The authority of the Church comes from Jesus. He gave first to Peter (the papacy) then the Apostles (the bishops) the power to bind and loose on heaven and earth. This authority rests in the church through the succession of the bishops.
I don't share the belief that it's either Heaven or Hell and nothing in-between
4,322 Views |
82 Replies |
Last: 3 yr ago by M1Buckeye
I felt the same and then I discovered the Eucharist.
Most Christians read those passages and see no grant of authority by Jesus to the Church at all. What other evidence do you have for the authority of the Councils, let alone the Church?jrico2727 said:
The authority of the Church comes from Jesus. He gave first to Peter (the papacy) then the Apostles (the bishops) the power to bind and loose on heaven and earth. This authority rests in the church through the succession of the bishops.
The RCC arguments for the authority of the Church seem to be circular and contradicted by the historical conduct of the Church and Peter's successors themselves.
Pope John Paul II kissing the Koran sent me the wrong signal, as does Pope Francis' apparent desire to be a politician.Jabin said:Most Christians read those passages and see no grant of authority by Jesus to the Church at all. What other evidence do you have for the authority of the Councils, let alone the Church?jrico2727 said:
The authority of the Church comes from Jesus. He gave first to Peter (the papacy) then the Apostles (the bishops) the power to bind and loose on heaven and earth. This authority rests in the church through the succession of the bishops.
The RCC arguments for the authority of the Church seem to be circular and contradicted by the historical conduct of the Church and Peter's successors themselves.
How did discovering the Eucharist change your mind? To be clear, I am asking out of genuine curiosity and not argumentation.jrico2727 said:
I felt the same and then I discovered the Eucharist.
You may never have heard of him, but Thomas Howard was, at one time, a close friend of my parents. If you have not heard of him, he was Elizabeth Elliott's brother, and a leading Protestant theologian who converted to Catholicism. I've read some of his writings. Despite his conversion (or perhaps because of it), he remained much more sympathetic and open to Protestants than most Catholics I've known. However, I've not found his arguments in favor of Catholicism to be particularly persuasive and have wished deeply that I could talk to him in person.
Died: Thomas Howard, Author Who Said 'Evangelical Is Not E...... | News & Reporting | Christianity Today
Yeah, you lost me.
The Church both created the canon through practice, and ratified it by conciliar recognition. It's no different than your example of the president and the senate - here we have the church writ large, and the bishops in particular.
How can you say God alone created the canon? We can see it happen in history, we can watch it as it progresses. First this list, then that, then this council, then this heresy dispute calls that book into question, and so on. Men were involved. Men wrote it. St Paul certainly wrote it, and he wrote quite differently than St John did, and they both wrote very differently than the fine style of St Luke. Did God and God alone write the NT? Of course not. God worked through His Body, which is the Church, to accomplish the end.
So you're trying to force a situation which simply did not exist. Doctrine was what the Apostles taught, which was a continuance of what the Prophets beheld. The very earliest picture we have of the Church in Acts 2:42 makes it quite clear - "They devoted themselves to the Apostles' teaching, and to the communion, the breaking of bread, and to the prayers." Those definite articles are in the Greek. They are important.
St Paul clearly saw himself as a prophet, he used prophetic language borrowed from Jeremiah and Isaiah to describe his calling. They taught what they received from Christ Himself, as St Paul testifies "For I received from the Lord that which also I delivered to you." This is the source of doctrine, and is the ONLY source of doctrine.
What was read in Church had to begin at some point. There were worshipping Christians before there were epistles or gospels. The epistles of St Paul came first, followed by the Gospel according to St Mark and the others. At first the churches who received the epistles read them - we know they were circulated because the letters themselves give instructions to do so. And by the end of the first century St Paul's letters were circulating as a collection (this is how the multiple letters that make up 2 Corinthians get smooshed together). Some churches read the epistle of St Clement as scripture for a time, Eusebius is witness to this. They read what they received from the Apostles, or ultimately what others received from the Apostles that edified, magnified, expanded upon, and taught the Faith they received from the Apostles, which was received from Christ - as St Jude says, "the faith that was passed down to the saints once and for all."
The Church both created the canon through practice, and ratified it by conciliar recognition. It's no different than your example of the president and the senate - here we have the church writ large, and the bishops in particular.
How can you say God alone created the canon? We can see it happen in history, we can watch it as it progresses. First this list, then that, then this council, then this heresy dispute calls that book into question, and so on. Men were involved. Men wrote it. St Paul certainly wrote it, and he wrote quite differently than St John did, and they both wrote very differently than the fine style of St Luke. Did God and God alone write the NT? Of course not. God worked through His Body, which is the Church, to accomplish the end.
The Church is the Body of Christ, and the Head of the Church is God Himself. How can you pit these things against each other?Quote:
The danger is in the Church placing itself in a position of authority equal to or even higher than God.
I'm telling you what the people who used the word meant by it. There was no standard, you're coming at this completely backwards - taking your modern concept and trying to force them into it. When the church began there was no NT. There was no formal OT either! Judaism (or properly the Judaisms) of the day had no consensus of scripture - the Sadduccees and Pharisees had different views (Sadduccees accepted only the Torah, Pharisees included the Psalms and Prophets). Essenes differed from them. It seems certain early Christian converts were from both parties - indeed, we have a reference from Papias that John the Elder wore the ephod of the priest, making him almost certainly a Sadduccee at the time.Quote:
Next, you say that the word Canon merely means that it may be read in Church. But that status must carry an immense amount of significance. What standards are or were used to determine if something could be read in Church? I am not familiar at all with EO doctrine, but presumably the significance of that decision must be that what is read is the Word of God or something like that, no?
So you're trying to force a situation which simply did not exist. Doctrine was what the Apostles taught, which was a continuance of what the Prophets beheld. The very earliest picture we have of the Church in Acts 2:42 makes it quite clear - "They devoted themselves to the Apostles' teaching, and to the communion, the breaking of bread, and to the prayers." Those definite articles are in the Greek. They are important.
St Paul clearly saw himself as a prophet, he used prophetic language borrowed from Jeremiah and Isaiah to describe his calling. They taught what they received from Christ Himself, as St Paul testifies "For I received from the Lord that which also I delivered to you." This is the source of doctrine, and is the ONLY source of doctrine.
What was read in Church had to begin at some point. There were worshipping Christians before there were epistles or gospels. The epistles of St Paul came first, followed by the Gospel according to St Mark and the others. At first the churches who received the epistles read them - we know they were circulated because the letters themselves give instructions to do so. And by the end of the first century St Paul's letters were circulating as a collection (this is how the multiple letters that make up 2 Corinthians get smooshed together). Some churches read the epistle of St Clement as scripture for a time, Eusebius is witness to this. They read what they received from the Apostles, or ultimately what others received from the Apostles that edified, magnified, expanded upon, and taught the Faith they received from the Apostles, which was received from Christ - as St Jude says, "the faith that was passed down to the saints once and for all."
Councils have no authority in and of themselves, I said this quite clearly. They only has authority insofar as what they say is true, and that true is referenced only to Truth, who is a Person, who is the sole Head, Pastor, Priest, and Teacher of the Church. The Church is the Body of Christ - of course it is self-authenticating, because head is the God-Man Christ Jesus.Quote:
What evidence do you have for the authority of church councils? Isn't the only evidence the writings of Church figures after those councils? In effect, isn't the Church acting as its own proof of authority? In prior posts, you have argued that the Bible is not self-authenticating. Aren't you contending instead that the Church is self-authenticating?
Yes. I've linked you to several, as have others. And they don't stand in a vacuum. Nor are they equivalent to the Constitution of the United States. A constitution of a government establishes that government. It serves to form and guide the function and very existence of the government. The ecumenical councils did no such thing for the Church. The Church existed for three centuries before the first one. The councils only illumine and codify what is already the established faith and practice of the Church, which is the expression of the Apostolic Tradition. This of course includes the scriptures.Quote:
Do we even have the acts of those councils? If memory serves, we do not, but rather we have only what people wrote centuries later.
Jabin said:Most Christians read those passages and see no grant of authority by Jesus to the Church at all. What other evidence do you have for the authority of the Councils, let alone the Church?jrico2727 said:
The authority of the Church comes from Jesus. He gave first to Peter (the papacy) then the Apostles (the bishops) the power to bind and loose on heaven and earth. This authority rests in the church through the succession of the bishops.
The RCC arguments for the authority of the Church seem to be circular and contradicted by the historical conduct of the Church and Peter's successors themselves.
Considering that "most" Christians are Catholic or Orthodox I doubt that. If you mean that most protestant denominations believe that, well makes since that they would interpret in ways that undercut that which they protest. I would also consider how it was considered for the first 1500 years of Christianity.
I don't know but I suspect that the EO do not agfee at all with that statement.Quote:
He gave first to Peter (the papacy) . . . the power to bind and loose on heaven and earth.
You're doing exactly what you accuse me of - forcing your current views on the early Church. The earliest church also had no idea of large multi-national administrative bureaucracies that you call "the Church", replete with patriarchs, bishops, formal church councils involving all kinds of church politics, etc. The EO church as it exists today would be a strange, alien being to St. Paul and St. James.
And, quite frankly, I have a hard time understanding most of your post. Unlike your posts on other boards, which are quite clear and concise, here you seem to lapse into EO jargon which is difficult for non-EO members to understand and not very persuasive.
I've got to run. Good discussion, though.
I am not. I said that the EO and RCC are in danger of doing so.Quote:
The Church is the Body of Christ, and the Head of the Church is God Himself. How can you pit these things against each other?
And, quite frankly, I have a hard time understanding most of your post. Unlike your posts on other boards, which are quite clear and concise, here you seem to lapse into EO jargon which is difficult for non-EO members to understand and not very persuasive.
I've got to run. Good discussion, though.
I certainly appreciate your question. When I was younger and a whole lot more prideful, I became disillusioned with a lot of the churches that we attended. We moved around a lot so I sat on a lot of different congregations and so I never felt in allegiance to anyone specifically. Ultimately I believed in Jesus and I believed in the Bible by the time I was in high school I thought that's all I needed and I attended the Church of me. I read scripture told myself I was good.
By the time I got into college and began taking history, and I came across the early Christian belief and something called the Eucharist. My initial opinion was that this was something that was medieval and ridiculous and there's no way that God would be asking me to eat his body and drink his blood. After that it's stuck with me and I was challenged to prove it wrong. I read scripture then I started reading the church fathers, and ultimately I prayed. Through God's grace I came to the correct understanding that out of God's mercy and love he does feed us with his body and blood to sustain us, to bring us into communion with him and his Church, and to transform our nature into his. After that there was no going back.
By the time I got into college and began taking history, and I came across the early Christian belief and something called the Eucharist. My initial opinion was that this was something that was medieval and ridiculous and there's no way that God would be asking me to eat his body and drink his blood. After that it's stuck with me and I was challenged to prove it wrong. I read scripture then I started reading the church fathers, and ultimately I prayed. Through God's grace I came to the correct understanding that out of God's mercy and love he does feed us with his body and blood to sustain us, to bring us into communion with him and his Church, and to transform our nature into his. After that there was no going back.
One last post and I look forward to reading your response tomorrow.
Even with all that being true, why did that cause you to join the (RCC/EO? Sorry, I'm not sure which one you belong to.). Why can't one believe in the "Eucharist" without belonging to either group?
And, whichever one you're in, would you willingly join the other?
Even with all that being true, why did that cause you to join the (RCC/EO? Sorry, I'm not sure which one you belong to.). Why can't one believe in the "Eucharist" without belonging to either group?
And, whichever one you're in, would you willingly join the other?
They may argue the nature and the extent of authority of the papacy, not that Our Lord gave him that grace first, nor the fact that he gave Peter the keys, which are a further sign of his authority.Jabin said:I don't know but I suspect that the EO do not agfee at all with that statement.Quote:
He gave first to Peter (the papacy) . . . the power to bind and loose on heaven and earth.
I am not appealing to a large multi-national administrative bureaucracy. When I say the Church, I am referring to the same body that St Paul refers to over and over. There is only one body -
"we who are many are one body"
"Because there is one loaf, we who are many are one body"
"The body is a unit, though it is composed of many parts. And although its parts are many, they all form one body. So it is with Christ...Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it."
"And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all."
I'm not sure where you got anything in this post from what I said. You seem to have made a few assumptions.
"we who are many are one body"
"Because there is one loaf, we who are many are one body"
"The body is a unit, though it is composed of many parts. And although its parts are many, they all form one body. So it is with Christ...Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it."
"And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all."
I'm not sure where you got anything in this post from what I said. You seem to have made a few assumptions.
Sorry for being unclear. What part wasn't clear? I'm not sure where I said anything that was EO specific?Quote:
And, quite frankly, I have a hard time understanding most of your post. Unlike your posts on other boards, which are quite clear and concise, here you seem to lapse into EO jargon which is difficult for non-EO members to understand and not very persuasive.
jrico2727 said:
I certainly appreciate your question. When I was younger and a whole lot more prideful, I became disillusioned with a lot of the churches that we attended. We moved around a lot so I sat on a lot of different congregations and so I never felt in allegiance to anyone specifically. Ultimately I believed in Jesus and I believed in the Bible by the time I was in high school I thought that's all I needed and I attended the Church of me. I read scripture told myself I was good.
By the time I got into college and began taking history, and I came across the early Christian belief and something called the Eucharist. My initial opinion was that this was something that was medieval and ridiculous and there's no way that God would be asking me to eat his body and drink his blood. After that it's stuck with me and I was challenged to prove it wrong. I read scripture then I started reading the church fathers, and ultimately I prayed. Through God's grace I came to the correct understanding that out of God's mercy and love he does feed us with his body and blood to sustain us, to bring us into communion with him and his Church, and to transform our nature into his. After that there was no going back.
God bless you. You are one of Jesus' sheep and you heard the voice of your shepherd.
Featured Stories
See All
Predictability leads to disappointment in A&M's 17-7 loss to Texas
by Olin Buchanan
27:34
7h ago
8.2k
21:58
6h ago
8.0k
Photo Gallery: No. 3 Texas 17, No. 20 Texas A&M 7
by Zoe Kelton
No. 20 Aggies finish Players Era with a 81-77 victory over Rutgers
by Luke Evangelist