Authority in Catholicism and Protestantism..

[Lincoln7]

Gary,

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

I’m rather weary of that particular source, described by many as an “unofficial instrument of pontifical propaganda.” - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liber_Pontificalis

Regards

Lincs.

 

[Lincoln7]

CopticChristian,

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.

I find history exciting Its well and good to say he is merely interjecting opinion, but his arguments and study are rather persuasive… Especially seems his studies of the period have been described as “groundbreaking studies on, for example, early Christianity in Rome in the 1st/2nd centuries” - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Lampe

Regards

Lincs.

 

[Lincoln7]

anthony022071,

“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).

Specifically the bishop of Rome, or are all bishops here viewed as his successors in the same way?

“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]

Indeed, but does this indicate Leo was seen as superior and in authority over all other bishops? Or is this simply a response to an orthodox tome by Leo which he deserved praise for?

“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

Note the equality; it is through them too. They also state:

“Following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has been just read, of the One Hundred and Fifty Bishops beloved-of-God (who assembled in the imperial city of Constantinople, which is New Rome, in the time of the Emperor Theodosius of happy memory), we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges to the most holy throne of New Rome” (1).

As such it is clear Constantinople was recognised as equal to Rome, Rome had no primacy of authority over her according to the council.

“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

Indeed, the councils mind was made, it has already established the equality of Constantinople and others with Rome, but as Rome is viewed as the only apostolic see in the west, they ask her to agree, in order to maintain unity. This is discussed in more detail here; orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/Guettee_ThePapacy.pdf - page 38 specifically.

I do not have access as yet to the other sources so can’t examine them in context right now, but it’s safe to say and clear from the sources, the primacy of Rome is viewed very differently to how it is now.

Kind regards

Lincs.

(1) - earlychurchtexts.com/public/chalcedon_canons.htm

 

[Lincoln7]

Mackbrislawn,

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.

Indeed but again, not infallible, they simply declared what was believed, they saw no need for an infallible statement to be sure of the books inspired. Also of course there were different canons prior to the reformation, some such as these local councils going with Romes current canon, whereas men such as Jerome, Cardinal Catejan and the council of Laodecia agreeing more with the current canon accepted by Protestants.

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.

How does this not accepting of Traditon square with CCC, part 1, section 1, numbers 76-83? - scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a2.htm
Also the magisterium has defined anywhere between 7-20 something passages, but it’s unclear how many have been: catholic-convert.com/wp-content/uploads/Documents/BibleVersesDefinedByChurch.doc
So it seems that an appeal to Rome as an infallible guide for disputes of scripture doesn’t really work so much, with respect

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

Exegesis. I posted the same question with regard to the church to demonstrate the argument that one needs an infallible guide doesn’t really work, as one now needs a guide for the infallible guide.

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

I accept them as accurate witnesses of scripture by men far more learned than myself, but that’s just it, they are subservient to scripture.

Kind regards

Lincs

 

[PRmerger]

Indeed but again, not infallible, they simply declared what was believed, they saw no need for an infallible statement to be sure of the books inspired.

Yes! That’s called “Tradition”, Lincs!

And I respectfully submit that you are too enamored with the “but it wasn’t infallible until Trent” paradigm.

Whether it was infallible or not declared so until a certain period is irrelevant to the discussion of “How do you know that Hebrews was inspired?”

The point is: the ONLY way you know is through Sacred Tradition, or “what was believed.”

Thus, you cannot be Sola Scriptura, and recusant to Church authority, if you accept that Hebrews is inspired but that the Epistle of Barnabas is not.

 

[Lincoln7]

Yes! That’s called “Tradition”, Lincs!

Is this the same tradition that says the papacy is infallible that says which books are inspired? I have stated my position multiple times that the church received these books in the first century, and in Gods providence he ensured his church accepted them. They function as the rule of faith.

And I respectfully submit that you are too enamored with the “but it wasn’t infallible until Trent” paradigm.

Respect noted I reply that way simply as I’m often told I need the infallible authority to tell me, when everyone prior to this in the church didn’t seem to need this.

Whether it was infallible or not declared so until a certain period is irrelevant to the discussion of “How do you know that Hebrews was inspired?”

Well it was received by the early church from the Apostles, along with the other books of scripture, hence why we find them quoted abundantly in the earliest Christian non biblical writings.

Thus, you cannot be Sola Scriptura, and recusant to Church authority, if you accept that Hebrews is inspired but that the Epistle of Barnabas is not.

Indeed I can… Scripture is still sufficient for all that is needed for salvation and is that to which teachings are tested, as it is the apostolic teaching in written form, it is the word of God.

Lincs.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Gary,

I’m rather weary of that particular source, described by many as an “unofficial instrument of pontifical propaganda.” - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liber_Pontificalis

Regards

Lincs.

Linc,

I’m rather weary of “Wikipedia”

The document dates to the 7th-8th century and coincides with not one but “Three” early church fathers. Two mentioned below, and Augustine.

"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."

 

[PRmerger]

Is this the same tradition that says the papacy is infallible that says which books are inspired? I have stated my position multiple times that the church received these books in the first century, and in Gods providence he ensured his church accepted them. They function as the rule of faith.

And that, again, is Sacred Tradition.

Each and every time you quote Hebrews you are acknowledging that the Church was given the ability to receive Revelation.

And that’s called Tradition.

It’s NOT SCRIPTURE.

Saying, "The church ‘received’ " is nothing other than what we claim for ourselves.

 

[PRmerger]

I reply that way simply as I’m often told I need the infallible authority to tell me, when everyone prior to this in the church didn’t seem to need this.

Would it make you feel better if the “infallible” was left out?

Would you be opposed to this: you need an authority to tell you what’s inspired?

 

[PRmerger]

Well it was received by the early church from the Apostles, along with the other books of scripture, hence why we find them quoted abundantly in the earliest Christian non biblical writings.

So through Tradition, and NOT SCRIPTURE, you know the Word of God.

 

[Lincoln7]

Linc,

I’m rather weary of “Wikipedia”

The document dates to the 7th-8th century and coincides with not one but “Three” early church fathers. Two mentioned below, and Augustine.

"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."

Ha I normally try to not use it, but it functions well enough, i can quote some Schaff ofc

Indeed and their difference is to be noted, it’s clear from 1 Clement of the plurality leadership in Rome. Of course, even if their testimony is correct, it still does not show a modern papacy existed, but that their were bishops in Rome after the first century.

Lincs

 

[PRmerger]

Indeed I can… Scripture is still sufficient for all that is needed for salvation and is that to which teachings are tested, as it is the apostolic teaching in written form, it is the word of God.

Lincs.

Where does Scripture say that it is sufficent?

I know that 2 Timothy 3:16 says that Scripture is profitable (amen!) but I did a search of parallel translations and this is what I found:

bible.cc/2_timothy/3-16.htm

Not a single translation says that Scripture is sufficient.

 

[Lincoln7]

And that, again, is Sacred Tradition.

Each and every time you quote Hebrews you are acknowledging that the Church was given the ability to receive Revelation.

And that’s called Tradition.

It’s NOT SCRIPTURE.

Saying, "The church ‘received’ " is nothing other than what we claim for ourselves.

Yes it was given the ability to receive scripture, not declare what is and is not scripture. Scripture is authoritative as it is the word of God, not because the church says so. As it is the written apostolic word it is authoritative…

Would you be opposed to this: you need an authority to tell you what’s inspired?

I would be if this implies without it no one has a clue. The earliest church simply were given by the apostles their writings and passed them on…

So through Tradition, and NOT SCRIPTURE, you know the Word of God.

Well I know what’s scripture by looking at the testimony of th earliest church yes, I wasn’t there to receive the writings that came from the apostolic mission. They were given them and handed them on, there was no need for an infallible decision… Hence why in the east for example, there is no such defenition or declaration…

 

[Lincoln7]

Where does Scripture say that it is sufficent?

I know that 2 Timothy 3:16 says that Scripture is profitable (amen!) but I did a search of parallel translations and this is what I found:

bible.cc/2_timothy/3-16.htm

Not a single translation says that Scripture is sufficient.

I don’t claim a single verse that states it, that’s not what any Protestant who holds to SS has ever claimed. Rather that as it is God Breathed it carries the authority of Jesus Christ… It is the unchanging word of God, as such we test to it…

The reason we hold to it is because of the perceived unbiblical traditions that the reformers saw imposed by Rome, thus it was an essential return to the apostolic doctrines recorded in scripture.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes it was given the ability to receive scripture, not declare what is and is not scripture.

This is a distinction without any relevance. The Catholic Church was given the ability to DISCERN what was God’s Word and what wasn’t.

And when you say she was given this ability, and you submit to this authority’s decision, you submit to an authority that’s NOT Scripture.

Scripture is authoritative as it is the word of God, not because the church says so. As it is the written apostolic word it is authoritative…

Yes, God’s Revelation is authoritative. But you’ve got a presupposition that God’s Revelation was ONLY written. When you acknowledge that Hebrews was inspired, and the ONLY way you know this is through Tradition, then you contradict that presupposition that God’s Revelation was confined to that which was written. Because there is no table of contents in the written Word of God. That comes from the Oral Word of God: Tradition.

I would be if this implies without it no one has a clue. The earliest church simply were given by the apostles their writings and passed them on…

Yes, orally.

And it was through the authority of the Bishops that the earliest church knew to reject the Epistle of Barnabas and accept Hebrews.

Well I know what’s scripture by looking at the testimony of th earliest church yes, I wasn’t there to receive the writings that came from the apostolic mission.

Right. So an authority OUTSIDE of Scripture is what you’re submitting to.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t claim a single verse that states it, that’s not what any Protestant who holds to SS has ever claimed. Rather that as it is God Breathed it carries the authority of Jesus Christ… It is the unchanging word of God, as such we test to it…

Saying “Scripture is sufficient”, then, is a man-made tradition. You simply heard a man say it, who heard another man say it, who heard another man say it, but no one ever read it in the pages of Scripture.

And thus it’s a man-made tradition that’s actually contrary to the Scriptures.(See 2 Thess 2:15 et al)

 

[Lincoln7]

Saying “Scripture is sufficient”, then, is a man-made tradition. You simply heard a man say it, who heard another man say it, who heard another man say it, but no one ever read it in the pages of Scripture.

And thus it’s a man-made tradition that’s actually contrary to the Scriptures.(See 2 Thess 2:15 et al)

2 Thessolonians 2:15: Does the verse give any indication that the traditions here are separate from what is contained in writing? Does Paul here actually mean things such as papal infallibility, the immaculate conception, purgatory, temporal punishment for sins? If he does and handed these on, they should be rather clear in the early extra biblical sources…

As for it being a man made tradition… Well Athanasius seems to concur in a very eloquent way. I say it is sufficient in that all that is needed for salvation is clearly taught in its pages…

“I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life.” - 1 John 5:13

“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

What John contained in his Gospel seemed to him to be sufficient for his readers salvation…

The principle is that because the church was binding upon conscience dogmas not founded on scripture, in places perceived to be contrary to it, that there needed to be a return to scripture, to the clear and abiding apostolic witness.

Lincs.

 

[PRmerger]

2 Thessolonians 2:15: Does the verse give any indication that the traditions here are separate from what is contained in writing?

No, he doesn’t.

But Sacred Tradition is not separate from what is contained in writing.

Totum in Scriptura, totum in Traditione-- “All is in Scripture, all is in Tradition.”

Does Paul here actually mean things such as papal infallibility, the immaculate conception, purgatory, temporal punishment for sins?

Well, in one sense, yes. The Catholic faith was whole and entire before a single word of the NT was ever put to writ, but, as you know, our understanding developed.

If he does and handed these on, they should be rather clear in the early extra biblical sources…

“Rather clear” is quite subjective, don’t you think?

I mean, you claim that the Trinity is quite clear, but it’s evident that there are LOTS of folks who have divorced themselves from this dogma because, well, they couldn’t find it in the bible.

As for it being a man made tradition… Well Athanasius seems to concur in a very eloquent way. I say it is sufficient in that all that is needed for salvation is clearly taught in its pages…

So you’re saying that Scripture is sufficient because, while it’s not found in a single page of the Bible,I believe it because a Catholic bishop said it?

“I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life.” - 1 John 5:13

So you’re saying now that 1 John is sufficient?

“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

Or that the Gospel of John is sufficient?

What John contained in his Gospel seemed to him to be sufficient for his readers salvation.

.

So not Sola Scriptura but Sola Johnnus?

 

[Lincoln7]

Yes, God’s Revelation is authoritative. But you’ve got a presupposition that God’s Revelation was ONLY written. When you acknowledge that Hebrews was inspired, and the ONLY way you know this is through Tradition, then you contradict that presupposition that God’s Revelation was confined to that which was written. Because there is no table of contents in the written Word of God. That comes from the Oral Word of God: Tradition.

The scripture is what is inspired and infallible, not the canon list… Well I keep asking for unequivocal proof that if Tradition is another God Breathed source, that it be demonstrated that modern catholic dogmas are universal beliefs in church history…

And it was through the authority of the Bishops that the earliest church knew to reject the Epistle of Barnabas and accept Hebrews

Yes, they had not been given it as scripture by the apostles and earliest Christians, as such they did not class it as such, they made no such definitions of what and was not for the first 300 years or so, prior to this they simply knew what they had was scripture as it has always been believed as such…

Right. So an authority OUTSIDE of Scripture is what you’re submitting to.

I think there is a misunderstanding of SS here… I submit to church authority, this church forms it’s doctrine from scripture, the only God Breathed source we reliably have…

Kind regards

Lincs

 

[PRmerger]

The principle is that because the church was binding upon conscience dogmas not founded on scripture, in places perceived to be contrary to it, that there needed to be a return to scripture, to the clear and abiding apostolic witness.

Lincs.

All dogmas and doctrines are found in Scripture, Lincs. Perhaps not clearly or explicitly, but when you read the Scriptures through the lens of the Faith that gave you the Scriptures, they are all there.