Authority in Catholicism and Protestantism..

[PRmerger]

“Therefore,if anyone says that blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed by Christ the lord as prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole church militant; or that it was a primacy of honour only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction that he directly and immediately received from our lord Jesus Christ himself:
let him be anathema.” (1)

I think the Magisterium views it differently, that seems to rule out any sort of primacy of honor or ‘first among equals’ hypothesis.

Regards

Lincs

1 - Decrees of Vatican 1, Chapter 1, papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm#Chapter%201%20On%20the%20institution%20of%20the%20apostolic%20primacy%20in%20blessed%20Peter

Of course, Lincs. The Magisterium holds that the pope is the vicar of Christ.

I would not expect that the Church proposes that our pope is first among equals.

I am simply saying that if the Orthodox see our pope as a first among equals, I’m good with that. And our Church regrets that the Orthodox sees it differently, yet continues to reach out her hand in friendship to this “other lung”,

 

[Nicea325]

Lincoln7:

I am happy to accept that scripture was received by the earliest church, but not that it requires an infallible church to decide what books belong.

If no infallible church was required to determine what books belong, then what certitude do you have the books we have are truly inspired and valuable? Were any books left out,since no infallible decision is needed? Tell us which scriptural books were accepted as canonical in the year 90 AD, 150 AD, 212 AD? What canon was settled? During what part of the early church did they declare the writers of NT were infallible?

For no such infallible pronouncement came until Trent, it seems one was not needed for the earliest church.

And that proves infallibility does not exist until Trent? What about Nicaea in 325? The councils in 381, 451 AD? Fallible councils with fallible declarations?

 

[PRmerger]

It’s not untrue, it’s there; Jesus having a human and divine nature… scripture clearly shows it.
Again, not ‘no tradition’ but that this tradition must be in accord with scripture.
Why the expositiory on it? Well people still can benefit from wiser Christians opening up the scriptures for them. That’s not opposed to sola scriptura, scripture is the final authority still.

If this is true, Lincs, then let me ask you this: what is the procedure you have for allowing a guest pastor/preacher/minister (not sure what appellation your denomination uses) come to your church to preach?

Let’s say there’s a minister you meet on a bus and he asks you, “You’re a Christian? Great! I’m a minister! Can I come and preach and your church? I preach from the Bible!”

Will you say yes?

Or will you ask him what he believes because, well, there’s LOTS of things that can be believed when someone says he’s a Christian minister who preaches “from the Bible.”

And if he responds, “Why, I believe what the Bible says!” will that tell you anything at all about what he believes?

NOPE.

You will not allow someone to preach at your church simply because he says, “I preach from the Bible!”

 

[PRmerger]

I also agree with you… Thanks Iggy and a few other Lutherans who state their positions intelligently.

Me, too!

:tiphat:

 

[IggyAntiochus]

No, Iggy. The *modus operandi *you ought to utilize is decide which is the Church that Christ founded, and then conform your views to that Church.

NOT this: Find the church that conforms to your own ideas of what Scripture, tradition and church history says.

That’s the essence of creating a god in your own image, no?

I daresay that if you’re in a church that happens to agree with every single one of your own views, then I daresay that you’re in a church of your own making, no? You’ve church shopped for a god that holds the same ideas as you do.

My statement was not predicated upon finding a church that conforms to one’s own ideas about Scripture, tradition or church history. The basis of my question was, after looking at Scripture, tradition, and church history becoming convinced that either Rome or Orthodoxy was the Church Christ founded. In either case, the conviction is a fallible, personal decision to accept either church as the true, infallible church.

You are presuming that Protestants join whichever tradition they do because it conforms to their preconceived understanding. That is a non sequitur.

In fact, I pointedly ask you, Iggy, is there some doctrine or dogma that you have changed your views on, simply because Jesus has declared it to be so, and you know this through your Lutheran tradition,** but that your own PERSONAL view is in disagreement with?
**

Yes, I was Baptist. Which means I personally disagreed with infant baptism, baptismal regeneration, the real presence, absolution, et al.

And, to the point, whichever Church you believe Christ founded–CC or EO–it’s going to have the same views. And you’re going to conform your own views to that.

You really believe it’s the same views? I have to ask that with just a bit of incredulity.

 

[Lincoln7]

Of course, Lincs. The Magisterium holds that the pope is the vicar of Christ.

I would not expect that the Church proposes that our pope is first among equals.

I am simply saying that if the Orthodox see our pope as a first among equals, I’m good with that. And our Church regrets that the Orthodox sees it differently, yet continues to reach out her hand in friendship to this “other lung”,

Vatican 1 seems to pronounce an anathema on those who would disagree with their interpretation…

If no infallible church was required to determine what books belong, then what certitude do you have the books we have are truly inspired and valuable? Were any books left out,since no infallible decision is needed? Tell us which scriptural books were accepted as canonical in the year 90 AD, 150 AD, 212 AD? What canon was settled? During what part of the early church did they declare the writers of NT were infallible?

crossway.org/books/the-heresy-of-orthodoxy-tpb/ - I recommend here.
Again though Nicea, you now need an infallible guide to tell you what ultimate and authoritative church is the right one to trust.

 

[PRmerger]

I am happy to accept that scripture was received by the earliest church, but not that it requires an infallible church to decide what books belong.

Well, then, Lincs, where do you think the Church erred? Do you believe she should have included the Didache and excluded Revelations?

And, are you willing to acknowledge that this “earliest church” which discerned for you what was theopneustos consisted of bishops? Men who were anointed by other men who were anointed by other men who were anointed, who were anointed by the Apostles? And these bishops met in ecumenical councils?

And, does your church have bishops who were anointed by men who were anointed by men <snip 2000 years> who were anointed by the Apostles?

 

[PRmerger]

Vatican 1 seems to pronounce an anathema on those who would disagree with their interpretation.

You do understand that “anathema” can only be applied to Catholics, right?

 

[IggyAntiochus]

I also agree with you… Thanks Iggy and a few other Lutherans who state their positions intelligently. I rarely ever respond but I do read.

God bless you, dont

And thank you PR, Lincs, it means a lot to this poor, miserable sinner

 

[Nicea325]

Vatican 1 seems to pronounce an anathema on those who would disagree with their interpretation…

crossway.org/books/the-heresy-of-orthodoxy-tpb/ - I recommend here.
Again though Nicea, you now need an infallible guide to tell you what ultimate and authoritative church is the right one to trust.

I am sorry my brother, you still did not answer my question:

If no infallible church was required to determine what books belong, then what certitude do you have the books we have are truly inspired and valuable?

I am sorry…I “now” need an infallible guide? So my assumption is that you believe for centuries the Apostles and the church they left beind was exempt from guidance of the Holy Spirit? Infallibility began with Jesus Linc,now at Trent or 100 years ago. So according to your position all the doctrines defined and made official at Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon, etc were fallible,since NO infallible church is needed?

 

[Lincoln7]

Well, then, Lincs, where do you think the Church erred? Do you believe she should have included the Didache and excluded Revelations?

And, are you willing to acknowledge that this “earliest church” which discerned for you what was theopneustos consisted of bishops? Men who were anointed by other men who were anointed by other men who were anointed, who were anointed by the Apostles? And these bishops met in ecumenical councils?

Again, check out the book recommendation for my views on canon development in the early church. A for this view in apostolic succession, I’ve already stated I think it’s much more important to teach apostolic doctrine as recorded in scripture than demonstrate a possible physical line back to them…

I am sorry my brother, you still did not answer my question:

If no infallible church was required to determine what books belong, then what certitude do you have the books we have are truly inspired and valuable?

I am sorry…I “now” need an infallible guide? So my assumption is that you believe for centuries the Apostles and the church they left beind was exempt from guidance of the Holy Spirit? Infallibility began with Jesus Linc,now at Trent or 100 years ago. So according to your position all the doctrines defined and made official at Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon, etc were fallible,since NO infallible church is needed?

Again, see the link, that was answering, I didn’t really want to post the whole book here
I think that what these councils say is in alignment with scripture. Fallible yes, but incorrect? Most certainly not.

Regards

Lincs.

 

[Nicea325]

Again, check out the book recommendation for my views on canon development in the early church. A for this view in apostolic succession, I’ve already stated I think it’s much more important to teach apostolic doctrine as recorded in scripture than demonstrate a possible physical line back to them…

Again, see the link, that was answering, I didn’t really want to post the whole book here
I think that what these councils say is in alignment with scripture. Fallible yes, but incorrect? Most certainly not.

Regards

Lincs.

Yes…development as in the canon,Incarnation,Trinity,etc. Unfortunately, your position is contradictory. We have an infallible source (Bible) and the books were decided by a fallible council? How can a fallible council determine what books were canonical or not,if no infallibility is required? Unfortunately, your position is also contradictory what Jesus promised for His Church. Either Jesus sanctified His Church or did not? More important, the Church is also Jesus’ mystical Body as stated in Ephesians,so how can Jesus Body be fallible and yet give us doctrines as the Incarnation?

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, I was Baptist. Which means I personally disagreed with infant baptism, baptismal regeneration, the real presence, absolution, et al.

No, Iggy. I am asking you for a view that you hold personally, but that you have conformed to because you believe Christ teaches differently than your own opinion. And that you conformed because “Christ said it”.

So if I’m going to apply the views you cited above to answer my question, you are saying, “I personally do not believe in infant baptism, but I will baptize my children because Christ said it!”

and “I personally do not believe that Jesus could truly be present in the Eucharist, but I will accept that it is because the Lutheran Church proclaims this to be so.”

Is this what you are saying?

You really believe it’s the same views? I have to ask that with just a bit of incredulity.

I do. Just a different way of proposing the same ideas. Tomato. To-MAH-to. It’s still the same red thing we get spaghetti sauce out of.

 

[PRmerger]

My statement was not predicated upon finding a church that conforms to one’s own ideas about Scripture, tradition or church history. The basis of my question was, after looking at Scripture, tradition, and church history becoming convinced that either Rome or Orthodoxy was the Church Christ founded. In either case, the conviction is a fallible, personal decision to accept either church as the true, infallible church.

Yes. It comes down to fides quaarens intellectum–faith seeking understanding.

No one is saying that our own decision to follow Christ is an infallible decision.

We reserve the charism of infallibility to the Church, when she speaks in the areas of faith and morals.

And no matter what any non-Catholic Christian proclaims to the contrary, he/she also believes in the charism of infallibility when he/she quotes, say, Hebrews, as being inspired.

Unless this non-Catholic Christian believes that the CC erred in discerning this, then he/she is acknowledging the Church was infallible.

Not to mention, each and every time a non-Catholic Christian quotes Matthew or Mark or Luke, et al, and cites this quotation as being without error, he/she is acknowledging that MEN can be infallible.

 

[IggyAntiochus]

“I personally do not believe that Jesus could truly be present in the Eucharist, but I will accept that it is because the Lutheran Church proclaims this to be so.”

Is this what you are saying?

There is no logical reason for me to believe in the real presence in the holy eucharist. That is to say, it doesn’t in any way, shape or form make sense to me. I believe it because Christ said “This is my body.” So, I have to take Him at His word. The same with baptismal regeneration.

I do. Just a different way of proposing the same ideas. Tomato. To-MAH-to. It’s still the same red thing we get spaghetti sauce out of.

Okay. Bear in mind I have no horse in the East/West race. I am positive they would not agree with that assessment.

 

[PRmerger]

You are presuming that Protestants join whichever tradition they do because it conforms to their preconceived understanding. That is a non sequitur.

Fair enough.

This is a different question, then.

And it’s a question that I find quite trenchant.

If you are in a church that doesn’t make you squirm a bit, doesn’t make you say, "I really wish my church didn’t tell me that I have to ", then you are in a church of your own image. You have found a church that conforms to your own likes, sensitivities, proclivities, and image.

Is there a doctrine that you now hold that your church proclaims that you disagree with personally?

If not, then reason dictates that you have church shopped until you found a church that appeals to your own palate.

(“You” here being a generic you. Not a personal you.)

 

[PRmerger]

Again, check out the book recommendation for my views on canon development in the early church. A for this view in apostolic succession, I’ve already stated I think it’s much more important to teach apostolic doctrine as recorded in scripture than demonstrate a possible physical line back to them…

Not sure why I have to check out a book to receive an answer, Lincs.

Either the Church was infallible, and able to discern the canon of the NT without error, or she erred.

Which do you believe it was? There is no either/or in this case. Either she got it right or she didn’t.

And if she got it right, she was, by definition, infallible.

And infallible on multiple occasions and with a multitude of individuals (differing bishops).

Why would I need to read a book on this to get your answer?

 

[Lincoln7]

Yes…development as in the canon,Incarnation,Trinity,etc. Unfortunately, your position is contradictory. We have an infallible source (Bible) and the books were decided by a fallible council? How can a fallible council determine what books were canonical or not,if no infallibility is required? Unfortunately, your position is also contradictory what Jesus promised for His Church. Either Jesus sanctified His Church or did not? More important, the Church is also Jesus’ mystical Body as stated in Ephesians,so how can Jesus Body be fallible and yet give us doctrines as the Incarnation?

Well no ecumenical council you would recognise as infallible made any pronouncement until Trent, how did all the Christians before this know they had the right books?

How can a fallible church then know it has the right books? Well firstly the providence of God, secondly, it uses history, just like the early church did. No appeals to Rome to settle the matter, but simply acknowledging that the books left to them by the Apostles and their close associates were infallible and authroritative scripture. Scripture is inspired, not the canon list - aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3822

Jesus did indeed sanctify a people, his elect (Heb 10:14, 1 Corinthians 1:2, 1 Corinthians 6:11) The church can be fallible, it’s seen time and again in scripture that churches can go wrong; those in Galatia, Corinth etc… Paul’s words in Acts 20 that wolves will arise in the church itself, “stay alert” he says, cling to his teaching. To Timothy he says to know scripture, it will make him wise for salvation ( 2 Timothy 3:15-16) The Lord himself rebuked those around him "But Jesus answered them, “You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God.” (Matthew 22:29). The Jews of the second temple were held accountable by The Lord to the scriptures, which he implies they should be able to understand. They also of course had no infallible authority to tell them what books they needed, they still got it right it would seem.

Kind regards

Lincs

 

[IggyAntiochus]

Fair enough.

This is a different question, then.

And it’s a question that I find quite trenchant.

If you are in a church that doesn’t make you squirm a bit, doesn’t make you say, "I really wish my church didn’t tell me that I have to ", then you are in a church of your own image. You have found a church that conforms to your own likes, sensitivities, proclivities, and image.

Is there a doctrine that you now hold that your church proclaims that you disagree with personally?

If not, then reason dictates that you have church shopped until you found a church that appeals to your own palate.

(“You” here being a generic you. Not a personal you.)

I agree with you 100%. Believe me, I have the utmost respect for Protestants who join the Roman or Eastern communions. I know that it isn’t easy accepting doctrines like the real presence, or baptismal regeneration. I went through much of that myself. In some cases, I would definitely say it’s an improvement.

 

[PRmerger]

There is no logical reason for me to believe in the real presence in the holy eucharist. That is to say, it doesn’t in any way, shape or form make sense to me. I believe it because Christ said “This is my body.” So, I have to take Him at His word. The same with baptismal regeneration.

Fair enough.

Okay. Bear in mind I have no horse in the East/West race. I am positive they would not agree with that assessment.

That they have a certain degree of animus towards the CC, there is no doubt. (“They”, again, being a generic “they”, and not a monolithic “they”.)

As far as your having no horse in the East/West race, I wonder about that.

What would it mean for you to pick a horse? Would it mean some sort of radical change in your comfort? I don’t mean to get personal, but I did see your homepage that you offer to all to visit…and it makes me wonder what it would mean for you to become Catholic. No need to answer this very personal and intrusive question. I only posit it as an expression of my own conjectures.