Tags
bishops, catholic church, church, new testament, pope, scripture
Recently, an article has been written regarding the topic of the “Synod of Bishops.” This article pertains to its use and relevance in the Catholic Church. Evidently, there was a point in Catholic history where the bishops of the church had less relevance than they do today. This has since changed and, in part, because of this collegiality of the “Synod of Bishops.” One author said, “The Council wished to remind the Church that bishops, always and necessarily acting in union with their head, are both vicars of Christ in their own dioceses and members of a special “college” which, under the leadership of the successor of Peter, has a unique and grace-filled role in the governance of the whole Church.” The desire of its existence then is in mutual support and guidance to the Bishop of Rome (or Pope). In fact, the last sentence of the article says this: “The whole process is an exercise of collegiality—a means of unifying the successors of the apostles under the successor of Peter to more effectively teach, rule and sanctify in the Church of Christ.”
The Catholic Church is not the church of Christ! Even though they like to consider themselves to be such, they have long since gone past any teachings of the Scriptures on the topic. In fact, not only will one not find the word “pope” in the pages of the New Testament, that same one who looks will not find “Synod of Bishops” in the New Testament either. Of course, the Catholic Church is not “plagued” by such limitations as in following the teachings of the Lord as revealed in the sacred pages of Holy Writ. With such an approach everything is certainly allowed. The sentiment of Judges 17:6 applies to them.
The Catholic Church is a man-made church that has no authority, absolutely none, to exist. A great many people feel that is fits in with the sentiments of the Holy Spirit in 2 Thessalonians 2, but whether it does or not, it is clearly not the church the Lord said He would build when He spoke to His apostles at Caesarea Philippi.
There is much to be said about and against them, and if one needs a place to start, let him start with what the Lord said in the New Testament (cf. John 12:48).
etsop95 
I agree that the Catholic Church is not the church that Christ or the apostles instituted. This is true when looking it as an organization/organism. When one goes back to read the early Christian writings from AD 75-325, one can see that today’s Catholic Church is worlds different from the earliest Christians. Even Clement of Rome (bishop of Rome in AD 96 and mentioned by Paul in Php 4:3) would be appalled by the organization of today’s Catholic Church. He never claimed the title of Pope or said that Rome is the capital city of Christianity.
In another vein, God judges each person as an individual and does not judge a person based on who they worship with or what name they use to describe themselves. Even if a person calls themselves a Catholic, that doesn’t make them any less holy to God. What makes a person less holy to God is based on what a person teaches or does. In other words, a person can call themselves a Catholic, still do everything God commands, and thus be saved.
Certainly it is true that God judges the individual, and it is true that the name one identifies himself with is less of a concern than, perhaps, some think. In conjunction with the seven churches of Revelation and the admonition if 18:4, there is some significance attached to a group and its effect on one’s spiritual life.
Well put!
Dear Ron,
As a Roman Catholic I find your post about Roman Catholicism quite interesting.
You make a bold claim,
“The Catholic Church is not the church of Christ! Even though they like to consider themselves to be such, they have long since gone past any teachings of the Scriptures on the topic.”
Could you backup your claim with specifics. I mean specifics that are documented and referenced.
I would also like you to consider why we make this claim and then I would like you to refute the claims in more detail.
You state, “The Catholic Church is a man-made church that has no authority, absolutely none, to exist.”
Why does your particular church deserve to exist? And the Roman Catholic Church does not deserve to exist?
Ron you use the Bible to as your weapon of choice against the One Holy Roman and Apostolic Church,why do you use the the Catholic Bible, the very ones who authored it, edified it sanctified it, codified it and proclaim it? Any Bible that you may use is a translated, redacted or edited version of the Catholic Bible.
If your beliefs, practices and ecclesiastical structures are in the tradition and variations found in the English Reformation, than your church can trace its history all the back to King Henry the VIII in 1534 when Henry introduced the “The Act of Supremacy”. Henry sealed your church beginnings with the divorce of his wife Catherine of Aragon, and in blood with the death by beheading of Ann Boleyn the second wife of the founder of your church.
If am to believe with my whole heart that the Church you belong to is the one true church, than I must believe that all Christians that that have ever lived since Pentecost, including Protestants that are not of your confession were some how tricked? Why would Jesus ever trick every other Christian through the ages except you and those who think like you?
On a final note, when you celebrate the the Catholic feast days or Holy days of Christmas and Easter, you are accepting the authority of the the One True Church that Christ started on Pentecost, the Catholic Church with the the Holy Father as His successor.
Joe Catholic
Thank you for taking time to write. You asked me to give evidence of that which I said. In fact, I did that in the next sentence with the word “pope.” Perhaps the question is better turned around and asked of you: where in the Scripture, in the pages of the New Testament, will one read anything of the word “pope” in what the Lord revealed, especially as practiced by the Catholic Church. I know the meaning of the English word, so if you can document where that word is found in English or any other language – as practiced by the Catholic Church, I would like to see it.
Joe (I presume this is your real name), the points of history that you bring to my attention are all worthy of respectful consideration: the reformation, denominations, and even the existence of the Bible.
Let us begin with me asking you a couple of questions:
1. Do we have all things that pertain to life and godliness revealed in the Scriptures (2 Peter 1:3)?
2. Did Jude tell the truth when he said that the faith has been once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3)?
To answer your question I refer you to A History of Christianity, Kenneth Scott Latourette, Harper and Brothers, 1953, pages 129 – 133.
To answer the other question you asked of me: my particular church does not deserve to exist. I suppose, however, that this is not the thrust of your question. The church of which I am a member either has its sanction from the pages of the NT or it does not. It must be to the NT that we turn to investigate such claims. I am will to engage in this investigation with you.
The remaining questions in the last four paragraphs of your reply to me can be answered later. All of these are worthy of discussion, but I especially like the one with regard to the Bible. It matters not which version of the Bible you want to utilize, I will use my “St Joseph’s” edition to converse with you. The assertion that the Catholic Church sanctioned the Bible is a long assertion without facts. If you would like to pursue that, let us do so.
Ron,
How can a book sanction a Church? The Jehovah Witnesses claim the same, the African Methodist’s claim the same and so on. When Pope Peter wrote this letter the New testament did not exist, he was referring to the Old Testament. Jude is in fact stating a Catholic truth found in Apostolic Succession. The title of Pope comes from a Greek word meaning father, hence the Catholic usage of words Holy Father when referring to the Pope.
Ron you state,
“The church of which I am a member either has its sanction from the pages of the NT or it does not. It must be to the NT that we turn to investigate such claims. I am will to engage in this investigation with you.”
A simple definition of a Christian is one that is baptized.
One need not be able to read or understand the words written in the Bible to be Baptized. Baptism is a necessary component to attain a place in Heaven. Reading the Bible is not a prerequisite for entrance to Heaven.
What came first? The Church or The Bible? Did the Church produce the Bible or did the Bible produce the Church? Can a Bible produce a Church?
Jesus did not make it hard to be a Christian? He made is easy? Yet living a Christian life as Peter and Judas found out is very found out can have different outcomes.
Remember this, the Catholic Church always refers to Protestants and other schismatics Baptized in a Trinitarian manner as separated brethren. It is always the role of the Holy Father and the Catholic Church to seek unity and oneness with the Baptized and to evangelize the un-Baptized.
Joe
1/25/2013
Joe, you ask how can a book sanction a church and give two illustrations (without support) to make your point. I will not deal with the JWs or Methodists. To ask the question as you have asked it, however, is to understand that if a “book” does not “sanction” a church, then there is something inadequate about the book (in this case, the Bible) or the particular church being discussed.
Is there something inadequate about the Bible?
You refer to Peter as pope something he himself never did. You define a Christian as one who is baptized. Thus, in both of these you are mistaken. Look at your English dictionary and note the meaning of the word. You also minimize the reading of Scripture, but nothing in Scripture even remotely suggests such an approach. For instance, Peter said he wrote the things he did for the recipients of the letter as a reminder for when he is gone (2 Peter 1:12-15; 3:1). The apostle John wrote for the purpose of not only educating, but also to warn (1 John 1:1-3; 4:1). Paul wrote in order to educate (Ephesians 3:1-7), and made it very clear that if one does not comport with what he wrote, that one or those ones are anathema of God; this means the Catholic Church (Galatians 1:6-9, Confraternity Version). The epistle of the Revelation gives a blessing to the one who reads and hears the words of the book (Revelation 1:3). The Hebrews writer mentions that what he wrote, in few words, was for the purpose of reading, warning, and education (Hebrews 13:22). Even Jesus Himself spoke of the notion of those who have read and have failed to understand properly (John 5:39; 6:44-45).
Joe, were these epistles written for only the preachers of the day or were they written for the common man?
Finally, Joe, look at the book of Acts and note those who were saved (Acts 8:12; 18:8); do you think they did not understand that which they heard? It may have been they did not read a particular text (and this is easily explained), but to think for a moment they did not understand what was said is ludicrous. Of course, there is no need to read the Scripture (hearing it or understanding it) we only need to be told what to do! This is unwise at its highest level. The Catholic Church emphasizes this “non-reading”approach because to do so means that the congregants can be taught what to think and why to think it.
You ask the question what came first, the church or the Bible. You ask the wrong question. What came first was the Word (John 1:1-3). The Word is the very essence of Gods communication to man. With regard to the Gods communication via the word, it came before the churchs existence. The Bible is the product of the word spoken and then written (Romans 15:18; 1 Timothy 6:3). What produced the church, you ask, are in the words of the Savior (Matthew 16:13-19).
I understand well the Catholic Church classification of what they call “separated brethren,” but the basis upon which they seek unity (by their own standard) will only occur with those who have not read and understood the Scriptures.
The only Christianity Christ can recognize as His own is the Christianity He founded. No substitute religion can have any value in His eyes. And again and again it has been suggested in the preceding evidences that true Christianity is identical with Catholicity, that Catholicity which is in communion with the Bishop of Rome.
For, indeed, it is impossible to revise, reform, or change any doctrine in Christianity. Men may accept the doctrine Christ taught or reject it. But if they alter it, it ceases to be the Gospel of Christ. Humanity must conform to God’s teachings, not adjust those teachings to suit itself. The Church grieves that so many who should still be Catholics are not. But, to win them, she cannot change the doctrines Christ committed to her keeping. It is useless to convert people to a faith that has changed; to a faith that is completely Christian no longer, and to which the promises of God were never made.
In the meantime, the unyielding Catholic Church, and that Church alone, still stands with the evidence of God stamped upon her. Hers is a wonderful unity of doctrine and practice, a great power of enkindling holiness, a regular descent through the ages from the Apostles and from Christ Himself, a world-wide appeal to all nations. And she alone, coming from the beginning, and being the lineal descendant of the Apostles, inherits the promise of prevailing till the end of time.
A glance at the chart following shortly, called ‘Religious History of Christendom’ gives a vision of history which is quite startling to those who have never before fully adverted to the facts.
And is it not striking that none but the Roman, Catholic and Apostolic. Church claims to be the exclusive ambassador of God, behaving, moving and speaking as if conscious of divinity?
Joe Catholic,
I would like to discuss the article and chart. Christian history is my favorite hobby. I want to learn more. Please contact me.
xyhelm@gmail.com