SPLIT: What is the church and its authority?

But, your definition comes from you, or from other individuals.Where is the authority to hold those opinions? The Catholic definition comes from the same exact Acts 15 Church. You reject Church indulgences but seem to indulge yourself by believing only what you find personally acceptable. Catholics must deny themselves and accept the “hard teachings” (John 6:60). Which more closely follows the command of Jesus?

On judgment day, we can say either, “I did it my way” or “I did it your way.”

So, the list of successors to Peter is made up? By what authority do you claim that?

and I say you are misinterpreting those verses. Peter is the chief steward of the King of Heaven and Earth, Jesus. If you knew about Jewish kingship you would know that when the King leaves he gives his keys to his chief steward who runs things until the king returns.

so now we have a disagreement. Which church do we go to to settle our different interpretatioins? which church has the authority to interpret scripture infallibly?

Jesus said, very clearly, that we are to go to the Church. Final authority. If your brother does not listen even to the Church, treat him as a heathen or tax collector.

Very simple. Very clear. Very direct.

16th century invention? The Catholic bible? It contains 46 books. All of the books were written during or far before the 1st century CE. The canon was defined FORMALLY in 1556CE at the Council of Trent, but it was held for centuries before that!

Melito, bishop of Sardis, an ancient city of Asia Minor (see Rev 3), c. 170 AD produced the first known Christian attempt at an Old Testament canon. His list maintains the Septuagint order of books but contains only the Old Testament protocanonicals minus the Book of Esther.

The Council of Laodicea, c. 360AD, produced a list of books similar to today’s canon. This was one of the Church’s earliest decisions on a canon.

Pope Damasus, 366-384AD, in his Decree, listed the books of today’s canon.

The Council of Rome, 382AD, was the forum which prompted Pope Damasus’ Decree.

Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse wrote to Pope Innocent I in 405AD requesting a list of canonical books. Pope Innocent listed the present canon.

The Council of Hippo, a local north Africa council of bishops created the list of the Old and New Testament books in 393AD which is the same as the Roman Catholic list today.

The Council of Carthage, a local north Africa council of bishops created the same list of canonical books in 397AD. This is the council which many Protestant and Evangelical Christians take as the authority for the New Testament canon of books. The Old Testament canon from the same council is identical to Roman Catholic canon today. Another Council of Carthage in 419AD offered the same list of canonical books.

Since the Roman Catholic Church does not define truths unless errors abound on the matter, Roman Catholic Christians look to the Council of Florence, an ecumenical council in 1441AD for the first definitive list of canonical books.

The final infallible definition of canonical books for Roman Catholic Christians came from the Council of Trent in 1556 AD in the face of the errors of the Reformers who rejected seven Old Testament books from the canon of scripture to that time.

No! “Bible alone” and the self as an authority.

Thank you very much.

Friendly fire? :slight_smile:

Do you think the Church just magically appeared in Rome one day?

Do you believe that the Roman Empire just figured some obscure Judaic sect out Palestine way should be feigned to exist in Rome?

Did the early Christians fabricate the lineage of St. Peter?

The Catholic church also can’t prove from scripture that Peter was the first pope.

NB: The papacy predates the Bible. The “Scripture” referred to in the New Testament, only referred to the OT. The Catholic Church doesn’t need to prove itself up through ‘scripture’–it was ‘scripture’s’ original fiduciary, and it is the primary mechanism through which the Holy Spirit interacted and communicated (and still does) with the world outside the Church. You’re basically saying that the Church of Rome preserved scripture, in order to discredit itself. If the Church could be discredited by the scripture it preserved…why would it preserve it?

The answer is elementary: it is not discredited by that scripture, and it is the Church Christ founded, led by the Holy Spirit.

You have your Bible…you have your answer.

To whom were the books of the New Testament written? For whom were they written? By whom? What was the capacity of virtually every New Testament author, vis a vis the people to whom they were writing??? Just random ‘believers’, who just randomly started babbling on in tongues, and scribbling stuff down, as dictated by the Holy Spirit???

What authority determined that writings that were not originally ‘scripture’, should be considered scripture?

Or do you think that ‘scripture’ came down like manna from heaven, signed “Holy Spirit”?

The catholic church also can not prove that Jesus built the church on Peter. They might give some verses, but those verses are misinterpreted

Seems that the burden of proof would rest upon the teenager denying that his parents are who they say they are, rather than on the parents who remember the teenager when he was an infant, and watched him grow to be the defiant child that questions their authority.

(…sometimes the parents can do no more than shake their heads, and wonder: “does this poor child not realize that if what he alleges were true…he would be an orphan and a bastard?”).

Actually - the discussion here is NOT about the Catholic Church, but about what Scripture says. You stated the following in another post on this:
The bible says take it to the church, which means whatever church your close to.

During that time it could of been the church that was in Jerusalem or one of the churches that Paul started.

Paul started preaching without the blessing of Peter.

If we are true to the bible verses you gave then we could go to my church and ask the pastor and the elders if they think I am sinning.
Yet the example we have in Scripture of “taking it to the Church” is contained in Acts 15…
They took it to the “Church” nearest them and could not find resolution so they took it to the Church leadership and elders in Jerusalem, The decision reached there did not simply affect the Church in Antioch, but the Church everywhere. (Universally).

Tell it to the Church - Listen to the Church…The ground and bulwark of Truth.

Not what “Catholics” believe - but what Scripture says.

Now of course as you have pointed out, you can accuse me of misinterpreting…and we can go back and forth…but how do we settle it? This simple problem makes the point that Jesus intended a visible, organized and authoritative Church…one we can tell things to and listen to.



:rotfl: You ADMIT that the Catholic Church has existed for “2000 years or so”?! Why, that goes way back to when Jesus was alive! :smiley:

Oh so Peter’s successor is so important that he would have said who would his successor be in a book when we know that apostles are replaced after death?! (Acts 1:15-26)

Sure we do, it was Linus, the early Church fathers confirm this.

The military definition of friendly fire: best intentions.

This is what happens when a counterpoint runs out of ammo. They reach into the box marked “A” and often come out with ad hominem instead.

How can anyone claim Peter is not the first Pope? Besides the fact Jesus quotes Isaiah 22:22 when He installs Peter as the steward of His Kingdom and the fact God always had a visible authority on Earth the Church had the Surprise of a life time in the 1940s when they realize that Jesus meant quite very literally that upon this Rock I will build MyChurch when the found 2000 years old remains of an old man who was robust in stature who had his feet cut off which would correspond to the tradition that Peter had been Crucified upside down all this directly under the altar of Saint Peter’s in Rome. The Early Christians went through great lengths to protect Peter’s remains even to the point scientists can tell his body was in a dirt grave for a while before making it to the spot where it remain hidden for almost 2000 years.

Well, let me ask you-how did St. Paul know the truth of what he was going to teach to the Gentiles?

it should be assemply of persons-- a group of people gathered together–
it does not mean a huge monolithic orginazation–

almost like a “club” or fellowship-- each fellowship can function well if they have the help of the Holy Spirit-

can you tell if a church – does not have the leading and fellowship of the Holy Spirit??

personally – i can–

can yo tell if some speaks by inspiritiaon of the Holy Spirit?
well i can !!

i remember one of the times when i was in a fellowship assembly-- and there was a Question-- and one of the “prophetic” members of the body of Christ said-- "well lets ask the LORD-- we did and we were given the answer–

Because it does not take – hours-days-weeks -months-- to get an answer from God the Holy Spirit-

because if it does-- then you would check you"service provider" haha

Sounds real nice, but couldn’t be further from the truth!!!


Lutherans pray and ask God to give them an answer…Lord are we all predestined and Totally depraved. They "hear the answer as “No!”

A group of Calvinist pray and ask God to give them an answer…Lord are we all predestined and totally depraved? They hear the answer as “YES!”


You are wrong. There must be one church. There was one church in the New Testament, one church in the Apostolic era, One church who met to establish the New Testament Canon, One Church until a group of men with differing motives decided that they knew better than the church. Those men founded their new novel churches and led others astray with them.

The Bible clearly tells us to avoid such people.

to Paul. PAUL!!! :eek:
He had to go to the authoritative Church for an answer, just as he did to ensure that his Gospel accorded with that of the twelve. Paul received his revelation directly from the Lord, yet he still went to the Apostles to consult with them. And, we note kindly that Paul’s revelation matched exactly with that given to the twelve. The Church was proved and nothing was disproved. THis portion of the scriptures was not written until the Church decided and wrote the letter in Acts 15.

Proof, for those with open eyes, that (NT) scripture came from the Church, not that the Church came from scripture.

Funny, ain’t it?

Yep…as Galatians 2:2 says:

I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain.

The HS told him to go, not just decide for himself what the truth it.

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.