Expert: Sal - 9/16/2009

Question
QUESTION: Dear Sal: You had said and I quote from one of your responses to a question: "The final authority in matters of interpretation is always the Catholic Church." My question is what are you basing this statement on? It certainly is not in agreement with Scripture.

Sincerely:

Neil

ANSWER: Dear Neil:

It is biblical that the Catholic Church is the final authority in all things related to faith, morals, and doctrine. The Catholic Church sees itself as the original church founded by Jesus in Matthew 16. Jesus gave that church an earthly leader, whom the Catholic Church calls the Pope, to speak for him once he had ascended to heaven (Mt. 16:19). This church was given the authority to bind and loose, to forbid and to allow (Mt. 18:17-18). Jesus said he would send the Holy Spirit to guide this church (Jn. 16:13). So that is why the Catholic Church sees herself as the final authority on matters of interpretation.   

Thanks for the question.

Sal


---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: Dear Sal: Thank you for your response. Jesus never taught that the church has final authority. The verse you give is Matthew 18. This is not dealing with doctrines, it is dealing with personal issues you have with a brother. This is talking about taking an argument to the church for mediation.It would appear that verses 15-16 have to be read in context first. The church had authority over the dispute, not on doctrines.

Now, for the whopper of lies: That Peter was given authority over all? The same "binding and loosing" line was also repeated to all of the apostles in Matthew 18. That role was not given specifically to Peter only.
How can the RC church be the "final" authority on matters of interpretation, when the Bible clearly tells us in 2Peter 1:19 that it is of no private interpretation?
You said the RC church was founded by Jesus. Really? I can find that no where in the Bible. The “first church” is the church that is recorded in the New Testament, especially in the Book of Acts and the Epistles of Paul. The New Testament church is the “original church” and the “one true church.” We can know this because it is described, in great detail, in Scripture. The church, as recorded in the New Testament, is God’s pattern and foundation for His church. On this basis, let’s examine the Roman Catholic claim that it is the “first church.” Nowhere in the New Testament will you find the “one true church” doing any of the following: praying to Mary, praying to the saints, venerating Mary, submitting to a pope, having a select priesthood, baptizing an infant, observing the ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper as sacraments, or passing on apostolic authority to successors of the apostles. All of these are core elements of the Roman Catholic faith. If most of the core elements of the Roman Catholic Church were not practiced by the New Testament Church (the first church and one true church), how then can the Roman Catholic Church be the first church? A study of the New Testament will clearly reveal that the Roman Catholic Church is not the same church as the church that is described in the New Testament.

The New Testament records the history of the church from approximately A.D. 30 to approximately A.D. 90. In the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries, history records several Roman Catholic doctrines and practices among early Christians. Is it not logical that the earliest Christians would be more likely to understand what the Apostles truly meant? Yes, it is logical, but there is one problem. Christians in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries were not the earliest Christians. Again, the New Testament records the doctrine and practice of the earliest Christians…and, the New Testament does not teach Roman Catholicism. What is the explanation for why the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th century church began to exhibit signs of Roman Catholicism?

The answer is simple – the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th century (and following) church did not have the complete New Testament. Churches had portions of the New Testament, but the New Testament (and the full Bible) were not commonly available until after the invention of the printing press in A.D. 1440. The early church did its best in passing on the teachings of the apostles through oral tradition, and through extremely limited availability to the Word in written form. At the same time, it is easy to see how false doctrine could creep into a church that only had access to the Book of Galatians, for example. It is very interesting to note that the Protestant Reformation followed very closely after the invention of the printing press and the translation of the Bible into the common languages of the people. Once people began to study the Bible for themselves, it became very clear how far the Roman Catholic Church had departed from the church that is described in the New Testament.

Scripture never mentions using "which church came first" as the basis for determining which is the "true" church. What it does teach is that one is to use Scripture as the determining factor as to which church is preaching the truth and thus is true to the first church. It is especially important to compare Scripture with a church's teaching on such core issues as the full deity and humanity of Christ, the atonement for sin through His blood on Calvary, salvation from sin by grace through faith, and the infallibility of the Scriptures. The “first church” and “one true church” is recorded in the New Testament. That is the church that all churches are to follow, emulate, and model themselves after.
So with that, what is the true origin of the RC church?

Sincerely:

Neil

Answer
Dear Neil:

Thank you for your questions and concerns. However, you bring up too many issues for me to answer properly and in a timely manner. So I will briefly mention a few things and you can write back if you like.

I realize that after Peter received the authority to bind and loose that the other disciples also received this authority in Matthew 18:18. The Catholic Church sees no conflict in this. Peter and the others are seen as the first Catholic bishops. They all were granted the same authority just as Catholic bishops today share that authority. Peter’s special authority comes not from the power to bind and loose, but from the fact that Jesus only gave Peter “the key to the kingdom of heaven”.

I don’t see the Catholic Church’s interpretation as “private”. I see this verse, 2 Peter 2:20, as referring to individual Christians who interpret prophecy not in agreement with Catholic teaching.

In stating that the Catholic Church was founded by Christ I was explaining why the Catholic Church sees herself as having authority. Whether you agree or not it still is the reason for its claiming authority. I agree that the New Testament Church is the true church. Where we differ is that I see that church as the infant Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church believes in development of the Church and of its doctrines. So one should not expect to see the papacy, prayer to saints, infant baptism, apostolic succession, etc. as we have them today. The seeds of many particularly Catholic doctrines and practices are in the New Testament although not the fully developed doctrine. In other words, the acorn is there not the mighty oak.

You ask what is my explanation for why the 2nd-4th century Christian Church began to exhibit signs of Catholicism? My answer is because they were Catholic and they taught what the apostles and their disciples taught them. The Church of those centuries began to look more like the Catholic Church of today because the Church and its doctrines were continuing to grow and develop. The Catholic Church sees the church as a living, growing thing.

I agree that we should use the Bible to determine what is true. In doing this I have come to a different conclusion than you have. I see the absolute need for a teaching Church with authority over God’s people in order to protect them from every form of “private interpretation”.

You don’t like the idea that the Catholic Church has authority to confirm Christian doctrine. Who do you think should have the authority?  

God Bless,
Sal