Authority in Catholicism and Protestantism..

[Lincoln7]

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.

Hi Kathleen,

My usage of the 200 plus catholic ‘denominations’ was to prove that the same source that is used to suggest there are tens of thousands of Protestant denominations also list 200 catholic ones. I’m not actually saying I go with it, just that if one is going to be consistent, one who says “tens of thousands of Protestant denominations” must also accept the 200 apparent catholic ones.

Regards

Lincs.

 

[Lincoln7]

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?

I suggest getting hold of ‘The Heresy of Orthodoxy’, specifically reading chapter 4.

I will put it in brief, as I’m wary of quoting too liberally from copyrighted works…

Effectively it is drawing on the parallel of Moses and Christ. As moses delivers from egypt and receives covenent documents, how much more would the early church expect documents testifying to their covenent with Jesus Christ? (1). The many numerous passages in the NT that demonstrate the sheer authority of an apostle of Jesus Christ, that those who hear them hear Him, meant that the inspired scriptures, as their message in written form carry thier authority, one which was above all others in the church. As such scripture is the same for us now. (2). Do we not see how the Lord viewed it as being that to which tradition was tested (Matt 15:3, Matt 15:6), and how He held accountable to it, those who read it (Matt 22:29, Mark 12:24)? If the Lord held the OT scriptures in such a way, should not we do the same with those of the NT?

I again suggest buying the book, as it gives a very nice articulation of what the Protestant position on canon development is.

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 103.
(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 104

 

[PRmerger]

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.

This has not been the argument that I’ve been presenting, Lincs.

My argument simply is this: anyone who claims to have no authority outside of Scripture, yet claims that, say, Hebrews, is inspired is being disingenuous. (probably not intentionally). For the ONLY way that anyone knows that Hebrews is inspired is NOT through Scripture but through…some other authority. This authority is none other than the Catholic Church.

 

[JaKael02]

I suggest getting hold of ‘The Heresy of Orthodoxy’, specifically reading chapter 4.

I will put it in brief, as I’m wary of quoting too liberally from copyrighted works…

Effectively it is drawing on the parallel of Moses and Christ. As moses delivers from egypt and receives covenent documents, how much more would the early church expect documents testifying to their covenent with Jesus Christ? (1). The many numerous passages in the NT that demonstrate the sheer authority of an apostle of Jesus Christ, that those who hear them hear Him, meant that the inspired scriptures, as their message in written form carry thier authority, one which was above all others in the church. As such scripture is the same for us now. (2). Do we not see how the Lord viewed it as being that to which tradition was tested (Matt 15:3, Matt 15:6), and how He held accountable to it, those who read it (Matt 22:29, Mark 12:24)? If the Lord held the OT scriptures in such a way, should not we do the same with those of the NT?

I again suggest buying the book, as it gives a very nice articulation of what the Protestant position on canon development is.

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 103.
(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 104

Regarding the sentence, “The many numerous passages in the NT that demonstrate the sheer authority of an apostle of Jesus Christ, that those who hear them hear Him, meant that the inspired scriptures, as their message in written form carry their authority, one which was above all others in the church.”

The books in the NT do not directly state that inspired scriptures were written to carry authority above all others in the Church. I suppose it is possible to derive this assumption or hypothesis; but then again it’s possible to derive the same assumptions about Peter getting the Keys, Papal Succession, and Papal Infallibility.

Who will decide such division?

1. Regarding the sentence, “As moses delivers from egypt and receives covenent documents, how much more would the early church expect documents testifying to their covenent with Jesus Christ?”

That carries the assumption that the OT was all agreed upon. The Essenes, Pharisees, and Sadducees all disagreed about which scrolls were inspired. It was one thing they expected the Messiah to solve for them. These issues are not black and white. (Not claiming you said they were easy, just speaking to myself).

So who will decide such division?

 

[KathleenGee]

Understood, Lincs…

But you have to define denominations and who they are actually included in the 242…I have not heard of them…we have a Korean Catholic church, I grew up in an Italian mission church 5 blocks from my house, but the only difference outwardly was the ethnic population of the neighborhood at the time, but authority, Mass…everything was of the Roman rite.

We would have spaghetti, gnocci dinners, basically the beginning of the sermon with something in Italian, (the pastor always beginning with 'Tutti!) and in my mind, I would do my responsorial, ‘Tutti, Fruti’), but the rest in English…

I have attended a Maronite Catholic Church that is ethnically from Lebanon, but the pastor speaks Aramaic and gives us the Eucharist in Christ’s language. There are other parts in Syrilac (spelling), he holds up a crucifix when he reads the Gospel and there are alot of prayers for protection and mercy (consider Lebanon’s history) in the Mass, plus the use of bells, which were also used by ancient Israel in religion. But the Marionite Church is under the authority of Rome. They see their charism in contrast to the Latin charism of ecclesial authority and defining doctrine rather as the contemplatives in the Church. They have their Lebanese dinners in August. I like going there in July in honor of the Carmelite saints, with whom they have affinity.

So if you speak of Catholic denominations, but if any come up not in union with the Holy Father, they are not Catholic.

 

[PRmerger]

So if you speak of Catholic denominations, but if any come up not in union with the Holy Father, they are not Catholic.

I think this is Lincs’ point. There is a website that has attempted to account for every single Christian denomination, but it counts the Catholic Church 242 times.

He correctly says that this is inaccurate, as it counts the CC 241 times too many, and thus falsely elevates the number of Christian denominations.

 

[IggyAntiochus]

I think this is Lincs’ point. There is a website that has attempted to account for every single Christian denomination, but it counts the Catholic Church 242 times.

He correctly says that this is inaccurate, as it counts the CC 241 times too many, and thus falsely elevates the number of Christian denominations.

I don’t know why they chose to do it how they did (I think it’s the World Encyclopedia of Religions or something like that). Basically, their mistake is counting a church in one country as a separate denomination from the same church in another country. So, for example, even though Assemblies of God in the US is the same church as Assemblies of God in Britain, they’re considered two different denominations. This is how they counted the Roman communion 242 times. I would expect something different from an organization that operates under the umbrella of being an encyclopedia.

That doesn’t deny the sectarian nature of reformed and anabaptist Christianity. It’s a demonstration of why I don’t really care for professional apologetics, though.

 

[KathleenGee]

Likewise, I see this as Linc’s difficulty in where he goes and what he references – as this is the fruit in not recognizing any church as having any church authority…which Martin Luther, alone, decided in denying apostolic succession.

Luther then subsequently removed the Holy Spirit working in the communion of ecclesia through the teaching magesterium of the Church in exchange for individual men, all in the name of reform. When they broke, they had no one to challenge them and their teachings, and some times their ideas of reform were more harsh than their predecessors and the fidelity to the Gospel more compromised as Luther alluded.

This spiritual reality of communion we as ecclesial deists is something Protestants can not experience or recognize in the Church’s diversity of thought and opinion…what is that of the spirit of the Church vs the opinion of man? We know when a pope or ecclesiastic or theologian or saint is speaking in the spirit of the Church and when they are speaking of their own nature, which outsiders cannot perceive.

We can only explain so much, but we know and experience this communion we have when we have faith in Christ and His Church in the Holy Spirit. If we look to men, we look at one individual’s opinion vs another’s and this is not the movement of the Holy Spirit in the Church.

Ironically, the more diversity there is in the Church, the more the 4 marks of one, holy, apostolic, and universal signs are actualized.

 

[pablope]

Originally Posted by David Castlen View Post
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.

Well, so what if he did?

The main point is he remained obedient to the Pope, he produced what was required of him lovingly and dutifully.

Did he preach publicly against what he was tasked to do? Did he teach or proclaim the pope wrong on the DC? Did he say the pope is wrong, I am correct and I will establish my own religion and follow me?

 

[Lincoln7]

JaKael02,

Regarding the sentence, “The many numerous passages in the NT that demonstrate the sheer authority of an apostle of Jesus Christ, that those who hear them hear Him, meant that the inspired scriptures, as their message in written form carry their authority, one which was above all others in the church.”

The books in the NT do not directly state that inspired scriptures were written to carry authority above all others in the Church. I suppose it is possible to derive this assumption or hypothesis; but then again it’s possible to derive the same assumptions about Peter getting the Keys, Papal Succession, and Papal Infallibility.

Who will decide such division?

Well as God breathed they carry an authority… Peter does get the keys yes, as do the other apostles. Papal infallibility i don’t see at all in scripture, along with a papacy, nor do I see it in early tradition. I do see scriptural authority there though.
The division on these of course assumes scripture is divided on these issues.

1. Regarding the sentence, “As moses delivers from egypt and receives covenent documents, how much more would the early church expect documents testifying to their covenent with Jesus Christ?”

That carries the assumption that the OT was all agreed upon. The Essenes, Pharisees, and Sadducees all disagreed about which scrolls were inspired. It was one thing they expected the Messiah to solve for them. These issues are not black and white. (Not claiming you said they were easy, just speaking to myself).

Even if it was not agreed upon, does that nullify the idea that they were not expecting new documents? Surley it would support the notion that they expected clarity regarding what they would receive under the new covenant. The division on the OT; I stand with Jerome on this one and affirm a clarity on what’s scriptural and what not,

Kind regards

Lincs.

 

[Lincoln7]

Pablope,

Well, so what if he did?

The main point is he remained obedient to the Pope, he produced what was required of him lovingly and dutifully.

Did he preach publicly against what he was tasked to do? Did he teach or proclaim the pope wrong on the DC? Did he say the pope is wrong, I am correct and I will establish my own religion and follow me?

I don’t think Jerome had a knowledge of a modern papacy with respect. If a pope in his day carried the authority of a modern pope and ordered Jerome to change his views, he never did. There is an interesting few articles on beggars all on Jerome here; beggarsallreformation.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/which-jerome-is-real-jerome.html
The links to the other two are in the article itself.

Kind regards

Lincs.

 

[PRmerger]

Peter does get the keys yes, as do the other apostles.

Where do the other apostles get the keys?

 

[Lincoln7]

Where do the other apostles get the keys?

Slip up by me in my haste
Rather, all get the power of binding and losing. One of those moments again PRmerger…

Lincs

 

[Nicea325]

Lincoln7:

Well as God breathed they carry an authority… Peter does get the keys yes, as do the other apostles

.

When did they receive the keys too? Quick question? In the OT did a set of people receive the key(s) or did it fall on soley one person?

Papal infallibility i don’t see at all in scripture, along with a papacy, nor do I see it in early tradition.

If you do not see infallibility there,then I guess all the authors of the Bible wrote fallible material? I do not see in scripture where it teaches everything needs to be said in scripture.

I do see scriptural authority there though.

Agree.

Lincoln7:

The division on these of course assumes scripture is divided on these issues.

Scripture is divided or are people divided due to interpretation?

 

[Lincoln7]

Nicea325,

When did they receive the keys too? Quick question? In the OT did a set of people receive the key(s) or did it fall on soley one person?

Are you referring to Isaiah 22?

If you do not see infallibility there,then I guess all the authors of the Bible wrote fallible material? I do not see in scripture where it teaches everything needs to be said in scripture.

I fully affirm the infallibility of Holy Scripture. But I don’t see an infallible papacy in it, or a papacy at all. The sufficiency of scripture is implicit, I’ve provided many posts on it in this thread. Can you demonstrate that modern roman catholic dogmas such as papal infallibility are in fact sacred apostolic traditions? If they are what Paul means in 2 Thessolonians 2:15 then they should be pretty clear in history, but I don’t think they are.

Kind regards

Lincs.

 

[Nicea325]

Nicea325,

Are you referring to Isaiah 22?

I fully affirm the infallibility of Holy Scripture. But I don’t see an infallible papacy in it, or a papacy at all. The sufficiency of scripture is implicit, I’ve provided many posts on it in this thread. Can you demonstrate that modern roman catholic dogmas such as papal infallibility are in fact sacred apostolic traditions? If they are what Paul means in 2 Thessolonians 2:15 then they should be pretty clear in history, but I don’t think they are.

Kind regards

Lincs.

Before anything Lincoln7 my brother in Christ, do you even understand the CC teaching on infallibility? I’ll be honest,most Protestants I encounter usually have a profound misunderstanding and it is expected.

BTW: Can you demonstrate where scripture teaches explicitness and where the Bible teaches it needs to be said and taught from the Holy Scriptures?

 

[PRmerger]

Slip up by me in my haste
Rather, all get the power of binding and losing. One of those moments again PRmerger…

Lincs

You are forgiven, friend.

But you will note that it is quite significant indeed that only ONE apostle is given the keys to the kingdom.

 

[KathleenGee]

I visited CARM…yes I did…I just introduced myself as RC, and already the pot was stewing…the sneers…I said if I did really say why, it would be deleted.

They had a thread regarding the Mass, and I drew on Biblical imagery and it was deleted later…this was about 45 minutes on there…and I scrolled down on some other threads about the pope god, how the Church authorities have people castrated (Holland)…they went on and on…

So not saying too much…I answered the one on castrating people in the Catholic Church, more sneers, and told this Catholic man who answered me to not stay here…that even Mr Slick’s name sounded dubious ( thought of Chick…slick chick)…I got warning because that remarked them and they were going to take action on me if I insulted them again…but never responded…must put in about 60 minutes in time…

But they really think we think the pope is God…they cannot understand we are facing Christ in our church and the Holy Father represents Him and all of us in communion with one another…we face Christ and when the Holy Father speaks infallibly, we recognize Christ.

Having one head is easier than deciding do we follow this head today and then tomorrow the one in the east?..it is juggling…

Peter was pointed out for a reason…he was the rock upon which Christ built His church, and in the same time, so many words later, Christ called him Satan because Peter was trying to get the Lord to back out from His mission…and then Peter…after being given the keys to heaven, denied Christ 3 times.

We see the man and we see Christ working in the man. It was Peter who was told to constantly forgive, who was rebuked for cutting off a man’s ear, who was the one who jumped out and walked across the water, only to fall in and have the Lord pull him out. With all that the Gospels pointing to Peter’s humanity, but Christ selecting him as the rock of His church should be something Protestants should think more deeply about.

 

[Lincoln7]

Before anything Lincoln7 my brother in Christ, do you even understand the CC teaching on infallibility? I’ll be honest,most Protestants I encounter usually have a profound misunderstanding and it is expected.

BTW: Can you demonstrate where scripture teaches explicitness and where the Bible teaches it needs to be said and taught from the Holy Scriptures?

I read up on it in the Catechism, but this pre supposes of course that the catechism clear enough that we will get it

On scriptural authority, naturally i start with 2 Timothy 3:16… “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness”
If something is God breathed it is certainly authoritative, in that it carries the authority of Jesus Christ who has all authority. We see ample evidence in the NT itself of how scripture was treated, Paul praised the bereans for their searching of the scriptures to clarify teaching (Acts 17:11) Most importantly, look how the Lord himself viewed it; "Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures…?” (Matt 21:42). He goes on; "But Jesus answered them, “You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God” (Matt 22:29). The Lord clearly expected people were capable of understanding what scripture said and held them accountable to it… John sums it up well, in his clear teaching that all his hearers needed for salvation was clealry taught in his gospel; “but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.” (John 20:31).
Can modern Catholic tradition be proven to be apostolic in origin? If as Trent and Vatican 1 say; that traditions such as papal primacy are apostolic in origin and have always been believed, can we find them in earliest church history?

But I may not quite understand your question…?

Kind regards

Lincs.

 

[Lincoln7]

You are forgiven, friend.

But you will note that it is quite significant indeed that only ONE apostle is given the keys to the kingdom.

Merci

Indeed, I don’t deny Peter’s clear primacy of honour Buttttt… What do they give him? It seems the next verse denotes what he is to do with them in terms of binding and loosing… my main point being that this authority is extended to all the apostles equally in Matthew 18:18. I mean, the Orthodox for example would affirm the equality of all bishops, all bishops are Peter.

Kind regards

Lincs.