I see...
Posted on 07/26/2015 7:30:39 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
The source & nature of Church authority is one of the major issues that beginning Catholics have to examine and come to terms with.
The Catholic Church makes an amazing claim: it teaches, governs, and sanctifies with the authority of Christ himself.
Catholics believe that this gift of Church authority is one of the jewels that Christ has given to us as an aid to our salvation.
Keep three things in mind:
There is a large amount of evidence in Scripture to support the Catholic Church’s claim to authority, as well as from early Church history. The nature and scope of Church authority are widely misunderstood. Rejection of this claim is usually based on the common misconception of “misplaced worship” — the accusation that Catholics worship the something else (the Church, the Pope, Mary, the Saints, etc.) instead of God. After briefly stating the Church’s teaching on this subject, we’ll look at some of the major Scriptural sources for this doctrine. Catholic Church authority in brief
Christ himself is the source of the Church’s authority.
The New Testament shows that Christ deliberately created his Church to be the vehicle of his continuing mission in the world. He promised to remain present in his Church for all time, and he lovingly guides it through the presence of the Holy Spirit.
To ensure the success of this mission, Christ gave his Church the ability to teach, govern and sanctify with Christ’s own authority. The Apostles appointed successors to ensure that the Gospel would continue to be handed on faithfully as “the lasting source of all life for the Church” (Vatican II, “Lumen Gentium” 20; also Catechism #860).
The source and guarantee of this Church authority is Christ’s continuing presence in his Church — “Lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age” (Mt 28:20).
The purpose of this authority is to give the Church the ability to teach without error about the essentials of salvation: “On this rock, I will build My Church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it” (Mt 16:18).
The scope of this authority concerns the official teachings of the Church on matters of faith, morals, and worship (liturgy & sacraments). We believe that, because of Christ’s continued presence and guarantee, his Church cannot lead people astray with its official teachings (which are distinct from the individual failings and opinions of its members, priests, bishops, and Popes).
Church authority in Scripture
The New Testament bears witness in numerous places to the fact of Church authority. It clearly shows that Christ gave his Apostles his own authority to continue his mission.
(Remember that Catholics view the Bible as one of two definitive witnesses to divine Revelation. Christ taught many other things to the Apostles that are not recorded in Scripture; we call this Catholic Tradition, literally meaning “that which is handed on”. Tradition is the full, living faith of the Apostles as received from Christ.)
Here are some of the more important Scriptural references that address Church authority.
And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority 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 lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.” (Mt 28:18-20)
This brief passage contains several critical points about Church authority: Jesus tells the Apostles that the authority he is giving them derives from his own, divine authority. (“All authority…” / “Go therefore”.) The Apostles’ authority and mission comes directly from Christ himself. The nature of this mission is to lead or govern (“make disciples”), sanctify (“baptizing them”), and teach (“teaching them to observe”). Christ promises to remain present with them always in support of this mission (“I am with you always”). Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent Me, even so I send you.” (Jn 20:21)
In this passage, Jesus commissions the Apostles with continuing his own mission. Again, this mission has its source in the divine authority of the Father. (CCC 859) “He who receives you receives Me, and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me.” (Mt 10:40) And: “He who hears you hears Me, and he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me.” (Lk 10:16)
Here, Christ explicitly identifies himself with the Apostles: this identification is so complete that accepting or rejecting the Apostles is the same as accepting or rejecting Christ. What’s more, both passages compare the union between Christ and his Apostles to that of the Son and the Father within the Holy Trinity.
“And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock, I will build My Church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven.” (Mt 16:18-19)
This is a key passage for understanding the Catholic doctrine of Church authority: Christ’s deliberate intent to establish a new Church (“I will build My Church”) His choice of Peter as the foundation, or head, of this Church Christ confers on Peter his own divine authority (“the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven”) for ruling the Church (“bind” and “loose”). This power to “bind and loose”, repeated also in Mt 18:18 to the Apostles as a whole, is understood as applying first to Peter and his successors (the Pope), and then to the rest of the Apostles and their successors (the other Bishops) in union with Peter. The Acts of the Apostles (a New Testament book) provides abundant evidence of how Church authority was practiced during the Apostolic age (during the lives of the Apostles themselves, after the Resurrection and Ascension of Christ).
In Acts, we see repeated examples of the Apostles teaching, governing, and sanctifying (baptizing and confirming, as well as “breaking the bread”).
One of the most striking passages in Acts tells how the Apostles describe their decision about whether pagan converts should submit to the Jewish laws of circumcision. They say, “For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us” that those laws of the Old Covenant should not apply (Acts 15:28). This passage shows:
The Apostles knew that they had the governing power necessary to decide this question (this is a huge point: they’re overriding the ritual law of the Old Covenant!); and They are conscious of the presence of the Holy Spirit who is guiding their decision, so ultimately it is God who has decided the matter. This passage in Acts would be meaningless, even blasphemous, if the Apostles did not in fact possess the authority of Christ, supported and guided by the presence of the Holy Spirit.
Finally, the various Epistles in the New Testament (the letters of Paul, Peter, etc.) likewise give many examples of the Apostles exercising their teaching and governing offices. In fact, those letters only exist because the Apostles knew that it was their role to teach and lead the various local churches!
The nature & scope of Church authority
It is important to repeat that this authority exists so that Christ can continue to guide his Church in the continuing work of salvation. Church authority is entirely at the service of that work.
We believe that Christ desired the Church to have this authority so that we could be sure of essential matters of the Faith.
The scope of this authority is limited to things that are essential to our salvation: faith, morals, and worship (the sacraments and liturgy). Additionally, since the Church’s authority is at the service of Christ’s gift of divine Revelation, the Church takes care to show how its declarations about faith and morals are consistent with that Revelation (Scripture and Tradition).
It’s important to see this authority as something other than a simplistic being able to “boss you around.” Actually, most Catholics experience Church authority in the form of straightforward declarations regarding faith & morals:
That something is or is not a part of the Faith; and That living in accordance with the Faith requires or forbids certain actions. You always retain the freedom to decide whether or not to remain in the Faith by following those teachings.
(In the Gospels, there are many cases where people hear Christ but evidently decide not to follow him. By definition, his disciples are those who seek to follow him closely and learn from him. Even when it’s hard. Catholics see the Church as continuing in Christ’s role of teaching the truth: “He who hears you hears me.”)
Why do Protestants reject this claim?
Non-Catholics usually base their rejection of Church authority on the common misconception of “misplaced worship”: it is claimed that Catholics worship the Church instead of God.
Opponents of this authority sometimes also accuse the Catholic Church of claiming power that is only proper to God.
Catholics believe that this criticism is mistaken.
The best argument for the Catholic doctrine of Church authority comes from the New Testament itself: the Acts of the Apostles reveals the Church’s self-image as a body at the service of Christ’s saving Gospel, acting in the ways and structures taught to them by Christ himself. The Apostles are keenly aware of the authority that has been given to them by Christ, and of their own need to remain ever faithful to Christ as they exercise that authority.
Additionally, this same Church authority is the only thing that guarantees the accuracy and inerrancy of the Bible itself. It was the Church that selected the books of New Testament and defined the canon of the Bible. Those who believe that the Bible is reliable, are in fact relying on the Church’s testimony that the New Testament books accurately reflect the faith & teachings of the Apostles, which is in turn grounded in the faith & teachings of Christ.
(There were many other writings available that were not selected to be a part of the Bible because their contents were flawed in some way. The Church itself made the selection many years after the death of the Apostles, based on its living witness to the Faith, guaranteed by the guidance of the Holy Spirit.)
And NOW look what has happened!
“No man can find salvation except in the Catholic Church.
Kinda like Mary appearing to three Portuguese children?
I think it's because people see a female as more approachable like a mother might be. More loving especially for those who might not feel so. To approach a male God more often then not comes with responsibility, where seeking a female entity is far easier and comfortable....gives the "feel good" sense sought after.
I see...
That’s not what Four Witnesses discusses.
Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Then had the churches rest throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria, and were edified; and walking in the fear of the Lord, and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost, were multiplied.
He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.
Are you serious? The church of Rome is neither one, except in an organizational sense and with a paper unity, and it certainly has not existed in that sense since the first century, as both Scripture and historical research attest. Or do I need to post documentation?
Thus the recourse to claiming that both sources only mean what Rome says they do in any conflict. For Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares
The church of Rome in its distinctives stands in such contrast to the NT church that it is basically invisible in Scripture. .
There is an unbroken chain of succession by the laying on of hands from that time until now.
That also is absurd. Or do I need to post documentation? But like the stipulated “unanimous consent” of the fathers, "unbroken" means whatever Rome means.
You could try arguing that you belong to one of the other original churches rather than an offshoot sect that devolved from, but may not even acknowledge its origin in, the Sixteenth Century. Any movement forming so late has to account for a lack of apostolic authority, a lack of divine origin...,
Nonsense. So your argument is that unless one cannot show formal descent from the historical magisterium but dissents from it, then such necessarily cannot have validity? And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that such is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus any who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God?
On the other hand we see one holy catholic apostolic church that has a visible historical witness in every century since the Messiah, with scriptural evidence of both its formation, as well as its apostolic succession.
That is mere whistling in the dark. For the fact is that the church of Rome simply does not a visible historical witness in every century since the Messiah, with scriptural evidence of both its formation, as well as its apostolic succession. Or do i need to post the abundant documentation that testifies against that propaganda, even from Catholics?
It includes any who basically do as i described, from Calvary chapels to most SBC and Reformed to many holiness Pentecostals. But Catholic does not work well.
Note that my "historical manifestation" refers first to the visible NT church, that being where those in the one true church (as it alone only consists 100% of true believers) expressed their faith, along with a number ot tares.
Secondly, historical manifestation refers to later visible churches which basically preached the gospel of the NT church which Peter (Acts 10:36-43) and Paul (Rm. 3:10-51) preached, with baptism confessing that faith, it being a living faith which characteristically follows its Object
And is not seen praying to created beings, or "priests" offering the Eucharist as a sacrifice for sins, and that event being the source and summit and center of church life around which all revolved, and looking to Peter as the first of a line of infallible popes in Rome, etc .
As the post-apostolic church suffered its progressive deformation, the body of Christ continued as a remnant of believers, per usual, within the visible organizational institution, whose deformation and corruption finally necessitated the incomplete Reformation. In which remnant type believers, along with the inevitable tares, were able to once again express their faith in organized organic bodies, even though the visible church is yet imperfect.
Glory of God.
I wouldn’t touch it; either!
Those 7 very visible CATHOLIC churches in Asia didn't CONFORM very well; either!
The seven churches of Asia were bona fide churches of the one holy catholic apostolic church. The Messiah wrote letters to them (their angels) through his servant John by the Spirit of God. He both commended and criticized them, warning them repeatedly to do the works. I don't see him writing letters to tares, but rather to those in danger of losing their salvation. He threatened to remove those churches' candlesticks if they did not repent and do the works.
There are no letters to the Reformation, Chuck Smith, Aimee Semple McPherson, or any other Protestant denomination, sect, branch, or faith community.
I see a 1500 year gap with disparate streams of denominations, sects, movements, and communities with no apostolic succession or divine authority. Some of these also allow, and follow, female founders and pastors.
Your choice of words ("except") admits that the Church of Rome has historically existed since the First Century and admits it was apostolic. Do you believe its candlestick was removed ? If so, which year or century do you believe that occurred and when do you believe Christianity was restored and re established ? One of your comments indicated this has not yet occurred and that church is still reforming and emerging. Is that why you point to Calvary Chapel and the Pentecostal Holiness movement as examples ?
It remains that what you failed to answer is your premise"that unless one cannot show formal descent from the historical magisterium but dissents from it, then such necessarily cannot have validity? And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that such is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus any who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God."
Since that must be your argument, you might as well make that clear.
Are you serious? The church of Rome is neither one, except in an organizational sense and with a paper unity, and it certainly has not existed in that sense since the first century, as both Scripture and historical research attest. Or do I need to post documentation?Looks like you will have to show documentation. Daniel1212.Your choice of words ("except") admits that the Church of Rome has historically existed since the First Century and admits it was apostolic.
Check out the mindreading and an example of someone twisting words to make it seem like they are being agreed with.
The "except" was in the context of denying what is erroneous posted all the time, that the "OTC" is ONE, no reference to being one for 2000 years, or 2012 years as we see posted all the time.
Funny how the word "deny" is seen as "except" for those that disagree.
Do you believe its candlestick was removed ?
The candlestick of Jesus' church made up of all believers of and born again followers of Jesus cannot be removed just as by proclaiming that Christians outside the Catholic belief system can't be saved without become part of the Catholic church and be subject to the pope.
It isn't any "Church" it is THE church.
And Catholicism was created over 200 years after Jesus walked the earth and those that say that Jesus was the first Catholic and that all the disciples and all the saved people were Catholics have NO Biblical proof of that.
If wishes were horses nuns would fly.
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.