Authority in Catholicism and Protestantism..

[Lincoln7]

There were 9 rocks until 150 AD

St. Linus (67-76)
St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
St. Clement I (88-97)
St. Evaristus (97-105)
St. Alexander I (105-115)
St. Sixtus I (115-125) Also called Xystus I
St. Telesphorus (125-136)
St. Hyginus (136-140)
St. Pius I (140-155)

We don’t deny that there is a church in Rome in the period, we do however take issue with there being a modern day papacy in Rome at this period… Paul’s letter to Rome gives no indication of Peter being there, why he would write in the first place if Peter was there and was a pope confuses me… More importantly though, none of these men who may have been in Rome as part of a plurality of elders ever functions as a modern pope.

Clement for example who is probably the only elder on the list who is often quoted as an example of a usage of papal power, and who is generally assumed to have composed 1 Clement, writes on behalf of the whole church at Rome, for all it’s elders, not on his own as a pope. I’d recommend here for a more detailed treatment of this: beggarsallreformation.blogspot.co.uk/2010/08/this-bridge-should-be-illuminated.html

Again, with respect, a list can be possibly made, but demonstrating these men in any way were modern day popes is something else.

Kind regards

Lincs

 

[PRmerger]

Well to me a council, even if considered ecumenical, is fallible - It has the possibility of error. The CC claims it lacks even a possibility of error here.

No, Lincs. The question was below:

She is fallible, except in certain cases, where she is infallible.

So what’s wrong with that concept? Why is that so objectionable to you?

What is so objectionable to you about an entity being fallible, except in certain cases?

You already believe that certain MEN who were fallible in other areas, were INFALLIBLE at certain periods in time.

So you’re not opposed to the fact that MEN can be INFALLIBLE.

So what’s the problem with acknowledging that the Church can be infallible?

 

[PRmerger]

My position on the clearly has been they knew it by history…

Ok. Then some people knew something about God’s Revelation NOT from the Scriptures, but from some other entity–you call it “history”. But it’s Sacred Tradition whatever you want to call it. God assisting his Church in discerning what was theopneustos.

God did not plunk down the Bible in history some time centuries ago.

God chose the Church–the Catholic Church–in history, to proclaim to you that Hebrews is inspired and the Didache is not.

You would not know it any other way, Lincs.

And it would be intellectually honest of you if you would simply acknowledge that it was the Church that gave you the Bible.

If sacred tradition was enough on this we would expect to find the same canon in the east and west, and no debate amongst scholars regarding the apocrypha.

The NT discernment is not enough for you? Why not?

There were over 400 ancient texts from which the Church had to discern what was inspired and what was not.

You don’t think the Holy Spirit gave assistance to the Church in discerning this? Men did this all of their own accord?

Really?

 

[PRmerger]

Well to me a council, even if considered ecumenical, is fallible - It has the possibility of error. The CC claims it lacks even a possibility of error here.

My position on the clearly has been they knew it by history… If sacred tradition was enough on this we would expect to find the same canon in the east and west, and no debate amongst scholars regarding the apocrypha. Again, see the book, far better answer than my own

No debate, Matthew 28:18 is very clear there! The Lord Jesus has all authority.

Yes, The Holy Spirit lives among his church forever No debate here!

Indeed, for the Spirit had not yet come upon them at Pentecost. It seems most commentators regard this verse as The Lord telling them they would not bear being told at this point of the great changes that were too come, of the abolition of the Ceremonial laws and more - bible.cc/john/16-12.htm

So in context Paul is addressing the Corinthian elders who have begun to exhibit traits not in keeping with the Gospel truth. He warns them to build up the church of God well, for their works will be tested by fire on the last day. With respect, this section pertains to the development of doctrine in the Catholic sense how?

In context then, The Lord has given his church various ministries that it may be built up and may attain a mature faith, not tossed to and fro by anyone who would announce a new teaching. They therefore it would seem are to test teaching, same as Paul implies with prophecy in 1 Thessolonians 5:21: “Test everything, hold fast to what is good.” Again, I see little in these verses on the Newman idea of the development of doctrine.

The verse indicates clearly that the elect will persevere, aligning well with Romans 8:30, Paul tells them that as they mature in their faith, he prays their charity will become wiser and more abundant. It’s a simple prayer for a Godly Christian life for his hearers. Where does this verse gve support to the development hypothesis?

Indeed, he who hears them and rejects is in trouble. Does it imply an infallible papacy? Well firstly, there is an absence of a papacy in the NT, secondly he is speaking here chiefly to his apostles, thirdly, the verse gives no indication that the church can not err. Just that a pure preaching of the Gospel message which results in rejection, means one has rejected both The Son and The Father.
As to the Corinthians passage, I’m not denying Apostolic authority. I’m denying that the current leaders of the CC possess it. Paul warned in Gal 1:8 of departing his gospel, if people in his direct line could do it then, I see no reason men can’t now.

Indeed. I’m not denying church authority, far from it. I just don’t think the CC is what it claims and is not infallible.

I dispute the leaders here refers to a modern pope, as I deny that office exits in the NT. I do however obey my elders yes, they are worthy of my double honour (1 Timothy 5:17).

Hey, Lincs, if you wouldn’t mind not citing 2 different members in the same post. It makes it appear as if I am the author of all those quotes. I am not.

Also, if you could keep the name of the member in the original citation, that would be helpful. It appears that you are deleting this part of the quotation:

Thanks!

 

[PRmerger]

Or Scripture is clear enough on such important matters for us to grasp?

If this is true, Lincs, then, as I posited earlier, you’d allow a random pastor to come to your church and preach as long as he said, “Why, I preach from the Bible! And I’ll proclaim only things that come straight from the Scriptures!”

You wouldn’t, Of that I am certain!

Why? Because when a minister says that he preaches from the Bible, that doesn’t tell you a single thing about what he’ll proclaim.

 

[Lincoln7]

PRmerger,

What is so objectionable to you about an entity being fallible, except in certain cases?
You already believe that certain MEN who were fallible in other areas, were INFALLIBLE at certain periods in time.
So you’re not opposed to the fact that MEN can be INFALLIBLE.
So what’s the problem with acknowledging that the Church can be infallible?

That the entity claiming to be infallible (The CC) has departed from scripture in certain areas, that’s my problem with it, I just see too much in scripture that does not align.

Ok. Then some people knew something about God’s Revelation NOT from the Scriptures, but from some other entity–you call it “history”. But it’s Sacred Tradition whatever you want to call it. God assisting his Church in discerning what was theopneustos.

God did not plunk down the Bible in history some time centuries ago.

God chose the Church–the Catholic Church–in history, to proclaim to you that Hebrews is inspired and the Didache is not.

You would not know it any other way, Lincs.

And it would be intellectually honest of you if you would simply acknowledge that it was the Church that gave you the Bible.

Indeed God assisted his church, we have a fallible collection of infallible books. We could have got it wrong, but didn’t.
I know the bible was not plunked down, again I keep suggesting people read ‘The Heresy of Orthodoxy’, it gives an answer way better than I can.
As for intellectual honesty, I’m perfectly clear in my conscience regarding my position. If by the CC giving me the bible you mean; it was given the inspired books by the Apostles then faithfully handed them down, by copying them accurately then yes. If you mean ‘no one had a clue what books were scripture then at some point the church decided’ then no.

You don’t think the Holy Spirit gave assistance to the Church in discerning this? Men did this all of their own accord?

I think The Holy Spirit gave guidance yes, but again, I stand firmly by a reception of books, not a deciding of books.

If this is true, Lincs, then, as I posited earlier, you’d allow a random pastor to come to your church and preach as long as he said, “Why, I preach from the Bible! And I’ll proclaim only things that come straight from the Scriptures!”

Sola Scriptura still allows for confessions of accurate belief, which the pastor would have to show some sort of agreement with yes. It’s still the rule when deciding matters of doctrine… Would you allow an Orthodox pastor to come and preach on the equality of Bishops if he claims to be following sacred tradition? I don’t think so, does this mean that Rome is no longer the ultimate authority because tradition advocates are divided? No. It means one has the correct understanding of tradition. Sme with the scriptures. Also, it was Athanasius who said truths were plainly seen there, not just me.

Regards

Lincs.

 

[Lincoln7]

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?

Is the tradition which identifies scripture the same tradition that says The Pope is infallible? How does one know what is sacred tradition? Because I see a lot of debate in the church over this issue over the centuries. The only way is because The Magisterium tells you what it is. Then we’re right back to the first sentence in this post…

The argument works just as well both ways. Hence my position; The scriptures were received by the earliest church, they are God breathed, God speaking to us, as such they are authroritative, fully sufficient and clear on all that is needed for salvation.

The ‘you’ in the above is a generic you, not a personal one.

Regards

Lincs.

 

[highrigger1]

There were 9 rocks until 150 AD, highrigger.

St. Linus (67-76)
St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
St. Clement I (88-97)
St. Evaristus (97-105)
St. Alexander I (105-115)
St. Sixtus I (115-125) Also called Xystus I
St. Telesphorus (125-136)
St. Hyginus (136-140)
St. Pius I (140-155)

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

 

[PRmerger]

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

This is interesting that you cite these historians, living millenia away from the original events, as “in the know”, but also claim that a historian who is only 100 years past an event “had no way to know”.

IOW: why should I trust these historians who weren’t around to know what was going on in the early Church, any more than any other historians who affirm the list of popes?

 

[PRmerger]

Indeed God assisted his church, we have a fallible collection of infallible books. We could have got it wrong, but didn’t.

These are 2 contradictory statements. If it’s a FALLIBLE collection, then you believe that there may be some error in the canon. Then you say that we did not get it wrong.

How can it be a fallible collection that we didn’t get wrong?

And I don’t believe for a minute that you believe it’s a fallible collection or a fallible canon. That means each and every time you quote, say, James, you are wondering whether it’s actually truly the Word of God.

I know the bible was not plunked down, again I keep suggesting people read ‘The Heresy of Orthodoxy’, it gives an answer way better than I can.

Right. But you haven’t even attempted to give your own version of how you believe we got the Bible, except to say “it’s through history”, which is, to be sure, a very nebulous explanation.

As for intellectual honesty, I’m perfectly clear in my conscience regarding my position. If by the CC giving me the bible you mean; it was given the inspired books by the Apostles then faithfully handed them down, by copying them accurately then yes. If you mean ‘no one had a clue what books were scripture then at some point the church decided’ then no.

Excellent. Then you believe in Sacred Tradition.

And, in your bolded section, you believe they did this without error, right? Or do you think that in the first 400 years of the canon being “faithfully handed down” someone got it wrong?

 

[Lincoln7]

And, in your bolded section, you believe they did this without error, right? Or do you think that in the first 400 years of the canon being “faithfully handed down” someone got it wrong?

Again, with respect, that’s not what I mean, I’m not advocating tradition. By “faithfully handed them down”, I mean that after the earliest church had been given these books by the Apostles, they were faithfully copied. It’s a textual comment, simply me saying that scribes did a good job of copying the inspired scriptures.

Lincs.

 

[PRmerger]

Sola Scriptura still allows for confessions of accurate belief, which the pastor would have to show some sort of agreement with yes. It’s still the rule when deciding matters of doctrine.

I wasn’t invoking SS here, Lincs. Rather, I was making a reference to your claim that the Scriptures are “clear”. All one needs to do is read the Bible and we’ll all come to an understanding of <fill in the blank with: the Trinity, the HU, etc etc etc>

Except, the fact that you would NOT let any minister who claims, “Why, I preach from the Bible, of course!” to come to your church solely based on that tells me that you know that the Bible is NOT clear. There’s about as many ways to interpret it as there are belly buttons.

Would you allow an Orthodox pastor to come and preach on the equality of Bishops if he claims to be following sacred tradition? I don’t think so, does this mean that Rome is no longer the ultimate authority because tradition advocates are divided? No. It means one has the correct understanding of tradition. Sme with the scriptures. Also, it was Athanasius who said truths were plainly seen there, not just me.

Regards

Lincs.

Not sure what your point is here, Lincs. To the degree that any EO pastor is proclaiming the kergyma (and Eastern Orthodoxy has not departed from the kerygma) is the degree that he is proclaiming the truth.

 

[IggyAntiochus]

These are 2 contradictory statements. If it’s a FALLIBLE collection, then you believe that there may be some error in the canon. Then you say that we did not get it wrong.

How can it be a fallible collection that we didn’t get wrong?

And I don’t believe for a minute that you believe it’s a fallible collection or a fallible canon. That means each and every time you quote, say, James, you are wondering whether it’s actually truly the Word of God.

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.

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.

A multiplicity of copies of the Latin Vulgate had different books in them up until the 8th century. For example, some had the Epistle to the Laodiceans.

The deuterocanonical books were questioned by various scholars and clergy up until Trent.

 

[Lincoln7]

And I don’t believe for a minute that you believe it’s a fallible collection or a fallible canon. That means each and every time you quote, say, James, you are wondering whether it’s actually truly the Word of God.

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. It’s a fallible collection, of infallible books. Men could have made an error, they did not however.

This all hangs on what we mean by fallible and infallible… I take infallible to mean something had not even the possibility of error. So the earliest church to me could have made an error, as they were fallible, but they didn’t make this error.

Same argument: surely every time you look at the catholic church, you are wondering whether it is actually the one true church? Cause you have no infallible way of knowing…

Kind regards

Lincs.

 

[Lincoln7]

I wasn’t invoking SS here, Lincs. Rather, I was making a reference to your claim that the Scriptures are “clear”. All one needs to do is read the Bible and we’ll all come to an understanding of <fill in the blank with: the Trinity, the HU, etc etc etc>

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.

 

[PRmerger]

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.

Lincs! Could you please not delete the name of the author of the post you’re citing. Thanks!

 

[Lincoln7]

Lincs! Could you please not delete the name of the author of the post you’re citing. Thanks!

Apologies. It’s cause I normally copy and paste as opposed to clicking ‘quote’ imitially

 

[PRmerger]

At the non ecumenical councils of Rome, Hippo and Carthage - It included the Apocrypha, so I disagree with it.

At 2 Nicea - I have certain reservations about the praying too of icons and to the saints. Im not an iconoclast, I admire the beauty of ancient Christian art in churches, but i don’t agree with praying to the saints.

At Florence - I disagree with its Purgatory statements and those on papal primacy.

At Trent - Eh? This council was in reaction to the reformation, at Trent I see the council as anathematising truth. As such I see councils as entirely fallible.

So councils are far more varied. I heartily agree with the ancient councils on their Christological comments. But some of the smaller one and the later RCC ones I don’t accept.

Kind regards

Lincs.

Irrelevant!

Of course, as a non-Catholic, you’re going to take issue with a multitude of pronouncements made at these councils.

The point is that over and over and OVER again, different men (that is, Catholic men, or, to be specific Catholic bishops) were able to make the right decision (as you see it) regarding the canon of Scripture.

IF the Holy Spirit did not assist them in this endeavor, who did? Was it solely from human effort?

So, which is it? Either the Holy Spirit assisted Catholic bishops, or it was solely the property of men’s judgments. There is no either/or, Lincs.

 

[PRmerger]

Apologies. It’s cause I normally copy and paste as opposed to clicking ‘quote’ imitially

Accepted!

But you might find it helpful if you checked out these threads to see how you can quote without using cut/paste.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=19771

 

[PRmerger]

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