Authority in Catholicism and Protestantism..

[PRmerger]

Of course there is no disagreement with us that the Lord is head of his church. But your post again asks the question; how do you know that Rome is that true church? It’s ok to say that Rome provides an authoritative and infallible guide and interpretation, but one still has to assume that it’s the right one to do the job. Which requires one to discern evidence and reach the conclusion, fallibly.

Kind regards

Lincs.

You give tacit acknowledgement that “Rome” is the true church, Lincs, each and every time you quote the Scriptures. By quoting, say, Hebrews, as the inspired word of God you are giving a nod to the authority of A Church to discern this for you.

And what Church was it that discerned this for you?

One need only look at history to answer this for you. It is an objective observer that declares that bishops were present at the Councils of Rome, Hippo, Carthage, Florence.

So each and every time you proclaim that something comes from the revelation of God, you proclaim that the Catholic Church is the One True Church. (Or the Orthodox, I will concede. And if you come the truth through Rome or through Antioch, it makes no matter to me. )

 

[PRmerger]

Question for you, then, PR. Just, for the sake of discussion, assume that Protestantism doesn’t exist. Which communion divorced itself from tradition, Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy? Both church bodies claim that the Church is infallible in interpreting Scripture and tradition. Yet both have reached differing conclusions as to what those interpretations are. For the believer who is trying to find the Church that Christ founded, how does he discern whether that is East or West?

Either/or. Makes no difference to me. As I just told Lincs, you can come to the fullness of truth through Rome, or through Antioch, either way I give you a

 

[PRmerger]

Yet both have reached differing conclusions as to what those interpretations are.

Could you cite examples (save the primacy of Rome) of what these “differing conclusions” are between East and West?

 

[IggyAntiochus]

Either/or. Makes no difference to me. As I just told Lincs, you can come to the fullness of truth through Rome, or through Antioch, either way I give you a

So it doesn’t matter whether a Christian holds that Peter was the first Pope, and that his successors are the head of the whole Christian church on earth and that they are infallible when speaking ex cathedra? That seems odd to me. Either Rome is the true church or it’s not. The West and East cannot both be infallibly true. To say otherwise would be to say that the Holy Spirit has revealed, through tradition, two different truth claims.

 

[IggyAntiochus]

Could you cite examples (save the primacy of Rome) of what these “differing conclusions” are between East and West?

They don’t recognize the 14 Western councils as ecumenical. Therefore, not infallible.

A different anthropology, i.e. rejection of the Western doctrine of original sin.

Therefore, a rejection of the immaculate conception as doctrine, because it’s superfluous.

A rejection of purgatory.

And, as you mentioned, a different ecclesiology.

A differing canon of Scripture.

 

[PRmerger]

So it doesn’t matter whether a Christian holds that Peter was the first Pope, and that his successors are the head of the whole Christian church on earth and that they are infallible when speaking ex cathedra? That seems odd to me. Either Rome is the true church or it’s not. The West and East cannot both be infallibly true. To say otherwise would be to say that the Holy Spirit has revealed, through tradition, two different truth claims.

As long as one recognizes the authority of pope, whether he’s “first among equals” or has supremacy, that makes no matter to me.

Right. Either Rome is the true church, or the Orthodox Church is.

But what’s untenable is that the Lutheran Church is, I respectfully submit, friend.

 

[PRmerger]

They don’t recognize the 14 Western councils as ecumenical. Therefore, not infallible.

A different anthropology, i.e. rejection of the Western doctrine of original sin.

Therefore, a rejection of the immaculate conception as doctrine, because it’s superfluous.

A rejection of purgatory.

And, as you mentioned, a different ecclesiology.

A differing canon of Scripture.

All the above is piffle.

Their “rejection” of the IC, Original Sin, Purgatory is semantics, really.

As is their “rejection” of transubstantiation (which you didn’t mention, but I add).

 

[IggyAntiochus]

As long as one recognizes the authority of pope, whether he’s “first among equals” or has supremacy, that makes no matter to me.

Right. Either Rome is the true church, or the Orthodox Church is.

But what’s untenable is that the Lutheran Church is, I respectfully submit, friend.

That isn’t the nature of the question, PR. How does the Christian know which it is?

 

[IggyAntiochus]

All the above is piffle.

Their “rejection” of the IC, Original Sin, Purgatory is semantics, really.

As is their “rejection” of transubstantiation (which you didn’t mention, but I add).

The Orthodox would not say that it is a matter of semantics.

 

[PRmerger]

That isn’t the nature of the question, PR. How does the Christian know which it is?

I suppose we can’t.

Either it’s the Orthodox or the CC–but both of them proclaim the same dogmas/doctrines, so which ever you choose will be true.

Tomato…To-MAH-to.

We both agree it’s a tomato, so how you pronounce it is immaterial to me.

The rest of Christendom is saying"it’s a mango!" or “it’s an artichoke!”, and some have even gone so far off as to say, “Nope, it’s a little weiner dog!” Yipes!

 

[PRmerger]

The Orthodox would not say that it is a matter of semantics.

Okay. I don’t doubt that.

If they want to claim that to-MAH-to is the correct pronunciation, then I won’t disabuse them of that notion.

 

[IggyAntiochus]

I suppose we can’t.

Either it’s the Orthodox or the CC–but both of them proclaim the same dogmas/doctrines, so which ever you choose will be true.

No, they don’t. Papal infallibility, purgatory, the IC (granted, the EO believe she was sinless, but do not consider anyone born with original sin, as defined by the West), original sin (as defined by Augustine and other Western theologians) are matters of dogma/doctrine that the Orthodox do not consider to be doctrine/dogma.

So if I only have Rome or the East to choose from, I would imagine I would have to do that by comparing Scripture, tradition, and church history with those respective communions and thereupon decide which of the two most closely resembles the true church. Isn’t that using my fallible, private judgment to arrive at which church is the true, infallible church?

 

[Lincoln7]

As long as one recognizes the authority of pope, whether he’s “first among equals” or has supremacy, that makes no matter to me.

“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

 

[mackbrislawn]

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?

Yes, that Mark wrote Mark, and Matthew penned Matthew is what has been believed. Because it is history. In other words, tradition. Tradition is simply remembered history–tradition and history are basically the same thing. Tradition is defined as ‘what’s always been believed.’

The question that is asked, how do you know Rome is the right body to tell you they were penned by Matt, Mark, etc, is a very pertinent one. Because we must remember that not only Catholics but Protestants as well go by Rome’s history that Mark wrote Mark, Matthew wrote Matthew, John wrote John, etc.

So, I’ll turn the question around, how do you know Rome is the right body to tell you who they were penned by? (It is, after all, Rome that is telling you this. A Roman tradition.)

But to get to the deeper aspect of your question. How do Catholics know Rome is the right body? Well, they don’t. They don’t know it, because for them it is an article of faith, that is, the Church is where Catholics start from. I alluded to this in a previous post. It seems to me that the difference in mind-set between Protestants and Catholics is that Catholics begin with Church from which scripture is derived, but that Protestants start with scripture, and then derive church.

Of course, Catholics’ faith in the Roman church could be wrong. Maybe the Orthodox Church should be the one. That is something that could be debated. But Catholics don’t see how you can possibly start from scripture alone since scripture is dependent for its existence upon the Church, be it Catholic or Orthodox.

 

[Lincoln7]

mackbrislawn, thanks for the reply,

So, I’ll turn the question around, how do you know Rome is the right body to tell you who they were penned by? (It is, after all, Rome that is telling you this. A Roman tradition

Well it’s not Rome that’s doing the telling with sacred tradition, it’s just histroy, examining and weighing the evidence to reach a conclusion… It belongs not exculsivley to Rome, for these men had no knowledge of the modern Catholic structure. How do I know then? I do from historical study.

But to get to the deeper aspect of your question. How do Catholics know Rome is the right body? Well, they don’t. They don’t know it, because for them it is an article of faith, that is, the Church is where Catholics start from.

This is why I never go with the ‘you need an infallible guide’ argument, as it works just as well against the catholic who must choose Rome and then interpret what it says, just as they would scripture. As such our differences must be reconciled by studying scripture and exegeting what it says.

I alluded to this in a previous post. It seems to me that the difference in mind-set between Protestants and Catholics is that Catholics begin with Church from which scripture is derived, but that Protestants start with scripture, and then derive church.

But Catholics don’t see how you can possibly start from scripture alone since scripture is dependent for its existence upon the Church, be it Catholic or Orthodox.

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. For no such infallible pronouncement came until Trent, it seems one was not needed for the earliest church. For my views on this, I have consistently recommended this: crossway.org/books/the-heresy-of-orthodoxy-tpb/

Kind regards

Lincs.

 

[IggyAntiochus]

Of course, Catholics’ faith in the Roman church could be wrong. Maybe the Orthodox Church should be the one. That is something that could be debated. But Catholics don’t see how you can possibly start from scripture alone since scripture is dependent for its existence upon the Church, be it Catholic or Orthodox.

I think that is too broad a categorization, mack. Some Protestant traditions start with Scripture, that is true. Both Reformed Christians and Lutherans, however, do not (I am sure there are other Protestants who don’t, either). Lutheranism starts all of its theology from the Person and work of Christ. Every other doctrine derives from the fact of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection for sinners. Scripture, the Church, justification, predestination, election, the sacraments; all of these come from that starting point. As to what came first, Scripture or the Church, that really is an irrelevant question for Lutheran theology. Scripture is written revelation. The Church doesn’t come from Scripture, both Scripture and the Church come from revelation.

The priority, then, is the revelation of God to man. Chiefly, the revelation of God to man in the Person of Jesus Christ. Without this revelation, neither Scripture nor the Church exists.

 

[Lincoln7]

I think that is too broad a categorization, mack. Some Protestant traditions start with Scripture, that is true. Both Reformed Christians and Lutherans, however, do not (I am sure there are other Protestants who don’t, either). Lutheranism starts all of its theology from the Person and work of Christ. Every other doctrine derives from the fact of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection for sinners. Scripture, the Church, justification, predestination, election, the sacraments; all of these come from that starting point. As to what came first, Scripture or the Church, that really is an irrelevant question for Lutheran theology. Scripture is written revelation. The Church doesn’t come from Scripture, both Scripture and the Church come from revelation.

The priority, then, is the revelation of God to man. Chiefly, the revelation of God to man in the Person of Jesus Christ. Without this revelation, neither Scripture nor the Church exists.

Iggy, a great many of your posts have been a real blessing.

Regards

Lincs.

 

[PRmerger]

No, they don’t. Papal infallibility, purgatory, the IC (granted, the EO believe she was sinless, but do not consider anyone born with original sin, as defined by the West), original sin (as defined by Augustine and other Western theologians) are matters of dogma/doctrine that the Orthodox do not consider to be doctrine/dogma.

On this we will have to agree to disagree, Iggy. I am quite convinced that, however it’s defined by the the Orthodox*, it’s the same concepts as that which is proclaimed by Catholicism.

*Orthodoxy, BTW, is not the monolith that Catholicism is. There is, truly, no such thing as Orthodoxy, just as there is no such thing as Protestantism. One cannot truly say “the Orthodox believe…” (Just like one cannot say “Protestants believe…”) because there are many “Orthodoxys”. There is no authority to speak for the “Orthodox.” That’s a problem and speaks to the fact that she is the one who departed, not Catholicism.

But if an EO wants to argue the point, I would be amenable.

 

[dontknow]

Iggy, a great many of your posts have been a real blessing.

Regards

Lincs.

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.

 

[PRmerger]

So if I only have Rome or the East to choose from, I would imagine I would have to do that by comparing Scripture, tradition, and church history with those respective communions and thereupon decide which of the two most closely resembles the true church. Isn’t that using my fallible, private judgment to arrive at which church is the true, infallible church?

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.

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?
**

I will offer one of my own: I happen to wish that Jesus permitted second marriages. I would ADORE it if I could celebrate with my friends as they embark on a second chance at love. HOWEVER, I cannot change the doctrine that Jesus so very clearly proclaimed: if you divorce and re-marry, you commit adultery. Therefore, I have CONFORMED my views to Christs, and I hold my personal view as somehow wrong, even if I wish it weren’t.

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.