When did the universal Church first mentioned in 110AD stop being universal?

[tom55]

Tom, let's not pretend the "Catholic Church" has had an unimpeded succession from day 1 (or even that Apostolic succession can be proven to be something the Apostles themselves intended). History shows many splinters and controversies over who was an authoritative Pope, or which church was the true one (east or west). The early focus on ensuring bishops were present was an effort to protect against heresy in the absence of a canon. It was not a plea for church infallibility.

No pretending here or in Scripture. Historically we know that the Catholic Church has had an unimpeded succession from day one.

"Splinters and controversies" where handled by The Church and those that splintered from The Church were told if he will not hear the Church let him be treated as a heathen and the publican. Those that splintered from The Church were called heretics.

For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths" (2 Tim. 4:3–4). And The Church, which is "the pillar and foundation of the truth", dealt with those heresies appropriately. And we have Christ’s promise that heresies will never prevail against the Church when he told Peter, "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it".

I, tom55, do not believe that the gates of hell have prevailed against The Church. I know which Church that is. Do you?

 

[Wormwood]

Tom,

Whether it was the split from East vs West (are you suggesting the Eastern Orthodox Christians are illegitimate, incapable of confronting evil, or Satan's attempt to prevail against the Church because they do not recognize your Pope as the supreme authority of the Church?), or the Avignon controversy, the fact is that there have been disagreements in church history (even after the Papacy was created) about who was the "official" leader. The fact is, we don't see this instruction by the Apostles about such things and the sources you cite on the matter had nothing to do with establishing an infallible heirarchy to determine truth. The quote about the church not having the gates of hell prevail against it is not referring to bishop heirarchy, but the power of God at work through His people to accomplish his purposes of proclaiming the Lordship of Christ. You are misusing that Scripture to suggest something that isn't even implied in the text. The Church's ability to "prevail" against the "gates" of Hell has nothing to do with church polity.

 

[OzSpen]

scripture alone is a man made, unworkable, unbiblical tradition of men.

This is utterly false. I've provided biblical material to demonstrate its falsehood but kepha31 has a higher authority than Scripture so you decide 'Scripture alone' is a 'man made' doctrine when it's a biblical teaching.

Bye, bye baby goodbye. :wub:

 

[OzSpen]

What makes your interpretation right and the RCC interpretation wrong? Is it possible that you are wrong and the RCC is right?

I base my interpretation on what the Bible teaches and not on what a church teaches. Also, I'm open to Acts 17:11 (ESV) correction from Scripture. The RCC is not open to Acts 17:11, especially when the Pope speaks ex-cathedra.

Bye, bye,
Oz

 

[tom55]

Tom,

Whether it was the split from East vs West (are you suggesting the Eastern Orthodox Christians are illegitimate or Satan's attempt to prevail against the Church because they do not recognize your Pope as the supreme authority of the Church?), or the Avignon controversy, the fact is that there have been disagreements in church history (even after the Papacy was created) about who was the "official" leader. The fact is, we don't see this instruction by the Apostles about such things and the sources you cite on the matter had nothing to do with establishing an infallible heirarchy to determine truth. The quote about the church not having the gates of hell prevail against it is not referring to bishop heirarchy, but the power of God at work through His people to accomplish his purposes of proclaiming the Lordship of Christ. You are misusing that Scripture to suggest something that isn't even implied in the text. The Church's ability to "prevail" against the "gates" of Hell has nothing to do with church polity.

You are correct: The Eastern Orthodox Christians are illegitimate or Satan's attempt to prevail against the Church because as we know that whatever was written was written for our instruction. Scripture encourages us to live in harmony with one another, in accord with Christ Jesus, that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. And that by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. (Romans 15).


Orthodox do not have the kind of teaching and governing authority that the Catholic Church claims and Scripture established. Organizations need leaders if they are to stay together and if Christ’s Church is a "visible" Church then it needs a single earthly leader. Jesus gave that leadership to Peter and he (or the Church) passed that leadership down. Scripture CLEARLY establishes a hierarchy in The Church and Peter by all legitimate scholars accounts was that first leader.

The absence of a pope from Eastern Orthodoxy has a negative effect because with no leader to call or recognize ecumenical councils the Orthodox haven’t had one in centuries.
There is no practical way for the Orthodox to call or agree upon an ecumenical council.

The absence of a leader has led to a magisterial paralysis on the part of the Orthodox Church. There is a need for The Church to have a functioning teaching authority capable of settling new theological controversies.

The Eastern Orthodox say the Nicene Creed’s affirmation that the Church of Christ is "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic,". But, as you know, the Orthodox communion has an issue when it comes to being "one." Also, as you know, not all Orthodox churches are in full communion with each other; they are not "one".

"I will build my Church (singular), and the gates of hell will not prevail against it". Take your differences to the church (singular) and if he doesn't listen to the church (singular) and The Church (singular) is the pillar and foundation of truth.

The Church leaders who met in Jerusalem were recognized in Acts as the ones that had authority over all the other churches. Peter got up and addressed the others in that meeting and told them what they believe that is through the grace of our Lord Jesus (Acts 15:11). James then spoke up and said “Brothers, listen to me. Simon has described to us how God....Which means Simon was agreeing with Peter. That decision by Peter, of which all the others agreed to, was then binding on all Christians. So I ask you. When did that binding authority end?

[SIZE=12pt]In the year 180 AD Irenaeus wrote: "[/SIZE]But inasmuch as it would be very tedious in a book like this to rehearse the lines of succession in every church, we will put to confusion all those who, either from waywardness or conceit or blindness or obstinacy combine together against the truth, by pointing to the tradition, derived from the Apostles, of that [SIZE=medium]great and illustrious Church founded and organized at Rome[/SIZE] [SIZE=12pt]by the two glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, and to the faith declared to mankind and handed down to our own time through its bishops in their succession."[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Which means as early as the year 180AD The Church in Rome was recognized as The Church.[/SIZE]

 

[epostle1]

I base my interpretation on what the Bible teaches and not on what a church teaches. Also, I'm open to Acts 17:11 (ESV) correction from Scripture. The RCC is not open to Acts 17:11, especially when the Pope speaks ex-cathedra.

Bye, bye,
Oz

For the second time, material sufficiency of Scripture is acceptable, formal sufficiency of Scripture was invented by Martin Luther.

The distinction here makes all the difference in the world. From a Protestant point of view, anything less than formal sufficiency is unacceptable and will render Sola Scriptura impossible. On the flip side, the Catholic has no problem affirming the material sufficiency of Scripture (i.e. all necessary information is at least implicit in Scripture), since it in no way rules out the need for a Magisterium - and indeed demands one!The difference here is between a blueprint to make a building, and the bricks of which the building is made. A merely materially sufficient Scripture is like a pile of bricks that can build anything from a cathedral to a tool shed, but the bricks themselves possess no inherent intelligibility (formal sufficiency) in one direction for another. The intelligibility derives from outside the bricks. Conversely, a blueprint is inherently intelligible, and thus has not material but formal sufficiency to create a specific building, whether cathedral or tool shed.

In terms of development, the claim that Scripture is materially sufficient presumes that the intelligibility of revelation derives from elsewhere than Scripture itself. A definitive magisterium (or external tradition) is necessary to decide what to do with the bricks. Without the magisterium it is impossible to know whether the bricks were intended to be a cathedral or a tool shed.

 

[mjrhealth]

sufficiency is unacceptable and will render Sola Scriptura impossible

Joh 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

Joh_14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

But God forbid we do thngs Gods way, no lets make a religion out of it all lets twist teh truth to our own device, lets make man God.

But than who listen to Me anyway or Jesus for that matter.

 

[tom55]

I base my interpretation on what the Bible teaches and not on what a church teaches. Also, I'm open to Acts 17:11 (ESV) correction from Scripture. The RCC is not open to Acts 17:11, especially when the Pope speaks ex-cathedra.

Bye, bye,
Oz

You base your interpretation's on what the Bible teaches but the RCC doesn't base their interpretations on what the bible teaches?

You have the ability to properly interpret Scripture but no one in the RCC does?

Acts 17:11 is NOT referring to correction from Scripture. The Bereans were NOT a group of early Christians faithfully living according to what the NT teaches. They were, as Acts 17:10-11, Jews at a synagogue. They listened to what Paul had to say but they also cautiously compared his teachings to what the OT said in order to be sure that what Paul was saying is authentic doctrine. The people of Berea were primarily Jews converting to Christianity through Paul’s use of Sacred Oral Tradition. The scriptures mentioned here by Paul that the Bereans were examining are the Old Testament scriptures. What we see here is a group of people being taught about Christianity by Paul prior to the existence of the New Testament writings. All they had was oral tradition from Paul. They eagerly listened to Paul while examining the Old Testament Scripture.

Ex cathedra refers to binding and infallible papal teachings which are promulgated by the pope when he officially teaches in his capacity of the universal shepherd of the Church a doctrine on a matter of faith or morals and addresses it to the entire world. This concept is derived from Jesus when he spoke of the authority of the Old Testament magisterium saying, "The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach what they do not practice." Jesus recognized the authority of the Old Testament magisterium when it spoke ex cathedra. The RCC recognizes the New Testament magisterium of the Church, which speaks with the authority not of Moses but of Jesus Christ himself (Mt 10:40, 16:18-19, 18:18; Lk 10:16; 2 Cor 5:18-20), possesses a binding, infallible teaching office which is guaranteed by Christ (Mt 28:20; Jn 14:16, 26, 16:13). (www.catholic.com)

Since you do not believe in a binding and infallible teaching of Scripture then all your interpretations of Scripture and anyone you point out as having a valid interpretation of Scripture are in effect just yours or their opinion. Nothing you write and no one's interpretation of Scripture means anything. It's just an opinion on what they or you believe Scripture means.

So I ask you again: Is it possible that you are wrong and the RCC is right?

 

[mjrhealth]

but the RCC doesn't base their interpretations on what the bible teaches?

Well out of the heart it comes,

we already knew that,

forsaking the commandments of God teaching the doctrines of men, oh how far they have fallen....

 

[Wormwood]

You are correct: The Eastern Orthodox Christians are illegitimate or Satan's attempt to prevail against the Church because as we know that whatever was written was written for our instruction. Scripture encourages us to live in harmony with one another, in accord with Christ Jesus, that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. And that by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. (Romans 15).


Orthodox do not have the kind of teaching and governing authority that the Catholic Church claims and Scripture established. Organizations need leaders if they are to stay together and if Christ’s Church is a "visible" Church then it needs a single earthly leader. Jesus gave that leadership to Peter and he (or the Church) passed that leadership down. Scripture CLEARLY establishes a hierarchy in The Church and Peter by all legitimate scholars accounts was that first leader.

The absence of a pope from Eastern Orthodoxy has a negative effect because with no leader to call or recognize ecumenical councils the Orthodox haven’t had one in centuries.
There is no practical way for the Orthodox to call or agree upon an ecumenical council.

The absence of a leader has led to a magisterial paralysis on the part of the Orthodox Church. There is a need for The Church to have a functioning teaching authority capable of settling new theological controversies.

The Eastern Orthodox say the Nicene Creed’s affirmation that the Church of Christ is "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic,". But, as you know, the Orthodox communion has an issue when it comes to being "one." Also, as you know, not all Orthodox churches are in full communion with each other; they are not "one".

"I will build my Church (singular), and the gates of hell will not prevail against it". Take your differences to the church (singular) and if he doesn't listen to the church (singular) and The Church (singular) is the pillar and foundation of truth.

The Church leaders who met in Jerusalem were recognized in Acts as the ones that had authority over all the other churches. Peter got up and addressed the others in that meeting and told them what they believe that is through the grace of our Lord Jesus (Acts 15:11). James then spoke up and said “Brothers, listen to me. Simon has described to us how God....Which means Simon was agreeing with Peter. That decision by Peter, of which all the others agreed to, was then binding on all Christians. So I ask you. When did that binding authority end?

In the year 180 AD Irenaeus wrote: "But inasmuch as it would be very tedious in a book like this to rehearse the lines of succession in every church, we will put to confusion all those who, either from waywardness or conceit or blindness or obstinacy combine together against the truth, by pointing to the tradition, derived from the Apostles, of that great and illustrious Church founded and organized at Rome by the two glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, and to the faith declared to mankind and handed down to our own time through its bishops in their succession."

Which means as early as the year 180AD The Church in Rome was recognized as The Church.

Tom,
Thank you for your response. You have a great many assumptions in your response. First, you are coming from the perspective that all these various groups are splinters from the Catholic Church whereas the Orthodox would likely see it quite to the contrary. So, you kinda have homer glasses on here I am afraid. Also, I agree with you that we are to be of one mind and unified. I certainly am not making a plea for division and discord. However, I think if you take any time reading the NT you will see that "unity" and "one mind" language has little to do with church polity and allegiance to specific leaders and much more to do with brotherly love and people of LOCAL congregations getting along with one another. No where do we see Paul writing about the church in Corinth having "one mind" by submitting to the religious authorities in Jerusalem or Rome. Such a view is nonsense! In fact, Paul, even though he was an Apostle, does not use this position as a means to demand submission of those under his care (even though he could have). Rather, he appeals to their local autonomy and encourages them by the mercy of Christ, and not through a domineering tone of authority based on human political systems. In fact, I think Jesus spoke pretty clearly that this was not the way Church would be set up. I mean, if we are going to argue for a supreme Church leader and heirarchy based on the writings of the NT, we should argue that the bishop of Jerusalem was the leader of the church, not the bishop of Rome. I mean, I don't read anywhere where it says Irenaeus was an infallible, inspired writer of Scripture in his utterings about Rome's authority. In fact, (as you likely know) there was a great deal of debate about which bishop was to be supreme between Jerusalem and Rome. It wasn't a foregone conclusion as you imply.

In any event, Paul is pretty clear in Galatians and elsewhere that our guidance and authority does not come from human heirarchies, but from obedience to the message of the Gospel. I mean, Paul's pretty clear that his authority came from Jesus, not from Peter and he did not consult man or need man's permission to preach the Gospel. He passes this same instruction along to people like Timothy and Titus. Their basis for leadership and appointing elders had nothing to do with papal permission, but was directly related to local church autonomy and the character and spiritual maturity of those in that local congregation. It could not be any more clear in 1 and 2nd Timothy and Titus.

Again, I think you put entirely too much hope in human structures and authorities. I agree there is "one" holy, catholic and apostolic church. My faith is not based in doctrines founded outside the teaching of the Apostles! However, in my ecclesiology, a person belongs to that one church by faith and not by a human stamp of approval. Of course, that was the big rub between Luther and the Pope. Luther saw a great many wicked behaviors taking place in the church that needed reform whereas the Pope and church authorities saw this critique by Luther as an undermining of their authority and position. I mean, if we allow priests to critique and question the legitimacy of church functions...and the Scriptures and faith have greater weight than the see of Christ, then the Pope's power is nullfied. The problem is, it shouldn't be about who has the right to be the "true" church. It should be about who is "faithful." That is what Christ desires. Do you really think those priests who bought their positions by simony were legitimate spiritual authorities in the Church simply because they had a Pope's seal of approval and the proper gown!? Just look at the book of Revelation. A church belongs to Jesus not because of the robes they wear or a Pope's decree. They belong to Jesus because they love him and are faithful to the truth. That is the whole point of Revelation! Jesus is encouraging those who are outcast and being killed that if they remain faithful, they will be pillars in the house of his God...regardless of what men think, say or do. Meanwhile, some churches that look successful and are praised are dead and will be spit out of his mouth. Men look at robes and human approval, but Jesus looks at the heart and those who abide by the truth. I think we should do the same and not be so quick to label millions of believers as agents of Satan because they do not bow to the same elder you do.

 

[Wormwood]

""Ex cathedra refers to binding and infallible papal teachings which are promulgated by the pope when he officially teaches in his capacity of the universal shepherd of the Church a doctrine on a matter of faith or morals and addresses it to the entire world. This concept is derived from Jesus when he spoke of the authority of the Old Testament magisterium saying, "The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach what they do not practice." Jesus recognized the authority of the Old Testament magisterium when it spoke ex cathedra. The RCC recognizes the New Testament magisterium of the Church, which speaks with the authority not of Moses but of Jesus Christ himself (Mt 10:40, 16:18-19, 18:18; Lk 10:16; 2 Cor 5:18-20), possesses a binding, infallible teaching office which is guaranteed by Christ (Mt 28:20; Jn 14:16, 26, 16:13). (www.catholic.com)"


I also want to speak to the above quote. Yes, Jesus called his followers to honor and obey those in the chair of Moses. However, this was not an "infallible" position of authority as you imply. Do you have a source to suggest that these scribes and Pharisees were infallible when they spoke in certain positions? I mean, the Pharisees were not even involved in the Temple proceedings. They were generally just leaders in local communities that worked among local communities to strive to keep the Jewish people holy. They, in fact, had many severe and significant disagreements with the scribes and temple priests in relation to doctrine and many felt the Sadducees were sell-outs to Rome! In fact, the Jews were about as divided on doctrine as modern-day Protestants! They were not, by any means, a homogenous group!

So what is Jesus saying here? Jesus is calling his followers to honor those in authority...just as Paul does. Any human authority should be respected and Christians should give honor to whom honor is due. Certainly Paul and Jesus honored the High Priest, even though he was wicked and wrong. They respected the positions of those in authority..whether it be Ananias, Herod, Pilate, Felix, or the emperor. They submitted to those in human authority. But do NOT confuse that respect and submission with a claim that those in such positions were always right or expressed the desires of God in their decision-making or "official" decrees.

 

[epostle1]

""Ex cathedra refers to binding and infallible papal teachings which are promulgated by the pope when he officially teaches in his capacity of the universal shepherd of the Church a doctrine on a matter of faith or morals and addresses it to the entire world. This concept is derived from Jesus when he spoke of the authority of the Old Testament magisterium saying, "The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach what they do not practice." Jesus recognized the authority of the Old Testament magisterium when it spoke ex cathedra. The RCC recognizes the New Testament magisterium of the Church, which speaks with the authority not of Moses but of Jesus Christ himself (Mt 10:40, 16:18-19, 18:18; Lk 10:16; 2 Cor 5:18-20), possesses a binding, infallible teaching office which is guaranteed by Christ (Mt 28:20; Jn 14:16, 26, 16:13). (www.catholic.com)"

I also want to speak to the above quote. Yes, Jesus called his followers to honor and obey those in the chair of Moses. However, this was not an "infallible" position of authority as you imply. Do you have a source to suggest that these scribes and Pharisees were infallible when they spoke in certain positions? I mean, the Pharisees were not even involved in the Temple proceedings. They were generally just leaders in local communities that worked among local communities to strive to keep the Jewish people holy. They, in fact, had many severe and significant disagreements with the scribes and temple priests in relation to doctrine and many felt the Sadducees were sell-outs to Rome! In fact, the Jews were about as divided on doctrine as modern-day Protestants! They were not, by any means, a homogenous group!

Infallibility is a promise from Jesus to protect the Church from teaching error. Only Jesus is infallible and He promised to be with us or He lied. I have never heard or read it being applied to those who sat "on Moses' seat". That's not the point. The point is obedience to those in authority, regardless of their corruption. Moses' seat" has nothing to do with infallibility.
So what is Jesus saying here? Jesus is calling his followers to honor those in authority...just as Paul does. Any human authority should be respected and Christians should give honor to whom honor is due. Certainly Paul and Jesus honored the High Priest, even though he was wicked and wrong. They respected the positions of those in authority..whether it be Ananias, Herod, Pilate, Felix, or the emperor. They submitted to those in human authority. But do NOT confuse that respect and submission with a claim that those in such positions were always right or expressed the desires of God in their decision-making or "official" decrees.

In order to be "always right", there is required criteria that must be followed. .
""Ex cathedra refers to binding and infallible papal teachings
which are promulgated by the pope
In union with all the bishops.
when he officially teaches in his capacity of the universal shepherd of the Church
a doctrine on a matter of faith or morals
and addresses it to the entire world.

You can see how limited ex cathedra really is.

​

​

REDEEMER IN THE WOMB​

 

[mjrhealth]

Infallibility is a promise from Jesus to protect the Church from teaching error. Only Jesus is infallible and He promised to be with us or He lied

Jesus never lied, but mankind would rather believe the lie than teh truth. Dont go using Jesus as an excuse for your churchs lies and deception.

In order to be "always right", there is required criteria that must be followed. .
""Ex cathedra refers to binding and infallible papal teachings
which are promulgated by the pope
In union with all the bishops.
when he officially teaches in his capacity of the universal shepherd of the Church
a doctrine on a matter of faith or morals
and addresses it to the entire world.

You can see how limited ex cathedra really is.

Now if only he would teach the truth to free teh people from this religion,

 

[Heb 13:8]

In order to be "always right", there is required criteria that must be followed. .
""Ex cathedra refers to binding and infallible papal teachings
which are promulgated by the pope
In union with all the bishops.
when he officially teaches in his capacity of the universal shepherd of the Church
a doctrine on a matter of faith or morals
and addresses it to the entire world.

You can see how limited ex cathedra really is.

Some people just nee to be knocked off their horses, including the sinful pope.

(Acts 22:6-7) (Acts 26:12-14)

 

[Wormwood]

Kephas,

Thanks for your reply. I understand the RCC stance on ex cathedra. However, the statement I was referring to read the following:
_________________________
"Ex cathedra refers to binding and infallible papal teachings which are promulgated by the pope when he officially teaches in his capacity of the universal shepherd of the Church a doctrine on a matter of faith or morals and addresses it to the entire world. This concept is derived from Jesus when he spoke of the authority of the Old Testament magisterium saying, "The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach what they do not practice." Jesus recognized the authority of the Old Testament magisterium when it spoke ex cathedra."
_______________________________

Thus, a direct link is being made here that connects the concept between the authority of Moses' seat to speak the things of God with the papal teachings that are supposed to be the voice of Christ. Now, maybe in your mind there is some hair's breadth of a difference in the authority of the two, but the point is still the same. You are arguing that the "seat of Moses" referred to a position by which those who sat in it spoke as if Moses was speaking the words of God. I mean, that is the implication, is it not? Isn't that what is being referred to here and whence the authority comes from??

I think you are completely and totall in error. The "seat of Moses" did not imply that those who sat on it, in particular situations, spoke as Moses to the people and thus the words were to be considred as the very words of God (as we read in Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy). No, the seat of Moses indicated a positional authority, not a doctrinal purity that all things uttered from this seat were as from the mouth of a prophet and not to be questioned. Clearly the Jews did not believe this because they had many many factions and arguments about almost every theological doctrine under the sun. I mean, every Rabbi had a view and they took great delight in debating their views. They most certainly did not have a supreme rabbi sitting in a seat of Moses declaring the official word of God to the people on matters of doctrine as we see happening with the RCC. So, the connection between the "seat of Moses" and Christ's call to honor that position is not a plea to believe whatever is said by a person in authority. Again, we are called to submit to emperors and their authority, but that does not mean we are to believe their statements as though they are God's very words. There is a big difference between positional authority among men that is to be honored by believers and doctrinal authority that demands belief as though the person speaking is they very mouthpiece of Christ. The two are NOT the same.

 

[epostle1]

Kephas,

Thanks for your reply. I understand the RCC stance on ex cathedra. However, the statement I was referring to read the following:
_________________________
"Ex cathedra refers to binding and infallible papal teachings which are promulgated by the pope when he officially teaches in his capacity of the universal shepherd of the Church a doctrine on a matter of faith or morals and addresses it to the entire world. This concept is derived from Jesus when he spoke of the authority of the Old Testament magisterium saying, "The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach what they do not practice." Jesus recognized the authority of the Old Testament magisterium when it spoke ex cathedra."
_______________________________

Thus, a direct link is being made here that connects the concept between the authority of Moses' seat to speak the things of God with the papal teachings that are supposed to be the voice of Christ. Now, maybe in your mind there is some hair's breadth of a difference in the authority of the two, but the point is still the same. You are arguing that the "seat of Moses" referred to a position by which those who sat in it spoke as if Moses was speaking the words of God. I mean, that is the implication, is it not? Isn't that what is being referred to here and whence the authority comes from??

Although Jesus strongly indicts his opponents of hypocrisy for not following their own teaching, he nevertheless insists that the scribes and Pharisees hold a position of legitimate authority, which he characterizes as sitting "on Moses’ seat." One searches in vain for any reference to this seat of Moses in the Old Testament. But it was commonly understood in ancient Israel that there was an authoritative teaching office, passed on by Moses to successors.

I think you are completely and totall in error. The "seat of Moses" did not imply that those who sat on it, in particular situations, spoke as Moses to the people and thus the words were to be considred as the very words of God (as we read in Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy). No, the seat of Moses indicated a positional authority, not a doctrinal purity that all things uttered from this seat were as from the mouth of a prophet and not to be questioned. Clearly the Jews did not believe this because they had many many factions and arguments about almost every theological doctrine under the sun. I mean, every Rabbi had a view and they took great delight in debating their views. They most certainly did not have a supreme rabbi sitting in a seat of Moses declaring the official word of God to the people on matters of doctrine as we see happening with the RCC. So, the connection between the "seat of Moses" and Christ's call to honor that position is not a plea to believe whatever is said by a person in authority. Again, we are called to submit to emperors and their authority, but that does not mean we are to believe their statements as though they are God's very words. There is a big difference between positional authority among men that is to be honored by believers and doctrinal authority that demands belief as though the person speaking is they very mouthpiece of Christ. The two are NOT the same.

Agreed, they are not the same. Jesus did not institute another chair, but the existing chair of Moses was fulfilled and transferred to the Chair of Peter, which still exists today.

As the first verse of the Mishna tractate Abôte indicates, (Jewish oral tradition) the Jews understood that God’s revelation, received by Moses, had been handed down from him in uninterrupted succession, through Joshua, the elders, the prophets, and the great Sanhedrin (Acts 15:21). The scribes and Pharisees participated in this authoritative line and as such their teaching deserved to be respected.

Jesus here draws on oral Tradition to uphold the legitimacy of this teaching office in Israel. The Catholic Church, in upholding the legitimacy of both Scripture and Tradition, follows the example of Jesus himself.

In addition, we see that the structure of the Catholic Church—with an authoritative teaching office comprised of bishops who are the direct successors of the apostles—follows the example of ancient Israel. While there are groups of Christians today that deny continuity between Israel and the Church, historic orthodox Christianity has always understood the Church to be a fulfillment of Israel. This verse about Moses' chair illuminates why we say that the successor of Peter, when he gives a solemn teaching for the whole Church, is said to speak <ex cathedra> or "from the chair."

Whereas under the Old Covenant the administration of God’s people came from the "chair of Moses," Christians under the New Covenant look to the "chair of Peter" for direction on questions of faith and morals. But there is a notable difference between the magisterium under the Old Covenant and our teachers under the New Covenant. The successors of the apostles, and especially Peter’s successor, have the Holy Spirit to guide them into all truth, and they have Jesus’ promise that the "gates of hell will not prevail" against the Church (Matt. 16:17-19).

Jesus here draws on oral Tradition to uphold the legitimacy of this teaching office in Israel. The Catholic Church, in upholding the legitimacy of both Scripture and Tradition, follows the example of Jesus himself.

Jewish Virtual Library:
The Oral Law is a legal commentary on the Torah, explaining how its commandments are to be carried out. Common sense suggests that some sort of oral tradition was always needed to accompany the Written Law, because the Torah alone, even with its 613 commandments, is an insufficient guide to Jewish life.

The "seat of Moses" is Jewish oral tradition, which is why it can't be found in the Old Testament.

Matthew 2:23 And he went and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, "He shall be called a Nazarene." not found in the OT

1Cor.10:4 and all drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ. not found in the OT

Acts 20:35 In all things I have shown you that by so toiling one must help the weak, remembering the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, `It is more blessed to give than to receive.” Where is that in the Gospels?

Eph.5:14 Therefore it is said, "Awake, O sleeper, and arise from the dead,
and Christ shall give you light." Where is it said?

C) Hebrews 11:32 And what more shall I say? For time would fail me to tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets – 37 They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were killed with the sword; they went about in skins of sheep and goats, destitute, afflicted, ill-treated -- not found in Protestant bibles.

Tradition is not a dirty word.

​

REDEEMER IN THE WOMB​

 

[Born_Again]

What do you mean "not found in protestant bibles"? All of those verses are. Clarify, please.

 

[mjrhealth]

with an authoritative teaching office comprised of bishops who are the direct successors of the apostles—

and how long will the lies continue......

 

[Heb 13:8]

Agreed, they are not the same. Jesus did not institute another chair, but the existing chair of Moses was fulfilled and transferred to the Chair of Peter, which still exists today.

As the first verse of the Mishna tractate Abôte indicates, (Jewish oral tradition) the Jews understood that God’s revelation, received by Moses, had been handed down from him in uninterrupted succession, through Joshua, the elders, the prophets, and the great Sanhedrin (Acts 15:21). The scribes and Pharisees participated in this authoritative line and as such their teaching deserved to be respected.

Jesus here draws on oral Tradition to uphold the legitimacy of this teaching office in Israel. The Catholic Church, in upholding the legitimacy of both Scripture and Tradition, follows the example of Jesus himself.

In addition, we see that the structure of the Catholic Church—with an authoritative teaching office comprised of bishops who are the direct successors of the apostles—follows the example of ancient Israel. While there are groups of Christians today that deny continuity between Israel and the Church, historic orthodox Christianity has always understood the Church to be a fulfillment of Israel. This verse about Moses' chair illuminates why we say that the successor of Peter, when he gives a solemn teaching for the whole Church, is said to speak <ex cathedra> or "from the chair."

Whereas under the Old Covenant the administration of God’s people came from the "chair of Moses," Christians under the New Covenant look to the "chair of Peter" for direction on questions of faith and morals. But there is a notable difference between the magisterium under the Old Covenant and our teachers under the New Covenant. The successors of the apostles, and especially Peter’s successor, have the Holy Spirit to guide them into all truth, and they have Jesus’ promise that the "gates of hell will not prevail" against the Church (Matt. 16:17-19).

Jesus here draws on oral Tradition to uphold the legitimacy of this teaching office in Israel. The Catholic Church, in upholding the legitimacy of both Scripture and Tradition, follows the example of Jesus himself.

Jewish Virtual Library:
The Oral Law is a legal commentary on the Torah, explaining how its commandments are to be carried out. Common sense suggests that some sort of oral tradition was always needed to accompany the Written Law, because the Torah alone, even with its 613 commandments, is an insufficient guide to Jewish life.

The "seat of Moses" is Jewish oral tradition, which is why it can't be found in the Old Testament.

Matthew 2:23 And he went and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, "He shall be called a Nazarene." not found in the OT

1Cor.10:4 and all drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ. not found in the OT

Acts 20:35 In all things I have shown you that by so toiling one must help the weak, remembering the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, `It is more blessed to give than to receive.” Where is that in the Gospels?

Eph.5:14 Therefore it is said, "Awake, O sleeper, and arise from the dead,
and Christ shall give you light." Where is it said?

C) Hebrews 11:32 And what more shall I say? For time would fail me to tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets – 37 They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were killed with the sword; they went about in skins of sheep and goats, destitute, afflicted, ill-treated -- not found in Protestant bibles.

Tradition is not a dirty word.

​

REDEEMER IN THE WOMB​

Matt 11:28

 

[mjrhealth]

Tradition is not a dirty word.

For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

Maybe not to man.....