Authority Of The Catholic Church

[megamattman1]

Here is a letter I sent to Jame White's ministry website. He never answered. It's kinda sad that in a way even history can be open for interpretation! But it seems that the evidence leans toward the Church. (but I can't really argue if someone claims otherwise) I would like a non-Catholic's reply to this letter he never replyed to or a Catholic who understands the non better than I'm coming across.

Also, I am aware of the quotations at www.catholic.com about the succesion! Keep in mind that certain quotations can be interpreted different if people think the Catholic Church grew from giving advice into giving orders. Also even the bible could be interpreted for or against the papacy so try to keep the evidence strict to early history. And please keep the answers concise!

Dear Aomin,

I am a Roman Catholic young adult questioning my faith. I have many ideas and questions, but, ultimately, I have some detailed questions regarding the basis of the authority of the Church since this is what much boils down to.

The two events prior to Constantine normally cited by Catholics and non-Catholics alike are the events regarding Bishop Victor and Bishop Stephen both of Rome. Usually Catholics use the fact that authority has been issued by these bishops as "proof" of the authority of the Church. Non-Catholics use the fact that other churches did not submit as "proof" of the non-authority of the Church. Catholics don't usually mention this as if it is lethal. But very rarely one may relay the fact that the non-submission actually reflects that authority can only be resisted only if it actually exists.

Below are some texts found ironically by writers trying to refute the Catholic claim. My question is why does not the idea that an authority must have existed in order to be resisted not hold water? I am well aware of the theory that the Church started out giving advice based on its superior civil position and size but started giving orders and claiming more frivilous power. So perhaps they were being arrogant or taking their position to far after all. It seems as if it may boil down to a very grey situation. But since Dr. White seems very articulate and your site seems to make things seem black and white I would be very interested in your reply. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Matt Breckler

Though Victor tried to change the stance of the churches of Asia Minor, and though he threatened to break fellowship with them if they didn’t change their stance, they ignored his threats. The church father and church historian Eusebius, in his church history (5:24), records part of a letter written to Victor by Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus. Polycrates explains that he and other church leaders will maintain their stance on the celebration of Easter, and that they aren’t intimidated by Victor’s threats:

"I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord, and have met with the brethren throughout the world, and have gone through every Holy Scripture, am not affrighted by terrifying words. For those greater than I have said ‘we ought to obey God rather than man.’ "

As to Stephen and the rebaptism controvery with Firmilian and Cyprian:

I (Firmilian) am justly indignant at this so open and manifest folly of Stephen, that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid, should introduce many other rocks and establish new buildings of many churches; maintaining that there is baptism in them by his authority (Epistle 74.17).

How great sin have you (Stephen) heaped up for yourself, when you cut yourself off from so many flocks! For it is yourself that you have cut off. Do not deceive yourself, since he is really the schismatic who has made himself an apostate from the communion of ecclesiastical unity. For while you think that all may be excommunicated by you, you have excommunicated yourself alone from all (Epistle 74.24).

I am aware that Cyprian also has a "bishop of bishops" text often cited as well.

[CatholicAndFanatical]

good questions megamattman, id be interested to hear a Non-Catholics stand point on this as well.

Welcome to the board Matt, In the 'Open Mic' section of this site is the 'Check-In' thread at the top. Feel free to introduce yourself there if you havent already.

Keep praying bro. Were all on a journey in life. With lots of prayer and the help of the Blessed Mother, we will be led to Christ.

God Bless,

CatholicAndFanatical

[foundsheep]

Welcome Mega Matt.

[Circle_Master]

It would be a gray area, and I am sorry, but I don't have much qualification in this area. I have seen written in places that there was disagreement in the Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, and Jerusalem Church to Rome on this, so I suppose those two quotes are some of it.

I do know that I have held Polycarp with respect for a while. I suggest you look at the account of his death in Fox's book of martyrs. It is really.. well, cool. Polycarps letter he wrote is interesting as well.

I have a list of reasons which point to Rome having authority over the other churches (this is in place of Scripture, since there was not widespread agreement on Matthew 16:18 and Romes premenency.)

Here's a few..

- The martyrdom of Peter and Paul was widespread giving recognition to this church

- The population of Rome was greater than any of the others (i.e. size does matter)

- Imperial Capital - after the Edict of Milan the emperors often sought advice from the Roman bishops

- Latin is more simple than greek and easier to debate - Solutions were agreed much faster.

- Rome's location provided much more geographical power

- Evangelizing barbarian tribes was much easier than the Persians and Muslims in the east

- Barbarian Invasions provided an adhesive affect on the western Church

- The muslim conquest took Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem to leave Constantinople solo against Rome.

[Katholikos]

The basis for the authority of the Catholic Church is that she was founded by Jesus Christ on Peter some 400 years before either the New Testament or the Bible existed as we know them. Christ founded the Church for the salvation of the world, to continue His work after He had returned to heaven. The Church speaks for Christ (e.g. Luke 10:16. "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me . . .).

Christ produced the Church, and the Church wrote, selected, canonized, and named the 'books' of the New Testament; at the same time, the Church formed the Bible by putting the newly born NT together with the Greek Septuagint Scriptures she had inherited from Jesus and the Apostles, which she named the Old Testament. She called her entire collection of writings ta Biblia -- the Bible -- at the close of the fourth and beginning of the fifth century.

The Protestant position is that Christianity was founded on the Bible. It wasn't; it was founded by Christ's teaching Church. And that the Bible is the sole rule for faith and morals. It isn't. Both Scripture and Sacred Apostolic Tradition are the Word of God. The Church is the rightful interpreter of both.

I have never heard of your arguments about Victor et al.

James White's sister, Patty Bonds, is now a Catholic, as is her husband and two of her three daughters. She was as anti-Catholic as her famous brother before her conversion. You can read her testimony at http://www.chnetwork.org. Click on "Converts," then on "Patty Bonds."

You'd be well advised to stay away from James White and his ilk unless you are strong in your faith and very secure in your knowledge of Scripture. He'll bamboozle you if you're not careful. If you want the truth about Catholicism, don't ask a man who makes his living as a professional anti-Catholic. Would you ask a Russian to explain western democracy for you? Read Scott Hahn and other ex-Protestant ministers who are now Catholic instead. His sister Patty will tell you that James is devious. All professional anti-Catholics are devious and good at twisting the Scriptures.

JMJ Likos

Ex-Southern Baptist, ex-agnostic, ex-atheist, ecstatic to be Catholic!

Edited December 31, 2003 by Katholikos

[Circle_Master]

The Protestant position is that Christianity was founded on the Bible. It wasn't; it was founded by Christ's teaching Church.

Your first two paragraphs I've quoted and commented in other threads, so it won't be any use commenting again. But this quote is rather surprising for me. I've never told anyone that Christianity is founded on the Bible, and I don't believe many Protestants have either.

Let me clarify, and try to remember this time . Scripture is clear that the Apostles spoke a lot, and wrote a little. Scripture is also clear that the Apostles didn't write down everything they said. Thus, the Apostolic Kerygma played a large role in the foundation of the church. I say foundation because that is as far as most protestants will go. There is no promise to maintain tradition, and the OT examples bring Scripture to a very high standard alone. Things like... (sorry, but ASV was the handy electronic bible I had at the time)

Psalm 1:1-3

1 Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the wicked, Nor standeth in the way of sinners, Nor sitteth in the seat of scoffers: 2 But his delight is in the law of Jehovah; And on his law doth he meditate day and night. 3 And he shall be like a tree planted by the streams of water, That bringeth forth its fruit in its season, Whose leaf also doth not wither; And whatsoever he doeth shall prosper

American Standard Version (1901)</>. electronic ed. :: , . Ps 1:1-3.

Psalm 19:7-14

7 The law of Jehovah is perfect, restoring the soul: The testimony of Jehovah is sure, making wise the simple. 8 The precepts of Jehovah are right, rejoicing the heart: The commandment of Jehovah is pure, enlightening the eyes. 9 The fear of Jehovah is clean, enduring for ever: The ordinances of Jehovah are true, and righteous altogether. 10 More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold; Sweeter also than honey and the droppings of the honeycomb. 11 Moreover by them is thy servant warned: In keeping them there is great reward. 12 Who can discern his errors? Clear thou me from hidden faults. 13 Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sins; Let them not have dominion over me: Then shall I be upright, And I shall be clear from great transgression. 14 Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart Be acceptable in thy sight, O Jehovah, my rock, and my redeemer.

American Standard Version (1901)</>. electronic ed. :: , . Ps 19:6-14.

Or even the great Torah Psalm 119.

Edited December 31, 2003 by Circle_Master

[cmotherofpirl]

It would be a gray area, and I am sorry, but I don't have much qualification in this area. I have seen written in places that there was disagreement in the Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, and Jerusalem Church to Rome on this, so I suppose those two quotes are some of it.

I do know that I have held Polycarp with respect for a while. I suggest you look at the account of his death in Fox's book of martyrs. It is really.. well, cool. Polycarps letter he wrote is interesting as well.

I have a list of reasons which point to Rome having authority over the other churches (this is in place of Scripture, since there was not widespread agreement on Matthew 16:18 and Romes premenency.)

Here's a few..

- The martyrdom of Peter and Paul was widespread giving recognition to this church

- The population of Rome was greater than any of the others (i.e. size does matter)

- Imperial Capital - after the Edict of Milan the emperors often sought advice from the Roman bishops

- Latin is more simple than greek and easier to debate - Solutions were agreed much faster.

- Rome's location provided much more geographical power

- Evangelizing barbarian tribes was much easier than the Persians and Muslims in the east

- Barbarian Invasions provided an adhesive affect on the western Church

- The muslim conquest took Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem to leave Constantinople solo against Rome.

Add the letter of Pope Clement writing from Rome where he writes to Corinth? and lays down the law.

[Bruce S]

!

Edited December 31, 2003 by Bruce S

[cmotherofpirl]

Or maybe the doctrine of private interpretation leads you to keep looking for answers. It must be hard to be a magisterium of one.

THere are many cesspools and potholes in life. Why should we go looking for them?

I was just invited to participate in a bible site. One guy is arguing that Jesus wasn't the Son of God, one that the trinity doesn't exist, one that everybody he didn't approve of is going to hell ( and boy did he have a long list), one went on and on about the rapture starting next week, etc. And all these people claim the bible is the clear Word of God. It sounded more like a looney bin than a christian site.

[beng]

!

Yes, God forbid that you might be exposed to someone that might KNOW some things, stay away, far away, don't read, don't learn, don't think. Stay IN THE FOLD, ....

And his "ILK"... those ILK guys will get you all the time, oh...those of the ILK mode!!

Hogwash.

I personally am very anti-Catholic, was raised one, BUT, I watch EWTN nightly, troll the Catholic sites, read the propaganda, admit to some truths contained in Catholic thought, reject others. Participate of PRO Catholic sites, like this one, Anti Catholic sites like another that everyone hates, and frankly Anti-Christian sites run by Jews that deny Jesus even lived or was what we claim.

I have listened to some very INTERESTING debates between Catholics like Mitchell Pacwa, the Jesuit from EWTN and James White and others on those sites, FASCINATING.

So, what is wrong with spending time in the "Lion's Den?" What do you fear so much that you would WARN others NOT TO go learn and see what is being said?

That is what is wrong with TOTCHAWSI, the inward non-thinking imposed from the top, don't look, don't think, don't DARE to see where we might have some things wrong!!

That is what differentiates a thinking Protestant from a thinking Catholic, the willingness to explore, and learn from every source, approved by a man made heirarchy or not.

Sheesh. Get some courage here guys.

A proud member of the ILK CLAN, ILK POWER!!! :ph34r:

[foundsheep]

!

I personally am very anti-Catholic, was raised one

[Bruce S]

 

James White has been refuted so many times by our apologists.

Refuted by? Ok, grant you that, YOU think he was, OK with me, I think he isn't and wasn't, but one would EXPECT both sides to think they won, normal human process, Catholics always think they are right, so what else is new here?

Dave Armstrong, who's actively refute White, show how by White's own logic, Luther, Calvin, Melanchthon, St Augustine (Protestants always try to drag this St into their camp. Too bad, he's totally ours and we can prove it).

I will go and follow this one up, will report back my thoughts.

One of the classic debate between White and Gerry Matatics

Why? Listen especially to part two and the cross-examination period where White admits "Sola Scriptura" was not practiced by Jesus or His apostles since this was "during times of inscripturation". 

I have, did, and found it interesting.

Before you asked this of me.

Sol*A* Scripta is often confused with Sol*O* Scriptura. The point made is that EXTERNAL teaching clarifies material, and it CAN, but when there is a dispute, and that is always the case, the BASIS for clarification should be the written word, and not the interpretations. When agreement is not found, Catholics will go with the Magisterium even when it is classically clear what is written, Protestants will try better to find the answer in scripture.

I think both scored some great points in that debate, and Gerry got his head handed to him too, don't forget that part. Both did a great job.

Edited December 31, 2003 by Bruce S

[Bruce S]

I personally am very anti-Catholic, was raised one

Bruce,

Peac be with you

Foundsheep

[jasJis]

Bruce,

Peac be with you

Foundsheep

God bless you too, and Happy New Year.

Christ's church is the universal body of Christians that profess the basic creeds and love him and God, that includes Protestants too.

Catholics are the ones condemning AND excommunicating everyone, go read the precepts laid out in TRENT.

If condemnation exists, look internally. Bless you.

[megamattman1]

Guess I got some interesting replies. But it looks like no real answers to my questions surfaced. I'll post some of my findings and later post some more questions in separate posts. For now I guess I can engage in some of this rhetoric.

I did some further research and came up with the same conclusion of gray area. At this website for example:

http://www.geoffrobinson.net/rome.html

This man says canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD) proves that the Church has no real authority. But of course I found another site that says that the Roman delegates to that council didn't vote for that canon, the canon was not approved by the pope, and even the other memebers of the council didn't want to go through with it without first seeking out the bishop of Rome. The whole question now is why they sought him out! But also this is after Constantine so.....

So if anyone has any info on that or on Constantine I would appreciate. I'll post those questions separate either way.

"Catholics are the ones condemning AND excommunicating everyone, go read the precepts laid out in TRENT" Bruce

And to make a comment on Bruce. Yes Trent put forth condemnation at Trent. Didn't Paul himself do the same in the Bible?

"if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. Galatians 1:8-9"

You may argue that the Church does not have that authority, but since the whole basis of my question is whether or not they do have that authority, I do not see your point? Or would you say Paul needs to look inward too? Does Jesus? (but this gets into whole different topics)

Sometimes I wonder if people on both sides take make sure they have rationale and then make their leap of faith based on the credentials of "scholars" who happen to be on their side. Of course we're all quilty of this; we can't know everything so this must be the case. But both sides have scholars so let's all remember to keep searching.

Cuz I whole heartedly agree with Bruce S. that many Catholics are guilty of not thinking for themselves. But that does NOT mean the Church is wrong. I agree that we must be willing to be ready for a shaken faith if we are willing to go into the lion's den. Everyone should do this at least at one point in their life. But that does NOT mean we should stay out of the den altogether. Bruce is right about that.

Finally I think we could all stand to be a little more humble. No one on here gave me any real answers; who are we to throw stones at each other when we don't even know why we're doing it? Reminds me of some friends of mine who were arguing politics. They argreed on the issues! But one claimed to be Liberal and one Conservative. It's simply a name yet they proceed to say that "liberals do this" or "conservatives do that" and reaffirming their hate for each other rather than looking for deliberation and understanding.

Matt