So many today have been mislead by a 16th century European invention. Where did the reformers get the bible? Who tested those 73 books (and so very many others) before winnowing the selection down to those that were solemnly declared to be inspired by God?
The Church. The one Church that Jesus founded (Matthew 16, Matthew 18). The Acts 15 Church. Not that is in the bible.
But, you disagree because you have been taught to reject the Acts 15 Church. The fault is not yours. Yu are here asking questions, which is excellent. The fault is upon those who taught you. They might not have read James 3.
We have the Bible, which we believe to be the inspired Word of God. However, Christ knew the Church would need leadership and provided for this need before he ascended.
We Catholics believe in addition to scripture, we have the “Magesterium” of the Church, for example, the basis of which is included in scripture.
Christ said that **ALL **authority in heaven and earth had been given to him. He, in turn, asked Peter (3 times) and him alone, to shepherd his sheep.
Christ said he was giving Peter the “keys to the kingdom” that what he held bound on earth would be held bound in heaven, that what he loosed on earth would be loosed in heaven. (Keys are the symbol of authority in this and another scripture passage).
Christ said Peter would be the “rock” on which he would build his Church, that the gates of hell would not prevail against it. Christ established his “Church”, not “churches” with Peter as the clear leader in Christ’s absence so that the Church would never be without leadership.
Peter had, what we call, “exclusivity”. His role was to be unique. Peter had just been given to make whatever decisions he needed to and his descendents, as well, who have authority transferred to them, in turn.
In addition, Christ turned to the apostles, gave them authority to forgive sins, something he did not give to the general public, just them.
Now, when Judas committed suicide, he was replaced by Matthew. When Peter was martyred, he was likewise replaced. This is what we would call in today’s terms, “offices”. The Catholic Church is the longest lasting formal institution in the world, and it was set up by Christ.
Now, since Christ, these leaders that he chose made decisions, which we believe may not be mentioned in the Bible but are just as binding. We believe Peter was our first leader, who we call “pope”.
Other churches have their own leaders, their own “popes”, but we don’t believe they have authority to bind or loose on earth, that only the leaders Christ chose and their descendents, legitimately elected have that right.
Christ sent them out, saying that whomever rejected them, rejected Christ and whomever rejected Christ rejected the Father who sent him.
We believe their decisions to be binding, and we listen to them as we listen to Christ. In fact, we believe to reject the “Magesterium” (which was set up by Christ), is to reject Christ. To reject Christ is to reject the one who sent him (God the Father).
Many others since, as foretold, came and have tried to split the Church into pieces. So far, they have succeeded splitting Christianity into something like 41,000 denominations.
With the Popes, they were under divine authority. By whose authority are all these others operating? Divine? I accept the original version as the legitimate one, not the ones springing up lately.
We accept not only the Bible but the word of those leaders who were set up by Christ, which are from the Catholic Church.
I believe the Catholic Church to be the only Church established by Christ and these new churches to be not inspired by God but by man. I believe them to be correct insofar as they are in communion with the Catholic Church.
The Church’s Magesterium has told us we are in “communion” with saints, and in additional to the biblical references I have already cited. We accept this.
However, anyone is free to reject the Church’s legitimate representatives, but again rejecting the Pope, Cardinals, Bishops and priests, and their decisions, is rejecting Christ.
I’ve heard that argument before and its nothing new to me. A Catholic will say that is why Jesus established the catholic church.
Then I’ll say no he did not. Then the catholic will say yes he did, look at these verses. Then I’ll take those same verses and say you misinterpreted them. Then it’ll go on back and forth and neither one of use will change our minds, but that’s fine I get enjoyment in the fact that we’re at least talking about God, when there are so many other things that we could talk about.
Most protestant glance over this part of the Bible, my apologies.
15 “If your brother or sister** sins,[c] go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’[d] 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
18 “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be[e] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[f] loosed in heaven.
So what greater sin than heresy? And what church?**
Doesn’t the fact that different people could interpret the verses in such drastically different ways on such important issues bother you? We’re talking about salvation of souls here. The options are a) God instituted sola scriptura, and either didn’t realize or didn’t care that people living according to it would definitely end up believing things that jeopardize their salvation, or b) God didn’t institute sola scriptura.
That is, the mere fact that an honest back and forth fails to resolve the issue demonstrates that the system in faulty. A house built on sand, if you will. And I don’t particularly remember Jesus being all that complimentary about houses built on sand.
Well, the part about giving Peter the “keys to the kingdom”, in addition to being “the rock” on which he’d establish his Church, to bind and release, that what he says goes, to me, is pretty compelling.
Peter speaks for the apostles, is always listed first, but I guess, this doesn’t seem significant to non-Catholics. To me, all that seems very significant.
If we were to go to God for everything, didn’t need anybody else, why would the Church even be necessary to begin with? This Protestant argument seems to be an attempt to rid ourselves of the Church, to say all we need is the Bible and God, that no Church is needed.
Do you not get to talk about God much where you’re from tacdon? If so, I’m sorry.
How do you know we’re the ones misinterpreting? I don’t know about you, but the deeper I dig, the more I find the Catholic Church is the Rock even when I dig in places not necessarily Catholic. And since my father was Protestant most of my life, that was a lot of digging and disagreements to sift through.
You’re going back to that is why we need one church.
The Catholic church does not have the historical evidence to prove who Peter’s successor was. The Catholic church also can’t prove from scripture that Peter was the first pope. The catholic church also can not prove that Jesus built the church on Peter. They might give some verses, but those verses are misinterpreted.