The Catholic Church is the House of God

De Maria November 16, 2012 at 11:25 PM

Hi,

I appreciate the correspondence!

You’re welcome.

I am actually an Anglo-Catholic.

The word Catholic, carries no magic. You are Catholic if you submit to and obey the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, the Pope and the Bishops united with him. If not, then the title bears no real meaning.

I admire the historical tradition of Catholicism (roman).

It takes more than admiration. It takes love and obedience. Because the Traditions of the Catholic Church are the Word of Jesus Christ.

Hebrews 5:9
And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

I deny sola-scriptura and sola fide.

As you should. Both of those doctrines blatantly contradict the Scriptures.

At this point, Anglicans accept the “church tradition” as well as “scripture”, and these two are one and cannot contradict each other.

If you accepted Church Tradition, you would be a Catholic in communion with the Pope. You do not accept Tradition. You accept certain man made doctrines which resemble the Traditions of the Catholic Church.

At the moment, I cannot with good conscience say the modern Papacy is an outgrowth of the government of the Church in the first 5 centuries. I would say Roman Catholicism has carried well the tradition of the early fathers but has also added many things unfounded. I can only say this with honesty.

I appreciate your honesty. I am also being honest when I say that you are in error. The Catholic Church is the Church which Christ established and there is no other.

The canonization is not a development of doctrine, it is simply like a police department codifying it’s regulations and procedure, but these laws have always been practiced from the start of the department. The Papacy simply does not parallel this, in anyway.

1. You have argue against yourself yet again. The Catholic Church is the police department which codified it’s regulations and procedures when it canonized the Scriptures.

2. The laws which have always been practiced are the Traditions of the Catholic Church which is the Deposit of Faith which Jesus Christ commanded the Church to teach.

3. And yes, they have always been taught. Including the primacy of Peter and the succession of the Bishops.

4. The Papacy is an Office established by Jesus Christ.

Concerning Matthew 16. Let’s just consider this logically.

Ok.

If the following axioms are true, then there is no conceptual development of the papacy.

First, considering this logically, there is no development of the Papacy. Jesus Christ established it. Period. It is an office that has always existed in the Church of Christ.

Second, considering it logically, there are elements of development in every aspect of the Church. Doctrinally and Traditionally. It is inescapable. The Church is not the same today as the one which sprouted with 5000 members when Jesus Christ planted the seed.

It is interesting that when people who look for evidence of the papacy in the first 5 centuries must confess a “development” because the earliest fathers do not support a concept of the papacy,

That is a matter of your opinion. The Papacy is obvious from the inception of the Church and is depicted and explained in the Scriptures:
John 21:17
He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

Nothing could be clearer. Jesus Christ appointed Simon the Shepherd over His Flock, the Pastor of His Church.

but give small elemental reference to church authority, etc,etc.

You simply don’t give enough weight to the verses which say that the Church has complete authority over its members. Authority to punish, expel and condemn to eternal punishment.

However, if the following axioms are true:

Let’s examine them.

1) The “rock” function of Peter is an “office”, filled by Peter here but ultimately distinct from himself as a moral human being, outlives the life of Peter and is filled in by successors to that “office”.

True.

2) This specific and singular “office” is indestructible, perpetual, and will always channel the Shepherding of Christ from the beginning of Peter’s bishopric until the last Bishop who will witness the coming of the Lord.

Correct.

3) The “keys” of the kingdom automatically denote succession and therefore this “authority of binding and loosing” continues onward from Peter and it also lasts with the “office” of the papacy. ‘

Amen.

If these axioms are true, then all the essential elements of the Papacy are spoken by Jesus right here. I would admit this. However, if that is true, then there should really be no confusion as to how the Church should go henceforth into the world. The apostles carry offices which are perpetual as a college, with Peter as the head and chief, and the “office” itself, not the humans inside it, are what the “faithful” are to keep their hope in for the true construction of the holy Church. The apostles would have understood this right at the moment from which Jesus spoke this.

Why? There are many thing which the Apostles didn’t understand. Possibly the most important of which, is that Jesus had to suffer and die in order for the world to be saved.

So, it doesn’t follow that the Apostles had to understand anything the moment it was spoken. But they understood everything when the Holy Spirit opened their minds and hearts at the Pentecost.

My question is, why did no one else know this? Ignatius did not know this. The epistle of Clement does not really solve or explicate anything definitive. Tertullian especially does not know of it.

You are making sweeping assumptions. The fact they perhaps didn’t mention it, does not mean they didn’t believe it or accept it.

Tertullian is especially of importance in this matter. For he himself is the one who tells us how to understand the Christian faith. He explicitly denies sola scripture, and says that the only way to know apostolic truth is to be in succession with the apostolic churches wherein lies the deposit of the apostles themselves. He does not mention anything with regard to a papacy. He does exalt rome, but does not give the doctrine of perpetual infallibility.

Exalting Rome is enough. Tertullian does not deny the infallibility of the Pope. If that infallibility were challenged, he would certainly have defended it.

Is it possible that the other “offices” of the church do not retain this “infallible” charateristic? It is proven historicallty. Every other office has fallen to heresy, except the Papacy.

And if not, then all Jesus had in mind when he said “on this rock I will build my Church” is really the papacy and all who are united to it.And that is proven by history. All who are united to the Papacy are building their home on the rock and will not fall.

If this is all true and good to you, I am glad I am still on a journey.

You are glad now. But you won’t be in the end. The Catholic Church is the house of God.

Sincerely,

De Maria