So you admit that Rnmomof7 has no greater authority than anyone else to interpret Scripture? She has already admitted this herself.
And you both assert that the Catholic Church has no binding teaching authority.
You may not be aware of the following arguments regarding the binding teaching authority of the Church. Many anti-Catholics simply pass over these facts.
"If he will not listen to the church, treat him as a pagan or tax collector." --JesusHow do you interpret this passage?
Does this mean that Christ's Church has no disciplinary authority?
Or does you mean that Christ's Church has no doctrinal authority?
St. Paul calls the church, "the pillar and foundation of truth."
On the level of simple logic, Christ's act of establishing a Church, lacking the authority to teach doctrine with absolute certainty down through the ages, would make His act of establishing a Church void and meaningless --an impossibility.
Revelation confirms this fact:
Teach these new disciples to obey all the commands I have given you. And be sure of this: I am with you always, even to the end of the age." --Jesus addressing the ApostlesThis makes sense, because Jesus gives the Apostles together, and Peter, individually, the power to "bind and loose.""Go and make disciples of all the nations, baptising... and teaching them everything I have commanded you." --Jesus to the Apostles
What does this mean?
Binding and loosing is an originally Jewish phrase which appears in the New Testament, as well as in the Targum. In usage to bind and to loose mean simply to forbid by an indisputable authority, and to permit by an indisputable authority.[1] The Targum to a particular Psalm[2] implies that these actions were considered to be as effectual as the spell of an enchanter.[1]The poseks had, by virtue of their ordination, the power of deciding disputes relating to Jewish law.[1] Hence the difference between the two main schools of thought in early classical Judaism were summed up by the phrase the school of Shammai binds; the school of Hillel looses.[1]
--Wikipedia
+ + +
The power of binding and loosing was always claimed by the Pharisees. Under Queen Alexandra, the Pharisees, says Josephus ("B J." i, 5, § 2), "became the administrators of all public affairs so as to be empowered to banish and readmit whom they pleased, as well as to loose and to bind." This does not mean that, as the learned men, they merely decided what, according to the Law, was forbidden or allowed, but that they possessed and exercised the power of tying or untying a thing by the spell of their divine authority, just as they could, by the power vested in them, pronounce and revoke an anathema upon a person. The various schools had the power "to bind and to loose"; that is, to forbid and to permit (Ḥag. 3b); and they could bind any day by declaring it a fast-day (Meg. Ta'an. xxii.; Ta'an. 12a; Yer. Ned. i. 36c, d). This power and authority, vested in the rabbinical body of each age or in the Sanhedrin (see Authority), received its ratification and final sanction from the celestial court of justice (Sifra, Emor, ix.; Mak. 23b).
In the New Testament.
In this sense Jesus, when appointing his disciples to be his successors, used the familiar formula (Matt. xvi. 19, xviii. 18). By these words he virtually invested them with the same authority as that which he found belonging to the scribes and Pharisees who "bind heavy burdens and lay them on men's shoulders, but will not move them with one of their fingers"; that is, "loose them," as they have the power to do (Matt. xxiii. 2-4). In the same sense, in the second epistle of Clement to James II. ("Clementine Homilies," Introduction), Peter is represented as having appointed Clement as his successor, saying: "I communicate to him the power of binding and loosing so that, with respect to everything which he shall ordain in the earth, it shall be decreed in the heavens; for he shall bind what ought to be bound and loose what ought to be loosed as knowing the rule of the church." Quite different from this Judaic and ancient view of the apostolic power of binding and loosing is the one expressed in John xx. 23, where Jesus is represented as having said to his disciples after they had received the Holy Spirit: "Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained." It is this view which, adopted by Tertullian and all the church fathers, invested the head of the Christian Church with the power to forgive sins, the "clavis ordinis," "the key-power of the Church."
+ + +
“The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach." --Jesus
" In reality, the term itself is not common in Jewish writings. It most likely refers to a seat in the synagogue from which the law (i.e., the writings of Moses and the prophets) was read.
the authority of "Moses' seat" would have been primarily magisterial, not doctrinal. Lightfoot notes this by saying, "This is to be understood rather of the *legislative seat* (or chair), than of the merely *doctrinal:* and Christ here asserts the authority of the magistrate, and persuadeth to obey him in lawful things" (Ibid, p. 289). Moses acted as judge in Israel, and the priesthood maintained that role in the theocracy.
http://vintage.aomin.org/Palm%20response.html
As an aside, it should be noted that this passage in Matt. 23:2-3 has also been misapplied by the Roman Catholic Church to lend support to their false doctrine that the Pope sits in the chair of Peter as his successor, just as they suggest the scribes and Pharisees sat in the chair of Moses. With this right of succession came, it is claimed, the right to speak "from the chair" with the same authority. Indeed, in the New American Bible, St. Joseph Edition (which is a Catholic version), Matthew 23:2 is translated: "The scribes and the Pharisees have succeeded Moses as teachers." This is far more interpretation than translation. To assume Jesus was here affirming such a right to such a group as the scribes and Pharisees (much less, by extension, to the Pope), whom He rebuked repeatedly for their actions, attitudes and teachings, is to woefully misunderstand and misapply the passage in question.
Yes, the scribes and Pharisees "have seated themselves" [NASB] in the seat of Moses. That was a fact, and Jesus acknowledged their practice. They were indeed doing this. Many of these people were also casting off their wives. Jesus acknowledged that fact, as well. Acknowledging a reality, however, is not the same as affirming a right. When Jesus stated what the scribes and Pharisees were doing, He merely confirmed that which was taking place. This one can do without applauding the action itself. Having said all of this, most scholars feel that "Jesus applies the expression metaphorically here" [Dr. Craig S. Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, p. 541]. "The Jews spoke of the teacher's seat as we speak of a professor's chair" [Dr. W. Robertson Nicoll, The Expositor's Greek Testament, vol. 1, p. 278]. Many universities, for example, have a "Bible Chair" with a Chairman of the department. The idea behind the "chair," then, is that it signifies the authority to teach and lead. "By 'the seat of Moses' we are to understand authority to teach the law" [Adam Clarke, Clarke's Commentary, vol. 5, p. 217]. It had long been the custom of the Jewish teachers to sit as they taught from the Law and the Prophets, but to stand as they read from these works [see: Luke 4:16, 20-21]. Therefore, "the expression is a metaphor referring to the fact that the Pharisees had assumed the role of being the Law's interpreters" [Noel S. Rabbinowitz, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, September, 2003].
http://www.zianet.com/maxey/reflx284.htm
Just remember Thomas everything you posted is your own fallible opinion..with no more authority than I have.. it is YOPO
"If he will not listen to the church, treat him as a pagan or tax collector." --Jesus
How do you interpret this passage?
Certainly NOT that Jesus is commanding everyone to be in submission to Catholicism nor that it is giving the Catholic church ultimate power over all people.
You've been corrected many times on that cherry picked misquote of Scripture.
In that discourse, Jesus is giving instructions on how to deal with disputes between believers. He is laying out the pattern of reconciliation that is to take place and how to do it, which ironically, the Catholic church does not itself follow.
It simply hijacks the verse to try to give to itself blanket authority over all others.
Here is the passage in context.
That verse taken out of context by you AGAIN, has been corrected many times and since it appears that it has not yet sunk in, I will post the verse IN CONTEXT again.....
This passage is not a blanket order to obey the leadership of any church which claims that it alone is the one true church.
It is at the end of a discourse addressing how to handle disputes in the body.
It lays out very specifically the steps one is to go through in resolving personal conflict within the body.
Matthew 18:15-20 “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church.
And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.”
NOWHERE does Jesus command us to "listen to the church".
The comment is *IF he does not listen to the church, then......*
That is a gross misinterpretation of the passage to claim or imply that it is a standing order of Jesus to listen to the Catholic church.
The clear meaning is here for everyone to see. It's dealing with disputes among believers, not absolute authority given to *the Church*.
Once again you are simply reiterating RC polemics which were examinedand still await a response from you.
Does this mean that Christ's Church has no disciplinary authority? The answers to your specific question here is that this text affirms that Christ's Church has disciplinary authority, which flows from the OT.
However, the question asked before im regards to this remains, Why does this authority necessitate perpetual ensured magisterial infallibility, whenever it speaks according to Rome's formula, which excludes the possibility of valid dissent from it?
So this goes unanswered, I will provide the answer, which is that it does not, as Scripture manifestly teaches that ensured magisterial infallibility is not necessary for authority, or discernment of Truth or preservation of faith.
And in fact, the church actually began contrary to the Roman basis for discernment of Truth, with common souls having recognized both men and writings of God as being so, essentially in the light of their unique enduring Heavenly qualities and attestation.
And follow itinerant preachers who established their truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, in dissent from the historical magisterium, which you have invoked for support of Rome's.
Or does you mean that Christ's Church has no doctrinal authority?
Actually, Mt. 18:15-18 refers to judicial judgments on personal disputes, while the spiritual power extends to all believers, as also in Ja. 5. But in principal it affirms magisterial judgment, and Westminster states,
"It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same..." - http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/wcf.htm
Thus once again the issue remains that is not magisterial authority that is at issue, but perpetual ensured magisterial infallibility, which is not promised or provided, but which Rome reads into Scripture based upon fallacious premises and presuppositions.
St. Paul calls the church, "the pillar and foundation of truth."
And thus as asked before of you when you posted this polemical proof text, the question remains, "So where is this text infallibly interpreted to mean Rome possesses perpetual ensured magisterial infallibility? Or even as requiring assent as meaning what you invoke it for?"
And in any case, "how does 8 words in Greek, (church living God pillar and ground the truth), one of which only occurs here, with both pillar and ground denoting support, translate into the church being the supreme infallible authority on Truth?"
This power and authority, vested in the rabbinical body of each age or in the Sanhedrin (see Authority), received its ratification and final sanction from the celestial court of justice
Indeed, but since the NT church began in dissent from them, then how does this support the ensured magisterial infallibility of Rome, which excludes valid dissent, rather than upholding the principle of the magisterial authority?
If you want to argue for the latter, i will concur, even towards a centralized one as the ideal, but that simply does not support the elitist cultic claims of the church RCs seem bound to defend at any cost to credulity.
n this sense Jesus, when appointing his disciples to be his successors, used the familiar formula (Matt. xvi. 19, xviii. 18). By these words he virtually invested them with the same authority as that which he found belonging to the scribes and Pharisees who "bind heavy burdens and lay them on men's shoulders,
You failed to the source of this proffered polemic, which as SR points out used the discredited Pseudo-Clementine Writings yet this also only affirms the validity of the magisterial office, and also affirms the validity of dissent from it by itinerant preachers based upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power. .
Quite different from this Judaic and ancient view of the apostolic power of binding and loosing is the one expressed in John xx. 23, where Jesus is represented as having said to his disciples after they had received the Holy Spirit: "Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained."
Wrong, and which is simply to much RC propaganda. The judgment of the OT magisterium was binding, disobedience even being a capital crime, (Dt. 17:8-13) and to not absolve a person in his case was to leave him guilty. There is nothing radically new here, or anything requiring ensured infallibility for authority, any more than there was before.
And the manifest example of binding and loosing in the NT reveals that its spiritual aspect of binding/loosing souls extends to all righteous believers, such as offer fervent prayer like Elijah, who bound the heavens from raining for 3.5 years and loosed them again. (Ja. 5:16-18) Even though such prophets were persecuted by those in power whom they reproved, as has been the case in the history of the church of Rome.
The binding and loosing was also that of Peter indicting two liars to the church, unto death, (Acts 5) and Paul, together with the church delivering an impenitent incestuous man over to the devil for chastisement, (1Cor. 5) as well as personally doing so to two heretics. (1Tim. 1:10)
Meanwhile, the text RCs invoke for support of their practice of forgiving sins is supposed to be promising healing, (Ja,. 5:14,15) while instead it is usually a precursor of death.
In reality, Rome has basically bound multitudes from personally reading Scripture for centuries (while many of her note mislead them to this day), and loosed the unholy sword of men upon those who did or enabled it, among others tortured and or murdered simply for theological deviations. Which early Prots had to unlearn.
“The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach." --Jesus
In-credible. Unless you simply want to support the authority of the magisterial office, which was never an ensured infallible one, then by invoking this to support submission to Rome's infallible magisterium which excludes dissent, then you invalidate the very NT church which began in dissent from it, and asked the very questions you do! (Mk. 11:28-33)