Authority in Catholicism and Protestantism..

[PRmerger]

As far as reconciling our differences by exegeting scripture, that’s tough. I agree with Athanasius, scripture is clear. To me it is clear, so why do you insist on twisting it? Are you unstable? I mean this as a way of pointing out the problem. ** A neutral third party, observing our debate over scripture, would conclude that scripture isn’t clear at all. ** Obviously, since there is so much disagreement over it.

'zactly, friend. Exactly. :yup:

 

[IggyAntiochus]

Excellent.

So you have submitted to an AUTHORITY that’s *NOT *SCRIPTURE.

Just sayin’

When I became Lutheran, I vowed to submit to the interpretation of Scripture contained in the Book of Concord. That’s an authority that’s not Scripture. It’s the Church. So, I have no problem with that.

 

[IggyAntiochus]

Then you believe they erred.

And you’re not sure that Hebrews is inspired.

No. Fallibility does not necessitate that there was errancy.

 

[anthony022071]

No. Fallibility does not necessitate that there was errancy.

Fallibility does mean that a decision made regarding the faith was not guided by the Spirit.

 

[IggyAntiochus]

Fallibility does mean that a decision made regarding the faith was not guided by the Spirit.

No, it doesn’t. It’s irrelevant, however, as the early councils were not infallible by canon standards!

 

[pablope]

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

Yes, I understand that…but it was Luther’s actions who started the ball rolling.

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

 

[pablope]

As another aside, the provincial Council of Laodicea, which met between the years 363-364 (equal authority to Hippo, Carthage and Rome - provincial councils), did not include the deuterocanonical books with the exception of Baruch (and another book called the Epistle of Jeremiah, which was later considered spurious).

Did this have papal imprimatur? Like AD382, with Pope Damasus declaration, or that of Carthage?

That is the difference.

 

[pablope]

Yes, but my argument is not that the 7 books are not inspired (in actuality, I would consider the official canon that we should use to be the canon of the Eastern churches). I do believe they are inspired and the Lutheran Confessions state as much. However, I don’t think it’s comparable to the dispute over the Trinity. The various opinions on the canon was not an issue of dogma until Trent and theologians were free to question it up until that time. You are right of course that the DC books were quoted often, because it was the majority position that they were inspired.

All of that is simply to state that Luther questioning them was not out of the ordinary and the fuss that is made over it in “apologetics,” is more or less irrelevant.

Questioning…I can see that.

But the issue is…did he teach it widely to be accepted as belief that they are not inspired?

What did his actions give rise to? He opened the can of worms…correct?

 

[IggyAntiochus]

Yes, I understand that…but it was Luther’s actions who started the ball rolling.

 

[IggyAntiochus]

Did this have papal imprimatur? Like AD382, with Pope Damasus declaration, or that of Carthage?

That is the difference.

No. But Laodicea continued to follow the Laodicean canon after Rome and Carthage. In fact, the decisions of the council of Laodicean were affirmed by the 6th ecumenical council.

 

[IggyAntiochus]

Questioning…I can see that.

But the issue is…did he teach it widely to be accepted as belief that they are not inspired?

What did his actions give rise to? He opened the can of worms…correct?

No…because Lutherans did accept them as inspired. The only reason Lutherans stopped using them in America is because they were removed from English translations. Lutherans in Germany still use Luther’s translation which includes the deuterocanonicals. He no more opened a can of worms than any other theologian before him who disputed them.

Here is an example of how the Lutheran confessions deal with the DC books, pablope.

Ap, V, 158: “Tobit’s address, regarded as a whole, shows that faith is required before alms, “Be mindful of the Lord, your God, all your days [Tobit 4:5].”

Ap, V, 158: “Afterward, ‘Bless the Lord, your God, always, and desire of Him that your ways be directed by Him [Tobit 4:19].’ This, however, belongs properly to that faith, which believes that God is reconciled to it because of His mercy, and which wishes to be justified, sanctified, and governed by God.”

Ap XXI, 9: “We grant that angels pray for us. For there is a passage in Zechariah 1:12, where an angel prays, ‘O Lord of hosts, how long will you withhold mercy from Jerusalem?’ To be sure, concerning the saints we grant that in heaven they pray for the Church in general, just as they prayed for the Church in general while alive. However, no passage about the dead praying exists in the Scriptures, except that of a dream recorded in 2 Maccabees 15:14.” (emphasis mine)

 

[anthony022071]

No, it doesn’t. It’s irrelevant, however, as the early councils were not infallible by canon standards!

It does. The Spirit of Christ would not guide the teaching authority of the Body of Christ only to let it err in its decisions. And if the devil saw the possibility of misleading the Church in its teachings,he would do it,and the Church would have long ceased teaching what it does about Jesus and the gospel and morals. But obviously that has not happened. The magisterium of the Church continues to strongly uphold the true doctrines,while all other churches have undermined them to varying extents.

It’s irrelevant, however, as the early councils were not infallible by canon standards!

Which councils and what canon standards?

 

[IggyAntiochus]

It does. The Spirit of Christ would not guide the teaching authority of the Body of Christ only to let it err in its decisions. And if the devil saw the possibility of misleading the Church in its teachings,he would do it,and the Church would have long ceased teaching what it does about Jesus and the gospel and morals. But obviously that has not happened. The magisterium of the Church continues to strongly uphold the true doctrines,while all other churches have undermined them to varying extents.

Which councils and what canon standards?

The Church, according to teaching, is infallible when she convenes in an ecumenical council and when the Pope issues a statement ex cathedra. Not as part of a provincial council. I linked somewhere up there to the New Advent article on infallibility.

 

[IggyAntiochus]

Did this have papal imprimatur? Like AD382, with Pope Damasus declaration, or that of Carthage?

That is the difference.

Can you answer a couple of other questions, pablope?

If the papal promulgation at Rome was an infallible statement binding on the entire Church Catholic, then…

Why does the East have a different canon?

Why would Hippo and Carthage even have been necessary, if a pronouncement 9 and 15 years prior was already infallible and binding on the entire Church?

 

[pablope]

What I meant was…when Luther expressed his views…did he make them such that it became his teaching to his followers…or binding…such that it was done in opposition to Rome?

It made it binding in Rome. Can you point to a canon of the Church that states what Pope Damasus stated was an ex cathedra statement?

There is just to much to look for…and we are looking at events 1500 yrs or so later. What must be taken into account also is…what was culture, understanding, and a host of other factors.

The argument doesn’t make sense pablope. The Pope issued an infallible statement that was disputed for the next 1200 years?

Opinion is an opinion expressed…but did that opinion translate later to an action that would be in opposition to the Papal statement?

Did the “dispute”, as you put it…translate to some sort of action that would have caused confusion to the laity?

I think your use of “disputed” is maybe not the right word to use…it conveys a grave disagreemnt, the way I see it.

Why didn’t every Latin Vulgate match the canon of the council of Rome? Why wasn’t the Roman canon binding on the Eastern Sees? ?

I read (forgot the source), that some additional writings were included for additional reading.

As I said before, keep in mind, the canon was to be a set of readings to be read during the Liturgy…not to be a source to extract doctrine…a teaching tool.

The Eastern Sees used the additional writings that were traditionally read in their Liturgy…the original purpose of the canon. I read, here on the Forums, that the Eastern Sees (some) accepted the Roman Canon sometime in AD800 or so…

Why did a later Pope himself, St. Gregory, dispute the deuterocanonicals if his successor made an infallible proclamation

Again…what is the nature of the “dispute”? You should examing the context of what he was disputing…or was it an “opinion”?

 

[pablope]

No…because Lutherans did accept them as inspired. The only reason Lutherans stopped using them in America is because they were removed from English translations. Lutherans in Germany still

use Luther’s translation which includes the deuterocanonicals.

Yes…thanks to these forums, I got that info.

He no more opened a can of worms than any other theologian before him who disputed them.

 

[Lincoln7]

PRmerger,

I think you are correct. It seems that Protestants seem to believe that we are proclaiming that our Church and our Magisterium is impeccable.

While Catholics understand infallibility in these terms: the Church is prevented from proclaiming as what is true that which is false.

It is, indeed, a negative charism, in that it really is only a guarantee that error will not be promulgated.

And, again, you believe that MEN have been infallible in the past. I just don’t see why you can’t expand your circle of infallibility a wee bit more.

Cool, hope we wont get crossed lines now so to speak. I don’t adhere to this guarantee, for me the only infallible source we have here is the inspired scriptures. I can’t expand it because,mith respect, I see the CC as departing from the infallible scriptures.

I am fallible, 'tis true. And I can be fallible in my decision to commit myself to Christ through the Catholic Church.
But I don’t see how this means that there is no such infallible entity

Fair play, what I mean to she by it is the claim to certainty; “we have the right doctrine cause the church is infallible” doesn’t really work, as one has no more certainty that Rome is the true church than a confessional Protestant does in their sources and interpretation of scripture.

Well, yes, it does mean the Scripture CAN be unclear.

And the existence of tens of thousands of different denominations (which is, to be frank, OBSCENE) is very, very telling about how “clear” these Scriptures are.

Or that the unstable twist it’s clear meaning, I think that’s what the verse indicates. As for this tens of thousands number, do you have the source? Cause I’m aware that the source which lists this also lists a few hundred ‘catholic denominations’… I will try and find it, but I hope this shows that what they mean by denomination is rather different to what we both do.

I am not sure to what comment of Athanasius you’re referring, but, in general, I have no problem saying that ANY individual Catholic, saint, theologian (or even a pope!) could be wrong on certain things.

So if your point is: how can Athanasius be wrong?

My answer: OF COURSE he could be wrong.

It’s in my signiature, one of several he made on both the clarity and sufficiency of scripture. As the great defender of the church during the Arian controversy, he saw the trinity cleary there in scripture. I side with him on this, clearly

Huh? Could you please clarify?

Why would we be given an Infallible Church and no way to know whether it’s the CC or the EO? Is that your question?

Well, since both of these guides have interpreted the book in the exact same way, take your pick, Lincs. You’ll then conform to the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the 7 Sacraments, the sinlessness of Mary, Praying to saints, the Liturgy being Heaven on Earth and being a Holy Sacrifice…etc etc etc

I mean: Surley you need a guide to interpret the magisterium for you?

Exactly the same way? Hardly, their theology is vastly different, on the real presence they resist the term transubstantiation as it is based on aristotlean logic as opposed to the mystery of the faith, they see the immaculate conception as not needed as their view of original sin is rather different… They view the pope in a very different way, all bishops to thema are Peter… Are these matters small and trivial, seems a few anathemas have been attached to these doctrines in the past, I’d say theyre important, and not mere semantics.

How is Romans 8 unclear but the documents of Vatican 2 are clear?

Regards

Lincs.

 

[Lincoln7]

anthony022071,

Some people in the early Church had doubts about certain books were sacred scripture,but Pope Damasus and later the Council of Carthage gave the list of books which were to be accepted as sacred. There must be an infallible authority to do this,otherwise Christians would have accepted inauthentic books with false teachings,and it would have been impossible to reject them with God-given authority.

Must be an infallible authority? Or God can use fallible men to achieve his purposes. When Damaus and later non ecumenical councils meet to discuss this, do they simply make the judgement on a whim? Or rather did they also look at evidence and history for their descsion? I think it’s the latter, the already vast agreement on the canon present by this time, that had existed for centuries earlier, was simply held up here. I mean look at clement for example, how many NT books are quoted in the letter? Virtually all of them.

The apostolic tradition was that of the Catholic Church. That is what the Church Fathers called the entity they belonged to. And Rome was the preeminent center of authority in the Church.

Indeed they did, does this mean it believed everything modern Rome does? As for this Rome having the authority statement, it didn’t. Firstly there was no single bishop in Rome until at least the mid second century, prior to this they had a plurality of elders; beggarsallreformation.blogspot.co.uk/2010/08/this-bridge-should-be-illuminated.html
When we see Rome attempting to use power outside its own jurisdiction, for example Victors attempted excommunication of the Asian churches for calendar dates, he is rebuked by Irenaus, he had no right to interfere in matters outside his jurisdiction.(1). Cyprian of Carthage who held his power as bishop as equal to the bishop of Rome, and made it pretty clear…(2). The modern papacy simply wasn’t there.

How do we know that the Book of Thomas is not apostolic? It was rejected by the magisterium and was abandoned by Christians.

Because its a second century document full of a form of gnosticism… Clearly not written by Thomas or under written his direction and contradicts the books the church had actually received as scripture. There was no papal judgement on it because everyone else was clueless on it, it was universally rejected.

The Eastern Orthodox churches broke away from the authority of Rome. There was no church called Orthodox before the schism between the East and West. The faith of the Church was called orthodox,but the Church was called Catholic,and it was recognized that Rome had authority over the whole Church. The Eastern churches fell into heresies,but Rome did not. Rome has never denied the eternal divinity of Jesus,or the humanity of Jesus.

Really? I think I see it differently. What I’m hinting at here is that you have to make this fallible decision to accept Rome. An Orthodox scholar would see this very differently to you. I’ve shown above that the church did not receive Rome as braving authority over the other churches and patriarchs jurisdictions. As for Rome never getting its Christology wrong… Pope Honorius, who in his official teaching capacity taught the Monophysite heresy, hence the sixth ecumenical council of 680, pronounced an anathema on him as teaching officially this heresy, calling him heretic. (3)Rome clearly has taught error, there are many more examples to give, this one being the most famous.

Why should we expect ample and explicit evidence for those dogmas when the Church (especially in Rome) was being persecuted and in hiding,and when the Church was preoccupied with teaching the truth about Jesus and the gospel,and fending off heresies about Jesus? The most important teachings are those of the apostles’ creed. It was not until these teachings were well explained and established that theologians spent more time talking about less important truths.

The reason why the partim partim view is not not held to anymore is because the teachings of scripture and unwritten tradition should not be considered separate alternatives. They should be considered together as “the deposit of faith”. Scripture itself is part of Church tradition.

Why shoud we expect explicit evidence? Well because Vatican 1 made statements like this; "For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the catholic church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the saviour and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the holy Roman see, which he founded and consecrated with his blood [46] . (4)
That apparently everyone has always known Rome the way they said it was, we test this and demand evidence for what they say.
I think the reason partim partim, which was clearly the established view (look at Trent session 4) went away is because people realised it was simply not possible to defend it on historical grounds.

Kind regards

Lincs

1 - History of the Christian Church, Volume 2, Ante Nicence Christianity AD 100-325, Phillip Schaff, Oak harbor, WA, Logos Research systems inc, 1997 - m.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc2.v…ml#v.vi.x-p0.1
2 - m.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc2.v.vi.x.html#v.vi.x-p0.1
3 - m.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds1.vi.xiii.html
4 - papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm#Chapter%201%20On%20the%20institution%20of%20the%20apostolic%20primacy%20in%20blessed%20Peter

 

[PRmerger]

When I became Lutheran, I vowed to submit to the interpretation of Scripture contained in the Book of Concord. That’s an authority that’s not Scripture. It’s the Church. So, I have no problem with that.

Then how do you reconcile that with something I recently read about Martin Luther “He defended the authority of Scripture.”

Is it Scripture, then, that’s the authority for Lutherans, as Martin Luther says, or the Church?

 

[PRmerger]

Cool, hope we wont get crossed lines now so to speak. I don’t adhere to this guarantee, for me the only infallible source we have here is the inspired scriptures. I can’t expand it because,mith respect, I see the CC as departing from the infallible scriptures.

So we are agreed, then, that MEN, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, can be INFALLIBLE?

Yes, or no, Lincs?

(You can’t say that the “Scriptures” are infallible without claiming that their authors, MEN, were infallible.) I just want to be clear that you understand what you’re saying when you say that Scriptures are infallible, and are able to acknowledge that you actually believe that MEN, under the inspiration of the HS, have been INFALLIBLE in the past.

I suspect that it’s going to be very, very hard to get you to admit this, but I think that if you are willing to be intellectually honest, you will be forced to come to the conclusion that you believe MEN have been INFALLIBLE.