Authority in Catholicism and Protestantism..

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lincoln7
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It is evident from Peter’s words that he did indeed still retain the God who was already known to them; but he also bare witness to them that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, the Judge of quick and dead, into whom he did also command them to be baptized for the remission of sins; and not this alone, but he witnessed that Jesus was Himself the Son of God, who also, having been anointed with the Holy Spirit, is called Jesus Christ. And He is the same being that was born of Mary, as the testimony of Peter implies. Can it really be, that Peter was not at that time as yet in possession of the perfect knowledge which these men discovered afterwards? According to them, therefore, Peter was imperfect, and the rest of the apostles were imperfect; and so it would be fitting that they, coming to life again, should become disciples of these men, in order that they too might be made perfect. But this is truly ridiculous. These men, in fact, are proved to be not disciples of the apostles, but of their own wicked notions. To this cause also are due the various opinions which exist among them, inasmuch as each one adopted error just as he was capable [of embracing it]. But the Church throughout all the world, having its origin from the apostles, perseveres in one and the same opinion with regard to God and His Son.

Book 4 Chapter 32

Inasmuch as man was not yet able to see the things of God through means of immediate vision; and foreshadowed the images of those things which [now actually] exist in the Church, in order that our faith might be firmly established; and contained a prophecy of things to come, in order that man might learn that God has foreknowledge of all things.

8
True knowledge is [that which consists in] the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system of doctrine, and neither receiving addition nor [suffering] curtailment [in the truths which she believes]; and [it consists in] reading [the word of God] without falsification, and a lawful and diligent exposition in harmony with the Scriptures, both without danger and without blasphemy; and [above all, it consists in] the pre-eminent gift of love, which is more precious than knowledge, more glorious than prophecy, and which excels all the other gifts [of God].

9
Wherefore the Church does in every place, because of that love which she cherishes towards God, send forward, throughout all time, a multitude of martyrs to the Father; while all others not only have nothing of this kind to point to among themselves, but even maintain that such witness-bearing is not at all necessary, for that their system of doctrines is the true witness [for Christ], with the exception, perhaps, that one or two among them, during the whole time which has elapsed since the Lord appeared on earth, have occasionally, along with our martyrs, borne the reproach of the name (as if he too [the heretic] had obtained mercy), and have been led forth with them [to death], being, as it were, a sort of retinue granted unto them. For the Church alone sustains with purity the reproach of those who suffer persecution for righteousness’ sake, and endure all sorts of punishments, and are put to death because of the love which they bear to God, and their confession of His Son; often weakened indeed, yet immediately increasing her members, and becoming whole again, after the same manner as her type, Lot’s wife, who became a pillar of salt. Thus, too, [she passes through an experience] similar to that of the ancient prophets, as the Lord declares, “For so persecuted they the prophets who were before you;” inasmuch as she does indeed, in a new fashion, suffer persecution from those who do not receive the word of God, while the self-same spirit rests upon her [as upon these ancient prophets].

Book 3 Chapter 24

Thus, then, have all these men been exposed, who bring in impious doctrines regarding our Maker and Framer, who also formed this world. and above whom there is no other God; and those have been overthrown by their own arguments who teach falsehoods regarding the substance of our Lord, and the dispensation which He fulfilled for the sake of His own creature man. But [it has, on the other hand, been shown], that the preaching of the Church is everywhere consistent, and continues in an even course, and receives testimony from the prophets, the apostles, and all the disciples-as I have proved-through [those in] the beginning, the middle, and the end, and through the entire dispensation of God, and that well-grounded system which tends to man’s salvation, namely, our faith; which, having been received from the Church, we do preserve, and which always, by the Spirit of God, renewing its youth, as if it were some precious deposit in an excellent vessel, causes the vessel itself containing it to renew its youth also. For this gift of God has been entrusted to the Church, as breath was to the first created man, for this purpose, that all the members receiving it may be vivified; and the [means of] communion with Christ has been distributed throughout it, that is, the Holy Spirit, the earnest of incorruption, the means of confirming our faith, and the ladder of ascent to God. “For in the Church,” it is said, “God hath set apostles, prophets, teachers,” and all the other means through which the Spirit works; of which all those are not partakers who do not join themselves to the Church, but defraud themselves of life through their perverse opinions and infamous behaviour.
 
Cont Conclusion

For where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God; and where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church, and every kind of grace; but the Spirit is truth. Those, therefore, who do not partake of Him, are neither nourished into life from the mother’s breasts, nor do they enjoy that most limpid fountain which issues from the body of Christ; but they dig for themselves broken cisterns out of earthly trenches, and drink putrid water out of the mire, fleeing from the faith of the Church lest they be convicted; and rejecting the Spirit, that they may not be instructed.

Where is this “Church?” 🤷
 
Is there something that Ratzinger has said as Vicar of Christ that contravenes that which a different pope has said?
Not that I know of. The system discourages inconsistency (and often slows healthy growth, in my opinion).

I do think there are inconsistencies (that are only poorly patched by arbitrary and convoluted theologies; entirely unconvincing to me). For example, is it true that outside the Church there is no salvation? Or what about Galileo and geocentric theory?

Write me about this if you like, or maybe one of us can start a new thread about it.
 
Common Christian beliefs that I do not accept (that I think are unlikely), are** virgin birth and ascension.** Peculiar Catholic beliefs that I deny are real presence, authority of Pope, Marian teachings, etc.
I think I read in another thread that you recite the creed but keep silent on the above points (as well as Christ’s descent into Hades). I respect that very, very much. It speaks to your being a man of integrity. One ought not proclaim, in the presence of God, something that he does not believe.

However, I will say that in the paradigm that you’ve described, “I believe that God did , but not , when the Church proclaims that God did both” speaks to me of creating a god in one’s own image, rather than conforming your views to that of God’s.

Do you not think so?
IOW: How is it that you know that God did , except for the Church proclaiming it to be so?

And do you not reason that God would not conform to your own views, but rather demand that you conform to His?
 
For example, is it true that outside the Church there is no salvation?
Indeed, it is true that outside the Church there is no salvation (extra ecclesiam nulla salus, or EENS). Which is only really an extension of outside of Christ there is no salvation.
Or what about Galileo and geocentric theory?
If you could be more specific about this question?

I will simply refer you to these threads/articles:

catholic.com/search/content/galileo
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=629137&highlight=galileo
 
He cares about us, and we become in a sense co-creators in this universe, through our intercessions?
I think we are falling short at the moment though. Maybe my finite thinking.
We cannot know for certain, but I imagine that, as with most parents when given gifts by their children, it is the thought that counts.?
That we must worship Him on our earthly exile? The gift is Eternal Life and a method to help you long the way is the Eucharist.

Free-Will is to accept or reject in essense “life”. The real question is can we worship God imperfectly without remaining in a Apostolic Church, and how will this affect out salvation? I’m not willing to take that chance. I don’t see Church as a Task, maybe a pain in the neck once is awhile, however, I would venture to say that those days are the ones I need the church.

Course the Eucharist is a reality in Chruch and History. Can one make it without ii? I wouldn’t say its impossible, it will certainly be more difficult. Its like saying how long can I swim without a life preserver as opposed to having one? Your chances with the Life Saver are better.
I am uncertain about the entirety of the Bible. I am certain of some mathematical truths.?
I see one of the same, we just are on a continued path in understanding through mathmatics/physics.
In terms of the Bible, my greatest confidence is in the Gospel accounts, as being historical evidence of a great miracle (greatest miracle?) the resurrection. However, I could be wrong even in this.?
Mine too, often the Cross is the focus and its a critical point, the Incarnation foward though, yes the resurrection to Christ with the Apostles also.
Common Christian beliefs that I do not accept (that I think are unlikely), are virgin birth and ascension. Peculiar Catholic beliefs that I deny are real presence, authority of Pope, Marian teachings, etc.?
More reading I would say. I didn’t include Irenaeus and the chapters on the Virgin Mary above from Genesis to the NT they are their, they already existed elaborated on in this period as they did in the Apostolic Churchs. Mary “is” one the three great Mysteries of the Church. The last being the Eucharist. Of course the first is Jesus Christ.
Definitely. Even if we come to uncertain conclusions, so long as we increase our confidence and remove other ideas from serious consideration, we are making progress.
History is critical past to present. Mathmatics brings the Universe into focus, for it shows with certainty the slight degrees of varience in which Man could not exist on earth. Keeps indicating a Divine Plan for sure.
I am agnostic about whether Jesus was sinless. I think it unlikely that Mary was perfect. And his covenant teachings are highly confusing; it is difficult for me to determine what they mean, or who to trust about them.
Compare this in History to the Early Church Fathers leading up to the ecumenical councils. Discussed 1st century foward.
I generally do not accept their teachings without further reason. This includes Paul’s, Peter’s and John’s writings in the Bible.
I hear you its hard discern, perhap the above with Irenaeus will help. He was Polycarps student whom was taught by the Apostle John. Paul seems to be most misunderstood and misinterpreted more than all. Even in the second century.
My reasoning is based on what I know of nature, my common sense, my philosophy, my understanding of logic and history, etc. I think that we both have used our own reason, and got to different conclusions about which each of us admits he is not certain. Is this not so?
I only know what I know and I believe the Lord has shown me. It is most definately His Will. I do know the History aspect requires much reading. Not just on Church History, but on Christ, Mary and the Eucharist. The object is to keep a open mind and continue to search for the truth I would say. The Theological/Philosophical aspect comes into play but not so much on this line, yet in understanding God, then Eastern and Western thinking. This then also extends to Plato etc. Schools never out.
There is no final authority about what we choose to believe, except for us. Since we are fallible, our conclusions are fallible, and so no further authority will be very helpful in establishing certainty. The security and comfort of a magisterium is a false comfort; you still need to choose to accept it, and what if you are wrong?
When you say… There is no final authority, then you became the final authority. “Then” you conclude the rest from that point. Which is logical because you are fallible. And yes you need to choose to accept it or not, Free-Will. What if they are right?

I believe Christ established an infallible church, because He is infallible. And I believe it still exists, nothing indicates otherwise, much to the contrary. Though I could understand how one would conclude otherwise. I would say reading the East/West Churchs through History. In particular those who are Saints in both Churchs, Supernatural becomes yet another issue in spiritual/mystical.

What creates this present distraction is the arguements which exist in the Apostolic Churchs. No one said Human Error would not be a major issue, “prevail” was the word Christ used. One word kinda place’s things in perspective. We know men are fallible. King David is a great example. Look at Judas, imagine hanging out with God and missing the message? Evil consumes Nations as we have seen, diabolical disorientation is very real. Confusion is its calling card and of course temptation.
 
Brandon…

Remember it is through Christ we are restored with the Father and remaining in the life of Christ, we enter into eternal life with Him and the saints.

You are not accepting ecclesial deisim…

Our Catholic belief is in Christ is very great and our faith in His choices and works is great…daily life…well, that is a struggle we all deal with.

But we believe Christ was God enough to choose carnate, sinful men to be His foundation on earth, as church ecclesiastics share in the same day to day struggles as we do.

The Catholic Church has the full deposit of faith in defining Who Christ is.

And any person who is baptized outside the universal church is a member of His Mystical Body.

And with all the unbaptized and people of good will, we leave them to the mercy of God.

You say the inconsistencies…well, inconsistency always reflects the carnate…and what you are seeing is an image of an interior working of faith in the local culture. The Church serves us, brings us the fullness of Christ and living Him out – in the context of the culture we live in.

The ‘inconsistencies’ you are referring to are what we call the small ‘t’ traditions. The big T Tradition is the understanding and foundation and implementation of faith in Christ through the Church in how the apostles and their disciples established the Church.

And it has been going on for 2,000 years…as I always tell people, by 100 AD, the Church had approved of practically all books, the delays on the remaining reflecting the Church’s mission to ensure the truth of Christ in these books were authentic.

The two that took more time were the Gospel of St. John…the need to further verify he as author, and then the Book of Hebrews that took 200 years.

The ecclesial model of authority – the bishop – turned out to be the most workable vs the conciliar, the liturgy…check out St. Justin the Martyr’s description of the Mass in how it was prayed throughout the Christian world by 100 AD…that has same intent of structure, tone, and spirit and belief as today, and the Apostles Creed…to ensure the truth of Christ.

Theology always reflects its culture…the first 300 years were one of great persecution, but then questions of Christ and His divinity vs His humanity were exposed to Arianism, and then St. Athanasius corrected and defined this ambiguity…so since then, we pray the Nicene Creed at Mass…to further clarify.

So when you speak of salvation in the Catholic Church alone…that means there is no other institution that is giving you a full deck in how you come to understand Christ, how you live Him out, and how you are nurtured in Him.

Christ said He would not leave us orphans…tossed up into the air…going every which way. The Church Christ established is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.

That does Not mean that we are perfect. Perfection is only in heaven. When it comes to living the will of God, the pope, bishops, priests, and lay…we are all on the same page of daily struggle…

Ecclesiastics…who are truly living in the Lord’s spirit…and we witness this by our modern popes…are not on power trips…that is projection.

Nobody owns the Catholic Church. The Pope does not own St. Peter’s or his residence or his clothes…they may fit him and were tailored for him…but it is Christ alone Who owns the Church.

The power and wealth you are witnessing is not coming from man. It is coming from God and it includes our response…our expression of faith and beauty and grandeur that we experience when we encounter the Eucharistic Lord and live Him out…in our daily struggle…

It is Jesus Who makes the world around us beautiful…no matter how bad or hard life is.
 
Hi Gary,

Regarding Ireanaus on Traditon, can I ask if you are utilising him to support the partim partim viewpoint? Or do you personally hold to the material sufficiency point of view?

Kind regards,

Lincs
 
I put this thread in the “Hot Topics” email blast for this week.
So keep it on topic folks.
 
Hi Gary,

Regarding Ireanaus on Traditon, can I ask if you are utilising him to support the partim partim viewpoint? Or do you personally hold to the material sufficiency point of view?

Kind regards,

Lincs
Posted just so it can be read really. I get the impression many have not had the chance to read it, and since its come up over and over.

We have to also realize Irenaeus is speaking on a united Church in communion. And of course to take it step further we have to view him in light of history also.

Yes they seen one church existing in different cultures, I believe we are all called to somehow put that back together. Course the complex issue now is we are talking Christianity. A learning curve I believe we all are called to partake in.

I see many parallels from then to now especially the diversity in reading Pauls letters. Mary I have been researching for years, no way around those 3- Mysteries of the Church. Whats not spoken on is left in silence because they are a mystery. Same issue arises when we try to define the Real Presence. Mysteries unveiled in time, and probably not ours.

Peace
 
To get back to the topic, and to answer my responses:

The answers themselves are in some cases strong. There are good questions among them. But ultimately, it still comes down to human reason.

I don’t see how anyone can get out of it.

Inerrant Scripture doesn’t help.
Infallible popes don’t help.

Both of these things can be known to be authorities only on the basis of strong reasons, and faith. Both of these methods are fallible, as the great number of faiths and alternative justifications for them shows.

Therefore, reason is the final authority. Accept a Catholic Dogma, not because the Pope says so, but because you find it reasonable and true.

Everyone is Martin Luther. Everyone has to say, as he did: “Unless I am convinced by proofs from Scriptures or by plain and clear reasons and arguments, I can and will not retract, for it is neither safe nor wise to do anything against conscience. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen.”

It is just that some Luthers are Catholics and some are Lutheran, and some are no longer Christians at all.
 
For my other more off-topic comments, if you are curious, just write me a private message, and we can discuss those topics there.
 
Therefore, reason is the final authority. Accept a Catholic Dogma, not because the Pope says so, but because you find it reasonable and true.
No, Brandon.

If we accept your premise that we are all our own authority, we still, all of us, defer to another authority: either Scripture (which does not claim this authority of itself, and thus is a contradictory paradigm), the Church, or our own fallible reasoning, which then leads to creating a god in one’s own image, rather than conforming our views to God’s.
 
Martin Luther? Well that puts a different spin on things. I would have to say his intention was never to leave the Church. Course the rest is history. Then of course he traveled to the “East”. I’d say about then he had a headache. 😃
 
Hi Nicea325,

I’m not arguing the letter was written to debunk the primacy of Rome. It betrays to us a certain level of knowledge of the roman church of its importance, but I see this as being down to its nature as the largest church, seated in the heart of the empire. What I object to is seeing the letter as evidence of a papacy. I don’t think the text supports this, as the link with the extract demonstrates, there is no single bishop in Rome at such an early date. Clement was one amongst a plurality of elders, the various house churches here had a plurality of elders. - beggarsallreformation.blogspot.co.uk/2010/08/this-bridge-should-be-illuminated.html

The case I’m making is in the link… 1 Clement is not from a commanding Pope, but from the whole church, and a multiplicity of elders.

Kind regards

Lincs.
Okay,but there are some serious assumptions in the link you provided. Your link stated:

He makes it known “to this city together with the presbyters who preside over the church” A plurality of presbyters leads Roman Christianity.

ALL bishops are presbyters (priests) so the link assumes there was no single head bishop. And why? Because he says presbyters? That does not prove there was no single head.

Second, as I asked you, if one single head bishop was false,heretical or against Christ…where are the complaints and protests from the presbyters at Corinth?
 
But ultimately, it still comes down to human reason.

Inerrant Scripture doesn’t help.
Infallible popes don’t help.

Both of these things can be known to be authorities only on the basis of strong reasons, and faith. Both of these methods are fallible, as the great number of faiths and alternative justifications for them shows.

Therefore, reason is the final authority. Accept a Catholic Dogma, not because the Pope says so, but because you find it reasonable and true.

Everyone is Martin Luther. Everyone has to say, as he did: “Unless I am convinced by proofs from Scriptures or by plain and clear reasons and arguments, I can and will not retract, for it is neither safe nor wise to do anything against conscience. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen.”
Brandon, I see your point and I don’t disagree. It all comes down to the fallibility of our own mind.

Unless, of course, you are a mystic, and have direct communion with god. In this case you don’t need faith because you have direct knowledge by the call of God. Human reason is not involved in this instance.

But as far as human reason is concerned, all reason is based upon particular premises, assumptions, or axioms. And, here is the point, acceptance of these premises and axioms is based upon faith. Reason, then, is no more reliable than the axioms, or faith, it is based upon.

So, we’re back to faith again. Unexplained faith.

Perhaps all this is the reason certain forms of Augustinian and Calvinistic theology exist–to explain the fact that different people have different faiths. It is because God calls some people and not others! Some are of the elect and the others are of the damned!

(As a little side question, I wonder if any of those people who believe in Calvinistic theology also believe they are of the damned.)
 
Everyone is Martin Luther. Everyone has to say, as he did: “Unless I am convinced by proofs from Scriptures or by plain and clear reasons and arguments, I can and will not retract, for it is neither safe nor wise to do anything against conscience. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen.”
What you have said sounds very good.

I have put much thought into that theory before (as I considered being post-denominational prior to being Catholic).

With respect, my issue was that if everybody is Martin Luther, then the road is well paved for everyone to have widely different views. Everybody becomes their own theologian.

This may be a case in which unity would be very scarce.

Each Christian would have to learn, educate, explain, & defend every aspect of Christianity. Including how each book of the bible got included in the Bible.

Personally, this seemed like a far reach for the unity that Christ so ardently prayed for.

Just my personal thoughts.

With respect,
James
 
Hi Nicea325,
ALL bishops are presbyters (priests) so the link assumes there was no single head bishop. And why? Because he says presbyters? That does not prove there was no single head.
Second, as I asked you, if one single head bishop was false,heretical or against Christ…where are the complaints and protests from the presbyters at Corinth?
Naturally I don’t have identical views as you on New Covenant priesthood. The work does not assume there was no single head, but simply demonstrates that the governance of the church in Rome of this time is far more presbytarian than the slightly later episcopal model. So it’s not arguing that a single bishop idea is somehow heretical, i don’t think that. It’s one form of church governance, I don’t adhere to it, but by no means think it heretical, far from it! 🙂

There are indeed no protests from the church in Corinth, they rightly saw that the rebuke from the church in Rome was correct, hence the testimony of Dionysius that was posted ealier. I’m not debating this, or the importance of the church of Rome of the time, it was a vastly important church. I’m simply stating that the letter is not from a single bishop, or pope, but is from the plurality of elders, all of which are equal, which I think means a lot when compared to Vatican 1’s comments on For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age…his successors the bishops of the holy Roman see, which he founded and consecrated with his blood

It seems as much is not the case, which I think needs to be addressed as it is very important for our discussions on our respective authorities.

Kind regards

Lincs.
 
If we accept your premise that we are all our own authority, we still, all of us, defer to another authority: either Scripture (which does not claim this authority of itself, and thus is a contradictory paradigm), the Church, or our own fallible reasoning, which then leads to creating a god in one’s own image, rather than conforming our views to God’s.
But you would only accept the Bible and/or the Church because it would seem reasonable to do so, and so you also rely on your own fallible reasoning. If what you say is true, you also create a god in your own image, and you do not conform your views to God’s.

But, there is no alternative.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top