Sanhedrin And The Catholic Magisterium

[Done222]

Catholic, "The Bible is a higher authority, but Church leaders have a lesser authority to interpret it"
Protestant, "The Bible is a higher authority, but I agree with how my preacher interprets it"

Really not all that different.

 

[lismore]

Its amazing how many people truly dont know Catholicism.

Communication glitch.

 

[Victor in Christ]

Catholic, "The Bible is a higher authority, but Church leaders have a lesser authority to interpret it"
Protestant, "The Bible is a higher authority, but I agree with how my preacher interprets it"

Really not all that different.

The 12 Apostles and others taught the Gospel of Salvation to the world using scripture, if we didn't have preachers or church leaders we'd be lost in this world. From generation to generation, like how it was done from the beginning. God taught Adam after he fell, Adam taught his sons and daughters the way of Salvation, Abel understood- Cain didn't. The Holy word from God's lips was written down so man could learn how to get to Heaven.

 

[Victor in Christ]

Catholic, "The Bible is a higher authority, but Church leaders have a lesser authority to interpret it"
Protestant, "The Bible is a higher authority, but I agree with how my preacher interprets it"

Really not all that different.

Roman Catholicism never allowed the ploughman to read/understand/digest God's word, they kept it hidden for a select few. Made the common man/woman repeat a few hail Mary's/, confess their sins to man, sprinkle some 'holy' water or perfumed smoke on them and tell them "Go in peace"

Sure i could do that and it wouldn't edify your heart, soul and mind. I'd make you feel good, but it wouldn't bring you any closer to Christ.

Why expository preaching?

 

[Jipsah]

Roman Catholicism never allowed the ploughman to read/understand/digest God's word, they kept it hidden for a select few.

Your average ploughman was illiterate, and Bible both rare and fabulously expensive by today's standards. Wasn't hiddne, it just wasn't accessible to the average person.

Made the common man/woman repeat a few hail Mary's/, confess their sins to man, sprinkle some 'holy' water or perfumed smoke on them and tell them "Go in peace"

Which statement betrays a marvelous lack of knowledge of the RCC and its liturgy. Never mind, the idea is "Catholic, bad!" Got it.

Sure i could do that and it wouldn't edify your heart, soul and mind. I'd make you feel good, but it wouldn't bring you any closer to Christ. Why expository preaching?

Better the good old Baptist "three points and the troof." Know it well, I was raised on it. But when I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

 

[Jipsah]

You are almost 50 years older than me. Do you anything insightful to contribute?

Not as far as you know.

I was refering to " Yeshu which... means 'may his name and memory be blotted out forever'." That's getting a lot of verbiage out of 2 syllables, which makes me doubt that it means any such thing.

Thus speaketh Wikipedia: "Some of rabbinical sources comment on the reasons for the missing ayin from Yeshu, as opposed to the Hebrew Bible Yeshua and Yehoshuah. Leon Modena argues that it was Jesus himself who made his disciples remove the ayin, and that therefore they cannot now restore it. (Modena was a 17th-century polemicist and does not have reliable linguistic evidence for the claim.) A tradition states that the shortening to Yeshu relates to the Y-SH-U of the yimach shemo "may his name be obliterated."[38][39] Against this David Flusser suggested that the name Yeshu itself was "in no way abusive," but "almost certainly" a Galilean dialect form of Yeshua.[40] But E.Y. Kutscher showed that the `ayin was still pronounced in Galilee, refuting a thesis by Paul Kahle.[41]

 

[Cis.jd]

Roman Catholicism never allowed the ploughman to read/understand/digest God's word, they kept it hidden for a select few.

After reading some posts in this forum it has made me think whether or not this should be done again.

I mean.. the ones who believe that a magician in America's Got Talent is using real demonic super powers, wives should be happy being beaten by their husbands because of being martyred in God's word, tattoos are going to send you to hell, etc are from Protestants.

 

[Jipsah]

tattoos are going to send you to hell, etc

The part about the tattoos was simply wishful thinking on my part.

 

[Jipsah]

The 12 Apostles and others taught the Gospel of Salvation to the world using scripture

The Old Testament, I presume?

 

[concretecamper]

Roman Catholicism never allowed the ploughman to read/understand/digest God's word

ummm, when the bible.hit the printing press, less that 5% of the world's population could read

Made the common man/woman repeat a few hail Mary's/, confess their sins to man, sprinkle some 'holy' water or perfumed smoke on them and tell them "Go in peace"

Christ established the Church so the simple ploughman could be saved. This silly idea that everyone needs to be able to read and interpret the bible is utter nonsense.

 

[hluke]

Christ established the Church so the simple ploughman could be saved. This silly idea that everyone needs to be able to read and interpret the bible is utter nonsense.

This is the only way to know God: to understand and study his word. On the other hand religion separates one from God

 

[Victor in Christ]

ummm, when the bible.hit the printing press, less that 5% of the world's population could read

Christ established the Church so the simple ploughman could be saved. This silly idea that everyone needs to be able to read and interpret the bible is utter nonsense.

I agree that all it takes is simple faith that Christ died for our sins and is the Son of the only living God.

Take Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch as an example, The eunuch had to truly believe in Christ before Philip even baptised him. We don't know from scripture if Philip told the eunuch the spiritual meaning of what the water represented, but i'm 100% sure Philip would have. He was in the upper room knowing that Christ promised to send another comforter/guide/hidden helper after he ascended to sit at the right hand of God. John 14:16-18

All it takes is a simple and true faith that Christ came to take away our sins, then he'll send the Holy Spirit to help us. We don't need to get deep into theology, nor should we have to put our faith (and in some cases 'worship' a man and uphold his human traditions, be that a preacher/Moderator/Priest/Bishop/Pope........but the word of God/Scripture is there to help us understand how to grow as a Christian and help others when they fall or sin.

 

[Jesse Dornfeld]

Not at all.

Jesus specifically denounced the traditions and practices of the pharisees. These were things that were outside the Torah. If you watch the video, Winger isn't pointing the finger at Roman Catholics, but he's respectfully pointing out the eerily similar claims and behaviours made by Jewish leaders and Roman Catholics.

And because of this we can get a vague idea of how Jesus would react to the Catholic church today.

Again this is not hatred against Catholics. The points he forms are not 'ridiculous' at all as you mention. There is evidence of many hours of study and an intelligent understanding of theology and ancient history.

That's an interesting position. One wonders if Jesus was "Sola Scriptura" or not. I say this not to say scripture is bad, and in fact, Jesus is the Word. I simply say this because Jesus used many analogies, said many things that I do not believe actually come from the Hebrew Bible. For example, Jesus talked a lot about hell, but hell as we understand it today, is pretty foreign to the Rabbinic Traditions of the Torah (teaching).

 

[concretecamper]

This is the only way to know God: to understand and study his word. On the other hand religion separates one from

Christ commissioned His Church to TEACH.

 

[Valletta]

Hello I watched this video recently and I wanted to get the opinions of Roman Catholics.

This video focusses on the remarkable similarities between the claims made by religious Jewish leaders at the time of Christ and the Roman Catholic church. There is a sense in which history is repeating itself: Roman Catholic religious establishments may just be a direct picture of what Jesus rebuked in his ministry.

Both the Pharisees and the Roman Catholics claimed to have obtained a form of succession. The Pharisees claimed the seat of Moses, while the Pope claims the seat of St Peter. Further, the Jewish religious leaders claimed dominance and supremacy over Jews. Likewise, the Pope holds dominance and power over Catholics.

What is most important to me is the immense accountability and responsibility the Pope, (like the Pharisees with Moses) has to portray a consistent and clear representation of their predecessor. So, if it is true that Pope Francis holds the modern-day seat of St Peter, then he ought to do everything according to the gospel of Christ and offer, as much as possible, a direct imitation of St Peter.

And Francis and many other Popes have surely made some very questionable decisions, such as advocating for universalism (nobody is perfect)

There are many other interesting points presented in the video.

I invite Roman Catholics to watch the video and offer an opinion.

What historical evidence is there for Roman Catholic claims of apostolic succession?
When did Rome receive authority to interpret the bible, and create extra-biblical doctrines such as feast days or other venerated things? (excuse my ignorance here)

Last time I posted about Roman Catholicism, I admittedly went on a tangent, other members included.
This time let's keep the conversation respectful!

Edit: If you are unable to watch it all, there is a brief summary of the content in the description of the video.

When Jesus renamed Simon as Rock and gave Rock (Peter) the keys of the kingdom, Jesus used words paralleling those in Isaiah 22. Any Jew who knew his Holy Scripture should have recognized the striking similarity of words. Isaiah documents that when the office of prime minister in the Davidic kingdom goes vacant a new prime minister is chosen. The keys of the kingdom are given to the prime minister as a sign to the people that the prime minister acts and makes pronouncements that are to be taken as if from the king in the event that the king is gone. As to "extra Biblical" doctrine, the Church had no Bible in the early centuries. Readings at masses were much the same but there were some differences from area to area and the Church strove to decide what was God-breathed and what was not. The process of choosing the 73 books of the Bible spanned centuries and was not finalized until the late 300s. Each eligible text was scrutinized and anything that was in conflict with Catholic teaching was rejected.

 

[hedrick]

Catholic, "The Bible is a higher authority, but Church leaders have a lesser authority to interpret it"
Protestant, "The Bible is a higher authority, but I agree with how my preacher interprets it"

Really not all that different.

Right. But this doesn't describe all Protestants. The churches most directly connected to Luther and Calvin are confessional. They believe that the church as a whole is responsible for interpreting Scripture. Pretty much like your first statement, though it's not just the leaders. Responsibility is distributed, with scholars and ordinary members being involved in the discussion. (In that respect it's closer to the Eastern church.) Where confessional churches differ from the Catholic Church is that they don't believe those interpretations are inerrant and unchangeable.

There are two varieties of confessional churches. The mainline churches believe that as we learn new things, both about Scripture and the world, we may need to adjust how we understand the Faith, and have over time made significant changes. The conservative confessional churches are effectively Catholic with a later Holy Tradition. They don't claim in principle to be inerrant, but in practice they treat a 16th Cent authoritative tradition as if it were.

 

[hedrick]

Actually, one of the interesting changes over the last 50 years or so has been the formation of a kind of virtual Magisterium for conservative Protestants. As I noted above, mainline churches interpret Scripture as a community. Over time, that community has deemphasized traditional theology differences, and now includes Lutherans, Reformed, Methodists, and even many Catholics.

But something similar has been happening among conservative churches. You're right that there are a lot of places where the pastor becomes the de facto authority. But in fact a combination of parachurch ministries, popular authors, and even formal public documents have caused a kind of theological consolidation of conservative churches, with a sort of distributed Magisterium. Theological differences still exist, but the traditional ones are a lot less important than the things that hold all conservative Protestants together.

 

[Jesse Dornfeld]

Actually, one of the interesting changes over the last 50 years or so has been the formation of a kind of virtual Magisterium for conservative Protestants. As I noted above, mainline churches interpret Scripture as a community. Over time, that community has deemphasized traditional theology differences, and now includes Lutherans, Reformed, Methodists, and even many Catholics.

But something similar has been happening among conservative churches. You're right that there are a lot of places where the pastor becomes the de facto authority. But in fact a combination of parachurch ministries, popular authors, and even formal public documents have caused a kind of theological consolidation of conservative churches, with a sort of distributed Magisterium. Theological differences still exist, but the traditional ones are a lot less important than the things that hold all conservative Protestants together.

It is interesting, on the flip side of this, that in some sense liberal or progressive churches are changing a lot of things about belief in God that were once taken as a given such as Open Theism. There is also, in my opinion, a problem with the "deconstructive" processes that many pastors make as a part of their congregation. An interesting example of this is seen in a "Question of the week" from 'Reasonable Faith' by William Lane Craig. Let me link it here:

The Future of the North American Church? | Reasonable Faith

 

[Swag365]

This is the only way to know God: to understand and study his word.

So people with severe mental incapacity cannot know God?

On the other hand religion separates one from God

Nonsense.

 

[The Liturgist]

Hello I watched this video recently and I wanted to get the opinions of Roman Catholics.

This video focusses on the remarkable similarities between the claims made by religious Jewish leaders at the time of Christ and the Roman Catholic church. There is a sense in which history is repeating itself: Roman Catholic religious establishments may just be a direct picture of what Jesus rebuked in his ministry.

Both the Pharisees and the Roman Catholics claimed to have obtained a form of succession. The Pharisees claimed the seat of Moses, while the Pope claims the seat of St Peter. Further, the Jewish religious leaders claimed dominance and supremacy over Jews. Likewise, the Pope holds dominance and power over Catholics.

What is most important to me is the immense accountability and responsibility the Pope, (like the Pharisees with Moses) has to portray a consistent and clear representation of their predecessor. So, if it is true that Pope Francis holds the modern-day seat of St Peter, then he ought to do everything according to the gospel of Christ and offer, as much as possible, a direct imitation of St Peter.

And Francis and many other Popes have surely made some very questionable decisions, such as advocating for universalism (nobody is perfect)

There are many other interesting points presented in the video.

I invite Roman Catholics to watch the video and offer an opinion.

What historical evidence is there for Roman Catholic claims of apostolic succession?
When did Rome receive authority to interpret the bible, and create extra-biblical doctrines such as feast days or other venerated things? (excuse my ignorance here)

Last time I posted about Roman Catholicism, I admittedly went on a tangent, other members included.
This time let's keep the conversation respectful!

Edit: If you are unable to watch it all, there is a brief summary of the content in the description of the video.

This video is merely an illiterate cheap-shot at the Roman church. There are things one could criticize the Roman church for, like the Amazonian synod, the systematic abuse under Pope Francis of traditionalist monks, friars and nuns, the terrible liturgics in most Roman Rite parishes outside of Europe, the very unpleasant new Chaldean Catholic Patriarch, but, instead of addressing those problems, he just made up some arbitrary clickbait attack video.