The “Necessity” of Being Catholic (Ecumenical Caucus)

The CHN Newsletters ^ | James Akin

[narses]

That authority you decry simply holds the truths given by God to His Church.

Simple checks - where divorce and remarriage is allowed, is God’s law being followed?

Where sex outside of marriage is allowed or even celebrated is God’s law being followed?

Where contraception is allowed or even promoted, is God’s law being followed?

[narses]

You are the one claiming the need to only hold to the inerrant Word of God in the translations you named.

What MEN collected the Canon?

As for your question, Catholic doctrines all come from the same source, the Word of God. Given by God to His Apostles.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

The granting or passing on of "authority" was based on adherence to proper teachings as set for by our Lord. Not by some geneology or hierarchical framework. And certainly not by any teachings of man that was not in line with our Lord's message.The Gospels are replete with admonishments to stick to the truth of the original good news and to flee from rules and regulations set up by man.

Exactly. In fact, in Scripture, the only requirements for a pastor involve his adherence to sound biblical doctrine and to have a personal life of holiness that is blameless before the world. It is never said that a pastor has to be ordained by another pastor, who had to be ordained by another one, on and on back to the original Apostles. That is purely the invention of a later century.

Indeed, there's nothing that says that a church that assembled together autochthonously after its members have been born again and call a pastor from among their membership who meets the scriptural qualifications isn't a scriptural church and pastor. Indeed, look at the example of the Ethiopian eunuch. Even the history that Catholics claim as their own says that the church in Ethiopia was founded by this man.

But here's the kicker - Philip never ordained him. Indeed, Philip was a deacon, and couldn't have ordained him. Yet, Ethiopia somehow managed to get pastors and churches regardless.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

I apologise, I will be back later this evening and can continue our reparteé (pardon my French) then!

[rickomatic]

Since that Authority comes from God and since He gave that authority — what we can call governing authority - over the Church He founded - ONE Church, Universal and Apostolic, that we are all called to belong to, why do so many choose instead to rebel?

I guess it all comes back to the chicken or egg arguement. Was Jesus saying that His Church would be built upon the rock of Peter? Or was He saying that His Church would be built upon Peter's understanding of the truth he had just claimed?

15"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?" 16Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ,[a] the Son of the living God." 17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter,[b] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[c] will not overcome it.[d]

My contention is that Jesus was talking about Peter's belief, not Peter himself. A simple yet consice proof of this is found in John 3:16. How much more plain can it be? My faith and hope remains in God's one and only Son. Not in some hierarchical framework of authority.

[narses]

Peter wasn’t alone, he had the others God appointed and the many more he and the others chose to help.

Is it your claim that there was NO governance structure for the Church then or now?

[rickomatic]

As for your question, Catholic doctrines all come from the same source, the Word of God. Given by God to His ApostlesAgain. Where in the Word of God is being a member of the Church of Rome mentioned as being necessary to salvation cited? I guess our disagreement is on whether or not the Word of God consists of the Bible only, or if contemporary church writings also qualify. I believe in the former. If we cannot test later writings against the original, what good are they? It is always better to go with the source that is closet to the original.

[rickomatic]

Is it your claim that there was NO governance structure for the Church then or now?

Of course not. My only claim is that any authority or governance structure must be in line with the original Gospel.See my posting on "chicken and the egg".

My ONLY disagreement with the Roman Catholic Church is their taught doctrine that membership in their organization is necessary to salvation. My Bible does NOT teach that. And I have yet to see where the teaching of that by the Roman Catholic Church is backed up by "Scripture". Again, I guess maybe we have a different difenition of "Scripture".

That's all for now. Thank you one and all for the lively discussion. I'll check back later, after the "honey do" list is done :). May God bless each and every one of you!

[papertyger]

My contention is that Jesus was talking about Peter's belief, not Peter himself. A simple yet consice proof of this is found in John 3:16. How much more plain can it be?

You have GOT to be kidding! Anyone who has to go to another scripture to "explain" Matthew 16 is simply rebelling against the clear and obvious meaning in service to a man-made doctrine.

[papertyger]

I guess our disagreement is on whether or not the Word of God consists of the Bible only, or if contemporary church writings also qualify. I believe in the former. If we cannot test later writings against the original, what good are they?

Oh, we can test your thesis from the bible itself.

Unless you can show where in the Old Testament the "word" was given to Simeon at the Temple that he would not see death until his eyes beheld Christ, your thesis fails utterly.

[rickomatic]

You have GOT to be kidding! Anyone who has to go to another scripture to "explain" Matthew 16 is simply rebelling against the clear and obvious meaning in service to a man-made doctrine.

One more before I do my chores, :). I am NOT kidding. That is the whole disagreement in a nutshell. I do NOT believe that Jesus was saying His Church would be based on Peter. His Church would be based on HIM, and that was what Peter was claiming. Jesus' question to Peter was "who was HE ?"(Jesus). The Church was to be built on that belief. And I don't "need" another Scripture verse to explain it. John 3:16 "reaffirms" it. And, I certainly don't need a hierarchical structure to save me. Christ's work was completed here on Earth as far as my salvation goes. His work in me and my life continues today on a daily basis. Again....God Bless you all!!

[papertyger]

And, I certainly don't need a hierarchical structure to save me.

No, but you can bet rejecting it, damns you.

[Kolokotronis]

“And, I certainly don’t need a hierarchical structure to save me.

No, but you can bet rejecting it, damns you.”

Says who? A pope who was damned as a heretic by a council of his own bishops?

Don’t you think its just a tad over the top to suggest that our Ineffable God has decreed that all who reject the hierarchial structure of the Latin Church are damned?

[papertyger]

Luk 2:25 And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name [was] Simeon; and the same man [was] just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him.

Luk 2:26 And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord's Christ.

Luk 2:27 And he came by the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the law,

Luk 2:28 Then took he him up in his arms, and blessed God, and said,

Luk 2:29 Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word:

Luk 2:30 For mine eyes have seen thy salvation...

So in summation, a man speaking by the Holy Spirit refers to a revelation given to him personally and refers to that revelation, which appears no where in the scripture up to that point, as "thy word" while praising God.

This definitively disproves the contention that God's Word, and thus, authority, are restricted to the written scripture, alone. And it does so using nothing but written scripture, thus obligating those who profess Sola Scriptura to yield.

[papertyger]

I think you believe I accept the original premise...that would be wrong. But I do believe Romans teaches us willful rejection is damnable.

[papertyger]

Furthermore, please recall the apostasy of Korah written of in Jude was to gainsay the authority of Moses.

[Kolokotronis]

“I think you believe I accept the original premise...that would be wrong.”

I did not think you did.

“But I do believe Romans teaches us willful rejection is damnable.”

That is what I thought you were saying. So, you believe that the Roman Church believes that God damns all, let’s say, Orthodox people who willfully reject, better yet, vocally scorn, the hierarchial system of the Roman Church? I can guarantee to you that if Orthodox hierarchs believed that is what Rome teaches, they wouldn’t waste five minutes talking about reunion with +BXVI and +BXVI, knowing that, wouldn’t be wasting his time with them.

[Kolokotronis]

“Furthermore, please recall the apostasy of Korah written of in Jude was to gainsay the authority of Moses.”

Is your point that the Pope, in addition to being the “Vicar of Christ on Earth”, is also a latter day Moses?

[papertyger]

That is what I thought you were saying.

Do you disagree with the book of Romans?

Be back after Mass...

[Campion]

The politics surrounding its issuance, Boniface VIII’s condemnation as a heretic by a council of bishops and archbishops and his death soon thereafter on account of embarrassment it is claimed

His condemnation was bogus.

However, Unam Sanctam needs to be understood in its historical context: as a harsh rebuke to a (self-professed) Catholic king, Phillip the Fair. It's not addressing the salvation of non-Catholics (non-Christians, whatever).

Pretty good discussion of all of these issues here.