Authority in Catholicism and Protestantism..

[Lincoln7]

Pablope,

Or is because you continue to put blinders on?

No not really. I just don’t see it. If they really are all apostolic in origin, we would expect them to be clear in Traditon, I don’t think they are at all, with respect.

Kind regards

Lincs.

 

[Lincoln7]

So herein lies the problem, Lincs. Prooftexting will never provide you with anything except that which you wish to see.

IOW: text after text after text can be offered to provide “proof” of Belief A, and still there are those who are recusant.

And one text can be offered and that’s all that’s needed to convince this same person of Belief B.

Why? What is it that is persuasive?

The answer: the lens through which one views Scripture.

And without the correct lens, one’s view is going to be distorted.

From apologist Jimmy Akin:

The idea that Jesus — the living Word of God who came to bring us new revelation via his oral preaching and teaching — would have believed and practiced the proposition that all doctrine must be proved only by the written word of God is absurd on its face, yet this does not stop the careless advocate of sola scriptura from appealing to instances where Jesus uses Scripture to prove an individual doctrine as if they were proof Scripture is able to validate all doctrines whatsoever.

I try to avoid proof texting, hence why I’ve argued for scriptural exegesis for the entire thread. I’m not simply shutting my eyes and waiting for it to go away, I have them open and don’t see papal claims in history, Vatican 1’s idea of it always being believed as they did simply isn’t what’s there.

As for Mr. Akin’s comment, sola scriptura was a reaction to the catholic church binding upon conscience things contrary too and absent from scripture and the earliest church, and whatever way one looks at the words of The Lord I’ve already posted, it’s clear He held scripture as clear enough for people to understand the majors. If there is this second God breathed source in the shape of Catholic Tradition, let it be demonstrated historically that modern dogmas are indeed Apostlic in origin.

Kind regards

Lincs.

 

[Lincoln7]

I don’t know.

But here’s a website that provides great apologia for the ECF’s understanding on the papacy:

preteristvision.org/articles/peter_dialogue.html

Again, I see here a lot of discussion and evidence for a special position for Peter, but not why it’s relevant to the Bishop of Rome. When speaking of these things, Chrysostom for example; did he think that the authority he saw in Peter was exclusive to Rome or did he also see himself and all bishops as having this equal authority?

Kind regards

Lincs.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Is,

I cannot understand you…

Going from what is infallible…please complete this thought and explain what it is you are trying to say…

Then you refer to a link. Where in the link would you like the reader to reference…take the part or summarize or say the whole document…be a guide for me…

And since Israel is God’s chosen people? Define what it is you believe Isreal to be? so that I may understand your therefore…and then your question…

I cannot read your mind.

Cop,

You quote me but then you call me Is, and I’m not talking to you.

The link did not hyperlink itself fully, still it should be obvious from the incomplete link and from the document linked itself.

If you don’t understand Israel as God’s chosen people, there is nothing for us to talk about.

Please show me where I said that you, Coptic Christian, can read my mind. Further, please show me where I directed my question to you. Then please explain to me, why should I be a guide to you? Explain how is it that my post should guide you.

Farewell,

Isaiah45_9

 

[PRmerger]

Cop,

You quote me but then you call me Is, and I’m not talking to you.

Firstly, the nature of this forum is that when you post on it, any member can address it.

That is, there is no such thing as “I’m not talking to you”.

Secondly, the nature of this forum is that folks just shorten people’s screennames. That’s just what we do.

Not sure why “Is” would be a questioned designation, when your screenname is Isaiah45_9.

 

[CopticChristian]

Cop,

You quote me but then you call me Is, and I’m not talking to you.

The link did not hyperlink itself fully, still it should be obvious from the incomplete link and from the document linked itself.

If you don’t understand Israel as God’s chosen people, there is nothing for us to talk about.

Please show me where I said that you, Coptic Christian, can read my mind. Further, please show me where I directed my question to you. Then please explain to me, why should I be a guide to you? Explain how is it that my post should guide you.

Farewell,

Isaiah45_9

Isai,

You may not be aware that this is a public forum. You choose to leave things unexplained. You have the perogative of excluding anyone you choose. There are many that see Israel one way and others that see it another.

Israel was a person.

Israel was a tribe.

Israel is a country formed by the United Nations and British Evangelicals.

Israel of God is the Church.

Israel is something that you choose not to define.

Thank you

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:Nicea325
More important, can the opposition present the “other” ancient tradition challenging the CC tradition? Where are the letters of the opposition going way back to the early church, if the RCC is false?

Lincoln7:
Yes. The modern papacy simply is not present in the early church, with respect.

Nope! Your stance is based on a false premise. The papacy is an office and like all offices they change. The office of the U.S. President is not same today as it was in 1789. It has developed as more duties and issues exist today. I said the “other” ancient Tradition. Where is it? Who defended it?

 

[Lincoln7]

Nope! Your stance is based on a false premise. The papacy is an office and like all offices they change. The office of the U.S. President is not same today as it was in 1789. It has developed as more duties and issues exist today. I said the “other” ancient Tradition. Where is it? Who defended it?

The other tradition, well there won’t be an group denouncing the early papacy for the first couple of centuries as they had nothing to denounce, it wasn’t there.
What Traditon demonstrates it? Clement? I think the idea of clement ‘commanding’ isnt there… See here: beggarsallreformation.blogspot.co.uk/2010/08/this-bridge-should-be-illuminated.html There is a plurality of elders in the Church in Rome until potentially the middle of the second century. On the development hypothesis, I just don’t see it, I think this hypothesis goes against everything the church once proclaimed, Vatican 1: "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]." (1) The old claim was that the primacy of the bishop of Rome, his having full authority has always been believed, it seems this claim has been largely abandoned, with retreat to a development hypothesis.

I think we discussed earlier other early bishops in Rome, I believe I mentioned Victor? Interference in other churches lead to a strong rebuke from Ireneaus. Did the bishop of Rme not have the right to jurisdiction in other churches? It seems that the form of primacy awarded Rome was one of honour, not full authority. See a detailed treatment here: triablogue.blogspot.co.uk/2010/03/apostolic-succession-part-8-irenaeus.html
I think the development idea regarding this issue is one that was not adhered to by Vatican 1 and that even the essence of an infalllible and supreme papacy is missing in the early church. There is eventually most certainly one of honour, but not of jurisdiction.

Kind regards

Lincs.

1 - papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm#Chapter%201%20On%20the%20institution%20of%20the%20apostolic%20primacy%20in%20blessed%20Peter
2 -

 

[KathleenGee]

Lincs,

Totally agree with the encyclical of Peter and his role in the Church that exists up to today.

The Council of Florence was addressing the poltical divisions and schims that were rising in the Church that would eventually fragment it.

In the beginning of Christianity, they faced persecution for 300 years and communication was slow. Yes, there were churches/patriarchs overseeing regions, but if there was any dispute that could not be resolved, Rome was considered then the final authority to settle any. Rome was also wealthy and it provided support in the establishment of new churches.

There was only one universal Christian Church that was named Katholic/Greek with its jurisdictions for over a thousand years. Constantine, a temporal ruler, gave the Church legitimacy after so many bishops and churches were destroyed to the point of near eradication by the last Roman emperors who were, likewise, the worst persecutors. Christianity saw its numbers increase by atleast a million with new converts, and it could at last publicly work on further organizing and implimenting itself.

There was proceeding this the era of invasions by barbarians where in some cases even bishops took part in combat. LIkewise, for many complex reasons there was a swing back and forth between emperors and churchmen choosing their clerics for leadership, up to the time of Innocent the Third who finalize that the Church run itself and rulers acquiesced under the threat of excommunication.

The Church also did tremendous work through the ages in supporting the surrounding population through teaching and care for the sick and dying, and leading them into more sanctified lives. Not only that, but the Church contributed greatly to the foundation of Western use of science and philosophy where for a time we had the Papal states. Likewise, the Eastern Orthodox had their own cultural, political and economic differences that all participated to the eventual Schism.

The Council of Florence was addressing these differences and yet affirming the need for one head to keep East and West as one in communion of faith. But it failed precisely by what it was addressing, politics.

It could not prevent the dismantling of Christianity due to the Schism and the Reformers, which in part was also geographic and political in itself, Germany wanting its own jurisdiction in authority.

The Council of Trent reformed the L atin Church, as well as provided more advisors to the papacy to avoid past temporal decisions that brought corruption. Greater demands were placed on the general education of the priesthood. I think that it is not for sure that even this German priest was actually selling indulgences to pay one’s way into heaven.

But nevertheless, prior to this dismantling, there were honest miscommunications in a growing and complex world.

Now today the world is so complex and so in need of one person representing Christ and His Church, and the Patriarch of Russia is seeing this and working on inital steps in restoring our sacred unity Christ has called us to.

Likewise there are many Protestant ministers who are seeing now the truth of the Catholic Church and entering. Most of the Anglicans are entering, and yes, the need for local (diocesan) and Eastern jurisdiction and governance is always there.

I think there is this lingering residue that we see the Holy Father as some kind of demi-god.

 

[mackbrislawn]

mackbrislawn;9231141:

God choosing an instrument to carry out His will does not de facto

make that instrument infallible. God used the Israelites as His instrument. They were not infallible. God used the Assyrians as His instrument. They were not infallible.

You’re right, infallibility does not inhere in the instrument itself. But God is strong enough to make sure the instrument infallibly follows His will.

 

[KathleenGee]

Isaiah

You talk about infallibility of encyclicals.

There is a hierarchy of Truth.

The Church through the Holy Spirit in the transmission of faith in the teaching magesterium founded by Christ to be the authentic and interpreter of Sacred Scripture to bring us into full communion with Our Lord in His Word and in His Flesh.

Because the Church is the interpreter, the Councils in relation to their times in how faith in Jesus Christ and His Oral Tradition given us by the Apostles is understood and lived out is the first level of understanding truth. Today, our interpreter is Vatican II all the documents pertaining to our faith.

The second level of truth is the universal Catholic Catechism of the Catholic Church. The Catechism has its Prologue in teaching us about God and His relation to man, understanding and approaching Scripture, covering all points of the Nicene Creed, covering almost 300 pages, to the Celebration of the Christian Mystery in the Sacraments, then the Life in Christ which covers our vocation in life: Life in the Spirit, the beatitudes, man’s freedom, morality, passions, conscience, virtues, sin, the human community and authority, the 10 commandments, and finally Christian Prayer.

The third level of Truth are the encyclicals written by the popes…and not every encyclical carries the same weight and is infallible. Here the bishops help in guiding us in their pastoral care. One pope in the last century wanted all the seminaries to do their course work in Latin and nobody paid attention to the Pope. John Paul II wrote a number of encyclicals that were teaching, such as ‘Mission of the Redeemer’, ‘The Splendor of Truth’, ‘Faith and Reason’ and many others.

So as you can see, when it comes to authority in the Church, we are not puppets kowtowing to the Pope the way the world wants you to envision.

But we know our Shepherd and He knows us…it is the Lord Who is the source of Truth, not man.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Lincoln7;9231562]Mackbrislawn,

Ah see hearin lies some difference, I don’t so much see it as a ‘choice’ as opposed to ‘received’. And on infallible judgments about canon, if that were taken to its full extents; wouldn’t that mean anyone prior to Trent was unsure about the books in their bible? Seems no such pronouncement came until then…

The post-apostolic church received a lot of early Christian writings. Some inspired, some not. What is meant by ‘choice’ is that His church had to infallibly chose what should be used for its worship. Of course God would not want His church to use false writings, so God made sure His church chose infallibly.
About being unsure prior to Trent, there were local councils such as Rome, Hippo, Carthage, that defined canons… These councils were influential so the other congregations simply followed their example and were happy and not unsure. Trent was a response to how the Reformation challenged the pre-existing canon.

Because I hold to SS doesnt mean I throw out tradition… The institutes for example; full of citations from the early fathers. I would happily go to them as some of them had excellent gifts of nderstanding and exegesis when it came to the text of scripture. But that’s the thing; I can still appeal to them and to the Traditon, no problem, but scripture is still functioning as the rule of faith. Note for example, we can’t go to the magisterium for aid, as it has rarely if ever defined any passage of scripture.

No, you don’t have to throw out tradition. It is a guide to what the early church believed, but of course are not inspired. We can accept it or reject it, according to our predelictions.
If the magisterium has not defined particular passages of scripture we can also have our private opinions about them. Only when the disagreement of our opinions becomes so strong and so widespread will any need for the magisterium to step in arise.

Furthermore, what happens when we disagree about what the CC teaches, if that was our final authority?

Excellent question. Let’s extend it. What happens when we disagree about what scripture teaches, if that was our final authority?

Continuing, I also am rather happy with church authority, hence why I agree to historic protestant confessions. But again, for me, but they are still subservient to the infallible scriptures. Sola scriptura teaches all needed for salvation is cleary taught in scripture, but this does not mean every single passage is utterly clear. Rather that as it is the word of God it is the rule of faith, obviously it is in reaction to the Catholic position, where traditions which appeared unbiblical were being binded upon conscience.

This seems to imply you accept tradition and church authority and confessions if they agree with your belief in what the scriptures teach.

 

[KathleenGee]

So in essence, Sola Scriptura is about your own personal interpretation rather than that of the Church through its apostolic successors…second letter of Peter addresses the problem with private or personal interpretation…and personal or private is not a mark of being in the ecclesia…but alone, not what ‘church’ is, a gathering of people centered on the life of Christ.

 

[Nicea325]

The other tradition, well there won’t be an group denouncing the early papacy for the first couple of centuries as they had nothing to denounce, it wasn’t there.
What Traditon demonstrates it? Clement? I think the idea of clement ‘commanding’ isnt there… See here: beggarsallreformation.blogspot.co.uk/2010/08/this-bridge-should-be-illuminated.html There is a plurality of elders in the Church in Rome until potentially the middle of the second century. On the development hypothesis, I just don’t see it, I think this hypothesis goes against everything the church once proclaimed, Vatican 1: "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]." (1) The old claim was that the primacy of the bishop of Rome, his having full authority has always been believed, it seems this claim has been largely abandoned, with retreat to a development hypothesis.

I think we discussed earlier other early bishops in Rome, I believe I mentioned Victor? Interference in other churches lead to a strong rebuke from Ireneaus. Did the bishop of Rme not have the right to jurisdiction in other churches? It seems that the form of primacy awarded Rome was one of honour, not full authority. See a detailed treatment here: triablogue.blogspot.co.uk/2010/03/apostolic-succession-part-8-irenaeus.html
I think the development idea regarding this issue is one that was not adhered to by Vatican 1 and that even the essence of an infalllible and supreme papacy is missing in the early church. There is eventually most certainly one of honour, but not of jurisdiction.

Kind regards

Lincs.

1 - papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm#Chapter%201%20On%20the%20institution%20of%20the%20apostolic%20primacy%20in%20blessed%20Peter
2 -

First of all, Ireneaus was not rebuking Victor’s primacy as many try to convey. He was rebuking Victor’s DECISION to cut-off the Asian churches from communion. Second, where are the Asian churches rebuttal to Victor’s primacy,if it is false, heretical,schismatic or a usurpation of Christ? Amazing not one church or bishop states he has no such authority?

A pluarity of elders does not rebuke Clement. Simply because there exist more than one Bishop at Rome does mean one was not head.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The earliest historical sources, writing within a century of the events chronicled, agree that St Peter designated his immediate successors, they differ on “how many” were directly chosen by St Peter.

St Irenaeus provided the earliest complete list of the succession of the Bishops in “Adversus haereses” which stated St Linus 68-99 succeeded St Peter as head of the Church in Rome, having already served as his subsitute when the Apostles dutys took him away from Rome.

St Irenaeus and Tertullian also agree that St Peter predesignated Linus’s two immediate successors, St Anacletus and St Clement 80-92 and 92 to 99 respectfully.

Liber Pontificalis [collection of biography’s] makes the same claim for St Evaristus 99-108.

After this election became the means. “Heirs of the Fisherman pg 42”

 

[IggyAntiochus]

The earliest historical sources, writing within a century of the events chronicled, agree that St Peter designated his immediate successors, they differ on “how many” were directly chosen by St Peter.

That raises an interesting question that I am wondering if Catholic theology has addressed. Do we presume that St. Linus was the only man ordained by St. Peter? If not, then why does is the bishop of Rome the only one who carries the weight of the promise given to Peter by Christ? That is to say, why doesn’t everyone ordained by Peter carry the office of the keys, etc?

 

[GaryTaylor]

That raises an interesting question that I am wondering if Catholic theology has addressed. Do we presume that St. Linus was the only man ordained by St. Peter? If not, then why does is the bishop of Rome the only one who carries the weight of the promise given to Peter by Christ? That is to say, why doesn’t everyone ordained by Peter carry the office of the keys, etc?

As to the Keys it falls to the martrydom in Rome. I can’t remember whom but it was stated in this thread or the similiar one going. Its true had St Peter left Rome, which as an Apostle he would have. He would have started another Apostolic See. Though all the Apostles didn’t do this, they were called to spread the Good News. Its also true that Antioch was started by St Peter, and St Peter sent Mark whom traveled along with St Paul to Alexandria. St Paul defers any authority in Rome. However whenever a Bishop or Cardinal is consecrated they are consecrated in both St Peter and St Pauls names along with St Mary through the intercession to the Lord.

In fact Tradition has it that St Peter was leaving Rome, and received a vision from Christ who was walking past him toward Rome. Peter asked Him where He was headed, His reply, was to be Crucified again in “YOUR” place. So Peter understood and returned.

 

[CopticChristian]

The other tradition, well there won’t be an group denouncing the early papacy for the first couple of centuries as they had nothing to denounce, it wasn’t there.
What Traditon demonstrates it? Clement? I think the idea of clement ‘commanding’ isnt there… See here: beggarsallreformation.blogspot.co.uk/2010/08/this-bridge-should-be-illuminated.html There is a plurality of elders in the Church in Rome until potentially the middle of the second century. On the development hypothesis, I just don’t see it, I think this hypothesis goes against everything the church once proclaimed, Vatican 1: "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]." (1) The old claim was that the primacy of the bishop of Rome, his having full authority has always been believed, it seems this claim has been largely abandoned, with retreat to a development hypothesis.

I think we discussed earlier other early bishops in Rome, I believe I mentioned Victor? Interference in other churches lead to a strong rebuke from Ireneaus. Did the bishop of Rme not have the right to jurisdiction in other churches? It seems that the form of primacy awarded Rome was one of honour, not full authority. See a detailed treatment here: triablogue.blogspot.co.uk/2010/03/apostolic-succession-part-8-irenaeus.html
I think the development idea regarding this issue is one that was not adhered to by Vatican 1 and that even the essence of an infalllible and supreme papacy is missing in the early church. There is eventually most certainly one of honour, but not of jurisdiction.

Kind regards

Lincs.

1 - papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm#Chapter%201%20On%20the%20institution%20of%20the%20apostolic%20primacy%20in%20blessed%20Peter
2 -

Lincs,

You appear to have a steeped interest in the belief that there is and has been no Papacy. I suggest you read Jesus, Peter and the Keys by Dahlgren et al…Lampe is a historian interjecting opinion and I always wonder why someone in 2003 is writing from the outside in perspective. Show me something written along the way in time that confirms that this is nothing more than Lampe confirming what was written prior rather than a conglomeration of history as seen by Lampe.

 

[anthony022071]

Anthony,

Did any of the councils themselves believe this?

Council of Ephesus:

“Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: There
is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy
and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the Apostles, pillar of the
faith, and 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 him was given the power of loosing and
binding sins: who down even to to-day and forever both lives and
judges in his successors.” Council of Ephesus, Session III (A.D. 431).

Council of Chalcedon,responding to Pope Leo’s letter regarding the two natures
of Christ:

“This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the Apostles! So we all
believe! thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe!
Peter has spoken thus through Leo! . . . This is the true faith!’” (Acts of the
Council, session 2 [A.D. 451]).

“Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder
Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the
thrice-blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the Rock and
foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith,
hath stripped him (Dioscorus, Bishop of Alexandria) of his episcopate, and hath
alienated from him all hieratic worthiness.” – Acts of Chalcedon, Session 3

“You are set as an interpreter to all of the voice of blessed Peter, and to all
you impart the blessings of that Faith.” – Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep 98

“For if where two or three are gathered together in His name He has said that
there He is in the midst of them, must He not have been much more particularly
present with 520 priests, who preferred the spread of knowledge concerning Him
…Of whom you were Chief, as Head to the members, showing your good will.” –
Chalcedon to Pope Leo (Repletum est Gaudio), November 451

“Besides all this, he (Dioscorus) extended his fury even against him who had
been charged with the custody of the vine by the Savior. We refer to Your
Holiness.” – Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep 98

“Knowing that every success of the children rebounds to the parents, we
therefore beg you to honor our decision by your assent, and as we have yielded
agreement to the Head in noble things, so may the Head also fulfill what is
fitting for the children.” – Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep 98

“Macedonius declared, when desired by the Emperor Anastasius to condemn the
Council of Chalcedon, that ‘such a step without an Ecumenical Synod presided
over by the Pope of Rome is impossible.’” (Macedonius, Migne PG 108:360a
[Theophan Chronogr, pages 234-346])

“Without whom (the Romans presiding in the seventh Council) a doctrine brought
forward in the Church could not, even though confirmed by canonical decrees and
by ecclesiastical usage, ever obtain full approval or currency. For it is they
(the Popes of Rome) who have had assigned to them the rule in sacred things, and
who have received into their hands the dignity of Headship among the Apostles.”
(St. Nicephorus, Niceph Cpl pro s imag c 25)

If it’s the case, why did the sixth ecumenical council condemn Pope
Honorius for officially teaching monothelitism?

The council did not condemn him for that - he did not teach the heresy - it condemned him for allowing the heresy to spread by remaining silent about it.

catholic-legate.com/Apologetics/ThePapacy/Articles/HonoriusAndTheProtestantPolemic.aspx

 

[Lincoln7]

Nicea325,

First of all, Ireneaus was not rebuking Victor’s primacy as many try to convey. He was rebuking Victor’s DECISION to cut-off the Asian churches from communion. Second, where are the Asian churches rebuttal to Victor’s primacy,if it is false, heretical,schismatic or a usurpation of Christ? Amazing not one church or bishop states he has no such authority?

Why did he rebuke? Did not Victor have the right to do as much, seems this was a matter of faith? We don’t possess their response, if any was given. And yes one does state he has no such authority; Ireneaus.

A pluarity of elders does not rebuke Clement. Simply because there exist more than one Bishop at Rome does mean one was not head.

I don’t think there is indication Clement functioned as a head though, but as one amongst a group of equals.

Kind regards

Lincs.