Authority in Catholicism and Protestantism..

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lincoln7
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Lincoln7 said:
Nicea I comment as I think Iggy is too polite to fight back in a similar manner, calling him as deceiving is a tad far… He is simply saying what he sees there, what I also see there… Deceptive is not a fair term to to use on someone who validly disagrees with your views…

Kind regards

Lincs.
Click to expand...
When in doubt, ad hominem 🙂
 
Lincoln7 said:
Nicea I comment as I think Iggy is too polite to fight back in a similar manner, calling him as deceiving is a tad far… He is simply saying what he sees there, what I also see there… Deceptive is not a fair term to to use on someone who validly disagrees with your views…

Kind regards

Lincs.
Click to expand...
Sorry,if you take offense. It is actually more offensive to read what he said as though Catholics have been blind all this time up until Protestants popped up 1500 years later. Now that is offensive! Of course you see what you see…you both follow a Christianity founded centuries later with no Apostolic basis whatsoever.
 
IggyAntiochus said:
Gregory Nazianzen: “Having gone through the whole set of sacred offices to pass over intervening events, he is entrusted with the presidency over the people, which is the same as saying ‘the rule of the whole world.’ I cannot say whether he received the priesthood as the reward of his virtue or to be the source and life of the church. For, she feinting, through thirst of the truth was like Ishmael to be refreshed or like Elijah to be revived when the earth in the drought was cooled in the stream and from her exhaustion to be brought back to life.”

Did he say this of Peter or St. Athanasius?
Click to expand...
So one set of words debunk the papacy? Takes more than one paragraph,sorry to rain on your parade. I admire the effort,but takes more.
 
Lincoln7 said:
What I can take from this:

Lots of nice things about Peter, lots of debate in the early church over the verse.

But nice things about Peter don’t prove they all view the bishop of Rome as their ultimate authority with universal jurisdiction… I’ve heard many orthodox on here before say effectively; “all bishops are Peter”

Regards

Lincs.
Click to expand...
All Bishops in the Apostolic Churchs do have an equal authority. We acknowledge this. But what is factual is here the Apostolic Church resides. The ecumenical aspect leaves interpretation to be decided by those who actually do have this God given authority.

Anyway with respect to everyone here you see where the issues reside when the 7 Councils come into play. They are the speaking authority of the Churchs. And rightfully so they are still contemplating all this.

Personally I give much more credit to the Coptic Church also. Another issue which much debate comes into play. I spent much time studying the mystical.spiritual aspect for here is my passion. I find no fault with the Copts.

Well its been a polite and respectful conversation. I propose if we all proceed with an open mind surely we can begin to see many truths which weave through history.

Myself? I have to look at this from outside myself. For I was raised in the Catholic Church, so I have to always check myself to see if indeed I am proceeding with an open mind. Easier said than done. Learned behavior you know, 🤷 be it much reading seems to validate, still I have to keep an open mind. 👍
 
GaryTaylor said:
All Bishops in the Apostolic Churchs do have an equal authority. We acknowledge this. But what is factual is here the Apostolic Church resides. The ecumenical aspect leaves interpretation to be decided by those who actually do have this God given authority.

Anyway with respect to everyone here you see where the issues reside when the 7 Councils come into play. They are the speaking authority of the Churchs. And rightfully so they are still contemplating all this.

Personally I give much more credit to the Coptic Church also. Another issue which much debate comes into play. I spent much time studying the mystical.spiritual aspect for here is my passion. I find no fault with the Copts.

Well its been a polite and respectful conversation. I propose if we all proceed with an open mind surely we can begin to see many truths which weave through history.

Myself? I have to look at this from outside myself. For I was raised in the Catholic Church, so I have to always check myself to see if indeed I am proceeding with an open mind. Easier said than done. Learned behavior you know, 🤷 be it much reading seems to validate, still I have to keep an open mind. 👍
Click to expand...

Thanks for the respect here Gary 🙂

I think we’ve established there is a broad range of interpretation in the early church on this one…

As for councils, I accept the majority of what was said in the first 7, have some reservations though.

Kind regards

Lincs.
 
Nicea325 said:
U-huh…and read the very words of many Eastern bishops living long before any Orthodox today. That is our argument.
Click to expand...
Right, and the reading is abundant. Truth is I see a couple works which “maybe” could be viewed differently that we propose here. Howver that is what its reduced to. And surely we cannot hold the minority up against the majority.

Luther and Calivin, well that is an entirely different toplc;)
 
Lincoln7 said:
Thanks for the respect here Gary 🙂

I think we’ve established there is a broad range of interpretation in the early church on this one…

As for councils, I accept the majority of what was said in the first 7, have some reservations though.

Kind regards

Lincs.
Click to expand...
Linc, your to smart not to see the continuity of the Apostolic Churchs. Even if we are say you would do well to stick to oldline/mainline protestant, and you would, that is still a far cry from what has evolved today. Those 7 Councils become the status quo.

All makes for great conversation though. I would suggest you keep working out your thoughts and heart felt beliefs here. Why not?

Do we not learn from each other? School is never out. If we proceed in Chirstian charity and love, than what is the harm?

OK, I am out for the duration.

Peace
 
IggyAntiochus said:
It’s not a “belief” or a doctrine. It’s a rule of interpretation. I’m pretty safe in following it if that is what the apostles did.
Click to expand...
Whatever the nomenclature, it’s NOT what the apostle proclaimed. “Scripture interprets Scripture” is not in a single page of the Bible, nor is it part of Sacred Tradition.

And even if it’s a “rule of interpretation”, it’s based on a man-made tradition, then, and why should I believe that Scripture interprets Scripture?

[SIGN1]Who says it does? [/SIGN1]
 
PRmerger said:
Whatever the nomenclature, it’s NOT what the apostle proclaimed. “Scripture interprets Scripture” is not in a single page of the Bible, nor is it part of Sacred Tradition.

And even if it’s a “rule of interpretation”, it’s based on a man-made tradition, then, and why should I believe that Scripture interprets Scripture?

[SIGN1]Who says it does? [/SIGN1]
Click to expand...
If the apostles practiced it in their own writing of revelation, why wouldn’t we?
 
IggyAntiochus said:
I don’t have a problem with this. Why would you think I would? If by tradition, what you mean is the teachings of Christ passed to His apostles, then passed to us, I have already established that this is true in an earlier post. Our claim is not that there is no tradition. Our claim is that the substance of verbal tradition is no different than what is contained in the Scriptures.
Click to expand...
Okay. 🤷
The saying of Christ you mentioned above is not verbatim contained in the gospels (though it is similar to Matt 10:8). However, is it contained in Scripture?
Click to expand...
You’re moving the goal post, Iggy. 😉

Firstly, is it your claim that Scripture interprets Scripture? Yes, or no?

If yes, how do you know this? Because the apostles stated this? Where?
 
PRmerger said:
Okay. 🤷

You’re moving the goal post, Iggy. 😉

Firstly, is it your claim that Scripture interprets Scripture? Yes, or no?

If yes, how do you know this? Because the apostles stated this? Where?
Click to expand...
Did the apostles utilize the revelation in and from Jesus Christ to interpret and explain OT passages, and vice versa?
 
IggyAntiochus said:
If the apostles practiced it in their own writing of revelation, why wouldn’t we?
Click to expand...
Practiced what? I’m not understanding how an apostle can practice “Scripture interprets Scripture.”

The way I under it is that this teaching proclaims when there is a disagreement about a particular verse, find another verse that supports it, and that will clarify the obscure verse.

Is this what you mean by Scripture interprets Scripture? If so, how did the apostles practice this in the writing of revelation?
 
PRmerger said:
Practiced what? I’m not understanding how an apostle can practice “Scripture interprets Scripture.”

The way I under it is that this teaching proclaims when there is a disagreement about a particular verse, find another verse that supports it, and that will clarify the obscure verse.

Is this what you mean by Scripture interprets Scripture? If so, how did the apostles practice this in the writing of revelation?
Click to expand...
I suppose that is one application of it. I wouldn’t restrict it to that, however.
 
PRmerger said:
Can you answer this question, Iggy, please?
Click to expand...
PR, I did, back there somewhere lol.

It depends on the topic. Since Christ is the central message of all of Scripture, both OT and NT, the more central books are going to be those that are most relevant to revealing Christ and explicating His gospel. Both the gospel of John and the book of Leviticus are about Christ. Which is more obviously about Him? This is reflected liturgically as well. We stand when the Gospels are read. We don’t when Obadiah is.
 
IggyAntiochus said:
If the apostles practiced it in their own writing of revelation, why wouldn’t we?
Click to expand...
That’s fine, Iggy. But they also, clearly practiced using Tradition to inspire their own writing of revelation.

Take the verse I showed you in Acts. It is not written anywhere that Jesus said those words. (Matthew 10? not quite ;)) The apostle knew this from…

wait for it…😃

Tradition.

And saying, “Well, is it in Scripture or isn’t it” is missing the point. JESUS didn’t say it in Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. But we know he said it because the inspired writer heard it from Tradition.

So to apply your paradigm:
Why would I use a hermeneutic that is different from the one the sacred writers themselves employed?

Sacred Tradition is what gave us the Scriptures.
 
IggyAntiochus said:
PR, I did, back there somewhere lol.

It depends on the topic. Since Christ is the central message of all of Scripture, both OT and NT, the more central books are going to be those that are most relevant to revealing Christ and explicating His gospel. Both the gospel of John and the book of Leviticus are about Christ. Which is more obviously about Him? This is reflected liturgically as well. We stand when the Gospels are read. We don’t when Obadiah is.
Click to expand...
I’ll give you a list of random NT books, Iggy, and you tell me which ones are more central.

And also tell me how you know.

3 John,
Romans,
Matthew,
Acts.
Galatians,
Ephesians,
and 1 Peter

(Incidentally, you ought to keep in mind Jesus’ words in Matthew 4:4, about our living by EVERY word that comes from the mouth of God. Now, if you’re going to tell me here that Matthew is one of the books that we can put to the perimeter, then I guess you’ll be able to dismiss that statement a bit more easily. :D)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top