Authority in Catholicism and Protestantism..

[Nicea325]

PR,

Those bishops lists were fabricated in the third century. No historians accept them. Here is
Andrew Louth (EO) to explain

Andrew Louth, translator of Esubius’ History of the Church
in his introduction P xxii regarding the bishop list for the Roman Church.

“The problem for the first century or so is what it is a list of: for evidence
that there was a single bishop leading the Roman Church is lacking for that
period; indeed what evidence there is suggests a rather different picture.
When Clement wrote to the Corinthian Church, he wrote not as a bishop in the
later sense but as one of the presbyters of the Roman Church entrusted with
the task of writing on behalf of the whole Roman Church to the erring Church
of Corinth, similarly, Ignatius writing perhaps a decade later to the Roman
Church, does not seem to envisage a ‘bishop of Rome’, despite his enthusiasm
for monepiscopacy.”

“The other odd thing about Eusebius’ use of the succession list for Rome is more
venial; that for the last half of the third century he has clearly misread it,
reading years for months and months for years, so that, overlooking the
martydom of Xystus II, he has him reigning for another ten years, which upsests
the chronology of the bishops of Rome for the rest of the century.”

Peter was never a bishop of Rome or anywhere.
Here is Gary Wills to explain.

Garry Wills, Professor of History Emeritus, Northwestern U.,
Pulitzer Prize Winner
author of WHY I AM A CATHOLIC, wrote the following in his
Best Seller WHAT JESUS MEANT page 81.

“The idea that Peter was given some special power that could be
handed on to a successor runs into the problem that he had no
successor. The idea that there is an “apostolic succession”
to Peter’s fictional episcopacy did not arise for several
centuries, at which time Peter and others were retrospectively
called bishops of Rome, to create an imagined succession.Even
so, there has not been an unbroken chain of popes.”

What you are quoting is mythology and not historical fact.

Peace, JohnR

I am still wondering why you keep on dodging my question posed for you?

You claim we are quoting mythology (which you have provided zlich evidence) and yet St. Irenaeus clearly made a statement about Peter in 180 AD?

Tell me where this mythology derived from and where did it start?

If you believe it is mythology,hence meaning the CC position is bogus,then I want you to present me the ancient historical writings which challenged the CC tradition? Meaning what? There existed another tradition which apparently is the correct one. I’ll wait for those ancient sources. I want to read of this other tradition which challenged the current CC tradition going back to Peter.

Remember it is you claiming it is all a myth and not fact,thus burden of proof is all on you to show us otherwise.

 

[PRmerger]

No I don’t… I look at it, and know that God in his providence used a fallible body of men to receive the canon and ensure it was faithfully copied by scribes.

Okay, Lincs. Let’s start from this point. Let’s say it’s the year 70. There is NO BIBLE. NO Codex of books. No Canon. The last apostle has just gone on this his heavenly reward.

What is going on in the Church, as you understand it, regarding the passing on of Scripture?

WHO is telling a “scribe” to copy Hebrews and distribute it? And how does this “WHO” know that Hebrews is inspired?

And now let’s say that it’s the year 100, and there’s a lot more Christian texts in circulation. WHO is deciding that 2 Thessalonians (now penned, but in the year 70, apparently not) is inspired but that the Didache is not?

Now, you can tell me to look at your source, or you can answer the questions. I prefer that you just answer the questions so I know that you’ve really thought this through.

 

[Lincoln7]

Well yes, anyone who contextually and faithfully exegetes scripture as a whole will come to understand these things as truth, scripture testifies to them… But this all inspired Scripture also teaches more plainly and with more authority, so that we in our turn write boldly to you as we do, and you, if you refer to them, will be able to verify what we say’ Athanasius - Against the Heathen, Part 3, 45.

Scripture teaches plainly? And clearly?

Just look at this (nonexhaustive) list of differing opinions that have been arrived at all from people who “contextually and faithfully exegete” the Scriptures:

Abortion
• Attend weekly services, don’t have to go to Church
• Baptism (sprinkling? Immersion? Infant? Adult? Sacrament? Ordinance? In Jesus’ name only? Using Trinitarian formula?)
• Church leadership, or no leadership
• Death/Soul Sleep
• Divorce
• Health and wealth gospel
• Hell, or no hell
• Homosexuality
• Is God‘s Holy Name Jehovah
• Judge others, don’t judge others
• Lord’s day on Saturday or Sunday
• Music or no music (Singing or no singing)
• Once saved, always saved
• Ordination
• Predestination
• Rapture
• Sola scriptura/private interpretation
• The Eucharist (Communion)
• Tongues (some believe others are not saved if they don’t speak in tongues)
• Trinity vs. Unitarianism
• What’s a sin, what is not a sin
• Women pastors, no women pastors

Cool well on several of these I can think of clear scriptural instructions. Scripture despite being clear on all needed for salvation can still be twisted by the unstable (2 Peter 3:16), does this mean scripture is unclear? No. It means people can twist its clear meaning. Some truths in it are hard to accept as Peter states, as such the unstable will seek to engage in Eisegis, and read what they want anachronistically into the text.

So when Traditional Catholics disagree on worship, on pre and post Vatican 2 church doctrines, would you say that means the Vatican is unclear? Or that people are twisting meanings? Again, the infallible authority still needs interpreting, to claim that some of the documents the Vatican produces are clearer than say Romans 8, I can’t quite accept.

I also guess if scripture isn’t plain, Athanasius was clearly wrong then.

Regards

Lincs.

 

[PRmerger]

Jus to add, we’re now back at the “how do you know Rome is the true church?” question.

Cause you need to know that to be able to trust it has given you the right books. As such the same argument I’m trying to answer; “how do you know what books are scripture without the church?” works just as well on the catholics position, don’t you need an infallible guide now to tell you what infallible interpreter/ultimate authority church body to chose, and to propery interpret it for you?

First we start with the historical reliability of the Scriptures (which we are agreed upon, yes?)

Then we conclude that a Church was founded by Christ.

Then from there we note the history of this Church…and only ONE can trace its roots from present day to Christ (ok, argument may be ceded to the EO, but either one is fine with me).

And we take Christ’s word that he would not leave us orphans.
And that the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church.

And it also stands to reason: why would God give us an infallible book but no way to know for certain what it means? That just seems :whacky: to me.

 

[PRmerger]

What is your response to the case that Rome, Hippo and Carthage were not ecumenical councils and therefore not invested with the charism of infallibility?

I think you misunderstand the charism of infallibility, Iggy. It is not invoked only during ex cathedra pronouncements.

The Church has never proclaimed at any ecumenical council its teaching on artificial contraception. She has never proclaimed it to be an ex cathedra decree. Yet, it is most assuredly an infallible teaching.

And, if you believe that this canon is not an infallible decree, are you of the same position, then, as Lincs and are saying it’s a fallible list?

Then you, too, are uncertain whether Revelations truly belongs in the Bible?

 

[pablope]

What is your response to the case that Rome, Hippo and Carthage were not ecumenical councils and therefore not invested with the charism of infallibility? Being they were not, it would seem to undo the force of the Catholic argument that you need an infallible decision on the canon in order to know whether you have the canon. This would basically mean there was not an infallible canon until, at the very earliest, Florence.

Iggy, my brother in Christ…Rome spoke!

With Pope Damasus in AD 382…and later, in Carthage in 397, Augustine sought the endorsement/approval of the Pope.

Do you see anybody opposing the Canon after the Pope spoke?

I mean opposed the pope, not voicing an opinion.

A couple of things which bear that out is that the East, even after Rome, Hippo and Carthage, had a larger canon. i.e., they did not hold to the canon promulgated by the provincial councils, as they had no authority outside their jurisdictions.

 

[Nicea325]

Cool well on several of these I can think of clear scriptural instructions. Scripture despite being clear on all needed for salvation can still be twisted by the unstable (2 Peter 3:16), does this mean scripture is unclear? No. It means people can twist its clear meaning. Some truths in it are hard to accept as Peter states, as such the unstable will seek to engage in Eisegis, and read what they want anachronistically into the text.

So when Traditional Catholics disagree on worship, on pre and post Vatican 2 church doctrines, would you say that means the Vatican is unclear? Or that people are twisting meanings? Again, the infallible authority still needs interpreting, to claim that some of the documents the Vatican produces are clearer than say Romans 8, I can’t quite accept.

I also guess if scripture isn’t plain, Athanasius was clearly wrong then.

Regards

Lincs.

Exactly! Precisely why the correct authority is needed. You and I can read the U.S. Constitution and twist meanings-right? At the end of the day who determines the “correct” interpretation and understandings? You? Me? Your neighbor? My brother? Nope! The federal government.

The Bible is no different. You say it is because people twist the meaning,thus it begs the question: Who then has the correct interpretation on all the above definitions PR gave us? Who determines the correct one?

 

[Lincoln7]

First we start with the historical reliability of the Scriptures (which we are agreed upon, yes?)

Then we conclude that a Church was founded by Christ.

Then from there we note the history of this Church…and only ONE can trace its roots from present day to Christ (ok, argument may be ceded to the EO, but either one is fine with me).

And we take Christ’s word that he would not leave us orphans.
And that the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church.

And it also stands to reason: why would God give us an infallible book but no way to know for certain what it means? That just seems :whacky: to me.

We most certainly agree on their textual reliability

We don’t agree the Catholic Church is the one true church though no, Christ certainly founded a church, but to me as a Protestant it looks nothing like modern Rome.

On tracing its roots, there is possibly a potential line, but the early succession lists are a bit hazy, and the potential loss of succession in the 3 popes affair. Again though, a line is nothing unless the line also is in accord with what the Scriptures say.

Indeed we are not orphans, and the gates of hell shall not overcome.

It stands to reason, why we would be given an infallible guide to a book and no way to know which guide is right and how to interpet the guide? Same argument I suppose.

Lincs.

 

[IggyAntiochus]

I think you misunderstand the charism of infallibility, Iggy. It is not invoked only during ex cathedra pronouncements.

The Church has never proclaimed at any ecumenical council its teaching on artificial contraception. She has never proclaimed it to be an ex cathedra decree. Yet, it is most assuredly an infallible teaching.

True. However, councils are never infallible unless they are ecumenical. Bearing in mind we are talking specific councils here (Rome, Hippo, Carthage). None of them were considered by the Church (as the church defines infallibility (newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm#III) infallible. Again, if they were, their decrees would have applied to the entire Church, which they did not because the entire eastern half of the church, and parts of the western, did not always have the same canon list.

And, if you believe that this canon is not an infallible decree, are you of the same position, then, as Lincs and are saying it’s a fallible list?

Then you, too, are uncertain whether Revelations truly belongs in the Bible?

No, I wasn’t addressing that. I was asking you to address it as defined by Catholic theology. If the argument is that we know the canon because a council infallibly defined it, but the councils that defined it were not infallible, it doesn’t exactly work as an argument.

 

[PRmerger]

So when Traditional Catholics disagree on worship, on pre and post Vatican 2 church doctrines, would you say that means the Vatican is unclear?

I don’t think I’ve ever made the argument that the Vatican is “clear” on worship.

In fact, typically whenever the Vatican speaks it inspires a dialogue among theologians.

We can be assured, however, when the Vatican speaks dogmatically, that she is quite clear.

 

[Lincoln7]

Exactly! Precisely why the correct authority is needed. You and I can read the U.S. Constitution and twist meanings-right? At the end of the day who determines the “correct” interpretation and understandings? You? Me? Your neighbor? My brother? Nope! The federal government.

The Bible is no different. You say it is because people twist the meaning,thus it begs the question: Who then has the correct interpretation on all the above definitions PR gave us? Who determines the correct one?

You and I can read the Catechism and either twist it’s meaning or come to differing conclusions, where is the guide for the infallible guide? At the end of the day who is right? The inspired scriptures Light humor, lightens the mood I find!

You also have to here pre suppose an infallible authority and then also use your own judgement to pick it out from the bunch. The argument works both ways…

Kind regards

Lincs.

 

[PRmerger]

No, I wasn’t addressing that. I was asking you to address it as defined by Catholic theology. If the argument is that we know the canon because a council infallibly defined it, but the councils that defined it were not infallible, it doesn’t exactly work as an argument.

My argument, Iggy, is that the ONLY way you know that Hebrews is inspired and that the Gospel of Thomas is not is because the Church discerned this for you.

And thus, you are giving tacit acknowledgement to an authority OUTSIDE of Scripture each and every time you quote Hebrews.

And you also give tacit acknowledgement to the charism of infallibility, when you can be assured that you are correct in citing Hebrews as inspired.

If you don’t believe that the Church can be infallible, then you can’t know with absolute assurance that Hebrews is inspired.

And the fact that it was at local councils or ecumenical councils when bishops discerned the canon is irrelevant, as it applies to infallibility. They were indeed given this charism to infallibly proclaim this canon, over and over and OVER again.

So to say, “well, you got it right once; but that doesn’t mean you’re infallible” is a peculiar argument, given the repetitive nature of our getting it right.

 

[IggyAntiochus]

Iggy, my brother in Christ…Rome spoke!

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Exactly! Precisely why the correct authority is needed. You and I can read the U.S. Constitution and twist meanings-right? At the end of the day who determines the “correct” interpretation and understandings? You? Me? Your neighbor? My brother? Nope! The federal government.

The Bible is no different. You say it is because people twist the meaning,thus it begs the question: Who then has the correct interpretation on all the above definitions PR gave us? Who determines the correct one?

IMHO, bad example brother.

Constitutional matters are ultimately resolved by the Supreme Court and not the Government as a whole. The Supreme Court and its Justices where the majority of opinions decides and not of one Justice alone.

 

[IggyAntiochus]

My argument, Iggy, is that the ONLY way you know that Hebrews is inspired and that the Gospel of Thomas is not is because the Church discerned this for you.

I don’t disagree.

And you also give tacit acknowledgement to the charism of infallibility, when you can be assured that you are correct in citing Hebrews as inspired.

Here I disagree. Hebrews was considered inspired by the bishops of Hippo, and they weren’t infallible

If you don’t believe that the Church can be infallible, then you can’t know with absolute assurance that Hebrews is inspired.

Sure I do. Infallibility is not necessitated to recognize that which is infallible.

And the fact that it was at local councils or ecumenical councils when bishops discerned the canon is irrelevant, as it applies to infallibility. They were indeed given this charism to infallibly proclaim this canon, over and over and OVER again.

Then you’re not arguing with me, you’re arguing with how the Church defines when and how the Church is infallible.

 

[pablope]

Yes…numerous ones. Every single clergyman who did not accept the DC books as inspired, up until Trent (even a Pope).

Every single one? 100% or just some? But did it translate to open rebellion?

I didn’t say they directly opposed it, in the sense of raising an argument, however, that isn’t the point of infallibility.If something is proclaimed dogmatically, even holding a different opinion will get you excommunicated, whether you publicly argue it or not

.

I am not sure about your last bolded statement.

The deuterocanonicals, Luther’s own opinion notwithstanding, were considered Scripture by the Lutheran reformers.

Then why were these taken out in later printings? I understand there are German bibles…did they put them back together with the rest of the OT, and not in a separate unnumbered page?

Cardinal Ximenez of Spain did the same with the DC books.

Have not heard of him. But in any case, did what he do limit it for study, and did not openly propogate his Bible to be used by his diocese?

I am certain, if he did, he would have been excommunicated…or had been warned somehow.

 

[Lincoln7]

Pablope,

I am certain, if he did, he would have been excommunicated…or had been warned somehow.

He was by no means alone, Cardinal Catejan, the very one assigned to inspect Luthers works, held the same view. For a breif intro the ever present Wikipedia is here - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Cajetan
Or here for clear evidence of his views: thesearewritten.blogspot.co.uk/2007/08/cardinal-cajetan-on-biblical-canon.html

Regards

Lincs.

 

[Nicea325]

IMHO, bad example brother.

Constitutional matters are ultimately resolved by the Supreme Court and not the Government as a whole. The Supreme Court and its Justices where the majority of opinions decides and not of one Justice alone.

On the contrary, it is a very good example. The Supreme Court is part of the U.S. government. Three branches right? Okay, then tell me which majority “opinion” out of thousands of denominations decides the correct one? Can not be the Bible because it is the Bible in the first place which has caused this mind-boggling issue.

 

[IggyAntiochus]

Then why were these taken out in later printings? I understand there are German bibles…did they put them back together with the rest of the OT, and not in a separate unnumbered page?

They were taken out of the English translations, beginning in the 19th century. This had nothing to do with Luther or the Lutherans.

Have not heard of him. But in any case, did what he do limit it for study, and did not openly propogate his Bible to be used by his diocese?

I am certain, if he did, he would have been excommunicated…or had been warned somehow.

The Complutensian Polyglot Bible. It was promulgated throughout the scholarly world at the time. Over 600 were printed.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

On the contrary, it is a very good example. The Supreme Court is part of the U.S. government. Three branches right? Okay, then tell me which majority “opinion” out of thousands of denominations decides the correct one? Can not be the Bible because it is the Bible in the first place which has caused this mind-boggling issue.

I still see it as Apples and Oranges.

Our government has three powers:

Judicial, Executive, Legislative

So if I was to solve it through your analogy it would be:

EO (Judicial), Catholic (Executive), Protestant (Legislative)

Oh I have homework! I’m starting to like your analogy, it has the stuff for a book!!!