Authority in Catholicism and Protestantism..

[PRmerger]

And how do you know that what you have is really revelation? How do you know it is true? Do you not use your brain? You just believe, with a blind faith?

I use the same criterion you do: you believe in the Person who told you.

Just like you accepted your 4th grade teacher’s declaration that the US Civil war was between the North and the South–even though you weren’t there. You believed it because you believed her.

But, no, it’s not a blind faith that you have. Nor is it what Catholics have.

Not sure where that question comes from.

 

[PRmerger]

Absolutely! But we discover truth through our senses and reason. There is no other way. We can’t listen to a Pope or read a Book of the Bible or Koran, or sit at the feet of a guru or Lama, without using our senses. We cannot even interpret what is said without using our reasons.

Indeed.

Actually he seems to me to be doing exactly what you suggest. It was revealed to him that his clothes were invisible but really existed. He accepted the revelation without question, and he was wrong. He used your junk reason and accepted this revelation.

I am curious why you keep ascribing this “blind faith” and “accepting without question” paradigm to me, and to Catholicism.

Is there something in our teachings, and something that I have posted, that makes you believe that Catholics have a “blind faith”?

The Emperor was happy to believe what made him feel good. Not what was true.

There was no “revelation” involved–that’s a peculiar sentiment to attach to that which the schemers proffered.

This is not unlike Catholic belief in real presence? The clothing exists, but is invisible?

Well, if you’re going to apply it to the Real Presence, then you ought to apply it to Christ’s divinity. His Divinity exists, but it’s invisible? He only appears to be a mere mortal?

Do you think you’re being like the Emperor when you proclaim Christ’s divinity (assuming you do) when it’s invisible?

I always found this story to be quite anti-Catholic, actually.

How so?

Maybe the Catholics are right, and the naked emperor has clothes after all.

What part of Catholicism is the analog to the naked emperor?

My Naked Lord certainly looked the fool to the world, but I believe his wisdom far exceeded the world’s good sense.

Your Lord believes some schemers and is parading around naked thinking that he’s dressed in finery?

That’s a very very odd image to hold regarding one’s Lord.

Just sayin’…

 

[PRmerger]

these things are very reasonable, even if i cannot see exactly how.

LOL!!

 

[Emerite]

I, too, find all this difficult and time consuming to sort out at this time. However, to all those denominations preaching from the Bible and the Bible alone, having no “tradition,” I wonder what New Testament bible book did the apostles carry right after Pentecost, when they traveled to foreign lands preaching the word of God. Was it word of mouth tradition until the books of the bible were put into writing some time after Christ was crucified? The gospel of John wasn’t completed until around 90 A.D.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Mackbrislawn,

A church can be charismatic, in that it still has the gifts mentioned in 1 Corinthians 12 etc, and still have a form of church government and organisation. I think it’s clear that this was the standard of the churches established by Paul and indeed all the Apostles. The “chaos” that is seen in places, notably in Corinth is not the result of no church governance, but rather of misuses of gifts.

 

[anthony022071]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lincoln7 View Post
anthony022071,
Quote:
< Some people in the early Church had doubts about certain books were sacred scripture,but Pope Damasus and later the Council of Carthage gave the list of books which were to be accepted as sacred. There must be an infallible authority to do this,otherwise Christians would have accepted inauthentic books with false teachings,and it would have been impossible to reject them with God-given authority. >

Must be an infallible authority? Or God can use fallible men to achieve his purposes.

Both. Without an infallible authority,the Church would be like a ship without a rudder. False doctrines would spread unchecked through human error and at the instigation of the devil,and the Church would be subverted. You will likely admit that the Holy Spirit sustains the true doctrines in the world. In the Catholic Church,this is done through the agency of the teaching office of Peter,just as with the ancient Hebrews it was done through the agency of prophets. As you say,God use fallible men to achieve his purposes. But if God uses men to teach with his authority true doctrines to the whole Church,then they are not fallible in that capacity,because God sustains them in truth,and he would not allow for them to fail to carry out the purpose for which he uses them.
Reply With Quote

 

[anthony022071]

anthony022071,
Quote:
Some people in the early Church had doubts about certain books were sacred scripture,but Pope Damasus and later the Council of Carthage gave the list of books which were to be accepted as sacred. There must be an infallible authority to do this,otherwise Christians would have accepted inauthentic books with false teachings,and it would have been impossible to reject them with God-given authority.

Lincoln7:
Must be an infallible authority? Or God can use fallible men to achieve his purposes.

Both. Without an infallible authority,the Church would be like a ship without a rudder. False doctrines would spread unchecked through human error and at the instigation of the devil,and the Church would be subverted. You will likely admit that the Holy Spirit sustains the true doctrines in the world. In the Catholic Church,this is done through the agency of the teaching office of Peter,just as with the ancient Hebrews it was done through the agency of prophets. As you said,God uses fallible men to achieve his purposes. But if God uses men to teach with his authority true doctrines to the whole Church,then they are not fallible in that capacity,because God sustains them in truth,and he would not allow for them to fail to carry out the purpose for which he uses them.

 

[Lincoln7]

Nicea,

In all fairness, I understand your position. Is it plausible? Indeed.Nevertheless, the letter does not affirm church government or structure may have been changing radically and quickly due to era the letter was written. One must take the era consideration when it was written . The first 50-60 years of the church is not overloaded with lots of writings as in later years. But the limited information we possess say a lot. And why? Because the church was basically in hiding and Christians needed to be very “stealth” and “secretive” of their every moves and correspondence. Remember it was a crime not to worship the Roman emperor and Christians were well known to not worship the emperor.The church was very young and growing. Nonetheless, you must understand that the letter has been dated as early as 80 AD, 50 years after Jesus’ death and less than 20 years after Peter’s and Paul’s death.

On dating Clement, I think there is liberty on this, I’ve always been convinced by a slightly later date at the very end of the first century personally. Regardless of its date, it’s internal evidence of multiplicity of elders, not to mention the reference noted in Hermas of Clements job being to present information to the plurality of presbyters who lead the church make for a strong case.(1).

Do I believe there were other elders at Rome? Absolutely! Do I believe Clement was the head? Absolutely! Later church fathers affirm him as successor to Peter which says a lot of Clement’s status. Are we to believe the church fathers who wrote the list of successors merely fabricated it up? If Clement were not the head bishop,then why bother to mention him as a successor of Peter? Why not start the list of successors AFTER his name? Unfortunately the position you present is not concrete enough to state there was not a monarchial bishop in Rome.

I’m not advocating they fabricated it, but that they simply got this one wrong. Considerinng the lists come 100 years after the letter was sent, if we accept your AD80 date, it’s entirely plausible. Bishop and presbytr ar interchangeable at this stage, they are equal.(2). They are quite right clement probably sent the letter, but his role was not of monarchial bishop. I recommended a small work by Luise Ambrowski earlier in a post, if you have journal site access/a good library near you I’d recommend it, it deals with the lists on succession rather well.

Lincs.

1 & 2 - beggarsallreformation.blogspot.co.uk/2010/08/this-bridge-should-be-illuminated.html

 

[Lincoln7]

Anthony,

I suppose it is possible a church can be charismatic and still have a form of church government, but I view it as unlikely. The reason that there was “chaos” is that there was no church government, and the lack of church government permitted the misuse of gifts.

My church is charismatic, in that it still holds to gifts such as those in 1 Corinthians 12, and yet has a governing body.

Elders here are appointed to pre-existing churches, which apparently lacked elders. So we can’t conclude that this was Paul’s pattern from very early on. However, he probably quckly realized the charismatic pattern didn’t work, and adopted the Jerusalem pattern.

What do we mean when we both say “charismatic pattern”? I think of an ordered church with elders which has spiritual gifts, it may help our discussion if we’re “singing from the same hymn sheet” if you get me?

Yes, the elders and overseers pattern quckly prevailed.

We can reconstruct how overseers became different from elders. We know churches were first established by apostles in the urban areas, cities. The evangelization of the suburbs and countryside would then be left to the city church. The country churches would hence be satellites of the city church and would be overseen by the larger, original apostolic church in the city. The smaller churches would have elders, and the overseer of all the churches in that area would be in the city.

Entirley plausible remember I don’t really have major disagreements with this pattern, my church is a plant from a bigger one and so has a lot to hear from the bigger ones. But again, we tend to view the pastor of the bigger ones as a “first among equals” rather than monarchial bishop. I don’t adhere to the episcopal model, but I don’t see it as a major debate. But I do see the elders pattern as the one of the NT, as such it should be the one we adhere too.

Both. Without an infallible authority,the Church would be like a ship without a rudder.

Hence the inspired scriptures.

Kind regards

Lincs.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Dating is an issue with the first few Pope’s in actual year they are appox. Nevertheless they were most certainly there, the Apostolic See was established and succession in place since Peter. Romes position with the other Orthodox Churchs isn’t much different through these first few centuries. In fact due to persecution as we see, the Eastern Saints play a very significant role. As with Paul and many many others who chose to head that way to help the cause. Not an easy task to volunteer for, certain death with no resist is one thing, to walk toward this is just beyond me.

Rome was the largest empire ever established, the goal here was significant. Still no complete Bible here in this period, in fact being caught with a manuscript here would mean death. The middle east today compared to Rome then would be a vacation. The complete Bible doesn’t appear complete till 382 well after Rome is established. Yet what is established is the Church and the Mass/Liturgy. The Church had the capacity to relocate and stay underground when need be.

Here I would say the point isn’t so much the magnitude of Rome/Church, its the like thinking of the Bishops and a functioning established Apostolic See. The title Pope is of no issue nor relevant. Alexandria used the title, oh a century or so before Rome.

However, what we do see is the Authority not just in Rome but the Apostolic Sees. And the universal church is in place.

Now what Authority can the Protestant Church prove?

 

[Lincoln7]

Hi Gary, hope youre well,

Dating is an issue with the first few Pope’s in actual year they are appox. Nevertheless they were most certainly there, the Apostolic See was established and succession in place since Peter. Romes position with the other Orthodox Churchs isn’t much different through these first few centuries. In fact due to persecution as we see, the Eastern Saints play a very significant role. As with Paul and many many others who chose to head that way to help the cause. Not an easy task to volunteer for, certain death with no resist is one thing, to walk toward this is just beyond me.

Well I stand with the position that especially in the earliest days, such as is shown above with regards to clement, a monarchial bishop is not quite the case. Certainly it develops yes, but it’s not what’s initially there.

Rome was the largest empire ever established, the goal here was significant. Still no complete Bible here in this period, in fact being caught with a manuscript here would mean death. The middle east today compared to Rome then would be a vacation. The complete Bible doesn’t appear complete till 382 well after Rome is established. Yet what is established is the Church and the Mass/Liturgy. The Church had the capacity to relocate and stay underground when need be.

Quite so, the bible was not in one uniform book in this period. Certainly the Eucharist is established yes, but I don’t see it as identical with modern Romes in terms of the theology surrounding it.

However, what we do see is the Authority not just in Rome but the Apostolic Sees. And the universal church is in place.

Now what Authority can the Protestant Church prove?

Yes the church is in place, I don’t debate this Gary. I’m not among the crowd who advocate that the church disappears in about 100 and never surfaces again until 1517… Im in the camp tht during this period clarity on the essential truth of the gospel gradually became more obscured, hence the need for the reformation. Hence the Protestant call to return to scripture as the guide for the church.

Lincs.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Linc his leadership was documented as Bishop of Rome as with Irenaus, not in conjunction with a shared responsibility, but as the leader of this See. Because one isn’t convinced of this, certainly doesn’t detract to what the Saint has stated.

Now when you say “Hence the Protestant call to return to scripture as the guide for the church.”

There is No Authority here!

Scripture isn’t a guide to building a “correct” church. Never has been. The “Church” always existed in its conception as intended. Scripture was never intended as a instruction guide for converts. It wasn’t even written for non-believers. NT was written for those who were already believers and following an established Tradition.

The Bible is not its own authority its a Book which only relates to a Tradition obviously misunderstood greatly these days,

Then who is the Bibles authority. The Bible never claims to be its sole rule of the Faith. Where does the Bible claim such a status for itself?

 

[Lincoln7]

Hi Gary,

Linc his leadership was documented as Bishop of Rome as with Irenaus, not in conjunction with a shared responsibility, but as the leader of this See. Because one isn’t convinced of this, certinly doesn’t detract to what the Saint has stated.

Yes but the internal evidence of the letter itself, combined with Hermas’ work paints a very different picture.

There is No Authority here!

I thought that which is God breathed would carry the authority of Jesus Christ? It is the word of God after all… "But Jesus answered them, “You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God.” Matt 22:29 ESV

Scripture isn’t a guide to building a “correct” church. Never has been. The “Church” always existed in its conception as intended. Scripture was never intended as a instuction guide for converts. It wasn’t even written for non-believers. NT was written for those who were already believers and following an established Tradition.

Quite so. It is reliable and unchanging Apostlic doctrine and teaching, surley if it is as much, doctrine the church proclaims must align with it? All inspired scripture teaches more plainly and with more authority after all, so that if we refer to it, we may verify what teachers say…

The Bible is not its own authority its a Book which only relates to a Tradition obviously misunderstood greatly these days,

Partim partim? I still don’t know what view you hold to Gary, would help me understand your position more, of that’s ok?

Then who is the Bibles authority. The Bible never claims to be its sole rule of the Faith. Where does the Bible claim such a status for itself?

Indeed in your tradition, the church functions above scripture. I don’t claim tht it does Gary, I claim that as the inspired word of God, we should seek to be in conformity with what it says.

Lincs.

 

[PRmerger]

Without an infallible authority,the Church would be like a ship without a rudder.

Hence the inspired scriptures.

Kind regards

Lincs.

But you can see the fruit of those who use the inspired Scriptures as their ship: the chaos and confusion of tens of thousands of different denominations, each claiming that their interpretation of Scripture is the correct one.

So thanks to the removal of this infallible authority, we are left with a disastrous, obscene set of differing ideas about:

• Abortion
• Attend weekly services, don’t have to go to Church
• Baptism (sprinkling? Immersion? Infant? Adult? Sacrament? Ordinance? In Jesus’ name only? Using Trinitarian formula?)
• Charity or no charity (help one another or let them help themselves?)
• Church leadership, or no leadership
• Death/Soul Sleep
• Did Jesus use wine or grape juice at the Last Supper
• Divorce
• Drinking allowed, drinking not allowed
• Head coverings or no head coverings
• Health and wealth gospel
• Hell, or no hell
• Homosexuality
• Is God‘s Holy Name Jehovah
• Judge others, don’t judge others
• Lord’s day on Saturday or Sunday
• Music or no music (Singing or no singing)
• Once saved, always saved
• Ordination
• Predestination
• Rapture
• Sola scriptura/private interpretation
• The Eucharist (Communion)
• Tongues (some believe others are not saved if they don’t speak in tongues)
• Trinity vs. Unitarianism
• What’s a sin, what is not a sin
• When to celebrate the Lord’s Day
• Women pastors, no women pastors

 

[Lincoln7]

Hi PRmerger, it’s good to discuss things again,

• Abortion: pretty clear Basis in scripture against that, as well as clear evidence in history.
• Regular attendance: Heb 10:25
• Baptism: Trinitarian formula very clear Matt 28:18, I will leave out my particular views on infant vs believers baptism so as to not utterly derail the thread!
• Charity or no charity: Love your neighbour, work to eat 2 Thess 3:10…
• Church leadership, or no leadership: Eph 4

I could go on… Vast amounts of that list can be cleared up ratehr quickly by appeal to the inspired scriputres, which teach more plainly and with more authority…

I see your still using the “tens of thousands” mythical number for denominations… Again, a Protestant source: aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2218
A catholic source: cathapol.blogspot.co.uk/2010/01/33000-denominations.html

Do you hold Thomistic views or Molinist ones on predestination? Is the disagreement between them legitimate? The same on material sufficiency and partim partim? I can fallibly and privately discern and choose that I will take what Rome says to be true, can I be any more certain? No, cause I’m fallible in my decision making.

Kind regards

Lincs.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Yes but the internal evidence of the letter itself, combined with Hermas’ work paints a very different picture…

While all this is well and fine, we have a West/East Saint who has spoke on it. Tertullian was also correct in his take of the work of Hermas …

“I would admit your argument, if the writing of the Shepherd had deserved to be included in the Divine Instrument, and if it were not judged by every council of the Churches, even of your own Churches, among the apocryphal and false.”

Being read is one thing, an authority is very different.

I thought that which is God breathed would carry the authority of Jesus Christ? It is the word of God after all… "But Jesus answered them, “You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God.” Matt 22:29 ESV.

The referrence it to Old Testament, nor is it an affirmative to Scripture only.

Quite so. It is reliable and unchanging Apostlic doctrine and teaching, surley if it is as much, doctrine the church proclaims must align with it? All inspired scripture teaches more plainly and with more authority after all, so that if we refer to it, we may verify what teachers say…

It is reliable and unchanging “Apostolic Doctrine” which leads to understanding of the Apostolic Churchs when one see’s the Apostolic Churchs. But it is not a Catechism of the Church. As we see One cannot see accurately the Apostolic Churchs by the Bible alone.

One mistakes “Divinely Inspired” when one in his own wisdom starts relating this to how it applys to themselves and next to a Church. For here we see all the flaws of man from Rap and Rock to Dark Lights and a Light Show, to the rationalization of mortal sin and what it is by Bible definition, and how it is dealt with. Look at contraception and abortion just to scratch the surface.

Partim partim? I still don’t know what view you hold to Gary, would help me understand your position more, of that’s ok? .

A rule of faith, or a competent guide to heaven, must be able to instruct in all the truths necessary for salvation. Now the Scriptures alone do not contain all the truths which a Christian is bound to believe, nor do they explicitly enjoin all the duties which he is obliged to practice. Not to mention other examples, is not every Christian obliged to sanctify Sunday and to abstain on that day from unnecessary servile work? Is not the observance of this law among the most prominent of our sacred duties? But you may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we never sanctify.

The Catholic Church correctly teaches that our Lord and His Apostles inculcated certain important duties of religion which are not recorded by the inspired writers.[See John xxi. 25; II. Thess. ii. 14.] For instance, most Christians pray to the Holy Ghost, a practice which is nowhere found in the Bible.

We must, therefore, conclude that the Scriptures alone cannot be a sufficient guide and rule of faith because they cannot, at any time, be within the reach of every inquirer; because they are not of themselves clear and intelligible even in matters of the highest importance, and because they do not contain all the truths necessary for salvation."
beggarsallreformation.com

In short. However, I also see the larger complexity form West/East. In all Christianity we must proceed with open minds. Or you are subject to our own thinking. We have way to much ridicule today and not enough open-dialogue taking place.

Indeed in your tradition, the church functions above scripture. I don’t claim tht it does Gary, I claim that as the inspired word of God, we should seek to be in conformity with what it says.

I don’t believe it can occur any other way, without building what is already erected. I do believe we can perfect thus greatly improve the existing Tradition first within the Apostolic communites, then among a great deal of Christianity. Theres nothing broken with the existing church. Resistence to Salvation by the paved path is the issue. Problem is no-where in the Bible should one have received the message this was some fleeting hobby or part time entertainmant. Course this isn’t your issue, but its a reality today. Man wants to continue to live his life and gain some feeling of forgiveness by blessing us with his presence now and again. In other words the World has been dragged into the church in some sort of compromise which frankly I don’t see.

Certainly not in issue with Calvin or with mainline Protestant. But an issue as we venture further today.

Peace

 

[Brandon_Rimmer_1]

I am curious why you keep ascribing this “blind faith” and “accepting without question” paradigm to me, and to Catholicism.

You seem to be doing it to yourself. Either you accept some revelation because there is good reason to do so, or you accept it ‘because it is revealed’, and then employ bad reasons. Either way, there is an element of uncertainty and fallibility. One way is just less secure than the other.

Is there something in our teachings, and something that I have posted, that makes you believe that Catholics have a “blind faith”?

Your assertion that revelation is somehow more secure than our reason. This could only be the case if we did not have a reason to accept revelation.

Imagine that we had some argument to accept that revelation is more reliable than our own reason. That argument would be a product of our reason, and so the acceptance of revelation still relies on our reason.

Therefore, if we were to accept, as you say, that revelation is more reliable than our own reason, we would have to accept this on blind faith.

Well, if you’re going to apply it to the Real Presence, then you ought to apply it to Christ’s divinity…

Which I did, in the following sentence. The whole thing about Jesus appearing to the world as the naked emperor. Think about it.

Do you think you’re being like the Emperor when you proclaim Christ’s divinity (assuming you do) when it’s invisible?

I think that to many people I look like I am naked and foolish. But I have my own reasons, and I rely on these reasons. A big part of being Christian is being radical, marching to the beat of your own drum. You have to be, in order to believe such fantastic things!

 

[Lincoln7]

Gary,

While all this is well and fine, we have a West/East Saint who has spoke on it. Tertullian was also correct in his take of the work of Hermas …

“I would admit your argument, if the writing of the Shepherd had deserved to be included in the Divine Instrument, and if it were not judged by every council of the Churches, even of your own Churches, among the apocryphal and false.”

I’m not advocating Hermas as authoritative Gary, rather I quote it purely as a historical document. I would be weary of quoting this bit of Tertuallian though, for Tertullian speaks this directly to a Bishop of Rome when he says this, which gives more evidence for Tertullians lack of knowledge of a papacy.

The referrence it to Old Testament, nor is it an affirmative to Scripture only.

We both acknowledge the NT as scripture, hence the words mean just as much for it as the OT, it demonstrates the Lord also believed people capable of understanding them.

A rule of faith, or a competent guide to heaven, must be able to instruct in all the truths necessary for salvation. Now the Scriptures alone do not contain all the truths which a Christian is bound to believe, nor do they explicitly enjoin all the duties which he is obliged to practice

Partim partim I see. Thanks, I just wanted to know where you stand on this one. I disagree completely ofc, but thanks Gary.

Lincs

 

[PRmerger]

You seem to be doing it to yourself.

Perhaps if you could offer one of my posts that shows I subscribe to a “blind faith” that would be helpful.

Either you accept some revelation because there is good reason to do so, or you accept it ‘because it is revealed’, and then employ bad reasons. Either way, there is an element of uncertainty and fallibility. One way is just less secure than the other.

No doubt.

Your assertion that revelation is somehow more secure than our reason. This could only be the case if we did not have a reason to accept revelation.

There is a false dichotomy that you’re asserting here, Brandon. Revelation is indeed “more secure” than our reason. However, it’s not a “blind faith” that accepts this Revelation, but rather a trust in the Person who revealed it.

You seem to be making the error Blaise Pascal limned:

2 errors, to exclude reason,
to exclude all but reason

Imagine that we had some argument to accept that revelation is more reliable than our own reason. That argument would be a product of our reason, and so the acceptance of revelation still relies on our reason.

Indeed. But not reason ALONE.

That’s why Catholicism stands up to the best of scrutinies. Dichotomies are always proffered, but, in the end, they are, well, false. We don’t need to use reason ALONE. Nor Scripture ALONE. Nor works ALONE. Nor Church ALONE.

The only “ALONE” we proffer is JESUS ALONE, but, of course, we see that this doesn’t really mean Jesus only.

 

[PRmerger]

Which I did, in the following sentence. The whole thing about Jesus appearing to the world as the naked emperor. Think about it.

Excellent. Then you have no problem, I assume, with transferring this paradigm to the theory of transubstantiation?

I think that to many people I look like I am naked and foolish.

But this analogy doesn’t fit, Brandon. What you are saying is that you *appear *naked and foolish, but really you are not–you are clothed in the righteousness of Christ, and, truly have Divine Finery clothing you.

In the Emperor story, what he believes is that he is dressed in finery, but the reality is that he’s butt naked.

You have it exactly backwards. :sad_yes:

But I have my own reasons, and I rely on these reasons. A big part of being Christian is being radical, marching to the beat of your own drum. You have to be, in order to believe such fantastic things!

Absolutely!