Authority in Catholicism and Protestantism..

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lincoln7
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
We came to the discussion of Luther and the EO on another thread after the reformation. Father suggested a book and Michael added a great brief in a link.

Here too we see the constant teaching of the Churchs through time till today. Its a give we disagee over aspects of the filioque, unleavened bread, the exact responsibility of St Peter. Oh, and of course St Mary which in truth is really not an issue.

However, these are debates which reside within the Apostolic Church rightfully understood. Which I am certain through time be it maybe not our time, these will be resolved.

I agree the point that the east/west may disagree over this or that, is apples and oranges compared to this discussion.

Nevertheless, when we start talking the reformation and the issues bought foward by the reformers these are simply not within the parameter’s of the Apostolic Churchs, be East/West of throughout the Apostles Churchs in history, thus what comes to light is a long list which contradicts history and the Churchs of the Apostles in time and through time.

Justification defined by the reformers, Faith Alone, Double Predestination, “all” the Sacraments, the Rite of Ordination to the Priesthood, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and by those ordained “Altus Christus”, Confession and Repentance, or Reconciliation/Penance. Faith and Works I’ll add this quick linc.

google.com/url?q=http://www.ewtn.com/library/answers/faworks.htm&sa=U&ei=au2OT6mZFcTF0AGo8v24Dw&ved=0CBEQFjAA&sig2=WZZFHnulnyuPbuguenaiLw&usg=AFQjCNGlMoclo7Jj9OFu8CjIhyLoleKFbw

While some mainline/oldline Protestant congregations uphold the first 7-ecumenical councils so too we have a long list today which fall short of even the first 4.

Let alone completely man-made thus manifested Faiths completely contrary to history.

However to the point of the links you have provided it would appear the proposed path is a combination of Calvinism/Arminianism. Still not clearly defined. Yet up for theological debate. The guidline of the theological debate is the church in history for as we see Scripture alone brings us to grey areas such as JW. So too has the further Scripture understanding of the Evangelical Mega Churchs.

Nevertheless what confirms this theology but its own understanding. Certainly not history.

St Paul was martyred in Rome. To suggest he had some other understanding such as Calvinism/Arminianism combined is completely without historical evidence.
 
In the end, whether it’s Catholicism or EO that’s the One True Church, the bottom line is, either one is. There is no intelligible difference in dogma/doctrine save for the primacy of Peter, so if that’s what’s keeping you from coming back to the One True Church, come to us, or come to them, no matter to me.
Click to expand...
With respect as always, that’s not what’s keeping me back, it’s that I see so clearly in scriptural exegesis that some doctrines taught in these two bodies are in biblical. Again, with respect.
I would also say the differences are more than just that, and that’s pretty massive in and of itself… Even the wiki page on this topic is huge: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_–_Roman_Catholic_theological_differences
Yes, and an example of one of these “Divine traditions not contained in Holy Scripture, revelation made to the Apostles [and their successors]…by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost” is…
Click to expand...
wait for it…
Click to expand...
yep, the canon of Scripture.
Click to expand...
Can you name any others? If some of the more recently defined ones are just that; recently defined but always believed, they should be pretty clear in history.
If you are not familiar, I will direct you to Against Heresies, by Ireneus, in writing against the Gnostics in AD 200 or so…
Click to expand...
I’m yet to read it in its entirity, it’s a great work! Does he have in mind papal infallibility in this tradition? Or the immaculate conception? Or are these ‘traditions’ unheard of to him?

Regards to all 🙂

Lincs.
 
GaryTaylor said:
We came to the discussion of Luther and the EO on another thread after the reformation. Father suggested a book and Michael added a great brief in a link.

Here too we see the constant teaching of the Churchs through time till today. Its a give we disagee over aspects of the filioque, unleavened bread, the exact responsibility of St Peter. Oh, and of course St Mary which in truth is really not an issue.

However, these are debates which reside within the Apostolic Church rightfully understood. Which I am certain through time be it maybe not our time, these will be resolved.

I agree the point that the east/west may disagree over this or that, is apples and oranges compared to this discussion.

Nevertheless, when we start talking the reformation and the issues bought foward by the reformers these are simply not within the parameter’s of the Apostolic Churchs, be East/West of throughout the Apostles Churchs in history, thus what comes to light is a long list which contradicts history and the Churchs of the Apostles in time and through time.

Justification defined by the reformers, Faith Alone, Double Predestination, “all” the Sacraments, the Rite of Ordination to the Priesthood, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and by those ordained “Altus Christus”, Confession and Repentance, or Reconciliation/Penance. Faith and Works I’ll add this quick linc.

google.com/url?q=http://www.ewtn.com/library/answers/faworks.htm&sa=U&ei=au2OT6mZFcTF0AGo8v24Dw&ved=0CBEQFjAA&sig2=WZZFHnulnyuPbuguenaiLw&usg=AFQjCNGlMoclo7Jj9OFu8CjIhyLoleKFbw

While some mainline/oldline Protestant congregations uphold the first 7-ecumenical councils so too we have a long list today which fall short of even the first 4.

Let alone completely man-made thus manifested Faiths completely contrary to history.

However to the point of the links you have provided it would appear the proposed path is a combination of Calvinism/Arminianism. Still not clearly defined. Yet up for theological debate. The guidline of the theological debate is the church in history for as we see Scripture alone brings us to grey areas such as JW. So too has the further Scripture understanding of the Evangelical Mega Churchs.

Nevertheless what confirms this theology but its own understanding. Certainly not history.

St Paul was martyred in Rome. To suggest he had some other understanding such as Calvinism/Arminianism combined is completely without historical evidence.
Click to expand...
Please forgive me Gary, I’m a tad confused what your saying here?
 
Lincoln7 said:
No one need declare it so no, it’s inerrant and free from error because it is God breathed, Inhave faith that God providentially protects his word.
Click to expand...
Amen!

But how is it that you know that “My breath is offensive to my wife” is God-breathed, Lincs?

The ONLY way is because the Catholic Church discerned this for you.

One *cannot *look at ancient texts and “test them” to discern whether they are inspired or not.
 
pablope said:
If you are not familiar, I will direct you to Against Heresies, by Ireneus, in writing against the Gnostics in AD 200 or so…

newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm

St. Irenaeus (d. AD 200) writes:

But, again, when we refer [the heretics] to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; . . . It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition.10

It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to “the perfect” apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves.

by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
Click to expand...
pablope, greetings my brother in Christ.

Are you aware of how, exactly, Irenaeus defines what tradition is in Against Heresies?
 
Amen!
Click to expand...
But how is it that you know that “My breath is offensive to my wife” is God-breathed, Lincs?
Click to expand...
The ONLY way is because the Catholic Church discerned this for you.
Click to expand...
One cannot look at ancient texts and “test them” to discern whether they are inspired or not.
Click to expand...
No, because the early church received these books and has faithfully passed them down to us…

How do you know Rome is the true church? The only way is because you privately interpret sources to come to this decision no?

Same argument goes both ways.

Regards and respect

Lincs.
 
Lincoln7 said:
No one need declare it so no, it’s inerrant and free from error because it is God breathed, Inhave faith that God providentially protects his word. So on your question of infallibility, we’re back to the same position of now having to privately interpret sources to choose which is the infallible authority.
Click to expand...
Its free from error but as we so clearly see, mans personal interpretation is not. The infallible source is Jesus since as he states about His Church and their authority to bind and lose. From Jesus to the Twelve to the established Apostolic Churchs through time to today what has changed?

Where else does Jesus speak about His Church in scripture but Matthew? Does not history coincide with this? And not just Christian history btw.
Lincoln7 said:
No. But as they were aware they were penning scripture, they knew it would serve to testify of covenental terms(1). They would also be aware of the authority that scripture carried.
Click to expand...
So then who was Luther to discern what should be removed by your own words here? And who did have the authority to discern what should exist for all? Would that not be those Bishops of the Apostles and so forth? History certainly appears so.
Lincoln7 said:
Well because thats what’s always been believed about them… I use history. Same question again I keep asking back; how do you know Rome is the right body to tell you they were penned by Matt, Mark etc?
Click to expand...
Is that not St Peter spoken about by Jesus in Matthew, were not St Peter and Paul martyred in Rome. Where did these Churchs from 1-2-3-4 AD all whom followed this tradition come from?
Lincoln7 said:
(1) - The Heresy of Orthodoxy, how contemporary cultures fascination with diversity has reshaped our understanding of early Christianity, Andreas J Kostenburger and William J Kruger, Crossway, 2010, pg 114-121
Click to expand...
All kinds of personal theological beliefs. History in time speaks of no heresy but of those the Apostolic Churchs fought against. Jeez next well be talking about Fr Malichi Martin. 😉

Peace
 
Lincoln7 said:
How do you know Rome is the true church? The only way is because you privately interpret sources to come to this decision no?
Click to expand...
No, not “privately interpret”. One brick in the fortress is church history–the existence of the papacy (in history, not in Scripture), tracing itself back from Pope B16 through the ages to Peter is great objective evidence.
 
PRmerger said:
Right. So you’re decidedly NOT Sola Scriptura, then.
Click to expand...
Only if you’re defining sola scriptura as “we only use the Bible and no other source.” Which, of course, no confessional Protestant denomination adheres to.
 
PRmerger said:
No, not “privately interpret”. One brick in the fortress is church history–the existence of the papacy (in history, not in Scripture), tracing itself back from Pope B16 through the ages to Peter is great objective evidence.
Click to expand...
I don’t see how having a bishop in Rome going back to Peter proves any modern claim of the papacy vis a vie Roman Catholic dogma. One might as well make the same claim about a bishop in Jerusalem or Antioch.
 
Right. So you’re decidedly NOT Sola Scriptura, then.
Click to expand...
Honest question, will benefit our discussion: what do you think sola scriptura is?

By this I mean the canon received in the first century was textually transmitted ‘faithfully’. Accuratley if you prefer, that was my meaning. Forgive me if I was unclear 🙂
So then who was Luther to discern what should be removed by your own words here? And who did have the authority to discern what should exist for all? Would that not be those Bishops of the Apostles and so forth? History certainly appears so.
Click to expand...
See here Gary: m.youtube.com/watch?v=IKGZfrZiYVU his doubts were not his own invention, he stood with scholarship of his day…
Is that not St Peter spoken about by Jesus in Matthew, were not St Peter and Paul martyred in Rome. Where did these Churchs from 1-2-3-4 AD all whom followed this tradition come from?
Click to expand...
Maybe it’s him, if it is, in context is clearly all based on his faith confession…There is clear debate on this passage in the early church… Doesn’t mean they all held to a papacy as we think of it now…
All kinds of personal theological beliefs. History in time speaks of no heresy but of those the Apostolic Churchs fought against. Jeez next well be talking about Fr Malichi Martin.
Click to expand...
More historical observations… We’re back here to the ‘you need an infallible guide’ argument…

Regards

Lincs.
 
Lincoln7 said:
By this I mean the canon received in the first century was textually transmitted ‘faithfully’. Accuratley if you prefer, that was my meaning. Forgive me if I was unclear 🙂
Click to expand...
You weren’t unclear (at least in my understanding) in your original premise, but here I am confused as to what you are referring to.
 
IggyAntiochus said:
I don’t see how having a bishop in Rome going back to Peter proves any modern claim of the papacy vis a vie Roman Catholic dogma. One might as well make the same claim about a bishop in Jerusalem or Antioch.
Click to expand...
It makes the claim that the Catholic Church started with Christ.

No other Church (save the EO) can trace the origins of its leaders back to Christ.
 
PRmerger said:
It makes the claim that the Catholic Church started with Christ.

No other Church (save the EO) can trace the origins of its leaders back to Christ.
Click to expand...
Only if you’re operating under the presupposition that the modern Roman Catholic Church is the same entity (as regards doctrine) as the pre-schism Western half of the Catholic Church. If it is not, then being able to trace an ecclesiastical office through history is meaningless if they did not teach the same doctrine as what the modern RCC does.

On the reverse side, having a “leader” who cannot trace his ecclesiastical office through history to one of the apostles, specifically, is irrelevant if that “leader” teaches the same doctrine as the apostles. In that case, such an individual or group is the true inheritor of succession from the apostles.
 
IggyAntiochus said:
Only if you’re operating under the presupposition that the modern Roman Catholic Church is the same entity (as regards doctrine) as the pre-schism Western half of the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is the presupposition I am operating from.
 
PRmerger said:
Interesting.

I find so many un-biblical premises in that explanation of Sola Scriptura.

Firstly, this premise: Recognize that Scripture Interprets Scripture.

What verses in Scripture tell us this? :confused:
Click to expand...
And this one, too: Be aware that Some Books of the Bible are More Central than Other Books of the Bible.

What verses in Scripture tell us this? And how do we know which ones are “more central” than others? Based on what? *Tested *by what?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top