Authority in Catholicism and Protestantism..

[Lincoln7]

Hi PRmerger,

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

Yes. But let’s clarify, how do you think infallibility functioned for the Apostles?

I see them as clearly having the authority of Christ “he who hears you, hears me…”, but it should be noted, functioning in the covenental pattern they were brought up in, there was expectation that the inauguration of a new covenant would be accompanied by written texts that testified to it, the apostolic message preserved in scripture for all generations, as an abiding witness for them.(1). They would be well aware of their mortality, that it was essential for their word to be in written form, to communicate their message accuratley to future generations and over large geographical ares. (2). As such, in the scriptures do we truly find reliable and unchanging apostolic preaching, and he who hears it, hears the one who sent it… We are reminded of Isaiah 30:8; “And now, go, write it before them on a tablet and inscribe it in a book, that it may be for the time to come as a witness forever.” (3).
So then, if it truly is the written Apostlic record, of which to hear it, is to hear Christ himself, to reject it, is to reject Christ himself and the One who sent Him, it is truly theopnustos, God breathed, it carries a full authority, and is most certainly that to which matters of faith and morals must be tested.

Regards

Lincs.

1 - The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary Culture’s Fascination with Diversity Has Reshaped Our Understanding of Early Christianity, Andreas J. Köstenberger and Michael J. Kruger, Crossway, 2010, pg 104
2 - The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary Culture’s Fascination with Diversity Has Reshaped Our Understanding of Early Christianity, Andreas J. Köstenberger and Michael J. Kruger, Crossway, 2010, pg 105
3 - The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary Culture’s Fascination with Diversity Has Reshaped Our Understanding of Early Christianity, Andreas J. Köstenberger and Michael J. Kruger, Crossway, 2010, pg 105

 

[IggyAntiochus]

No. The opposition that we had to Roman teaching at the time is contained in various statements in the Book of Concord, chiefly the Smalcald Articles and the Augsburg Confession. None of those statements address the canon of Scripture because there was no formal dispute over the canon of Scripture. When we received the canon from the Roman Church, it was an assumption that the canon was the accepted norm of Western Christendom.

Martin Chemnitz, Luther’s theological successor, addressed the canon in his four part Examination of the Council of Trent. In that work, he very forcefully denied that it was the Lutheran position to remove or consider uninspired the deuterocanonical books. They were used differently than the rest of the writings of the OT and treated as secondary sources of doctrine, but still considered the word of God.

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.

I understand.

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

No, and I think that that is because, being it was very early, relatively, in the history of the church, that questions about the canon were open because of the varying opinions on it.

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

No, because both the primary canon and the deuterocanonicals were used in liturgy, even by those who did not consider the deuterocanonicals part of the primary canon.

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

Perhaps. Disputed in the sense that it was the minority position.

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…

Well, they always accepted the Roman canon, they just had more OT deuterocanonical books.

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

Well, they disputed the fact that they should be included in the canon. Again, it never became a large issue. Most likely because the various councils that addressed the canon were not ecumenical.

 

[IggyAntiochus]

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?

Martin Luther defended the authority of Scripture only in as much as it was the opinion of the reformers that the medieval church contradicted Scripture through its various teachings and practices. He also believed those teachings contradicted tradition as well. So, the issue of sola scriptura in his context is that the decrees and laws of the Pope were in opposition to the apostolic witness. In that respect, he defended the authority of Scripture.

But let me put it this way, if I were to go to my pastor and say, “I don’t believe in the real presence anymore,” or “I don’t believe baptism saves,” I would be excommunicated or placed under some other form of Church discipline. That violates the interpretation of Scripture set forward in the Book of Concord. In that respect, the Church is an authority.

 

[Nicea325]

Iggy:

Right; but the fundamental difference here between issues such as the Trinity or the Hypostatic Union is that the church never defined the dogma of the canon for the entire church until the medieval ecumenical council (and that only for the Western Catholic Church).

And my friend both those doctrines were not made official 300 years after Christ. The specific time has no bearing to God who is Eternal. Jesus never said He would reveal all Truth instantly or at a specific date and time. Simply because the canon was settle at later date does not mean it has less validity.

Up until then, there were only provincial councils which determined the extent of the canon used for the liturgy within that jurisdiction. The decision of the council held no canonical authority outside of that jurisdiction. If, for example, Laodicea, which had a different canon list than Hippo or Carthage, did not abide by the decisions made there (which they didn’t, because their list of the canon only included 1 DC book), there was no penalty imposed on that diocese for not doing so.

And that is fine. Doctrinal development is not based on a specific set-date or time frame or deadline.

The argument then that the Church infallibly defined the canon is true, but only if it is true that for 1500 years, there was no infallible decision made as to the extent of the canon.

I am not sure, if I am understanding you here. Are you saying the canon was fixed but for nearly 1500 years it was “unofficial” throughout the church?

Prior to that time, scholarly questioning of the extent of the canon continued unabated without any threat from the Roman See to anathematize the individual theologian or clergy for debating the canon.

I am not a canonical lawyer,but why would debating the canon cost someone excommunication?

Always a pleasure my brother in Christ

 

[IggyAntiochus]

Iggy:

And my friend both those doctrines were not made official 300 years after Christ. The specific time has no bearing to God who is Eternal. Jesus never said He would reveal all Truth instantly or at a specific date and time. Simply because the canon was settle at later date does not mean it has less validity.

Understood. But that’s not my argument. My argument is that for Catholics to say that we do not know the canon is inspired unless we rely on an infallible proclamation by the church is based on a false premise. The false premise is that the canon was defined infallibly at Rome, Hippo, or Carthage, when it was not. It was not infallibly defined until Trent. Therefore, it would mean the church did not know the Scriptures were inspired until 1546, if we cannot know we have Scripture unless the church infallibly defines it.

I am not sure, if I am understanding you here. Are you saying the canon was fixed but for nearly 1500 years it was “unofficial” throughout the church?

If by unofficial you mean not dogmatically proclaimed for the entire church. The vast majority of books were fixed, but some were left as questioned.

I am not a canonical lawyer,but why would debating the canon cost someone excommunication?

Always a pleasure my brother in Christ

In the same way, after Trent, someone teaching or arguing for sola fide would face excommunication.

Christ’s peace.

 

[Nicea325]

Iggy:

Understood. But that’s not my argument. My argument is that for Catholics to say that we do not know the canon is inspired unless we rely on an infallible proclamation by the church is based on a false premise. The false premise is that the canon was defined infallibly at Rome, Hippo, or Carthage, when it was not. It was not infallibly defined until Trent. Therefore, it would mean the church did not know the Scriptures were inspired until 1546, if we cannot know we have Scripture unless the church infallibly defines it.

Ummmm…not exactly. The Council of Trent (1545-1564) infallibly reiterated what the Church had long taught regarding the canons of the Old and New Testaments. Pope Damasus promulgated the Catholic canons at the Synod of Rome in A.D. 382, and later, at the regional councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397, 419), the Church again defined the same list of books as inspired.

The canons of the Old and New Testaments, as defined by Pope Damasus and the Councils of Hippo and Carthage, were later ratified (though the books were not enumerated individually) by the later Ecumenical councils of II Nicaea (787) and Florence (1438-1445). Although the Council of Trent, in response to the Protestant violation of the Bible by deleting the seven Deuterocanonical books plus portions of Daniel and Esther, was the first infallible conciliar listing of each individual book, it certainly did not add those books to the canon.

Quote:Nicea325
I am not a canonical lawyer,but why would debating the canon cost someone excommunication?

Iggy:
In the same way, after Trent, someone teaching or arguing for sola fide would face excommunication.

Indeed if it has been declared as official doctrine,not different than the countless heretical sects arguing about one doctrine or another. As I said in the past,either God guides His Church to declare TRUTH or it is all a scam and we are all doomed?

 

[IggyAntiochus]

Iggy:

Ummmm…not exactly. The Council of Trent (1545-1564) infallibly reiterated what the Church had long taught regarding the canons of the Old and New Testaments.

Except for those churches that didn’t use the canon promulgated by Rome, Hippo, and Carthage. Either having more or less books than what was defined at the above three.

The canons of the Old and New Testaments, as defined by Pope Damasus and the Councils of Hippo and Carthage, were later ratified (though the books were not enumerated individually) by the later Ecumenical councils of II Nicaea (787) and Florence (1438-1445).

And the canon established at the provincial council of Laodicea, which did had only one of the seven DC books was ratified by the at Constantinople III.

Although the Council of Trent, in response to the Protestant violation of the Bible by deleting the seven Deuterocanonical books plus portions of Daniel and Esther, was the first infallible conciliar listing of each individual book, it certainly did not add those books to the canon.

Yeah…no one’s arguing that Trent added them. Well maybe someone is.

 

[PRmerger]

Hi PRmerger,

Yes. But let’s clarify, how do you think infallibility functioned for the Apostles?

In the same way that it does for the successors of the Apostles: through the assistance of the Holy Spirit.

I see them as clearly having the authority of Christ “he who hears you, hears me…”, but it should be noted, functioning in the covenental pattern they were brought up in, there was expectation that the inauguration of a new covenant would be accompanied by written texts that testified to it

Where do the Scriptures say this, Lincs?

the apostolic message preserved in scripture for all generations, as an abiding witness for them.(1). They would be well aware of their mortality, that it was essential for their word to be in written form, to communicate their message accuratley to future generations and over large geographical ares.

Chapter and verse for this, too, please.

As such, in the scriptures do we truly find reliable and unchanging apostolic preaching, and he who hears it, hears the one who sent it… We are reminded of Isaiah 30:8; “And now, go, write it before them on a tablet and inscribe it in a book, that it may be for the time to come as a witness forever.”

Amen!

So then, if it truly is the written Apostlic record, of which to hear it, is to hear Christ himself, to reject it, is to reject Christ himself and the One who sent Him, it is truly theopnustos, God breathed, it carries a full authority, and is most certainly that to which matters of faith and morals must be tested.

Indeed it IS the written Apostolic record.

However, it cannot have authority of itself.

It does not claim authority for itself.

Rather, it gives authority to the Church.

 

[PRmerger]

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.

Perhaps you are speaking only about definitions by the extraordinary magisterium?

You are aware that the Church also proclaims infallibility through the ordinary magisterium, yes?

 

[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.

But Lincs, you, too are “departing from the infallible scriptures” in the bolded section.

Unless you can provide a book, chapter and verse that says “the only infallible source we have is the inspired scriptures”.

I guarantee you–you can search the Scriptures from Genesis to Revelations, and you will not find that paradigm.

You heard a man say it, who heard another man say it, who heard another man say it…but not a single person ever read it in the pages of the Holy Scriptures.

Now, to be sure, “all Scripture is inspired by God”. And in the scriptures do we truly find reliable and unchanging apostolic preaching…but that does NOT mean that it’s the ONLY infallible source of God’s Word.

God’s Word has been delivered, once for all, to the saints, through 2 channels: Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

 

[PRmerger]

Fair play, what I mean to she by it is the claim to certainty;

This is correct. I have no certainty that my decision to follow the CC is the correct one.

“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.

Now here is where your conclusion is incorrect, Lincs. MY decision to follow the CC is a fallible one, but the CHURCH itself–Christ’s Body can no more proclaim wrong doctrine than Christ, the Head, could.

 

[PRmerger]

As for this tens of thousands number, do you have the source?

I do not. But I will consider a different number of Christian denominations should you be able to proffer one (and the source).

I have asked this many a time of folks here who contest the “tens of thousands” demographic, and have posed the challenge: “What’s the actual number then? Cite your source, and if it’s reliable, I will use that number instead of tens of thousands.”

Until then, this number is quite generous of me, because, like apologist John Martignoni, I happen to believe that there are actually** millions of Christian denominations** (as many as there are Protestant belly buttons–the fruit of the Protestant Reformation’s mantra, “I can read the Scriptures and come to my own interpretations, thank you very much!”).

 

[PRmerger]

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

Why do I need a guide? It’s like your telling my children, “Surely you need a guide to understand what your parents are telling you!” Why do they need a guide?

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,

The Real Presence is the doctrine, Lincs. Transubstantiation is the working theory on how happens. The EO believe it, but just don’t call it that.

They believe in the sinlessness of Mary. Assumption (Dormition) of Mary. 7 sacraments. Apostolic succession. Liturgy. Scripture. Tradition. Praying to the saints. Relics. Icons. Statues. Ordination.

 

[highrigger1]

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?

PR,

These are internationally known historians and experts in their field. You may not want to trust them at all. But the facts are that they have much better access to the sources to determine what is the truth. They are also trained historians who are capable of analyzing that evidence. Believe who you will. Peace, JohnR

 

[highrigger1]

I am still wondering why you keep on dodging my question posed for you?

You claim we are quoting mythology (which you have provided zlich evidence) and yet St. Irenaeus clearly made a statement about Peter in 180 AD?

Tell me where this mythology derived from and where did it start?

If you believe it is mythology,hence meaning the CC position is bogus,then I want you to present me the ancient historical writings which challenged the CC tradition? Meaning what? There existed another tradition which apparently is the correct one. I’ll wait for those ancient sources. I want to read of this other tradition which challenged the current CC tradition going back to Peter.

Remember it is you claiming it is all a myth and not fact,thus burden of proof is all on you to show us otherwise.

Nicea,

His mythology derived from 1 clements claim that Peter and Paul founded the Roman church. Historians know this false. Peace, JohnR

 

[David_Castlen]

Hi all,

In this here thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=659223 (well in the last few pages) some of us got a tad off topic and started discussing authority, or at least I think we’re discussing authority, it’s what it’s all come down to so far.

So I will post my response to some of the questions and points in that thread here as its not on topic on that thread anymore.

When it comes to the Trinity, however, we find clear and vast evidence in sacred scripture however, with the papacy, to my eye we do not… With regard to Schaff, I think he is a very capable man.

We have scores of fathers who say a lot about Peter in many places yes… In no way do they all therefore suddenly think the Bishop of Rome is supreme over them… Accusing us of revisionism is rather bold… It’s more realism… We’re simply holding Trent accountable for its comments on their claims There’s no revisionism in it, it’s just what’s there in history.

With respect, i think Schaff has rather large amounts of evidence for his claims.

I did… As soon as we see Bishop victor in Rome attempting to use authority outside of his jurisdiction, Irenaus rebukes him for it… He has no knowledge of a universal papacy, he sees Victor attempting to interfere in something he has no right to and rebukes him…(1).

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

It is very clear that Ignatious, Clement and Polycarp saw the Bishop of Rome as the head of the church. Someone will quote for me.

 

[PRmerger]

Nicea,

His mythology derived from 1 clements claim that Peter and Paul founded the Roman church. Historians know this false. Peace, JohnR

John, are you a historian? If so, where did you get your degree?

 

[PRmerger]

Martin Luther defended the authority of Scripture only in as much as it was the opinion of the reformers that the medieval church contradicted Scripture through its various teachings and practices. He also believed those teachings contradicted tradition as well. So, the issue of sola scriptura in his context is that the decrees and laws of the Pope were in opposition to the apostolic witness. In that respect, he defended the authority of Scripture.

But let me put it this way, if I were to go to my pastor and say, “I don’t believe in the real presence anymore,” or “I don’t believe baptism saves,” I would be excommunicated or placed under some other form of Church discipline. That violates the interpretation of Scripture set forward in the Book of Concord. In that respect, the Church is an authority.

Fair enough.

Now what “canon” (and here I mean “measuring stick”) did the Church use to determine the canon of Scripture?

What was their canon for discerning whether the Epistle of Barnabus was theopneustos or not? IOW: How could they compare whether something conflicted with Scripture when there was no Bible to use as the measuring stick?

 

[IggyAntiochus]

Fair enough.

Now what “canon” (and here I mean “measuring stick”) did the Church use to determine the canon of Scripture?

What was their canon for discerning whether the Epistle of Barnabus was theopneustos or not? IOW: How could they compare whether something conflicted with Scripture when there was no Bible to use as the measuring stick?

The apostolic deposit of faith. To narrow it down further… the action of the Holy Spirit in the corporate witness of the Body of Christ. The sheep hear His voice. Of course, there was an actual technical process by which they were able to review which books agreed with the apostolic deposit that had been handed down, they could compare books with each other to see which were consistent with the overall whole of Scripture, they could reject spurious books because they could ascertain whether the text in question was written during the apostolic period, etc. This was true more often than not because, for example, the Gnostic texts were written a hundred years or more after Christ.

 

[PRmerger]

The apostolic deposit of faith.

Yep. 'zactly, friend. Exactly.