Assenting to Authority (Protestant vs. Catholic)

[LHJOHNSON]

I love that section in the Catechism.
I have always been fascinated by the Church teaching on faith and reason. Being able to discuss these things is a real blessing. May God bless you all and increase your understanding for your efforts! Peace be with you,LHJ

 

[Eufrosnia]

The problem for some Protestants with Catholic Authority is that it too closely resembles the OT Temple Levitical structure … that Jesus ‘split-the-curtain’ on, and, allowed the 70 AD conquest of Romans to utterly bring judgment upon.

High Priest = Pope, with too much authority, only Peter had this blessing from Christ.]
Temple Priest needed for animal sacrifices … no longer needed, so why Catholic Priesthood of OT structure ?

Rather, — lets allow every man be a new creation kingmaker, an equal, w/o the redeemed being ‘respecters of persons’ … able to read scripture, “for all its worth”, with benefit of promised H.S as their guide. A true NT paradigm, ‘me and Jesus’, the Church whatever we agree upon … since where ever 2 or 3 or gathered, Christ is there.

Authority of man ? We don’t need no stinking authority !! Only Jesus & HS as our guide !!

Ah but you definitely need some authority other than the Bible to believe that it is indeed the inspired word of God. You also cannot fall back to ideas like the “Holy Spirit helping you” because you don’t know of such things unless the Bible is the inspired Word of God.

Do you see the trivial issue with the Protestant position?

Secondly, Protestants may feel uncomfortable with the Catholic Church for numerous reasons. But if it is the authority, it is simple what one must follow if they want to know Christ, yes?

So given what I said in my OP, what do you have to show that the Catholic reasoning is flawed and also to support the Protestant position?

 

[SyCarl]

Really? Really?

Wow. hmmmmmmm :banghead:

Ok now that I got that out of the way.

So when the Catholic Church “claims” authority we are wrong, but when a Protestant denomination does the same, they are correct? So by what authority gives you the right to claim such a thing? What authority do you have to make false statements about the Church?

You see, in Scripture (The Catholic Scriptures that you read from) Christ gave the Church authority. So I trust that when Christ says something, I should believe it.

When you use your personal interpretation or that of your pastor, are you also in error as you claim the Church is for doing so?

Blessings
Dustin

The issue is not really whether the Church has authority or not. It is whether it is the ultimate authority or whether Scripture is. Protestants are always accused of personal interpretation but that is exactly what you have to do yourself to arrive at the conclusion that Jesus gave the Catholic Church the authority it claims. Your personal interpretation agrees with the Catholic Church’s interpretation so you are Catholic. I do not agree so I am not Catholic.

I do not claim that I am infallible and neither does my Church. It is true that the Church is the Body of Christ but that does not mean that any single institution is. I would agree with Augustine’s statement that the Body of Christ is those who will be with him in eternity.

The second rule is about the twofold division of the body of the Lord; but this indeed is not a suitable name, for that is really no part of the body of Christ which will not be with Him in eternity. We ought, therefore, to say that the rule is about the true and the mixed body of the Lord, or the true and the counterfeit, or some such name; because, not to speak of eternity, hypocrites cannot even now be said to be in Him, although they seem to be in His Church. And hence this rule might be designated thus: Concerning the mixed Church. Now this rule requires the reader to be on his guard when Scripture, although it has now come to address or speak of a different set of persons, seems to be addressing or speaking of the same persons as before, just as if both sets constituted one body in consequence of their being for the time united in a common participation of the sacraments…

Augustine (On Christian Doctrine, 3:32)
newadvent.org/fathers/12023.htm

Even before divisions occurred, all those who belonged to the Catholic Church were not necessarily part of the true Body of Christ. Augustine recognized that the word church refers to different things in Scripture and we must be careful to differentiate them. It is with this in mind that Protestants refer to the invisible church as the true body of Christ. We can never know whether someone will be with Christ in eternity or not, so in this sense the Church is invisible. To Augustine the true Church was a subset of the Catholic Church

Now my reading of the early church fathers was that in the beginning much diversity was allowed with the essential belief being the Rule of Faith which generally was the Apostles’ Creed. I find many statements in the fathers that agree with Protestant beliefs or contrary to current Catholic dogma. As time went on men being what they are wanted to know more and claimed that their particular belief were the true ones. As a result, those who disagreed either left the Catholic Church or were put out of it even though they still agreed with the original Rule of Faith. As a result when they were ejected the true Body was divided, part being in each institution that resulted from the division. In effect there were two branches where there was once one tree but both branches still have the same root.

As an example I would give Cyprian’s disagreement with Pope Stephen’s view on the validity of baptism by heretics. He called councils in North Arica to confirm his view over Stephen’s and sought support from bishops in other areas. If Cyprian had lived done this later, such as the time of Leo X and Reformation would he have been allowed to remain in the Church with his views? I seriously doubt it.

The problem to me is that, by nature, humanity wants to know more and more and feels it has the right and capacity to do so. Then pride takes over and neither side will admit they may not be completely right or that there may be some truth on both sides.

While it is right to that is one truth, when it is about God and his plans, it is impossible for us to comprehend entirely. That would require the finite being able to understand and explain the infinite. While it might seem that two positions are mutually exclusive, when dealing with God our perception of this may not be correct. Jesus made it clear that what is impossible for men is not impossible for God.

There is also the question of whether we are required to know or agree with all possible truth. For example, Jesus was right handed, left handed or ambidextrous. One of these would be true but do we really need to know which one it is?

I am not advocating relativism but if the original Rule of Faith was what identified and was sufficient for the early church that should still be enough for today.

 

[aidanbradypop]

The issue is not really whether the Church has authority or not. It is whether it is the ultimate authority or whether Scripture is. Protestants are always accused of personal interpretation but that is exactly what you have to do yourself to arrive at the conclusion that Jesus gave the Catholic Church the authority it claims. Your personal interpretation agrees with the Catholic Church’s interpretation so you are Catholic. I do not agree so I am not Catholic.

I do not claim that I am infallible and neither does my Church. It is true that the Church is the Body of Christ but that does not mean that any single institution is. I would agree with Augustine’s statement that the Body of Christ is those who will be with him in eternity.

Augustine (On Christian Doctrine, 3:32)
newadvent.org/fathers/12023.htm

Even before divisions occurred, all those who belonged to the Catholic Church were not necessarily part of the true Body of Christ. Augustine recognized that the word church refers to different things in Scripture and we must be careful to differentiate them. It is with this in mind that Protestants refer to the invisible church as the true body of Christ. We can never know whether someone will be with Christ in eternity or not, so in this sense the Church is invisible. To Augustine the true Church was a subset of the Catholic Church

Now my reading of the early church fathers was that in the beginning much diversity was allowed with the essential belief being the Rule of Faith which generally was the Apostles’ Creed. I find many statements in the fathers that agree with Protestant beliefs or contrary to current Catholic dogma. As time went on men being what they are wanted to know more and claimed that their particular belief were the true ones. As a result, those who disagreed either left the Catholic Church or were put out of it even though they still agreed with the original Rule of Faith. As a result when they were ejected the true Body was divided, part being in each institution that resulted from the division. In effect there were two branches where there was once one tree but both branches still have the same root.

As an example I would give Cyprian’s disagreement with Pope Stephen’s view on the validity of baptism by heretics. He called councils in North Arica to confirm his view over Stephen’s and sought support from bishops in other areas. If Cyprian had lived done this later, such as the time of Leo X and Reformation would he have been allowed to remain in the Church with his views? I seriously doubt it.

The problem to me is that, by nature, humanity wants to know more and more and feels it has the right and capacity to do so. Then pride takes over and neither side will admit they may not be completely right or that there may be some truth on both sides.

While it is right to that is one truth, when it is about God and his plans, it is impossible for us to comprehend entirely. That would require the finite being able to understand and explain the infinite. While it might seem that two positions are mutually exclusive, when dealing with God our perception of this may not be correct. Jesus made it clear that what is impossible for men is not impossible for God.

There is also the question of whether we are required to know or agree with all possible truth. For example, Jesus was right handed, left handed or ambidextrous. One of these would be true but do we really need to know which one it is?

I am not advocating relativism but if the original Rule of Faith was what identified and was sufficient for the early church that should still be enough for today.

So if the Church came before scripture and we have the scriptures because of the Church then…

 

[Eufrosnia]

The issue is not really whether the Church has authority or not. It is whether it is the ultimate authority or whether Scripture is. Protestants are always accused of personal interpretation but that is exactly what you have to do yourself to arrive at the conclusion that Jesus gave the Catholic Church the authority it claims. Your personal interpretation agrees with the Catholic Church’s interpretation so you are Catholic. I do not agree so I am not Catholic.

I do not claim that I am infallible and neither does my Church. It is true that the Church is the Body of Christ but that does not mean that any single institution is. I would agree with Augustine’s statement that the Body of Christ is those who will be with him in eternity.

Augustine (On Christian Doctrine, 3:32)
newadvent.org/fathers/12023.htm

Even before divisions occurred, all those who belonged to the Catholic Church were not necessarily part of the true Body of Christ. Augustine recognized that the word church refers to different things in Scripture and we must be careful to differentiate them. It is with this in mind that Protestants refer to the invisible church as the true body of Christ. We can never know whether someone will be with Christ in eternity or not, so in this sense the Church is invisible. To Augustine the true Church was a subset of the Catholic Church

Now my reading of the early church fathers was that in the beginning much diversity was allowed with the essential belief being the Rule of Faith which generally was the Apostles’ Creed. I find many statements in the fathers that agree with Protestant beliefs or contrary to current Catholic dogma. As time went on men being what they are wanted to know more and claimed that their particular belief were the true ones. As a result, those who disagreed either left the Catholic Church or were put out of it even though they still agreed with the original Rule of Faith. As a result when they were ejected the true Body was divided, part being in each institution that resulted from the division. In effect there were two branches where there was once one tree but both branches still have the same root.

As an example I would give Cyprian’s disagreement with Pope Stephen’s view on the validity of baptism by heretics. He called councils in North Arica to confirm his view over Stephen’s and sought support from bishops in other areas. If Cyprian had lived done this later, such as the time of Leo X and Reformation would he have been allowed to remain in the Church with his views? I seriously doubt it.

The problem to me is that, by nature, humanity wants to know more and more and feels it has the right and capacity to do so. Then pride takes over and neither side will admit they may not be completely right or that there may be some truth on both sides.

While it is right to that is one truth, when it is about God and his plans, it is impossible for us to comprehend entirely. That would require the finite being able to understand and explain the infinite. While it might seem that two positions are mutually exclusive, when dealing with God our perception of this may not be correct. Jesus made it clear that what is impossible for men is not impossible for God.

There is also the question of whether we are required to know or agree with all possible truth. For example, Jesus was right handed, left handed or ambidextrous. One of these would be true but do we really need to know which one it is?

I am not advocating relativism but if the original Rule of Faith was what identified and was sufficient for the early church that should still be enough for today.

See, without any authority, the above itself is just speculation.

All religions are a set of claims regarding the Transcendent. None of it is directly verifiable before we are dead. So we have to assent by faith. The point here is that this assent must be based on reason. We would not be reasonable in assenting to the first thing our eyes meet or we feel is the truth. We cannot just assent to the Protestant Church down the road or our own interpretations or even a claim that Bible is the Word of God without any reason to think the claims authoritative.

It is as simple as that. If Protestants (and even other religions) were to wake up and ask themselves where the authority is, they would have to immediately switch over to the Catholic faith or become agnostics (if they reject the authority of the Church).

Like think about it, you personally have no reason to think that the Church down the road you are part of has authority. Neither do you have actual reason to think that the Bible is the inspired Word of God without the Church to tell you. But you would rather take the position to try and defend the unreasonable faith than correct yourself. It makes me wonder why. It is as if you believe more deeply than anything that you must be right in all of this even when reason is against you. But such a blind position is weird. Why would you not assent to the reasonable position and assent to the only authority that can give you things like Scripture itself?

EDIT: Let me also ask you the following. Without assenting to the authority of successors and the Catholic Church, how can you come to know the proposition that “Bible is the inspired Word of God” in any reasonable way?

 

[Eufrosnia]

So if the Church came before scripture and we have the scriptures because of the Church then…

Exactly. Very good point! We either have to throw away entire Christianity or accept the Church. We can throw away the Church unless the Church itself teaches us that we can do that.

 

[Eufrosnia]

Help me out here. I am trying to work through the original post. I am not sure about the statements of supernatural and authority and knowing by are senses. Is reason supernatural? In other words can we know something by reason that is supernatural? How about can we know God by reason? I would suggest that we can know there is a God by reason. We can know the Bible is the word of God by reason. That Jesus began the Church we can know by reason. We have witness of the Saints and Martyrs. We have the witness of the Church itself down through the centuries. There is nothing supernatural about knowing about God the Bible as the word of God and the Catholic Church. Where faith comes in is as a supernatural grace which enables us to believe. I think everyone has an authority in matters of interpretation unless they interpret the Bible on their own without even reading a commentary. I do not believe there is anything supernatural until we get to faith. The rest is disagreement on the evidence. Even our Faith is reasonable. While Faith is above reason it can never contradict reason. Peace be with you,LHJ

Catechism
159***** Faith and science: “Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth.”37 “Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are.”38 (283, 2293)

Well what do your senses feel about the Bible to say it is the actual Word of God? There really is no way of empirically saying this as far as we know. Neither does it seem demonstrable by reason as a deductive argument.

Even truths such God as a Holy Trinity are not demonstrable. The fact that it is not knowable apart from Divine Revelation is a core teaching of the Church itself. It does not mean that these truths are actually unreasonable. It just means that we as human beings cannot know them through reason alone from what we directly perceive. What this also means is that none of the Divine Reveled truths should contradict reason as well. This is why we can explain using philosophy as to how God is three persons and yet one being. The explanation does not prove the Holy Trinity by reason but only demonstrates how it is logically possible.

Same with a truth like “Bible is the Word of God”. No one disagrees that any book may have been directly inspired by God. But what everyone has to realize is that we cannot therefore assume arbitrary books as being inspired by God. We first need reason to think it is indeed inspired by God. That reason comes from an authority.

So all such truths have to be accepted by faith. This faith must be placed on an authority that one discovers by reason. As long as we have an authority we have verified through reason, we accept truths that may even seem hard for us to reconcile with reason by faith. Early Christians probably lacked any philosophical idea of how to understand a Trinitarian view of God as being logically possible. Yet they believed because they trusted in the authority of the Church.

The mistake you make is that you assume that we somehow have the “Scripture is the Word of God” before the Church. We unfortunately do not have that. So first comes the authority of the Church. Then comes our assent to it and the knowledge of all these Transcendent claims which we believe by faith.

Let me know if this clarified things or which elements still feel unclear.

 

[brb3]

Wonderful post but here is where you will run into a problem. Many Protestant believe that there is no “Church” but rather the church is the body of Christians or believers. Many believe Christ did not give authority to Pope Peter because there was no “church” to give authority over.

But, they forget Jesus said “you are Peter, and upon this rock [petra] I WILL BUILD my
Church.” Future tense used by Christ. After Jesus returned to heaven, the building of Church BEGAN, with Peter getting honors, at Sermon of Pentecost !!!

 

[brb3]

So given what I said in my OP, what do you have to show that the Catholic reasoning is flawed and also to support the Protestant position?

Well, other Protestants will not be so Rebellious, and grant that the Catholic Church was kosher in the beginning, but lost her way in 1200-1500’s … and Christ, took away her ‘lamp-stand’ … or else ‘spat’ her out, like Churches at Ephesus and Laodicea — to give to another.

Plus, they use Revelation … to point out at least 7 Churches existed, ---- not just a single Catholic Church. And, they will point to the split of Eastern Church from RCC … as evidence Catholics are incorrect about a unified Apostolic Church from Day 1… and which has the primacy.

 

[SyCarl]

So if the Church came before scripture and we have the scriptures because of the Church then…

Then we have what Irenaeus said:

We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith

Irenaeus (Against Heresies Book 3, Chapter 1. Paragraph 1.)
newadvent.org/fathers/0103301.htm

What the Apostles first taught orally was then passed in writing. The content is the same

About the perspicuity of the Scriptures he said this"

A sound mind, and one which does not expose its possessor to danger, and is devoted to piety and the love of truth, will eagerly meditate upon those things which God has placed within the power of mankind, and has subjected to our knowledge, and will make advancement in [acquaintance with] them, rendering the knowledge of them easy to him by means of daily study. These things are such as fall [plainly] under our observation, and are clearly and unambiguously in express terms set forth in the Sacred Scriptures .Since, therefore, the entire Scriptures, the prophets, and the Gospels, can be clearly, unambiguously, and harmoniously understood by all,

Irenaeus (Against Heresies Book 2, Chapter 27, Paragraphs 1 & 2.)
newadvent.org/fathers/0103227.htm

What was one of the bases he used to dispute the Gnostics?

When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority,** and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but vivâ voce**: wherefore also Paul declared, “But we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world.

Irenaeus (Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 2, Paragraph 1)
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.iii.html

Another example is John Chrysostom

“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” All what Scripture? all that sacred writing, he means, of which I was speaking. This is said of what he was discoursing of; about which he said, “From a child you have known the holy Scriptures.” All such, then, “is given by inspiration of God”; therefore, he means, do not doubt; and it is “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”

“For doctrine.” For thence we shall know, whether we ought to learn or to be ignorant of anything. And thence we may disprove what is false, thence we may be corrected and brought to a right mind, may be comforted and consoled, and if anything is deficient, we may have it added to us.

“That the man of God may be perfect.” For this is the exhortation of the Scripture given, that the man of God may be rendered perfect by it; without this therefore he cannot be perfect. You have the Scriptures, he says, in place of me. If you would learn anything, you may learn it from them. And if he thus wrote to Timothy, who was filled with the Spirit, how much more to us!

“Thoroughly furnished unto all good works”; not merely taking part in them, he means, but “thoroughly furnished.”

John Chrysostom (Homilies on Second Timothy, 9, 3:16-17)
newadvent.org/fathers/230709.htm

He doesn’t say if you want know something, ask the Church. He says learn it from the Scriptures which we have in place of the Apostle.

What does Augustine say.

. In all these books those who fear God and are of a meek and pious disposition seek the will of God. And in pursuing this search the first rule to be observed is, as I said, to know these books, if not yet with the understanding, still to read them so as to commit them to memory, or at least so as not to remain wholly ignorant of them. Next, those matters that are plainly laid down in them, whether rules of life or rules of faith, are to be searched into more carefully and more diligently; and the more of these a man discovers, the more capacious does his understanding become. For among the things that are plainly laid down in Scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith and the manner of life,

Augustine (On Christian Doctrine, Book 2, Chapter 9, Paragraph 14)

He makes a distinction between what is written and what is not.

…if it is supported by the evident authority of the Divine Scriptures…it must be believed without any reservation. In regard to other witnesses of evidence which are offered as guarantees of belief, you may believe or not, according as your estimate that they either have or have not the weight necessary to produce belief.

Augustine (Fathers of the Church Letters, 147, Catholic University of America)

An example of something that may or may not be believed?

And it is not impossible that something of the same kind may take place even after this life. It is a matter that may be inquired into, and either ascertained or left doubtful, whether some believers shall pass through a kind of purgatorial fire, and in proportion as they have loved with more or less devotion the goods that perish, be less or more quickly delivered from it;

-Augustine (The Enchiridion Chapter 69)
newadvent.org/fathers/1302.htm

 

[SyCarl]

It is important because every religion on this earth makes a set of supernatural claims. Since we cannot directly verify supernatural claims as humans, we have to trust the person or persons claiming these truths. But to do so, we must first know

1. that the person has authority to know supernatural truths, and
2. what truths the person (or persons) taught

Now both of the above must be knowable within the realm of day-to-day reasoning (which we will refer to as natural reasoning for convenience) .

So the Catholic claim for (1) is that Jesus proved his authority to know and control the supernatural through his death and resurrection and that it is a historically verifiable fact. This is pretty much what all Protestants would claim as well (other than those who hold a modernist view that it is a spiritual resurrection).

It is your opinion that the resurrection is a historically verifiable fact. Other than Christian writings what other sources verify this? If we can rely on statements of the members of the religion, what reason is there to not believe other religions’ claims. For example on whether Mohammed was a prophet, if allow early Islamic writings as proof, we would have to believe he was.

The reason we believe in the resurrection is because of faith not that it is historically provable.

The division between Catholics and Protestants then take place on point (2) on what Jesus taught. The Catholics claim that we know what Jesus taught by giving assent to the Church. The Protestant claims that one directly gives assent to the Bible as the Word of God and that each believer interprets the Bible. The Church is then judged using the Bible.

Now it must be noted that either of the claims must be accessible through natural reasoning and otherwise we must conclude that we just don’t know what Christ taught.

Where does the requirement that it be accessible through natural reason come from? This is your opinion, or that of the person you are using as a reference. It can not be stated as if it was fact.

Now I would first like to handle the arguments for (2) from the Protestant side

a) It says in Scripture that it is inspired by God
b) Therefore it is the Word of God

Problem with the above is that I can write a book and include a sentence that it is the Word of God. That does not make it true.

a) When reading Scripture, one sees that it is indeed the Word of God

But “X is the Word of God” is a supernatural claim. Since we cannot directly perceive the supernatural, we cannot make such claims.

Now one can present the objection to the Protestant claim as follows

1a) “Scripture is inspired by God” is a Supernatural claim
2a) Supernatural claims are not directly verifiable
3a) Therefore the claim must be made by a person or an entity that one can decide through reason to possess knowledge and be authoritative on the Supernatural

So the (3a) requires that we have another authority that has either proven itself as Christ did or can be seen to have some authority to teach what Christ taught.

It is possible to tell that Scripture is the word of God through the working of the Holy Spirit. We don’t need to know about the Holy Spirit for Him to convict us of the nature of Scripture when we read it. If it is God’s will then we will recognize it as His Word. I note your use of the phrase “one can decide through reason”. This is no different than saying you must make a personal interpretation of the evidence you use are using both as to its meaning and credibility. Your interpretation on this is no more verifiable than that of a person who reaches a different decision on the same evidence.

In the same way, Catholics see Christ’s Apostles as worthy of being considered as having the authority of Christ. Now treating Scriptures as nothing more than historical accounts of Christ, we know that among many Disciples (students) of Christ, 12 were specifically chosen and had a more closer relationship with Christ. Therefore it seems reasonable that these 12 were given the knowledge and authority to teach what Christ taught about supernatural truths. Thus we have the birth of a field of knowledge regarding the supernatural and its caretakers, experts and teachers.

Now these Apostles themselves had students of their own that they selected. They would be the Apostolic Successors. In the same way, this field of knowledge has been maintained, passed down and taught by Apostolic Successors to this day. Therefore, anyone who wants to know what Christ taught must assent to the authority of the Church consisting of Apostolic Successors.;

I would hardly deny that the Apostles had authority. The question is whether their authority could be passed to others and, if so, to what extent. Passing teaching on does not mean that the transmission is done infallibly.

 

[brb3]

Then we have what Irenaeus said:

Irenaeus (Against Heresies Book 3, Chapter 1. Paragraph 1.)
newadvent.org/fathers/0103301.htm

What the Apostles first taught orally was then passed in writing. The content is the same

About the perspicuity of the Scriptures he said this"

Irenaeus (Against Heresies Book 2, Chapter 27, Paragraphs 1 & 2.)
newadvent.org/fathers/0103227.htm

What was one of the bases he used to dispute the Gnostics?

Irenaeus (Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 2, Paragraph 1)
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.iii.html

Another example is John Chrysostom

John Chrysostom (Homilies on Second Timothy, 9, 3:16-17)
newadvent.org/fathers/230709.htm

He doesn’t say if you want know something, ask the Church. He says learn it from the Scriptures which we have in place of the Apostle.

What does Augustine say.

Augustine (On Christian Doctrine, Book 2, Chapter 9, Paragraph 14)

He makes a distinction between what is written and what is not.

Augustine (Fathers of the Church Letters, 147, Catholic University of America)

An example of something that may or may not be believed?

-Augustine (The Enchiridion Chapter 69)
newadvent.org/fathers/1302.htm

SyCarl…

Great quotes from the ECF’s !! They all accepted Sacred Scripture as the Gold Standard of Christianity. Yes, there was some tradition in the beginning, but the essentials of it were captured in SS for us by the HS.
Scripture is now the Rosetta Stone of our beliefs.

Nevertheless, the CC was from Peter, is the first and truest example of the faith. History confirms this fact…and the HS confirms Christ is risen and ruling from on high.

 

[aidanbradypop]

Then we have what Irenaeus said:

Irenaeus (Against Heresies Book 3, Chapter 1. Paragraph 1.)
newadvent.org/fathers/0103301.htm

What the Apostles first taught orally was then passed in writing. The content is the same

About the perspicuity of the Scriptures he said this"

Irenaeus (Against Heresies Book 2, Chapter 27, Paragraphs 1 & 2.)
newadvent.org/fathers/0103227.htm

What was one of the bases he used to dispute the Gnostics?

Irenaeus (Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 2, Paragraph 1)
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.iii.html

Another example is John Chrysostom

John Chrysostom (Homilies on Second Timothy, 9, 3:16-17)
newadvent.org/fathers/230709.htm

He doesn’t say if you want know something, ask the Church. He says learn it from the Scriptures which we have in place of the Apostle.

What does Augustine say.

Augustine (On Christian Doctrine, Book 2, Chapter 9, Paragraph 14)

He makes a distinction between what is written and what is not.

Augustine (Fathers of the Church Letters, 147, Catholic University of America)

An example of something that may or may not be believed?

-Augustine (The Enchiridion Chapter 69)
newadvent.org/fathers/1302.htm

Great quotes from the ECFs! I do not see anything there that a Catholic would have an issue with.

In your attempt to discredit the Church with early Catholics, you still failed to show where the ECFs said that Scripture was the only authority in one’s life.

May I share some quotes of the Church Fathers that you quoted? Surely if you believe in the quotes you posted then you will agree with these post as well.

“Those, therefore, who desert the preaching of the Church, call in question the knowledge of the holy presbyters, not taking into consideration of how much greater consequence is a religious man, even in a private station, than a blasphemous and impudent sophist. Now, such are all the heretics, and those who imagine that they have hit upon something more beyond the truth, so that by following those things already mentioned, proceeding on their way variously, in harmoniously, and foolishly, not keeping always to the same opinions with regard to the same things, as blind men are led by the blind, they shall deservedly fall into the ditch of ignorance lying in their path, ever seeking and never finding out the truth. It behooves us, therefore, to avoid their doctrines, and to take careful heed lest we suffer any injury from them; but to flee to the Church, and be brought up in her bosom, and be nourished with the Lord’s Scriptures." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5,20:2 (A.D. 180).

“They teach what they themselves have learnt from their predecessors. They have received those rites which they explain from the Church’s tradition. They preach only ‘the dogmas of the Church’” John Chrysostom, Baptismal Instruction (A.D. 389).

“But when proper words make Scripture ambiguous, we must see in the first place that there is nothing wrong in our punctuation or pronunciation. Accordingly, if, when attention is given to the passage, it shall appear to be uncertain in what way it ought to be punctuated or pronounced, let the reader consult the rule of faith which he has gathered from the plainer passages of Scripture, and from the authority of the Church, and of which I treated at sufficient length when I was speaking in the first book about things.” Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, 3,2:2 (A.D. 397).

So we see that the ECFs were very much about Scripture, but also knew the role of Tradition and the Church in matters of doctrine and faith. One cannot only pick quotes that gives credit to one’s position and ignore the quotes that goes against such a position.

“True knowledge is [that which consists in] the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system of doctrine, and neither receiving addition nor [suffering] curtailment [in the truths which she believes]; and [it consists in] reading [the word of God] without falsification, and a lawful and diligent exposition in harmony with the Scriptures, both without danger and without blasphemy; and [above all, it consists in] the pre-eminent gift of love, which is more precious than knowledge, more glorious than prophecy, and which excels all the other gifts [of God]." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4,33:8 (inter A.D. 180-199).

 

[LHJOHNSON]

Let me know if this clarified things or which elements still feel unclear.

Response to Eufrosnia

Thank you for taking the time to explain. It sounds like you are saying we can not believe without the Church.This sounds very reasonable. Where would we be without the Church? I will consider all this and keep following the posts and jump in later. May God continue to bless you and give you insight, peace be with you,LHJ

 

[aidanbradypop]

But, they forget Jesus said “you are Peter, and upon this rock [petra] I WILL BUILD my
Church.” Future tense used by Christ. After Jesus returned to heaven, the building of Church BEGAN, with Peter getting honors, at Sermon of Pentecost !!!

It still does not bridge the gap of their understanding of “Church.” If one simply believe the believers are the Church then there is no need to give an establishment any authority.

 

[Tomster]

Ok, so now that y’all have chimed in…perhaps y’all (and anyone else of Protestant persuasion) can tell us what became of the Church that Christ founded? Rather, stated differently:

When or how–that is, by what event or person–claiming or otherwise amounting to ‘Divine Revelation’–was the Church that was born on the Pentacost, and to which the Bible was entrusted–supposedly DIVESTED of the authority with which she was invested, at the Pentacost?

Seems to me rather logical–nay, Biblical–that if God invested something or someone with authority, it would take nothing shy of Divine Revelation (or direct Divine intervention) to divest it/him/her of such authority. No?

When did this supposedly happen to the ONE Church, going into the Reformation?

What became of that One Church?

There are those who say that Lutheranism is just a corrected continuation of that ONE Church.

 

[Koineman]

Your post is a little too long.

So let me answer it here.

You are confusing empirically verifiable with “me being personally able to perform empirical verification”. That is a very weird view of empirical verification.

It’s not weird. Empiricism involves establishing the truth of something via direct, sensory experience, not the sensory experience of another and then taking their word for it.

When I say that historical knowledge is empirical, what I mean is that people living at the time has no issue in witnessing the events through their senses.

That is certainly true about them, but not about you. If you recall, my earlier question to you was how did you arrive at your conclusion that the RCC is the one true church. You replied with a syllogism consisting mostly of historical “facts” and then defended those historical facts on the basis of empirical verification, so naturally, I thought you were referring to your own empirical observation.

The reality of those past events, for you, is dependent on the claims of people you never knew and, for all you know, could have been hallucinating. So you are taking their word for it. You are interpreting their witness as true, and it is your own fallible interpretation. The problem is that you have to use a fallible means to determine your infallible authority.

And since it was posted on the other thread, I’ll paste here your syllogism:

1. Jesus died and rose from the dead – Historical fact
2. Jesus was a rabbi – Historical fact
3. Jesus had students (Apostles) – Historical fact
4. Rabbi’s pass their knowledge and teaching authority to their selected students – Natural reasoning and History
5. Therefore Apostles have the knowledge given to them by Jesus and the authority to teach
6. The Apostles had selected students of their own – Historical fact
7. Therefore these students (who we have usually come to refer to as Apostolic Successors) have the knowledge and authority to teach what Jesus revealed as well
8. Today you assent to the Catholic Church to learn what Jesus taught because it has the Apostolic Successors of Christ

Second issue with Jesus being a rabbi, it only matters that he considered himself a teacher. We can use Scripture as mere historical documents to see that he did indeed consider himself a teacher. That is all that matters.

No, it’s not. Jesus went against the established grain of the Judaism of His day in serious ways, as we all know. Who is to say, then, that He did not go against the grain in this area? Unless you can establish that with certainty, then this premise is doubtful and, consequently, makes premise 4 in your argument pointless.

Anyway, in all of this, you seem to forget that there is no point in quoting what Paul said or what John said regarding supernatural matters if we don’t know they have any authority.

I know that what they wrote has authority because it is inspired Scripture, and you agree that it is inspired Scripture (if you accept everything the RCC teaches), so it’s not pointless to quote it.

The only way to say they have authority is to postulate a teacher passing down authority to students. In this case, Jesus himself to the Apostles.

But in the approach you’re using, that fails because you are relying on your own interpretation of what others have said/written.

So even if you reduce Catholicism to the same problem as Protestantism, the conclusion is not that Protestantism is justifiable but both are unreasonable and should be purged. Do you realize that?

No, because I’m not saying that Protestantism actually has a problem that warrants its purging. I’m saying that Catholicism suffers from the same problem that you claim Protestantism has. You have claimed that Protestantism has no real authority, no “parent” to tell the “child” when his interpretation is wrong or right. But that is not true. The authority is Scripture, and that Scripture is a living voice, God-breathed, and corrects those who are willing to submit to its teachings. That is perfectly reasonable.

Also, the point here is more than whether the RCC is superior. The point here is that to assent to the RCC is REASONABLE.

I don’t think so. Consider:

1. Based on Paul’s reaction to the Judaizers in his letter to the Galatians, something can be considered to be another gospel if it shifts some or all of the burden of salvation from Christ to believers.
2. Paul wrote in Gal. 1 that those who preach another gospel are anathema, regardless of their position, office, etc.
3. The RCC preaches another gospel in that it shifts the burden of salvation from Christ to the believer’s obedience to the commandments:

“For since Christ Jesus Himself, as the head into the members and the vine into the branches,[99] continually infuses strength into those justified, which strength always precedes, accompanies and follows their good works, and without which they could not in any manner be pleasing and meritorious before God, we must believe that nothing further is wanting to those justified to prevent them from being considered to have, by those very works which have been done in God, fully satisfied the divine law according to the state of this life and to have truly merited eternal life, to be obtained in its [due] time, provided they depart [this life] in grace,…” (Council of Trent, VI.XVI)

1. Any church that does not faithfully pass on what the apostles taught cannot be said to be an apostolic church.
2. The RCC does not faithfully pass on what the apostles taught because it has distorted the gospel message.
3. Therefore, the RCC is not apostolic and is to be rejected.

 

[Goya]

@ CY CARL, KOINEMAN, OR BRB3–or anyone else of protestant persuasion:

Ok, so now that y’all have chimed in…perhaps y’all (and anyone else of Protestant persuasion) can tell us what became of the Church that Christ founded? Rather, stated differently:

When or how–that is, by what event or person–claiming or otherwise amounting to ‘Divine Revelation’–was the Church that was born on the Pentacost, and to which the Bible was entrusted–supposedly DIVESTED of the authority with which she was invested, at the Pentacost?

Seems to me rather logical–nay, Biblical–that if God invested something or someone with authority, it would take nothing shy of Divine Revelation (or direct Divine intervention) to divest it/him/her of such authority. No?

When did this supposedly happen to the ONE Church, going into the Reformation?

What became of that One Church?

No takers? Not one???

Come on now…we’re talk’n about authority here—the Church must have ‘lost it’ at some point in time…or is it that she never had it to begin with? What’s the deal?

She had the authority to determine the books of the Bible (ref. Latin Vulgate, circa 387 A.D.); she had the authority to pronounce the Trinity, against heresy; to comprise the Nicene Creed; to declare what constitutes heresey…what constitues the Gospel…

At what specific point in time, or by what specific event–amounting to Divine Revleation–was the same Church which was invested with Authority by Christ, supposedly divested of same, such that Sola Scriptura, and all of it’s consequent churches, were or are, somehow divinely authorized?

Sola scriptura is not prophesized, or otherwise provided for in the Bible; the Bible itself, is not even prophesized. But Christ’s Church WAS prophesized, and clearly discernible from scritpure, and clearly discernible from history.

So it must have been divested of its authority, by some sort of divne revelation, divine intervention, or something amounting to such.

Where is that? What is that?

 

[Tomster]

But, they forget Jesus said “you are Peter, and upon this rock [petra] I WILL BUILD my
Church.” Future tense used by Christ. After Jesus returned to heaven, the building of Church BEGAN, with Peter getting honors, at Sermon of Pentecost !!!

Exactly,

Christ called unto Himself twelve men, His first disciples, the nucleus of His Church. They were not learned. We do not even know if they were literate. But they had higher gifts: Faith in and obedience to the Master. It was to secure and save these gifts that He worked His miracles. St. Augustine puts it well: “By His miracles He gained authority. By authority He secured their faith. By faith He drew the multitudes.” (St. Augustine - "Utility of Belief, XVI, 32)

And conversely we might say: "Without authority there would be no obedience. Without obedience there would be no faith. Without faith there would be no Church.

Authority and obedience, then, were soul and body to the infant Church. Without them she could not have been born, much less lived and grown. She simply would never have existed at all.

 

[Goya]

^^^[follow up to my prior post]: if a Jew were to ask a Catholic this question, we point to Jesus Christ. We claim that Christ is the Son of God; we proclaim the Trinity…we proclaim the Gospel…this is how we assert that the Jews were divested of their authority as Custodian of the Word of God, as Fiduciary of the Deposit of Faith, and of Divine Revelation.

The Old Covenant has been ‘updated’–so to speak–Divinely. That is the ‘Divine Revelation’ basis for our claim to be Custodian of the Word of God, and Fiduciary of the Deposit of Faith, and of Divine Revelation.

When, where, and how–upon what basis–did the Church that Chirst founded–lose this charge, and its incumbent authority?