Establishing Church Authority

[Crusader_4]

Okay i state this not trying to mean any offence in any way. Jesus gave us his written word through the holy spirit. It guided the Bishops and Pope Damascus I to deciede what books were in the Holy Bible. Now the question one must ask is when did the Holy Spirit stop guiding the Church in this form? God realized we were not infallable he realized that we screw things up sometimes so what does he do but gives us a Church that can guide us and teach uns infallably that way we need not have any worries. So he gives us the Bible his infallable word and his infallable teacher the Church. It makes sense. Now back to the earlier thing was if the Holy Spirit could guide the Church in the first 300 years against heresy (gnoticsm, ariansim) some pretty stellar heresies. When did he stop and if he hasnt stopped guiding the Church which i think you can all agree on why do so many Church's have different interperations? Since the Lord cannot be divided. So If we have all these protestant and non denoniational church's they will not claim to be infallable. Yet would something Jesus started to teach us and guide us adn he is the head of would that thing be fallable? Also how could an invisible body be infallable how can it make statements that are infallable or do things that are infallable? It needs to be visible. Would something guidied by Jesus be fallable? Only One Church will claim to be truly infallable and thus guided by the Holy Spirit.

[jasJis]

[quote name='mulls' date='May 19 2004, 11:09 AM'] a "non-denominatonal church" is one that is made up with a group of believers who don't consider one group of believers to be more right or wrong than another group....and they are all seeking and learning and growing in God, together, equally. [/quote]
mulls,
Then what about the group of believers that believed in God, Jesus the Son of God and Man, the Holy Spirit, and the circumcision of the Gentiles as an obedient act acknowledgeing God's Covenant with the Jewish people. They weren't saying that the Gentiles were excluded, they were saying the Gentiles can join the Jewish family completely and join them in the covenant with Jesus.

By your definition, that's a group of believers, following God and Jesus, but in disagreement with only some. Should they have been left alone as not being any more right than the other Christians?

[twf]

This is one great example...but there are so many more. The NT Church had established authority. Paul often spoke with authority, and expected to be obeyed. They knew, beyond a shadow of a doubt, what sound doctrine was...there was no room for private interpretation. There is no indication in Scriptures that this model of a hierarchical, authoritative government was to end with the death of the apostles...in fact there are verses that support the opposite. And further more, we simply have to look at the early Fathers...we can see that already by the late first century (and for sure by the early second century) the authority of the bishops was well established, and the concept of apostolic succession (the bishops succeeded the apostles in their ministry) was present. Look at St. Clement and St. Ignatius.

Christianity has never been a religion of the book...they knew that both the oral teachings of the apostles (handed down through the bishops) and their written letters were equally important...they never wrote everything down.
I’ll look at a few Scriptures here.
"I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2).
Oral teachings are very important...can you demonstrate that this has changed after the end of apostolic era?

"Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us" (2 Tim. 1:13-14).

"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, [b]either by word of mouth or by letter[/b]." (2 Thess. 2:15, emphasis added)
Both oral and written teachings are important, the NT gives no indication that Christianity is a religion of the book (alone).

"You, then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:1-2).
If after the apostolic era, the Bible alone would suffice, why did Paul believe that the continuation of sound doctrine required special teachers entrusted with the deposit of faith?

"First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God" (2 Peter 1:20-21).

"‘Though I have much to write to you, I would rather not use paper and ink, but I hope to come to see you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete" (2 John 12).
The written word was not enough, John wanted to teach them more orally.

"...and came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth; that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophets, that he should be called a Nazarene." (Matt. 2:23, ASV).
It's interesting that this prophecy can not be found in Scripture...Matthew must have been relying upon the oral teachings of the apostles that was passed down. Also on this note...obviously the prophets spoke for God, but do you think that all the words of every prophet God sent is recorded in the OT? Were the words that are not recorded unauthoritative?

"...but if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how men ought to behave themselves in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." (1 Tim. 3:15, ASV).
The Church, not the Bible alone, the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth...but how can it remain so if the church can not agree what truth is (on many issues)? Look how splintered Christendom becomes when apostolic succession is rejected. (I.e. Protestantism).

I highly recommend the audio file [url="http://www.ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/resolve.asp?rafile=iq_496.ra"]http://www.ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/resolv...afile=iq_496.ra[/url] on the issue of Church, rather than just Scripture, being the final authority (that is, no sola scriptura).
And these articles [url="http://www.catholic.com/library/What_Your_Authority.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/library/What_Your_Authority.asp[/url]
[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Scripture_and_Tradition.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/library/Scripture_and_Tradition.asp[/url]
[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Tradition.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Tradition.asp[/url]

I’m going to include two quotes from the Fathers…because I think they very strongly show apostolic succession and the authority of the bishops…and at a VERY early date…these guys both knew the apostles in all likelihood. They are both taken from the Catechism.

“In order that the mission entrusted to them might be continued after their death, [the apostles] consigned, by will and testament, as it were, to their immediate collaborators the duty of completing and consolidating the work they had begun, urging them to tend to the whole flock, in which the Holy Spirit had appointed them to shepherd the Church of God. They accordingly designated such men and then made the ruling that likewise on their death other proven men should take over their ministry.” (St. Clement of Rome, Epistle to the Corinthians, late first century…quoted from paragraph 861 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church).

“Let all follow the bishop, as Jesus Christ follows his Father, and the college of presbyters as the apostles, respect the deacons as you do God’s law. Let no one do anything concerning the Church in seperation from the bishop.” (St. Ignatius of Antioch, Ad Smyrn, 8, as quoted in the Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 896. Circa AD 110, probably). St. Ignatius was a disciple of St. John the Evangelist.

[jasJis]

bump - bump - bump - bummmmmmmmmmp

for mulls to consider ...

[mulls]

[quote name='jasJis' date='May 20 2004, 10:21 PM'] mulls,
Then what about the group of believers that believed in God, Jesus the Son of God and Man, the Holy Spirit, and the circumcision of the Gentiles as an obedient act acknowledgeing God's Covenant with the Jewish people. They weren't saying that the Gentiles were excluded, they were saying the Gentiles can join the Jewish family completely and join them in the covenant with Jesus.

By your definition, that's a group of believers, following God and Jesus, but in disagreement with only some. Should they have been left alone as not being any more right than the other Christians? [/quote]
i dont think so, if the apostles were around, i would listen to them.

[Quietfire]

Thats easy to say Mulls,

[quote]i dont think so, if the apostles were around, i would listen to them.[/quote]

If the Church is the authority following the succession of the apostles, then you would have to listen to Her.
Which you would not, right?

Pickle..anyone?


Peace.

[jasJis]

[quote name='mulls' date='May 23 2004, 12:32 PM'] i dont think so, if the apostles were around, i would listen to them. [/quote]
Then why listen to Paul?

[Crusader_4]

exactly that is the whole thing behind Catholicsm that its the apostles successors preaching their message that they have left behind...we dont have to refigure things every generation so we are continoulsy growing.

[Quietfire]

This thread is going good and I dont want to see it stop on this note, please lets keep it going....

but in light of some heavy breathing lately....

take it slow..
and show charity.




I HAVE SPOKEN !!!
Peace
Dutchess QF

Edited May 25, 2004 by Quietfire

[Dave]

[quote name='the lumberjack' date='May 17 2004, 02:29 PM'] then dave, what DO we DO about ALLLLL the anathemas layed out PRE Vatican II?

especially just for us protestant jokers?

the VII didn't undo any of them...

and as I've said before, unless we are all assymilated, we stand a VERY good chance at burning in hell for a good part of eternity...

which I wouldn't be too particularly fond of.

like fondu.

God bless. [/quote]
Phatcatholic has already dealt with just what anathemas are.