Authority in Catholicism and Protestantism..

[Lincoln7]

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.”

So scripture is at least materially sufficient, if all the Traditon is contained in it?

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 these really are apostolic doctrines then why no mention of them? Why no mention in the works of the earliest fathers If they really were passed on? Paul had no knowledge of such teachings. Indeed many of them conflict with his clear teaching in Romans for example… Yes i agree it was whole prior to the NT being composed But I take the position that this faith was contained in scripture for us, to be an unchanging testimony to the apostles preaching.

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.

Then they refuse to accept scripture as a whole and consistently exegeted, and reject the tradition of the church, which has always upheld this most biblical doctrine.

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?

It is implicitly taught through all of scripture, that the word of God is that to which doctrine is tested too. As it is out Apostlic testimony, we go by it. Athanasius recognised scriptures sufficiency, its where he went to defend the trinity, not to the magisterium.

Ha as for my John comments, Him who is Testified to in John is the way and the truth and the life, John points us to him.

Kind regards

Lincs.

 

[Lincoln7]

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.

The lens of faith that gave the scripture is testified to by the scriptures and the earliest church, which had no understanding of many modern dogmas, if they had knowledge of them and they truly are ancient and always believed, the early churches lack of mention of them I find difficult to reconcile, with respect as always. Hope we’re not not getting to heated

Lincs.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Mackbrislawn,

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.

 

[CopticChristian]

CopticChristian,

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.

Lincs,

I have always thought of history as a sort of reporting. You confirm my opinion that Lampe is injecting opinion by injecting argument and that you are persuaded. This indicates that what you are reading is more than history and registers as opinion. Thank you for clarifying this and confirming what I thought to be true.

 

[GaryTaylor]

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

Different from what we discussed, for I was talking from Peter to Clement. Nevertheless Irenaeus covers this, there is no better source of history nor is one needed. For all the earliest church fathers agree on Peter’s Apostolic See. Those other Petrine Apostolic Sees hindge on St Peters. Antioch is started by Peter, Mark is Peters student whom travels to Alexandria with Paul and Barnabas and “reluctantly” starts the Apostolic See their at Pauls insistance.

What exists today hinged on what existed then, “modern Papacy” this is very different from Apostolic Sucession. They were no doubt they understood clearly what had been told to them by the Lord, thus wound up in Scripture and the Canons chosen as sacred.

Why wouldn’t the theology of the Church develope in a natural order just as every field of study? The clarity of understanding isn’t subjected to medicine, history or archaeology or elsewhere, why wouldn’t clarity of Doctrine use a similar format. Had this understanding been used than you wouldn’t be where you are at the moment for it did not exist but through doctrine “defined”

One may argue that the “authority” of the Papacy isn’t what the Ecumenical Councils intended. I say Amen, then they all ought to sit down and talk like you and I do? Seems logical to me.

However, I get where Benedict XVI is coming from. Obviously they are not overwhelmed with 1st among equals which is acceptable to the East. That particular council consisted of 250 members from the East and 5 from the West including 3-Priests. So no they apparently do not find it convincing.

By your same logic in Bishop and Apostolic Succession then “no” Apostolic See holds it. A falacy to be sure.

 

[Lincoln7]

I have always thought of history as a sort of reporting. You confirm my opinion that Lampe is injecting opinion by injecting argument and that you are persuaded. This indicates that what you are reading is more than history and registers as opinion. Thank you for clarifying this and confirming what I thought to be true.

I’m confused what you mean here? If your saying “lampe has opinions” then yes. I don’t actually know of any historian or historical document that does not have an opinion or a purpose… Be they secular, Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox etc etc…

Regards

Lincs.

 

[CopticChristian]

I’m confused what you mean here? If your saying “lampe has opinions” then yes. I don’t actually know of any historian or historical document that does not have an opinion or a purpose… Be they secular, Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox etc etc…

Regards

Lincs.

Lincs,

Then those opinions may or may not be correct. Those opinions are governed by beliefs. Beliefs are filters that direct information in and information out. Beliefs are filters that jade our opinion and in this regard these opinions do no emanate without prejudice. Arguments for a particular issue are not necessarily jaded for the fact rather the belief. So I see you understand that Lampe is just an opinion and not the authority.

 

[Lincoln7]

Mackbrislawn,

Exactly, they weren’t infallible because they were local, but they were nevertheless authoritative for the congregations local to these councils. But to say they simply declared what was believed seems a strange thing to say because if it were already believed universally there would be no reason for having the councils.

Indeed they were authoritative for their local congregations. Let’s not swing to the other side so to speak; if we can agree that the councils met to resolve canon disputes, this implies there already was a knowledge of what was canon and some were disputing it. We should not go to far to the tear side and say the councils demonstrate no one knew what was canon whatsoever without these councils, for we both can agree I’m sure this is not the case

Your prediliction is to not accept tradition so you don’t. That’s religious freedom, separation of church and state.

Can I ask for clarification here please, forgive me I’m unsure what you mean. Apologies.
But I do accept tradition, to deny as much would be a tad silly… But I don’t equate it as equal to sacred scripture which is the word of God, as such it partakes of his authority.

That does seem to be true. Go into a Christian bookstore and you find numerous guides to the infallible guide of scripture.

Again I’m confused, I do apologise. You do find scriptura guides yes I have the institutes here for example, but Catholics also have guides for their ultimate authority, is not this site one that aims to guide people in a correct understanding of what the church teaches?

Indeed, they are subservient to scripture. What that means in practice is that they are subservient to your own exegesis.

Is it (scripture) not subservient to your exegesis in order for you to conclude the CC is the true church? Are not the fathers subject to your exegesis to conclude the same? I think the argument can go both ways.

Kind regards

Lincs.

 

[Lincoln7]

Lincs,

Then those opinions may or may not be correct. Those opinions are governed by beliefs. Beliefs are filters that direct information in and information out. Beliefs are filters that jade our opinion and in this regard these opinions do no emanate without prejudice. Arguments for a particular issue are not necessarily jaded for the fact rather the belief. So I see you understand that Lampe is just an opinion and not the authority.

I’m still a tad confused, sorry. Lampe is an “opinion” yes, but the word carries negative connotations on here. Rather he is a very competent historian, who is presenting the evidence available on the period in a very clear and powerful manner. Do not Catholic historians do the same thing?

Regards

Lincs.

 

[CopticChristian]

I’m still a tad confused, sorry. Lampe is an “opinion” yes, but the word carries negative connotations on here. Rather he is a very competent historian, who is presenting the evidence available on the period in a very clear and powerful manner. Do not Catholic historians do the same thing?

Regards

Lincs.

Lincs,

The way to determine the validity of opinion is to track it in time. I used to do research on various issues. I would find a scientific article and read it and note certain opinions. I would look at the references and then read those references. I would then read the references of the reference until I got back to the original article on the topic. I would see opinions that varied, opinions that differed and some that were down right not true. Now this was science stuff. It became clear that whatever you read today has to be looked at in time past.

Lampe wrote in 2003. Do you not find it odd that you have latched on to something written in 2003 with references I hope. I take nothing an author says as opinion until I research the documents that this person looked at and then after researching it see what the opinion means in terms of what they are saying.

Contarini often drops in and as a historian I am sure that he could give you a better explanation. I am sure that Contarini understands what I have said. Contarini has referred me to several books that have aided my understanding as well as informed me of the prejudices of certain books and why they were written that way.

I believe that you find Lampe to helpful to your cause and I believe absent Lampe your cause would falter.

You deny that that Church has authority basing it on debunking the notion that the Pope is the Pope. Tell me this. If for a moment the Pope is just the Bishop of the Catholic Church and the Church is rather large…where is the authority on earth for Christians that speaks about morality consistently in time…Abortion, Homosexuality, Contraception, Euthanasia, Slavery…help me find that authority…for if you deny that the Catholic Church has authority…it is a problem…and

A problem without a solution is a problem. Instead of taking your issue to the problem…provide me your solution to the problem…

Lincs says…the Bishop of Rome is not the Pope and has no authority…Christianity requires a Church that is the pillar and foundation of truth through which the manifold wisdom of God is known, the mystery hidden for all ages…what is the solution to the problem for Lincs so that I may go there?

 

[IggyAntiochus]

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.

Amen

 

[Lincoln7]

The way to determine the validity of opinion is to track it in time. I used to do research on various issues. I would find a scientific article and read it and note certain opinions. I would look at the references and then read those references. I would then read the references of the reference until I got back to the original article on the topic. I would see opinions that varied, opinions that differed and some that were down right not true. Now this was science stuff. It became clear that whatever you read today has to be looked at in time past.

Lampe wrote in 2003. Do you not find it odd that you have latched on to something written in 2003 with references I hope. I take nothing an author says as opinion until I research the documents that this person looked at and then after researching it see what the opinion means in terms of what they are saying.

Contarini often drops in and as a historian I am sure that he could give you a better explanation. I am sure that Contarini understands what I have said. Contarini has referred me to several books that have aided my understanding as well as informed me of the prejudices of certain books and why they were written that way.

I also engage in historical research… I do check what is presented to me by secondary sources such as lampe against the primary material… I don’t see the papacy when I do this… I see no issue with ‘latching on’ to this 2003 work. Again seems we’re discussing the papacy a fair bit here (i see it as the authority in the CC), have you not done the same with the 1870 declaration of papal infallibility? Have you checked their sources? You seem to be dismissing anything this author has to say simply because he does not agree with your interpretation of first century Rome, with respect. Its one thing to declare a scholarly work wrong, quite another to actually defeat its argumentation.

You deny that that Church has authority basing it on debunking the notion that the Pope is the Pope. Tell me this. If for a moment the Pope is just the Bishop of the Catholic Church and the Church is rather large…where is the authority on earth for Christians that speaks about morality consistently in time…Abortion, Homosexuality, Contraception, Euthanasia, Slavery…help me find that authority…for if you deny that the Catholic Church has authority…it is a problem…and

Sacred Scripture, the written word of God.

Lincs says…the Bishop of Rome is not the Pope and has no authority…Christianity requires a Church that is the pillar and foundation of truth through which the manifold wisdom of God is known, the mystery hidden for all ages…what is the solution to the problem for Lincs so that I may go there?

I don’t think the bishop of Rome has supreme authority no. Yes the church is the pillar and foundation of the truth, it proclaims the gospel message of Jesus Christ. If there is a problem, search the scriptures, listen to Godly teachers who form their doctrine from scripture.

Regards

Lincs.

 

[CopticChristian]

I also engage in historical research… I do check what is presented to me by secondary sources such as lampe against the primary material… I don’t see the papacy when I do this… I see no issue with ‘latching on’ to this 2003 work. Again seems we’re discussing the papacy a fair bit here (i see it as the authority in the CC), have you not done the same with the 1870 declaration of papal infallibility? Have you checked their sources? You seem to be dismissing anything this author has to say simply because he does not agree with your interpretation of first century Rome, with respect. Its one thing to declare a scholarly work wrong, quite another to actually defeat its argumentation.

Sacred Scripture, the written word of God.

I don’t think the bishop of Rome has supreme authority no. Yes the church is the pillar and foundation of the truth, it proclaims the gospel message of Jesus Christ. If there is a problem, search the scriptures, listen to Godly teachers who form their doctrine from scripture.

Regards

Lincs.

Lincs,

I studied Physics, Chemistry, Organic Chemistry, Biochemistry…Carbohydrates are of various sorts, bound together by molecular bonds. There are simple and complex carbohydrates…I have no need to research and dispute this.

The OHCAC is the Church founded by Christ…I have studied this and I referred you to Jesus, Peter and the Keys…have you read this? I have no need to investigate something I do not dispute.

I dispute that you have referred me to

Yes the church is the pillar and foundation of the truth, **it **proclaims the gospel message of Jesus Christ. If there is a problem, search the scriptures, listen to Godly teachers who form their doctrine from scripture.

Where is “it” that in time from Christ I can find proclamation of doctrine that has been believed without change, guiding me? Who are they that in unity proclaim what you say…name them for me and which Church they belong to.

If you have found something that I am missing out on as you have provided me a solution to a problem…well then man speak up…don’t hold it in…lets be bold and frank here…give it to me…don’t sugar coat it…

 

[mackbrislawn]

Lincoln7;9235454]Mackbrislawn,

if we can agree that the councils met to resolve canon disputes, this implies there already was a knowledge of what was canon and some were disputing it. We should not go to far to the tear side and say the councils demonstrate no one knew what was canon whatsoever without these councils, for we both can agree I’m sure this is not the case

Agreed, we can’t say that the councils demonstrate no one know what was canon whatsoever without these councils.

Yes, there was knowledge of what was canon. But, opinions differed upon what was exactly canon. Probably a lot of overlap on what was canon, but different opinions would exclude or include different scrolls.

Can I ask for clarification here please, forgive me I’m unsure what you mean. Apologies.
But I do accept tradition, to deny as much would be a tad silly… But I don’t equate it as equal to sacred scripture which is the word of God, as such it partakes of his authority.

I mean, at least in certain countries, we have freedom of religion. And we can accept or reject religions or traditions as our predelictions lead us. And, we can accept different traditions as we will. Different persons accept different traditions. Yes, to deny tradition would be silly, because we all have traditions of some kind.

Again I’m confused, I do apologise. You do find scriptura guides yes I have the institutes here for example, but Catholics also have guides for their ultimate authority, is not this site one that aims to guide people in a correct understanding of what the church teaches?

Is it (scripture) not subservient to your exegesis in order for you to conclude the CC is the true church? Are not the fathers subject to your exegesis to conclude the same? I think the argument can go both ways.

Lincs, you have hit upon our ultimate problem. Our epistomological dilemma. How do we figure out knowledge? You are right: no matter what, it is up to us in our own persons to decide. If we do accept an external authority, it is something we ourselves have decided upon. According to our personal predelictions, to which everything else is subservient.

What else?

Well, we can say the Holy Spirit guides us to our knowledge. In which case, why not go with the Holy Spirit entirely, and dispense with church and scripture completely?

 

[Lincoln7]

CopticChristian,

I studied Physics, Chemistry, Organic Chemistry, Biochemistry…Carbohydrates are of various sorts, bound together by molecular bonds. There are simple and complex carbohydrates…I have no need to research and dispute this.

The OHCAC is the Church founded by Christ…I have studied this and I referred you to Jesus, Peter and the Keys…have you read this? I have no need to investigate something I do not dispute.

I dispute that you have referred me to

Major premise: missing. Minor premise: I have studied it. Therefore the CC is the true church? I can’t accept this argument, with respect sir/ma’m. I have not read the source no, I’m happy to add it to my list though.

Where is “it” that in time from Christ I can find proclamation of doctrine that has been believed without change, guiding me? Who are they that in unity proclaim what you say…name them for me and which Church they belong to.

In the Church Universal… My position is not that the church ceased to exist until the Reformation… Far from it. My position is that the church gradually added unbiblical doctrines to the faith, thus the need for a reformation, to return to the essential gospel truth, of justification by grace alone, through faith alone… A for this without change concept… The concept of temporal punishment for sins and indulgences were not adhered to in the earliest church, now they are, is that a change?

If you have found something that I am missing out on as you have provided me a solution to a problem…well then man speak up…don’t hold it in…lets be bold and frank here…give it to me…don’t sugar coat it

Tone and mood travel poorly on the net so I am unsure how you mean for me to take this? I am simply stating scripture as the infallible source of doctrine for the universal church.

Regards

Lincs

 

[CopticChristian]

CopticChristian,

Major premise: missing. Minor premise: I have studied it. Therefore the CC is the true church? I can’t accept this argument, with respect sir/ma’m. I have not read the source no, I’m happy to add it to my list though.

In the Church Universal… My position is not that the church ceased to exist until the Reformation… Far from it. My position is that the church gradually added unbiblical doctrines to the faith, thus the need for a reformation, to return to the essential gospel truth, of justification by grace alone, through faith alone… A for this without change concept… The concept of temporal punishment for sins and indulgences were not adhered to in the earliest church, now they are, is that a change?

Tone and mood travel poorly on the net so I am unsure how you mean for me to take this? I am simply stating scripture as the infallible source of doctrine for the universal church.

Regards

Lincs

Lincs,

Where is this Church Universal that has consistently, repeatedly, unwaiveringly espoused that Abortion is murder, Homosexuality is wrong, Euthanasia is unacceptable, Contraception is no different than Abortion…that books are not to be removed from the Bible…that has consistently uniformly spoken for all believers…does this universal church reside on this earth?

 

[Lincoln7]

Mackbrislawn,

Lincs, you have hit upon our ultimate problem. Our epistomological dilemma. How do we figure out knowledge? You are right: no matter what, it is up to us in our own persons to decide. If we do accept an external authority, it is something we ourselves have decided upon. According to our personal predelictions, to which everything else is subservient.

What else?

Well, we can say the Holy Spirit guides us to our knowledge. In which case, why not go with the Holy Spirit entirely, and dispense with church and scripture completely?

Quite so, this is our dilemma. It’s why I am participating here, mostly to show the argument that Protestants need the certaintity of an infallible guide doesn’t hold water, as it works both ways and virtually ends discussion.

Because the word of God clearly carries authority, because it testifies that Jesus Christ established a church here on earth.

Regards

Lincs.

 

[Lincoln7]

Lincs,

Where is this Church Universal that has consistently, repeatedly, unwaiveringly espoused that Abortion is murder, Homosexuality is wrong, Euthanasia is unacceptable, Contraception is no different than Abortion…that books are not to be removed from the Bible…that has consistently uniformly spoken for all believers…does this universal church reside on this earth?

Well it exists across denominational boundaries as the invisible church. Visibly, local congregations and movements do this, based upon the consistent teaching of sacred scripture. On your comment on books removed from the bible, there was no set canon in the CC prior to trent, hence the multiple views on it before the council. The reformation chose one view, Rome another…

Yes the church is here on the earth.

Lincs.

 

[CopticChristian]

Well it exists across denominational boundaries as the invisible church. Visibly, local congregations and movements do this, based upon the consistent teaching of sacred scripture. On your comment on books removed from the bible, there was no set canon in the CC prior to trent, hence the multiple views on it before the council. The reformation chose one view, Rome another…

Yes the church is here on the earth.

Lincs.

Lincs,

On what authority did a Catholic Lawyer, and several Catholic priests formulate that view?

sceti.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?textID=kjbible&PagePosition=1

The above link is the King James 1611 with all the books of the bible including those declared at Trent. Trent declared what was practiced and believed at Hippo and Carthage and by the Church. Without renegade priests there would not have been a need for declaration.

So where is the authority to remove the books after 1611 since every English Version of the Bible conformed to what was declared at Trent…

Prior to the 20th century, all English Bibles since Tyndale’s first New Testament (1526) were based on the Textus Receptus. This includes: Miles Coverdale’s Bible (1535), Matthew’s Bible (1500-1555), The Great Bible (1539), The Geneva Version (1560), The Bishops’ Bible (1568), and the King James Version (1611).

1384 Wycliffe Bible
1534 Luther’s German Bible
1537 The Cloverdale Bible
1539 The Taverner Bible
1541 The “Great” or “Cromwell’s” Bible
1551 The “Tyndale/Matthews” Bible
1560 The Geneva Bible
1568 The Bishop’s Bible

The canon of the Waldenses must have coincided at first with that of the Roman Church; for the Dublin MS. containing the New Testament has attached to it the Book of Wisdom and the first twenty-three chapters of Sirach; while the Zurich codex of the New Testament has marginal references to the Apocrypha; to Judith, Tobit, 4 Esdras, Wisdom, Sirach, and Susanna.

So on what authority were they removed and when were they removed?

 

[Lincoln7]

Lincs,

On what authority did a Catholic Lawyer, and several Catholic priests formulate that view?

sceti.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?textID=kjbible&PagePosition=1

The above link is the King James 1611 with all the books of the bible including those declared at Trent. Trent declared what was practiced and believed at Hippo and Carthage and by the Church. Without renegade priests there would not have been a need for declaration.

So where is the authority to remove the books after 1611 since every English Version of the Bible conformed to what was declared at Trent…

Prior to the 20th century, all English Bibles since Tyndale’s first New Testament (1526) were based on the Textus Receptus. This includes: Miles Coverdale’s Bible (1535), Matthew’s Bible (1500-1555), The Great Bible (1539), The Geneva Version (1560), The Bishops’ Bible (1568), and the King James Version (1611).

1384 Wycliffe Bible
1534 Luther’s German Bible
1537 The Cloverdale Bible
1539 The Taverner Bible
1541 The “Great” or “Cromwell’s” Bible
1551 The “Tyndale/Matthews” Bible
1560 The Geneva Bible
1568 The Bishop’s Bible

The canon of the Waldenses must have coincided at first with that of the Roman Church; for the Dublin MS. containing the New Testament has attached to it the Book of Wisdom and the first twenty-three chapters of Sirach; while the Zurich codex of the New Testament has marginal references to the Apocrypha; to Judith, Tobit, 4 Esdras, Wisdom, Sirach, and Susanna.

So on what authority were they removed and when were they removed?

Indeed they were, I have a couple of bibles with them all in… I don’t hold them as inspired scripture, I do see things in them as edifying however.

This stance was nothing new of course, it’s well known that Jerome held them to be edifying but not of the same rank as the inspired scriptures. Cardinal Catejan likewise held the same view, and the council of Laodecia held to views differing with Trent.

I don’t know right now when they were gradually phased out of Protestant translations. Something to look at. But if you mean that because they were included all Protestants took them as inspired and equal to the other works, that’s not so…

Lincs.