Validity of Apostolic Succession, and RCC as the One Holy Catholic Church

[Arch Stanton]

makesends said:
Neither of those translate to the current RCC

Arch Stanton said:
I just gave you the verses that show the opposite.

makesends said:
I'm sorry —where? And how? Post #number, please.

And on that post, did you explain how they show the opposite?

Thank you. I'll take a look.
Ok, here they are; this is 39, and in 48 I copied it:

You describe there a list of 3 actual levels of priesthood in the Old Testament, and you give a description of what you call three levels of what are abstract concepts/ designations of priests. While I may agree to the above descriptions in a general essence (not in your particular applications: I won't get into your cherry-picked out-of-context use of the references with you here—it is irrelevant), I don't, as I said, see how they translate to the RCC. In other words, while one might say they give good reason for arranging 3 levels of priesthood in the RCC (or any Christian sect), my question is, how does that lend credence to the role of the RCC as the one and only true church?

As the one true Church, Christ gave special orders to His ordained ministerial priesthood to perform duties for the church.... forgive/retain sin, celebrate the Eucharist, etc.

 

[makesends]

As the one true Church, Christ gave special orders to His ordained ministerial priesthood to perform duties for the church.... forgive/retain sin, celebrate the Eucharist, etc.

Circular reasoning —you are basing the argument that the analogous levels of priesthood in the Bible authorize the RCC (which supposedly does the same) as the one and only true church, on the supposed fact that the RCC is the one and only true church???

 

[Arch Stanton]

Circular reasoning —you are basing the argument that the analogous levels of priesthood in the Bible authorize the RCC (which supposedly does the same) as the one and only true church, on the supposed fact that the RCC is the one and only true church???

Maybe it would help if you could tell me what Church existed in the first 3 centuries that did not brake off from Christ and His Apostles?

 

[makesends]

Maybe it would help if you could tell me what Church existed in the first 3 centuries that did not brake off from Christ and His Apostles?

Those of us that hold to Sola Scriptura all still hold (as best we can, conscientiously) to Christ and to His Apostle's writings/teachings. And our confessions and creeds do the same —we do NOT hold to the authority of men: Not to creeds, confessions nor traditions, as authoritative over Scripture itself. UNLIKE THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH, which subjects Scripture (including particularly in this context, Christ's apostle's writings/teachings —the Word of God—) to the authority of mere men of self-designation.

 

[Arch Stanton]

Those of us that hold to Sola Scriptura all still hold (as best we can, conscientiously) to Christ and to His Apostle's writings/teachings. And our confessions and creeds do the same —we do NOT hold to the authority of men: Not to creeds, confessions nor traditions, as authoritative over Scripture itself. UNLIKE THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH, which subjects Scripture (including particularly in this context, Christ's apostle's writings/teachings —the Word of God—) to the authority of mere men of self-designation.

Not sure you answered the question...

Maybe it would help if you could tell me what Church existed in the first 3 centuries that did not brake off from Christ and His Apostles?

 

[JesusFan]

writers of the NT that were Catholic

you forgot the oral traditions

even on this site you have multiple 'truths' ... who is correct? which 'ecclesial community' is correct?

which comes from Christ to His one true church

There were NO Catholics as defined by Rome who wrote in the inspired 66 canonized books of the bible

 

[JesusFan]

Those of us that hold to Sola Scriptura all still hold (as best we can, conscientiously) to Christ and to His Apostle's writings/teachings. And our confessions and creeds do the same —we do NOT hold to the authority of men: Not to creeds, confessions nor traditions, as authoritative over Scripture itself. UNLIKE THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH, which subjects Scripture (including particularly in this context, Christ's apostle's writings/teachings —the Word of God—) to the authority of mere men of self-designation.

There was NO Rome catholic church established officially intil papacy in history, which was late 5th early 6th centuries

 

[Arch Stanton]

There were NO Catholics as defined by Rome who wrote in the inspired 66 canonized books of the bible

do you have that definition handy?

 

[Arch Stanton]

There was NO Rome catholic church established officially intil papacy in history, which was late 5th early 6th centuries

love to see that new church document

 

[John Bauer]

The “called out” were the early church Christians, with Peter as the leader—the universal or catholic church.

Where is your evidence that the early universal church was under Peter as the leader? Use contemporary sources, not post-fifth-century opinions applied anachronistically.

This is a rhetorical ask, of course, because papal supremacy and universal jurisdiction did not exist prior to Leo I and the conflict between Rome and Constantinople.

The [Roman] Catholic Church established 2,000 years ago by Christ has the only authority to interpret Scripture.

According to whom? Is that something the Roman Catholic Church herself decided?

You have not proven that the early Church wasn't Catholic.

The New Testament was written by Catholics and the Bible was bound by the Catholic Church....all 73 books. …

The early church fathers were Catholic and, as Catholics, they did not believe in scripture alone.

Please define your terms. When you say

• Catholic or Catholics, and
• the Catholic Church,

to what are you referring? I agree there is only one holy catholic church, the covenant community of saints, but there is a chance that you mean something more specific—like the Roman Catholic Church.

God's 'written' word.

Correct. The Word of God is Christ Jesus, the Son, and Scripture is the written record that pertains to everything about him, who alone is the perfect revelation of God to man. I have often said the Bible is “the Word of God inscripturated.”

Every ecclesial community has “man's notions.”

True—yet irrelevant, as doctrine is not determined or governed thereby, and doctrine is what he was talking about.

False. The church established by Christ has no expiration date. Do you need scriptures for that?

You are confusing categories. He referred to apostolic tradition, which is a body of doctrine. The church is something different.

If you want to argue that the apostolic office never ended, then feel free to make that argument.

Hearing it “from us” (1 Thess 2:13) is hearing his church.

It is a lot more specific than that. Hearing “from us” is hearing from apostolic authority (1 Thess 1:1). “The church” included those in Thessalonica to whom the letter was written; they were not hearing from themselves.

I should note that Silvanus and Timothy were not themselves apostles, but preached in fellowship with Paul, under his apostolic authority and as participants in the same mission.

And you would be wrong, as Scripture does not deny all traditions.

Correct, not all traditions. Just those that did not come from the apostles (e.g., 1 Cor 11:2; 2 Thess 3:6). We are to be wary of merely human traditions (Matt 15:3; Col 2:8).

Do you need me to supply ECF's that speak of tradition as well?

No. I think dealing with Scripture is a large enough mouthful. We could look at tradition after chewing and swallowing this.

Even on this site you have multiple 'truths' ... who is correct? which 'ecclesial community' is correct?

Oh dear. Buddy, you really don’t want to go there. Some of us (particularly me) are very familiar with the history of the Roman Catholic Church.

Wasn't Luther given 'protected passage' to Rome but he refused?

Luther was invited to Rome under protection. He did not go.

Yes, Martin Luther was “invited” to Rome (under charges of heresy) with protected passage: “We will make sure no one kills you before we get to.”

He was probably thinking of Jan Hus when he refused the summons. Hus was granted imperial safe conduct to the Council of Constance (1414), but he was nonetheless arrested, condemned for heresy, and burned. Luther understood that once in Rome, procedural safeguards would evaporate—fides non est servanda cum haereticis (“faith is not to be kept with heretics,” i.e. one is not morally bound to keep promises or agreements with those considered heretics).

In the Old Testament, there were THREE levels of Priests:

1. High Priest (Aaron)
2. Levitical Priesthood (Ex 30:30; Lev 5:5-6; Num 15:27-28)
3. General priesthood of the rest of the believers (Ex 19:6)

And that would translate in the church today as (1) Jesus as our High Priest, the head of the church who entrusts (2) elders and deacons with shepherding, overseeing, and serving (3) the priesthood of all believers.

What I don’t see in Scripture are popes, cardinals, or archbishops.

 

[John Bauer]

Is the authority to interpret the constitution not also governed by the constitution? But where in Scripture is it written that the RCC is not necessarily to be governed by Scripture?

You don’t understand. The Roman Catholic Church decides what constitutes Scripture, what it says, and what it means. And then the RCC holds itself accountable to whatever it decides Scripture says. Well, sometimes. The RCC has a kind of normative principle of dogma (rather than a regulative principle): What is not forbidden in Scripture is permitted. But, again, the RCC decides what Scripture commands or forbids. If you think it says x and that contradicts the RCC, then you’re wrong—necessarily—about what you think Scripture says. It’s all very convenient.

 

[Arch Stanton]

According to whom?

Christ when He built His Church... Mt 16

Please define your terms. When you say

• Catholic or Catholics, and
• the Catholic Church,

to what are you referring? I agree there is only one holy catholic church, the covenant community of saints, but there is a chance that you mean something more specific—like the Roman Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church is the 'Roman' Catholic Church as well as about 23 other Churches under the 6 Rites

Oh dear. Buddy, you really don’t want to go there.

Sure I do...

Some of us (particularly me) are very familiar with the history of the Roman Catholic Church.

Then you don't need me to prove the facts.

 

[Arch Stanton]

You don’t understand. The Roman Catholic Church decides what constitutes Scripture, what it says, and what it means. And then the RCC holds itself accountable to whatever it decides Scripture says. Well, sometimes. The RCC has a kind of normative principle of dogma (rather than a regulative principle): What is not forbidden in Scripture is permitted. But, again, the RCC decides what Scripture commands or forbids. If you think it says x and that contradicts the RCC, then you’re wrong—necessarily—about what you think Scripture says. It’s all very convenient.

Convenient or understanding 'whatever you bind...' among other things?

 

[Arch Stanton]

And that would translate in the church today as (1) Jesus as our High Priest, the head of the church who entrusts (2) elders and deacons with shepherding, overseeing, and serving (3) the priesthood of all believers.

you forgot the ministerial priesthood through the authority of laying on of hands

What I don’t see in Scripture are popes, cardinals, or archbishops.

the hierarchical church is there John

 

[JesusFan]

Christ when He built His Church... Mt 16

The Catholic Church is the 'Roman' Catholic Church as well as about 23 other Churches under the 6 Rites

Sure I do...

Then you don't need me to prove the facts.

There was NO roman Catholic Church until papacy historically

 

[JesusFan]

you forgot the ministerial priesthood through the authority of laying on of hands

the hierarchical church is there John

The Roman Church was not there in Acts

 

[JesusFan]

You don’t understand. The Roman Catholic Church decides what constitutes Scripture, what it says, and what it means. And then the RCC holds itself accountable to whatever it decides Scripture says. Well, sometimes. The RCC has a kind of normative principle of dogma (rather than a regulative principle): What is not forbidden in Scripture is permitted. But, again, the RCC decides what Scripture commands or forbids. If you think it says x and that contradicts the RCC, then you’re wrong—necessarily—about what you think Scripture says. It’s all very convenient.

Rome is the final arbitrator and authority, over sacred scriptures themselves, exactly same way Smith was for Mormons, Russell for JW, Ellen White for Sda

 

[Arch Stanton]

There was NO roman Catholic Church until papacy historically

Peter was in Rome

 

[Arch Stanton]

The Roman Church was not there in Acts

Peter was in Antioch... same church

 

[JesusFan]

Peter was in Rome

He was not a Pope and there was NO Roman catholic Church as Rome defines itself