second question for our non-catholic brethern

It seems clear that
[1] God did start a New religion [set of faith beliefs]

[2} did found a new church [structure and organization]

Mt. 10:1-8
Mt. 16:18-19
John 17:14-20
Mk. 16: 14-15
Mt. 28:16-20 are evidence of this.

SO DEAR FRIENDS MY QUESTION IS:

Did Christ give to the Apostles the Power and Authority to

[1] Teach this new faith FULLY and CORRECTLY?

[2] Give [transfer] the necesary Powers and Authority to them?

God Bless you!
Patrick

  1. Yes.

  2. To who?

To the bishops who they ordained by the laying on of hands.

Protestants are fond of saying that He did away with religion and established relationship, but that depends on how each party defines “religion.” lol :wink:

[2} did found a new church [structure and organization]

Mt. 10:1-8
Mt. 16:18-19
John 17:14-20
Mk. 16: 14-15
Mt. 28:16-20 are evidence of this.

The ekklesia does have organization as long as it is recognized that the ekklesia, or church, are the out-called ones themselves.

SO DEAR FRIENDS MY QUESTION IS:

Did Christ give to the Apostles the Power and Authority to

[1] Teach this new faith FULLY and CORRECTLY?

[2] Give [transfer] the necesary Powers and Authority to them?

God Bless you!
Patrick

I don’t believe so, not in the way I’m assuming you mean. For example, one scriptural teaching was that there is no Jew nor Gentile delineation in Christ. So, when Peter was called out by Paul for wrong action in regards to separating from Gentile believers when eating, it shows that the Apostles could err.

The Holy Spirit is the one that is promised to lead and guide infallibly. So, I say from my perspective it is the Holy Spirit that is both necessary and sufficient to lead and guide believers into all Truth, and I believe from scripture that that can apply to all believers regardless of their title or position in the organizational structure of the church.

=Traverse;11394392]1. Yes.

  1. To who?

“THEM” = th Apostles and the Leaders of today’s Catholic church. Evident and specified in the passges I referenced.:rolleyes:

God Bless you,
Patrick

=Kliska;11394818]Protestants are fond of saying that He did away with religion and established relationship, but that depends on how each party defines “religion.” lol :wink:

The ekklesia does have organization as long as it is recognized that the ekklesia, or church, are the out-called ones themselves.

I don’t believe so, not in the way I’m assuming you mean. For example, one scriptural teaching was that there is no Jew nor Gentile delineation in Christ. So, when Peter was called out by Paul for wrong action in regards to separating from Gentile believers when eating, it shows that the Apostles could err.

The Holy Spirit is the one that is promised to lead and guide infallibly. So, I say from my perspective it is the Holy Spirit that is both necessary and sufficient to lead and guide believers into all Truth, and I believe from scripture that that can apply to all believers regardless of their title or position in the organizational structure of the church.

The Pope and Magisterium can error in matters of “church practice” BUT NOT; NEVER-EVER in All matters of Faith belief and Morals.:thumbsup: This is the teaching of the CC.

Right, I do understand that is the RC position, but we protestants tend not to believe that is true, or else most of us wouldn’t be protestants. lol :wink: Our position is that believers, including the pope and those comprising the magisterium, can err both in their teaching by action and teaching by word.

" … And I say to thee: that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I shall build MY CHURCH; and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it." - Matthew 16:18

So is it that you have a beef against Matthew, the NT, the veracity of Jesus’ words, or what?

If Jesus just meant that His Church would only reside in Simon Peter until his death, without some sort of logical Apostolic Succession, then His Church would be doomed to a short life or a descent into chaos and schism. Do you think the latter is what Jesus had in mind?

Again, I won’t be arguing the point, just clarifying. The book of Matthew is inspired scripture and is not wrong, and Jesus, God the Son, is perfect and does not err, it is neither scripture nor Christ that I disagree with, rather the interpretation and application of the verse(s).

Then would you do us the favour of pointing out just what ‘your’ interpretation is, and how ‘you’ arrived at it? It seems to me that the Roman Catholic church takes it literally AND logically - are ‘we’ missing something?

That, to my understanding, would be akin to proselytizing, and would lead to a long back-and-forth over interpretation. I’m not here to do that. But I can tell you that the way many Protestants, including me, understand scriptural teaching is that the Holy Spirit brings understanding and guidance to believers. So, the “how” is through studying scripture, including the Greek, with guidance from the Spirit and prayerful consideration. I take it literally and logically as well. Do a quick search on any search engine for Protestant interpretations of that verse, and you’ll find them.

Also, I hope I’m wrong, but it seems your tone may be a bit hostile, of course the typed word is tricky that way, I hope I haven’t offended.

Hi Kliska, what Scripture passage(s) are you referring to here?
Where does it say that the Holy Spirit can infallibly guide the believers on an individual basis?

Not so, just questioning - curious.

The problem as I perceive it is that if the Holy Spirit only directs us on an individual basis, there then appears to be rich hunting grounds for ‘Old Nick’ to operate and sow his own ‘brands of interpretation(s)’ and personal feelings that we are being correctly and more infallibly ‘discerning’. Satan must love the ‘individual’ approach to spiritual matters, divide is often at the core of his approach - ‘divide and conquer’. Jesus expressed the oneness and unity of His Church when appointing Simon Peter as His ‘stand in’; that there was/is but one Church, not many individual/personal Churches.

The Church that Jesus instituted when installing Simon Peter as its head should always be our signal reference point, IMHO.

You have omitted the first part of the passage. And Jesus said "who do you say that I am?’; Peter responds “You are the Christ the Son of the living God”. This is the Rock that Christ built the Church on. Faith in Jesus Christ not upon Peter. That is the way Protestants understand it.

I think your question is answered by a quote from Jesus:

Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him. - John 13:16

So what do we conclude from this? Jesus himself taught this new faith fully and correctly.

No disciple of Jesus can ever exceed Him in understanding and Truth. However, it is completely possible (and unarguably true) that a disciple of Jesus can be less than Jesus in their ability to understand and teach this new religion. To argue otherwise would be to say that the Apostles were equal to Jesus, which is clearly false.

Thus, from the very first step, from Jesus to the Apostles, we have a downgrade in the fullness and truth of the teachings of this new religion, because after Jesus left, it was being taught by those who had an understanding that was less than that of their Lord.

Furthermore, any disciple of the Apostles can at best be equal to the Apostle who taught him, and is most likely going to be less than the Apostle. This is also virtually a given, since we do not typically put the teachings of the disciples of the Apostles on the same tier as the teachings of the Apostles themselves.

Continuing down the chain, any disciple of a disciple of an Apostle can only be less than or equal to the disciple of the Apostle who taught him. Continue like this for 2,000 years.

So it seems to me that the answer to both of your questions is “No.”

[quote=] Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him. - John 13:16
[/quote]

Not necessarily.

John 14:12 Very truly, I tell you, the one who believes in me will also do the works that I do and, in fact, will do greater works than these, because I am going to the Father.

Here are a couple for starters…

John 14:26 (KJV) But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

James 1:5 (KJV) If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

I personally do not believe that these verses infer that an authorized Church is unnecessary, but they clearly show guidance by the Holy Ghost to individuals. I assume that the question does not mean that perhaps some of the Holy Ghost’s guidance is fallible.

It isn’t a handful of picked verses, but rather what you can gestalt from the whole of scripture, both old and new. From how God interacts with man (and the role of each Person of the Trinity) in the OT all the way to how He interacts with man in the NT, and the special relationship that the Holy Spirit has with and in believers. I don’t think anyone would question whether or not the Holy Spirit “could” infallibly guide believers on an individual basis, but rather “does” He, and I believe the whole of scripture testifies that He does. From conviction of sin, to the charisms and gifts, to knowing and revealing God and Who Jesus is, prayer, etc… etc… He is truly the Spirit of Truth.

The difference between us on this point kind of boils down to “which” individuals do you think are guided, not “If” individuals are guided. Satan gets blamed for a lot which is our own fallen doing. Pride, greed, selfishness, all of these things and more are human sin too and it gets in the way of our growth and our listening to God’s Spirit. Popes, kings, servants and slaves all still are human and still err.

We do agree there is indeed one Church, we just disagree on what it “looks” like and who composes it. My belief that I glean from scripture is that all who are saved, all who faithe on the true Christ are a part of His church regardless of label. There are members of His church in the RC, Orthodox, Baptist, Methodist, on and on…

The Church that Jesus instituted when installing Simon Peter as its head should always be our signal reference point, IMHO.

As most know, Protestants do not interpret those verses to mean what RC doctrine teaches. Again, not to argue, just to clarify.

So in effect you are claiming there is no such thing as any unified church, save a nominal one called ‘Jesus’, whose ‘church’ so it seems fits comfortably into the diversity of individual perceived faiths and understanding and interpretations of Jesus? No wonder there are so many ‘protestant’ churches.

This just caught my attention after seeing Mount Carmel’s response.

Normally a noun is always referring to a proper noun preceding it. You can claim otherwise but grammar does not agree with such usage. Thus naturally the rock in Mt 16:18 could only meant Cephas (Peter, Rock). It is highly unusual for Jesus to change Peter’s name to Cephas (rock), repeating it only to mean that the rock is his confession.

17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” Mt 16:17-19

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.