Authority in Catholicism and Protestantism..

[pablope]

Nicea,

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

where is your proof, HR?

Clement of Rome knew Peter and Paul…and what he believed is mythology?

And which historians? Those only who agree with you?

 

[mackbrislawn]

What about the 1000 years of questioning before that?

I didn’t know there were a 1000 years of questioning before that. There were local councils in the 4th century that were accepted as influential, and so as far as I know any controversy about the canon did not flare up again until the Reformation. So the eceumenical council of Trent had to rule on the question.

 

[mackbrislawn]

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.

Hi Iggy!

Good answer.

Now, I have a question you might help with. As you mention above, a text had to be written during the apostolic period. Well, I have been having a discussion in another thread (Has infallibility been passed down?) with a person who seems to accept the modern notion that 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, and 1 and 2 Peter were written after the apostolic period by unkown authors, certainly not Paul or Peter. He further claims that the “ancients” who selected the canon knew this full well but nevertheless included these books anyway. He says this is in “history books.”

What are you opinions on this, or comments?

Thanks!

Mack

 

[mackbrislawn]

where is your proof, HR?

Clement of Rome knew Peter and Paul…and what he believed is mythology?

And which historians? Those only who agree with you?

Actually, it is true, we don’t really know how the church in Rome was founded. Pretty early on, since Paul wrote his letter to the Romans before he himself ever went there. However, I don’t think it is “mythology” that Peter and Paul were martyred there.

 

[anthony022071]

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.

A council does not have to be ecumenical to be infallible. That is not the criterion. The criterion is that a council must be in union with the pope and its doctrines must be accepted by the pope. Infallibility is given firstly to the pope,not to any ecumenical council by itself. The pope is infallible when he gives his approval of the doctrinal definitions of a council,as well as when he defines a doctrine himself.

davidmacd.com/catholic/orthodox/pope_is_infallibility_a_one_man_council.htm

< First of all, we need to examine the nature of Ecumenical Councils. By this, I specifically mean the first 7 Ecumenical Councils of the Church. They were basically political, imperial-sponsored events to poll the bishops of the Roman Empire to see what was, and was not, orthodox doctrine. But, this was not the Traditional method for determining orthodoxy. Rather, it was Constantine’s way of finding out what Christianity taught, because he was looking for a glue to hold his Empire together, so it was of monumental importance that all the bishops be in agreement. We must remember Constantine’s situation: The Empire was overflowing with Christians, yet had problems with disunity. By embracing the Church, he assumed that he could fix this in one fell swoop. However, then Constantine found out – much to his surprise – that these Christians weren’t so “unified” after all (i.e., Arianism). And, if that was the case, he needed to find out if Christianity was really (as the orthodox Christians claimed) a universal phenomenon. Otherwise, his plan was pointless.

So, for Constantine, what the bishops taught was never important to the powers behind Nicaea, Constantinople I, Ephesus, Chalcedon, Constantinople II, Constantinople III, and Nicaea II. Rather, the driving force was what could be agreed on (in order to promote the “One Church, One Empire” agenda) just as it was at the illicit “ecumenical councils” :

There are a number of councils which espoused ideas that could have ended Christianity.

* Antioch (in 341, where about 100 Eastern bishops approved of straight Arianism)
* Sirmium (in 351, where another 100 or so Eastern bishops espoused semi-Arianism),
* the Robber Council of Ephesus (in 449-450 which declared Monophysitism to be orthodox doctrine),
* numerous "councils" in Constantinople (which included the patriarchs of Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem, which declared Monophysitism to be orthodox),
* and the councils of Constantinople of 638 and 639 which approved of the Ecthesis, embracing Monothelitism.

All these Councils could have been defined historically as “Ecumenical,” if it were not for Rome’s refusal to cooperate with them. > Mark Bonocore

 

[mackbrislawn]

QUOTE=Lincoln7;9219640]

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.

Some comments. As you mention, the apostles were “God breathed,” that is, they were actually inspired, as opposed to being merely infallible. God gave them revelation directly, breathed it into them. God gave them new revelation. A positive function. It is further believed that inspiration ceased with the apostles.

Now, how about infallibility? Infallibility simply means without error. No implication of inspiration is present in the term. It is more of a negative function. The Holy Spirit prevents error from being taught, but does not deliver the truth–that has already been done via the apostles.

But when controversy erupts about what the apostles meant and what they taught, how do we settle the question? How is the matter to be decided? Keep arguing and split up? No. That is where the idea of infallibilty comes in to play. The example is taken from the Council of Jerusalem. The church simply got together and argued and decided the matter about gentiles.

The apostles were still around at that time. But how about after the apostles were dead and gone? Well, the post-apostolic church felt it had the similar power to decide controversial questions that came up after the apostles were gone. The idea was that the Holy Spirit would prevent the bishops in council from making the wrong decision. The HS would keep them from error.

That’s infallibility in a nut shell.

Note that if there is no controversy things can go along for centuries until somebody or something happens that brings a matter to a head.

 

[IggyAntiochus]

Hi Iggy!

Good answer.

Now, I have a question you might help with. As you mention above, a text had to be written during the apostolic period. Well, I have been having a discussion in another thread (Has infallibility been passed down?) with a person who seems to accept the modern notion that 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, and 1 and 2 Peter were written after the apostolic period by unkown authors, certainly not Paul or Peter. He further claims that the “ancients” who selected the canon knew this full well but nevertheless included these books anyway. He says this is in “history books.”

What are you opinions on this, or comments?

Thanks!

Mack

Usually the only motive for agreeing with modern notions like this, like the modern notions themselves, is to weaken the authority of the biblical text. It doesn’t just weaken the individual letter’s authority (2 Peter or what have you), but it weakens the entire canon because it makes all of it suspect, including the church. The best thing you can do in those situations is to research the available data on the letter in question to verify its truthfulness.

 

[Lincoln7]

PRmerger,

Where do the Scriptures say this, Lincs?

I’m unsure why one would ask this, I’m talking about how scripture would be viewed in a first century context…

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.

I have already given several short paragraphs on the authority of scripture, the last one indicating how its reception and creation would have been viewed in its context, previous ones on where we see evidence in scripture itself. You quote from 2 Tim 3:16 in anticipation that I’m going to quote it; yes I am. God Breathed. The words of God, as such they are in and off themselves carrying the full authority of Jesus Christ who has all authority.
I can look at them and actually see the words of God and what was believed in the earliest church. With apparent Sacred Tradition the ‘unwritten traditions’ to quote Trent session 4, can we do the same. If in 2 Thessolonians 2:15 Paul is actually advocating here he believes in papal primacy, papal infallibility, a papacy at all, purgatory, the immaculate conception etc etc… All of which is claimed by Rome as ‘Sacred Tradition’, why is it so hard to find any of it?
Vatican 1 when speaking of the pope put it like this after all; “For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age…” (1).These claims simply don’t hold up… Sacred tradition as its claimed in the CC is very hard to pin down, of it is as the consistent witness of the CC through the ages have claimed, a separate entity passed down orally, not recorded in scripture, always believed, it should be utterly abundant in early literature. But it’s not.

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?

Exact reason I don’t buy Romes claim I need them to nderstanding scripture. I find it hard to get that apostles who indicate in their writings they are writing often for children, who intended these letters to be heard by all in the church, are unclear, yet the magisterium is somehow clear. Romans 8: very clear. John 1: very clear… Etc etc… The code of canon law… Where dies that help clarify to someone the simple and joyous message of Romans 5:1?

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.

They believe in Tradition yes, it’s just odd how it’s so different to that of Rome? They don’t seem to adhere to Vatican 1’s rather clear statement on “it’s always been like this.” This is the issue I have with modern tradition. It seems to change, quite a lot, and is used to support notions and dogmas that simply are not present in the mind of the authors of scripture, or the early fathers.

“I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another.” 1 Corinthians 4:6

Kind regards

Lincs.
(1) - papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm#Chapter%201%20On%20the%20institution%20of%20the%20apostolic%20primacy%20in%20blessed%20Peter

 

[Lincoln7]

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.

I naturallyl disagree… For an analysis of clement see here; beggarsallreformation.blogspot.co.uk/2010/08/this-bridge-should-be-illuminated.html
As for Ignatius of Antioch, I’m well aware of his quote on the church of Rome, does he mention a bishop there? Or is it the case that at this stage, Rome had no single bishop?
As for Polycarp, does he ever mention the bishop of Rome? I am yet to do any sort of study on him see so not so good off the top of my head…

Regards

Lincs.

 

[Lincoln7]

Mackbrislawn,

But when controversy erupts about what the apostles meant and what they taught, how do we settle the question? How is the matter to be decided? Keep arguing and split up? No. That is where the idea of infallibilty comes in to play. The example is taken from the Council of Jerusalem. The church simply got together and argued and decided the matter about gentiles.

The apostles were still around at that time. But how about after the apostles were dead and gone? Well, the post-apostolic church felt it had the similar power to decide controversial questions that came up after the apostles were gone. The idea was that the Holy Spirit would prevent the bishops in council from making the wrong decision. The HS would keep them from error.

Firstly, if the early church believed in the infallibility of an ecumenical council, I find it odd none were called until a secular emperor called one at Nicea, there were a great many heresies prior to this that were dangerous and could have been solved this way. As could an appeal to the bishop of Rome… One of the reasons I do not see papal supremacy and infallibility in Traditon/History, it would have been so used if it were known about, and I think it makes councils something now subservient to the pope, it carries no authority without his say so. I’m not arguing against all council holding either, for that would be silly of me Rather that Nicea, chalcedon etc get their authority because they are a reliable witness to the authority of scripture. After all; “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.” I mean I hold quite dearly to Chalcedon and Nicea, as I do the to certain reformed confessions, but I do because they are clear witnesses to the authority of scripture.

Kind regards

Lincs.

 

[Lincoln7]

Anthony,

A council does not have to be ecumenical to be infallible. That is not the criterion. The criterion is that a council must be in union with the pope and its doctrines must be accepted by the pope. Infallibility is given firstly to the pope,not to any ecumenical council by itself. The pope is infallible when he gives his approval of the doctrinal definitions of a council,as well as when he defines a doctrine himself.

Did any of the councils themselves believe this? If it’s the case, why did the sixth ecumenical council condemn Pop Honorius for officially teaching monothelitism?

Lincs.

 

[Lincoln7]

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!”).

I did some googling and found the source for the tens of thousands number is the Oxford world Christian Encyclopedia. Sadly it’s a bit pricey and I couldn’t find it on amazon uk…
I did find this aomin blog on it: aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2218
So I don’t have the source to say the exact number, but to keep churning it out is not fair play… The number includes 781 Orthodox ‘denominations’ and 242 Catholic ‘denominations’…

Lincs.

 

[PRmerger]

I did some googling and found the source for the tens of thousands number is the Oxford world Christian Encyclopedia. Sadly it’s a bit pricey and I couldn’t find it on amazon uk…
I did find this aomin blog on it: aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2218
So I don’t have the source to say the exact number, but to keep churning it out is not fair play… The number includes 781 Orthodox ‘denominations’ and 242 Catholic ‘denominations’…

Lincs.

Again, I will use any number that you offer, provided you offer a source, and I find it to be reliable.

Is it 300? Is it 5? Is it 5000?

I will use whatever number you can offer, as long as you provide a source and it’s not :whacky:

At any rate, any number more than ONE destroys the paradigm, “I can read the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit will guide me unto all truth.” If there’s **2 denominations **that have read the very same Scriptures and come to CONTRARY opinions (baptism saves! No! It’s just an ordinance!), then it puts to rest that man-made unholy Trinity of Me, My Bible and the Holy Spirit.

 

[David_Castlen]

Thank you, same to you all. You can probably see I’m not really a compromiser on what I see as essential truths of the Gospel, far from it. But that does not mean we can’t be civil in our discussions

Thanks for the clarification. However I don’t see this as being all that in accord with what we can examine in history; I find it hard to put down the entire of the book I posted a link to earlier in these boxes… If anyone is interested in seeing a Protestant view on canon development, I can’t recommend it highly enough.
Hippo and Carthage and Damasus however don’t settle the matter, after these events there are still differing lists being produced: aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3465
Hippo and Carthage are not ecumenical, as such their voices did not settle things, and neither did Damaus, which I see as evidence against him being recognised universally as having authority over all churches. There was no set canon for the Catholic Church until Trent… For example, Dr White has a video here detailing the numerous figures prior to the Reformation who also excluded the Apocrapha, including such giants of course as Jerome, and Cardinal Catejan: m.youtube.com/watch?v=IKGZfrZiYVU

So the bible is tradition in written form, I would not take issue with this. I would say though that being the case that it is tradition in written form, the inspired word of God, we’re are to test things to it… Again, see the book on how long the development takes, I argue for a late first century date…
Indeed Chalcedon provided a faithful witness to sacred scripture… Again; not a lack of tradition, but that it’s subservient to scripture.

Is your view not also informed by who you have learned from; the church? This also assumes the early church is identical to Rome today, big claim, which I guess is the whole point of out thread

Yes, the truth, which is recorded for us in scripture. The appeal to Protestant disunity works just as well against churches who espouse a more ‘church alone’ position as opposed to a ‘scripture alone’ position… catholic, orthodox, JW, Mormon… Unless one can actually demonstrate the claims are true in history and scripture, all it will succeed in doing is getting a few Protestants to think “I need an infallible guide, I must now then use my private interpretation to pick the right one out from the bunch.” With respect, it doesn’t quite work.

I am acquainted with Cardinal Newmans famous essay, but I see it more as an abandonment of the traditional catholic position as seen prior to him… Things can develop, but the development of tradition must be tested to scripture… “So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God.” Matt 14:6. I think this passage is clear on scripture being that to which any tradition must be held.

Regards

Lincs.

Jerome did not did not state against the “Seven Books of the Bible” the Apopcrapha and the extra writings. He did argue against them while the canon was being developed. But when the Chruch had proclaimed them, he assended. Others will do a better job on this blog detailing this.

 

[Lincoln7]

Jerome did not did not state against the “Seven Books of the Bible” the Apopcrapha and the extra writings. He did argue against them while the canon was being developed. But when the Chruch had proclaimed them, he assended. Others will do a better job on this blog detailing this.

I’m not so sure he ever changed: beggarsallreformation.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/did-jerome-change-his-mind-on-apocrypha.html

Regards

Lincs.

 

[Rsmith494]

Quote:
“Again…present to me one ECF clearly teaching the primacy of Rome is: heretical,false, to be rejected,schismatic or a usurpation of Christ in the first 500 years?”

That carries an assumption. That is for the Primacy of Rome to be true and what the early church practiced, then it must be clearly taught from that same time period.

However, if we hold that assumption, then for truth to exist to current day, one would have to assume everything must been clearly taught, written, and survived 2000 years.

Given this, many items Protestants & Catholics agree upon but are not clearly taught.

There is enough evidence to suggest it’s how the early church regarded the Bishop of Rome. With a compilation of material, you can make the case for the Primacy of Rome.

Personally; it’s hard for me to imagine Christianity surviving without falling to heresy in the first 400 years without a ‘rock’. Just my thoughts.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Lincoln7;9223875]Mackbrislawn,

Firstly, if the early church believed in the infallibility of an ecumenical council, I find it odd none were called until a secular emperor called one at Nicea, there were a great many heresies prior to this that were dangerous and could have been solved this way.

I don’t find it especially odd. It takes some prodding to get over the natural inertia preventing the travail of travel and the expensive gathering together of a bunch of bishops. Finally Constantine did it.

Plus, it may never have occurred to them to get together in council. In some respects, the infallibility of the church is a retroactive reading of scripture, using the council of Jerusalem as the model. After all, scripture doesn’t come out directly and say to get together. So much of scripture is indirect implication. Scripture says the church is the body of Christ, and Christ is its head? What does that mean? Does it mean that Christ’s church is infallible, even after the death of the apostles? Or does the church cease to exist as a collective body, and Christianity has to be reconstructed from the written residue of the apostles? Whatever that written residue is.

As could an appeal to the bishop of Rome… One of the reasons I do not see papal supremacy and infallibility in Traditon/History, it would have been so used if it were known about, and I think it makes councils something now subservient to the pope, it carries no authority without his say so. I’m not arguing against all council holding either, for that would be silly of me Rather that Nicea, chalcedon etc get their authority because they are a reliable witness to the authority of scripture. After all; “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.” I mean I hold quite dearly to Chalcedon and Nicea, as I do the to certain reformed confessions, but I do because they are clear witnesses to the authority of scripture.

It seems that the reasoning here is that something is authoritative if you agree with it, and not authoritative if you do not agree with it. It seems strange to say to go to scripture for the answer, when what scripture means is the very bone of contention!
That’s why infallibility was developed, as a way of settling the matter. Jesus is supposed to be still with us, isn’t he?

 

[KathleenGee]

On the side here, reading another post, I read about how the high Presbyterians broke off and made a new church in part because they disagreed with infant baptisms.

You have to define in context and practice what these 200 Catholic denominations are…never heard of this language before…know of the 20 plus rites of different ethnic regions.

Again, we don’t break away because of one man leading us or break away because of some ecclesial practice or particular doctrine.

Usually, when a Catholic leaves the Church it is because of personal issues.

Again, we are ecclesial Deists. I am working now on a liturgy course, and am submitting it to my pastor and if he can’t find the time, to someone else in the Church with good knowledge to make sure I am not teaching error.

Christ’s Church is not the Church of the Lone Rangers. It is about a binding communion of community centered on the life of Christ, a faith lived out.

 

[PRmerger]

I’m unsure why one would ask this, I’m talking about how scripture would be viewed in a first century context…

I am asking for a Scripture verse that relates to your comment “there was expectation that the inauguration of a new covenant would be accompanied by written texts that testified to it.”

How do you know that this was an expectation? How do you know that Scripture would be viewed? Especially since the NT was not even written in the first decades of Christianity, so how could there be that expectation?

If you can’t cite a Scripture verse to support this, then this appears to be a man-made tradition, no?

 

[Lincoln7]

Mackbrislawn,

Plus, it may never have occurred to them to get together in council. In some respects, the infallibility of the church is a retroactive reading of scripture, using the council of Jerusalem as the model. After all, scripture doesn’t come out directly and say to get together. So much of scripture is indirect implication. Scripture says the church is the body of Christ, and Christ is its head? What does that mean? Does it mean that Christ’s church is infallible, even after the death of the apostles? Or does the church cease to exist as a collective body, and Christianity has to be reconstructed from the written residue of the apostles? Whatever that written residue is.

Indeed the church is the body of Christ and He is it’s head. But no it does not mean that the church is infallible. I’m not saying at all the church ceases to exist… For it has the Lords promise that it wont.

It seems that the reasoning here is that something is authoritative if you agree with it, and not authoritative if you do not agree with it. It seems strange to say to go to scripture for the answer, when what scripture means is the very bone of contention!
That’s why infallibility was developed, as a way of settling the matter. Jesus is supposed to be still with us, isn’t he?

The Lord is indeed present still with his church, those whom he died for yes. The reasoning here is that as scripture is God breathed and the unchanging apostolic testimony it is the final authority for us in matters of faith or morals. Is it not the same for one who must agree that a testimony of an early father is authoritative if it confirms their belief that Rome is the true church? It seems odd to appeal to Rome, when that is the very bone of contention, as it is apparent to a great many that the current Catholic structure is not seen in history or scripture. Hence a return to it (scripture) as the rule of faith for the church.

Regards

Lincs.