acts 1-12). He, along with John, is sent by the other apostles to Samaria (8:14), he is held accountable for his actions by the church in Jerusalem (11:1-18), and he is rebuked by Paul face-to-face (Galatians 2:11-14). Peter is, concludes Carson, first among equals; “and on the foundation of such men (Eph. 2:20), Jesus built his church. This is precisely why Jesus, toward the close of his earthly ministry, spent so much time with them. The honor was not earned but stemmed from divine revelation (v. 17) and Jesus’ building work (v. 18)” (Carson 1986, 368-69).

Though modern Catholics will point out that the pope does not speak infallibly on all occasions, and the pope must himself confess sin and be redeemed as a sinner, the truth is that the doctrine of papal authority succession, and infallibility is still a major roadblock to meaningful agreement regarding the teaching of the New Testament.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, in speaking of the episcopal college of bishops and the pope, says,

When Christ instituted the Twelve, “he constituted [them] in the form of a college or permanent assembly, at the head of which he placed Peter, chosen from among them.” Just as “by the Lord’s institution, St. Peter and the rest of the apostles constitute a single apostolic college, so in like fashion the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, and the bishops, the successors of the apostles, are related with and united to one another”

The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, “is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.” “For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.” (Ratzinger, 233-34)

Here it is stated plainly: Authority was conferred by Christ upon His apostles, Peter being the prince, or supreme head of them all. From the apostles this same authority is given to the bishops of the church in an unbroken line of succession, with supreme authority vested in the Roman Pontiff chosen as a successor to Peter since the first century. But a number of nagging questions remain:

1. Was Peter ever in Rome? We don’t know for sure, but even if he was it proves nothing. A problem, however, is this: when Paul wrote his epistle to the Roman church, why does he address personal greetings to twenty-seven different people but never mention Peter? Strange omission, I believe, if he were the supreme head of this flock.
2. Because Peter’s name was changed is no proof that he was now pope, as has been claimed. Jesus changed the names of other apostles as well (Mark 3:16-17; see John 1:42).
3. The Catholic Church always lists Peter’s name first when it refers to the Twelve. The New Testament does not do so, listing others before Peter on several occasions (Matthew 4:18; John 1:44; and so on).
4. Paul spoke of reputed “pillars of the church” in Galatians 2:9 and named, in order, James, Peter, and John. Peter was an important leader for sure, but plainly not the supreme head of them all.
5. Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, worked independently of Peter and never refers to submitting to Peter (in some sense) as head over all. If anyone qualifies as the human leader, it has to be Paul, yet he never claims any such office for himself. Further, Paul actually rebuked Peter to his face because he stood condemned by his own actions and his behavior was hypocritical (Galatians 2:11-14). The unambiguous evidence is this — the headship of the church was not in a human leader on earth but in Christ who reigned above!
6. Nowhere in any New Testament text is there evidence of the office of Pope, and nowhere do we have the model of a person acting as pope, a very strange omission if we are to understand that the church is not a true church without this office and the bishops.

WHAT ABOUT INFALLIBILITY?

Most Roman Catholics are not aware of their own history in terms of theological development and doctrinal formulations. It comes as a surprise, therefore, when they discover that the doctrine of “Papal Infallibility” came as late as 1870 at Vatican Council I. Here Pius IX accomplished what he had earlier begun — the strengthening of his leadership over the church. At Vatican Council I it was stated that the Pope’s decisions, when he spoke ex cathedra in matters of faith and morals, were “unchangeable in themselves and not because of the consent of the church” (Session 4.4; Denzinger, 3073-75).

Vatican Council II (1962-1965) sought to modify this doctrine by saying that the college of bishops assists the pope. Whereas the earlier Council had taken a more anti-Protestant stance, Vatican II seems to address dangers within the Catholic Church itself and to seek to reform modern practice. The fact is, collegiality (the idea that bishops collectively share authority) is still to be interpreted in the light of papal supremacy. De Ecclesia, a Vatican II reformist document, states this clearly:

The college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is simultaneously conceived of in terms of its head, the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, and without any lessening of his power of primacy over all, pastors as well as the general faithful. For in virtue of his office, that is, as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme, and universal power over the Church. And he can always exercise this power freely. (p. 22)

This same document on the church, which comes from a section dealing with ecumenism and the church’s relationship to Protestant churches, adds, “Thus religious submission of the will and mind must be shown in a special way to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra” (p. 25).

THE CATHOLIC DOCTRINE OF AUTHORITY

All Catholic teaching regarding authority in the church and in the life of the faithful individual centers in the previously mentioned triad — Bible, tradition, and the magisterium. This is often not understood by evangelicals who speak of “cooperation” with Roman Catholic ministries, priests, or churches.

The Catholic concept of tradition is vital to understanding how the Bible is used and understood. The word tradition (from the Latin word for “handing over”) refers to the teachings and practices handed down, whether in written or oral form, separately but not independently of Scripture.

The Catholic Encyclopedia says, “Tradition is divided into two areas: (1) Scripture, the essential doctrines of the Church, the major writings and teachings of the Fathers, the liturgical life of the Church, and the living and lived faith of the whole Church down through the centuries; (2) customs, institutions, practices which express the Christian Faith” (Stravinskas 1991, 939). It goes on to say that

the Council of Trent (1546), in distinct opposition to evangelical faith and practice, affirmed “both the Bible and Tradition as divine sources of Christian doctrine.” Vatican II states, “It is clear . . . that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand alone without the others. Working together, each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.” (Stravinskas 1991, 939)

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, the magisterium is “the teaching office of the church.” It was established, according to Catholic belief, in order “to safeguard the substance of faith in Jesus Christ” and to prevent the individual from “being left entirely on his own” (Stravinskas 1991, 615).

It is believed, very simply, that Christ established an apostolic college in His disciples who, unified with Peter as their head, became the teaching magisterium of the first church. The understanding of this magisterium and its limits, role, and work were ironed out in the centuries that followed, especially at the Council of Trent and Vatican I. The magisterium proclaims the teachings of Christ “infallibly, irreformably and without error” when it follows principles that assure its faithfulness (as defined, of course, by the church).

What this means, practically, is that Rome may alter matters that will change how Catholics perceive and experience the life of their church, but fundamental doctrines (such as those we have considered in this book) do not and cannot change. This is what has been meant by the oft-quoted phrase semper idem (Latin, “always the same”).

In practice the typical Catholic never experiences the magisterium directly. He reads and hears of its deliberations and actions. Where he actually experiences the authority of the church is in the priesthood of his parish. Here the chain of command comes down to the level of how he or she must actually live and act to be a devout Catholic. Here the person receives the sacraments, receives forgiveness for sin, and seeks to know God through his church.

Even at the level of the local parish priest there is powerful connection to the structure of the Roman Catholic Church internationally. That is why we can speak of an American Catholic Church, but ultimately it too is intimately related to the Roman Catholic Church. American Catholics are prone to almost loose sight of this reality.

Further, all that is believed and taught at the local parish level is to be ultimately related to tradition, the magisterium, and the pope. That is precisely why the idea is utterly impossible that one priest, or one parish, can be evangelical and still be properly related to the Roman Catholic Church, as defined in its own creeds and practices!

SUMMING UP

There is more serious appeal to modern Christian minds in this doctrine than many evangelicals realize. We live in an age of independence and, often, the spirit of anarchy. Ours is the age of “personal rights.” Christians who observe the spirit of our times might well find attractive a church with a supreme pastor who has authority over all matters and to whom we can submit ourselves.

Indeed, in every age the tension has existed between submission to one (or several) who has authority over me and my personal responsibility to exercise discernment and make personal decisions based on an authority that is above all present human and ecclesiastical structure. Many Protestants often have church leaders who have become virtual popes in this sense.

My reason for opposing the Catholic doctrine of authority in the papacy and the magisterium, and the more recently developed doctrine of infallibility is not because I desire to foster rebellion, much less willful independence. It is because this very doctrine, like so many others we have observed, is simply not grounded in the New Testament. In fact, I would suggest that it runs counter to the teaching and spirit of the Scriptures.

Martin Luther opposed “Enthusiasts” (visionaries, prophets, and so on) in the sixteenth century in much the same way that he countered the papacy. Both, Luther maintained, sought to exercise an authority above and beyond the written Scriptures. Their independence from God’s Word was the primary problem. The church does not give us “new birth,” rather it is by the Word of God that we are begotten by the Holy Spirit (see 1 Peter 1:13; James 1:18). Further, we have but one true Supreme Head and Chief Shepherd of our souls — Jesus Christ the Lord! His infallible teaching is not found in the human creeds and decisions of a fallible church but in the Word of the living God. This is precisely why every great recovery and spiritual awakening in the history of the church has broken forth upon rediscovery of the power of God in the written Scriptures, not in ecclesiastical structures and meetings.

We can honestly discuss how we might accept churches with a papacy on equal footing with churches that do not, but ultimately the faithful evangelical must allow Scripture to rule the discussion. Catholicism’s position will not allow for a middle ground either. Perhaps Catholicism will change this doctrine in the future, but there is no evidence at all that she will. For the evangelical who remains faithful to the New Testament there is no middle ground either. Truth and unity are not served by covering over this major difference. Truth is best served by recognizing the supreme headship of Jesus Christ (alone) over the entire universal church.

All human leaders — pastors, deacons, elders, whatever — must govern and lead only in a distinctly subservient role as “fellow priests” (see Revelation 1:6; 5:10; 20:6) with the whole people of God. They are to serve in a spirit of gentleness that honors Christ the true Head of the church. And they must serve with derived authority, living totally under the written Scripture and its final authority.

[Iscool]

Perhaps you just like playing the children's game of king of the mountain. Seeing if you can get to the top by spreading negative attitudes toward the teachings of Jesus Christ and His Catholic Church.

Jesus doesn't have a Catholic Church...

Your reliance on Scripture alone ignores that Jesus Christ appointed a leader of His church and that Scripture came from sacred tradition and the leaders of the Catholic Church.

Scripture alone PROVES that Jesus did NOT appoint a leader of his church and that scripture is the written tradition of what was taught to the apostles/disciples...

The author does not believe in the authority of the papacy and the magisterium, yet acknowledges Peter as the leader of the Church. Somehow he fails to acknowledge that the Scriptures came both from the Church leaders - the Popes and Bishops and from the magisterium.

And how do you know this??? From scripture??? NOPE...

You learned it from your popes, bishops and magisterium, which are foreign to the scriptures...

[RnMomof7]

Protestants only know what their televangelists tell them.

That would be funny if it was not so pathetic.

[RnMomof7]

Same old, same old....we are ALL aware that the incidence of molestation was MUCH higher among protestant ministers than Catholic priests.

Could we see your source on that ??

The pope says 1 in 50 priests is a pedophile
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2690575/Pope-Francis-admits-two-cent-Roman-Catholic-priests-paedophiles-interview-Italian-newspaper.html

Here is a list for your reading enjoyment ... BTW I actually know 3 of the "priests" on that list

http://bishop-accountability.org/priestdb/PriestDBbylastName-A.html

[RnMomof7]

All anyone needs to do is open their Bible

Indeed ..opening your bible can change your life

Prov30:5 Every word of God is tested; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. 6Do not add to His words Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar.

[RnMomof7]

I learned it watching FR Protestants. As long as they agree John 3:16 means the moon is made of green cheese, they'll all swear to it, and insult your faith for not agreeing.

So you do not agree with John 3:16 ??

[RnMomof7]

But they don't allow abortions. What excuse our Protestant friends?

More than seven in 10 U.S. women obtaining an abortion report a religious affiliation (37% protestant, 28% Catholic and 7% other), and 25% attend religious services at least once a month.[38] The abortion rate for protestant women is 15 per 1,000 women, while Catholic women have a slightly higher rate, 22 per 1,000.[32]
http://www.guttmacher.org/in-the-know/characteristics.html

What says your church ??

[ADSUM]

So the Amen chorus just ignores history and it interprets the Bible accordingly.

If you tell yourself often enough, you begin to believe it is the truth.

So Peter and the apostles and their successors are fiction.

Again, you should thank the Catholic Church for following sacred tradition and preserving the Bible so that you can read it and dispute the words of God that you do not agree with.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“If he will not listen to the church, treat him as a pagan or tax collector.” —Jesus

ALERT - repetitive out of context distortion of the words of Christ in Scripture

[ADSUM]

Your comment: “As long as they agree Mary means the Fast Track to Jesus, they’ll all swear to it, and insult your mental capacity for not agreeing.”

How easily you forget the ten commandments, especially #4?

Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. Amen.

Perhaps you should read and understand: http://www.catholic.com/blog/tim-staples/mary-matters

It is very easy to state what it is that you don’t believe. That has been the history of Protestantism. Protestantism itself began as a... you guessed it... “protest.” “We are against this, this, this, and this.” It was a “protest” against Catholicism. However, the movement could not continue to exist as a protestant against something. It had to stand for something. And that is when the trouble began. When groups of non-infallible men attempted to agree, the result ended up being the thousands of Protestant sects we see today.

Dr. Walter Martin was a good Protestant. He certainly and boldly proclaimed, “I do not believe Mary is the Mother of God.” That’s fine and good. The hard part came when he had to build a theology congruent with his denial.

[ealgeone]

>>Satan is using Mary worship to deflect catholics from the truth. Just examine all of catholic writings regarding Mary. Look at the prayers dedicated to Mary. Look at the reliance upon Mary for salvation by cathokics. Fatima is a prime example. The image that appeared said to build a church for her. Would the real Mary say that?? Christians post on this topic in hopes catholics see the truth. <<

I or any other faithful Catholic will never apologize for our love of Christ, our faith, and Mary.

Where do any of the writers of the NT ever tell us to love Mary??

I am sorry you have chosen to be blinded to all the beauty of the Catholic Church.

The Mormons, Muslims can equally claim their "church" is beautiful. However, beauty is not what should attract us to a "church".

We have been and still are the church founded by Christ on this earth. We offer love, forgiveness, and truth. What do you have to offer? Which denomination am I supposed to listen too?

What's this "We offer...."???? You imply catholics have this love, forgiveness, etc to offer.

Your statement ignores the fact that it is Christ who offers forgiveness, truth and love.

You will not find anyone on this thread, except catholics, that brag about their denomination. Christians realize denominations are not what it's about.

I choose the Catholic church with all of its sacraments, traditions, saints, devotions, universality, teachings, readings and anything else I want to through in there.

Sounds like you are attracted by shiny objects.

It is very interesting that the early Christians became followers of Christ without all of the need for the man-made nonsense of catholicism.

I believe that the Catholic church was the one founded by Christ himself, I believe in the true presence in Christ in the Eucharist, I believe in the forgiveness of sins in the confessional, I believe in a hell and purgatory, I actually believe more people go to hell then heaven.

Christ did found one church.....just not the Roman Catholic Church as we understand it today.

A reading of John 6 in context will explain the eucharist.

Confession to an earthly priest is not necessary for forgiveness when 1 John 1:9 tells us we can go straight to Christ for forgiveness.

I agree there is a Hell....but no purgatory.

I can choose to believe or not private revelations of Marian apparitions. Which I do believe the church approved apparitions of Fatima and Lourdes and her messages to pray for world peace.

If the church has approved them the catholic has to believe them.

The catholic would do well to acquaint themselves with what the apparition really said at Fatima and Guadalupe. If they do they will realize this was not from God.

I believe Mary has her place in God's plan of salvation, and that is to lead everyone to heaven.

And yet, somehow, Mary is never mentioned in Scripture as serving in this capacity. She wrote not one letter, epistle, etc as did Paul, Peter, James, Matthew, Luke, John, Mark, or Jude.

The early church did not include The Protoevangelium of James as part of the canon as it was not received by the early church. Nor did the RCC include it in the canon at Trent when it had a chance to.

While I don't doubt that Mary was a follower of Christ and participated in His Kingdom while she lived on earth, we find no appeal to come to Christ through Mary in the Scriptures. And please, let's not pull John 2 out of context.

The false titles, powers, abilities, etc given to Mary by the roman catholic church signifies the deification of Mary and is a clear case of idolatry.

To further illustrate the lengths catholics will go to substantiate their claims on Mary is evidenced on EWTN where catholics quote ISLAM, a false teaching in support of these claims. (https://www.ewtn.com/library/mary/olislam.htm)

As the catholic continues to deny, yet even advances, the false teaching of Mary, the following is offered for others reading this thread regarding the deification of Mary by catholicism.

"The union between the Immaculata and the Holy Spirit is so inexpressible, yet so perfect, that the Holy Spirit acts only by the Most Blessed Virgin, his Spouse. This is why she is the mediatrix of all graces given by the Holy Spirit. And since every grace is a gift of God the Father through the Son and by the Holy Spirit, it follows that there is no grace which Mary cannot dispose of as her own, which is not given to her for this purpose." — Manteau-Bonamy, Immaculate Conception, 91; F.X. Durrwell, The Holy Spirit of God (Cincinnati: Servant Books, 2006), 183-185.

He who is under the protection of Mary will be saved; he who is not will be lost . . . O immaculate Virgin, we are under thy protection, and therefore we have recourse, to thee alone, and we beseech thee to prevent thy beloved Son, who is irritated by our sins, from abandoning us to the power of the devil. - . . Thou (Mary) art my only hope. . . . Lady in heaven, we have but one advocate, and that is thyself, and thou alone art truly loving and solicitous for our salvation ... My Queen and my Advocate with thy Son, whom I dare not approach “ (From Judge Fairly, p. 5).

Just so we understand the truth.....

Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life; no one comes to the Father but through Me (John 14:6).

It is my prayer that all will come to know Christ and follow Him.

[metmom]

Which is NOT a command of Jesus to believers to obey the Catholic church.

Posting it as if it were will lead someone to the wrong interpretation of that passage.

What Jesus said when He spoke those words, is: Matthew 18:15-18 “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

For all the criticism non-Catholics receive about cherry picking verses and taking them out of context, there is simply no way anyone is going to one up this abuse of Scripture.

Taking a fragment of a sentence and posting it as a command of Jesus' is the ultimate in cherry picking verses to support a doctrine.

It will lead to deception.

This passage is only about settling personal disputes between individual believers, and the taking it to the church part is the LAST step in in process.

What it most certainly is NOT is a blanket command by Jesus to listen to, or submit to, the Catholic church.

The body of Christ, not the Catholic church, is the pillar and foundation of the truth. It is NOT the truth itself.

I realize that Catholics wish with their whole hearts that non-Christians would be followers of men, but it's just not so. Nobody is following Luther just because they believe that Scripture is the final authority and that it contains all we need to know pertaining to life and godliness.

Simply because two people come to the same conclusion based on the evidence, does not by default mean that one is a follower of the other. That's a misinterpretation of the evidence. No surprise coming froma Catholic.

[MamaB]

Right. Thank you.

[RnMomof7]

Taking a fragment of a sentence and posting it as a command of Jesus' is the ultimate in cherry picking verses to support a doctrine.
It will lead to deception.
This passage is only about settling personal disputes between individual believers, and the taking it to the church part is the LAST step in in process.

That is all they know ...that is the method used in their catechism .. cherry picked ...out of context scripture..

Because they do not read the scriptures they have no clue of the context.. or how to read it

[MamaB]

Place explain to me how what a church looks like has anything to do with salvation? I just do not understand. Some of the best services I attended as a child were in a brush arbor. Nothing fancy about them at all.

[RnMomof7]

Basically, the Catholic Church has a leader and speaks with authority as delegated by Jesus Christ and will be inspired by the Holy Spirit until the end.

The Mormons have a prophet too

As the Catholic church has human leaders that are both saints and sinners, and yet The Catholic Church continues to survive and spread the Good News. Could we do it better? Yes, and it takes time to bring people to understand and accept God's gift of Love to us and return their love to God and our neighbor. Do all Catholics fully understand and accept God's Love? Probably no.

What is the good news Rome spreads ?

[Cvengr]

God speaks for God and He speaks through God the Holy Spirit to each and every believer in fellowship with Him by His volition.

[JPII Be Not Afraid]

Do you really think I am talking about a building?

[ADSUM]

Your comment: “Nobody is following Luther just because they believe that Scripture is the final authority and that it contains all we need to know pertaining to life and godliness.”

So your personal interpretation is always correct and you need no guidance in understanding God’s word. Wow!

From: http://www.catholic.com/blog/tim-staples/the-protestant-achilles-heel

Sola Scriptura was the central doctrine and foundation for all I believed when I was Protestant. On a popular level, it simply meant, “If a teaching isn’t explicit in the Bible, then we don’t accept it as doctrine!” And it seemed so simple. Unassailable. And yet, I do not recall ever hearing a detailed teaching explicating it. It was always a given. Unchallenged. Diving deeper into its meaning, especially when I was challenged to defend my Protestant faith against Catholicism, I found there to be no book specifically on the topic and no uniform understanding of this teaching among Protestant pastors.

Your comment is a false statement: “I realize that Catholics wish with their whole hearts that non-Christians would be followers of men, but it’s just not so” So is this how you interpret the Bible?

The Catholic Church has a leader and speaks with authority as delegated by Jesus Christ and will be inspired by the Holy Spirit until the end.

And the other Churches have no leader who speaks with church authority about matters of faith and morals. Apparently, anyone can form a new church and collect vast sums of money.

[ADSUM]

Feel free to attend a Catholic Mass so that you can learn about the Good News.

[ealgeone]

Feel free to attend a Catholic Mass so that you can learn about the Good News.

Or one could do like millions of others and read the Word and learn about the Good News. It's pretty clear what it teaches.

No need to go through a priest, Mary, confession, etc.