Biblical Proof of Church Authority...Tell it to the Church

[Peter_J]

And What if the King’s subjects misconstrue (let’s say even with good intentions) what they believe was an abuse by the Steward and rise in revolt?
How will the King deal with such “dis-obedient” subjects?
Can they stand upon a defence of, “But Lord, we were so sure that your Stewards were wrong.”?

What exactly are you implying?

 

[Peter_J]

I must say that I find this line a bit annoying. Not because the statement itself is not true, for surely it is, but rather because protestants will toss it out as an example of dis-unity in the ancient Church. But it has no bearing on the actual discussion between Protestants and Catholics.
If Martin Luther had abandoned Rome for Constantinople, that would have been one thing. But that is not what happened. Martin Luther Abandoned Both ancient Churches for something never taught by either one.
I’ve posed this question before, that if ML felt the ancient Church in Rome were corrupt, then why did He not join the Ancient Church in Constantinople?

Without going into all the particulars, I quite agree with your main point: there’s definitely something “fishy” about the Lutheran attitudes toward Catholicism and Orthodoxy. I think I mentioned on another thread how conservative Lutheran websites always seem to have a highly noticeable section about why separation from Rome is still a “tragic necessity”, but they won’t even mention that they also have reasons to be separate from Orthodoxy unless someone asks.

Or to take a very concrete example, Lutherans (and Anglicans for that matter) will say the Creed with the filioque inserted, but they deny the very ability of the popes to authorize such an alteration.

I mean like, dude, what’s up with that?

 

[TriuneUnity]

Without going into all the particulars, I quite agree with your main point: there’s definitely something “fishy” about the Lutheran attitudes toward Catholicism and Orthodoxy. I think I mentioned on another thread how conservative Lutheran websites always seem to have a highly noticeable section about why separation from Rome is still a “tragic necessity”, but they won’t even mention that they also have reasons to be separate from Orthodoxy unless someone asks.

Well, our Synod makes it pretty plain. If you’re referring to the Cyberbrethren blog, they have a separate section for Eastern Orthodoxy that discusses that very topic. But obviously, Roman Catholicism has a greater impact on our own tradition historically and doctrinally.

Or to take a very concrete example, Lutherans (and Anglicans for that matter) will say the Creed with the filioque inserted, but they deny the very ability of the popes to authorize such an alteration.

I mean like, dude, what’s up with that?

The filioque is biblical and true, therefore, the pope had every right to insert that into the creed. The creed is not Scripture anyway, so while it doesn’t need altering as it currently stands, if a point of it was incorrect, it could be.

 

[Peter_J]

The filioque is biblical and true, therefore, the pope had every right to insert that into the creed. The creed is not Scripture anyway, so while it doesn’t need altering as it currently stands, if a point of it was incorrect, it could be.

I’m Catholic, as you know, so it probably won’t surprize you that I agree that the filioque is true and biblical.

Even more to the point, Catholics count the Second Council of Lyon (1274) and the Council of Florence (1439) – which dogmatically defined the filioque – as ecumenical councils.

 

[JRKH]

Originally Posted by JRKH
And What if the King’s subjects misconstrue (let’s say even with good intentions) what they believe was an abuse by the Steward and rise in revolt?
How will the King deal with such “dis-obedient” subjects?
Can they stand upon a defence of, “But Lord, we were so sure that your Stewards were wrong.”?

I’m not implying anything “exactly”.
If you read through the dialogue between Jon and I you would see that we are discussing the relationships between a Steward, the King and King’s subjects over which the Steward has charge.
It relates to authority and the obligations and that each owe to the other.

Peace
James

 

[JonNC]

I’m not implying anything “exactly”.
If you read through the dialogue between Jon and I you would see that we are discussing the relationships between a Steward, the King and King’s subjects over which the Steward has charge.
It relates to authority and the obligations and that each owe to the other.

Peace
James

Hi James,
Hope your wife is doing well today. She (and you ) are in our prayers.

I suspect I know what you think the rebellious subjects obligations are. What, then is the obligation of the steward to said subjects?
Is it simply to insist that subjects fall in line and accept the authority, right or wrong, or to develop a dialogue that, led by the Lord, finds solutions to the disagreements and creates a unified kingdom?

Jon

 

[JRKH]

Hi James,
Hope your wife is doing well today. She (and you ) are in our prayers.

Thank you for your prayers. They are much appreciated. She is doing a bit better today. Of course it is always touch and go.

I suspect I know what you think the rebellious subjects obligations are. What, then is the obligation of the steward to said subjects?
Is it simply to insist that subjects fall in line and accept the authority, right or wrong, or to develop a dialogue that, led by the Lord, finds solutions to the disagreements and creates a unified kingdom?

Jon

The Steward owes it to the population to rule justly and with kindness, and to protect the populace in the same manner as the King would, if He were physically present.
Much will depend on the specific circumstance under consideration. If a matter critical to the well being of the population comes up then the Steward should indeed consult with other members of the King’s Government, and possibly with citizens outside the Government who are knowledgable in the area under discussion. He should also try to contact the King, if possible, to get His thoughts on the matter.
Some sense of the feelings of the general populace can be gained by talking with officials from around the kingdom but I would not expect the Steward to “Poll” the entire population and base His judgement on that since most of the population would not be knowledgable in the particulars of a given subject. Of course, in our “kingdom”, any citizen is free to express himself to the Government if he or she feels they have something valuable to offer.

Having done these things the Steward makes the best desicion he can with the information he has been given. Once the decision is made, the Steward then should, indeed, “insist that subjects fall in line and accept the authority, right or wrong”, knowing full well that it will he who must accept the responsibility for the decision when he next stands before the King.
If the decision is wrong, especially if it is gravely wrong, it will be the steward, and possibly other members of the Government who will be held accountable, and not the faithful “citizen in the streets”.

Peace
James

 

[JonNC]

Thank you for your prayers. They are much appreciated. She is doing a bit better today. Of course it is always touch and go.

The Steward owes it to the population to rule justly and with kindness, and to protect the populace in the same manner as the King would, if He were physically present.
Much will depend on the specific circumstance under consideration. If a matter critical to the well being of the population comes up then the Steward should indeed consult with other members of the King’s Government, and possibly with citizens outside the Government who are knowledgable in the area under discussion. He should also try to contact the King, if possible, to get His thoughts on the matter.
Some sense of the feelings of the general populace can be gained by talking with officials from around the kingdom but I would not expect the Steward to “Poll” the entire population and base His judgement on that since most of the population would not be knowledgable in the particulars of a given subject. Of course, in our “kingdom”, any citizen is free to express himself to the Government if he or she feels they have something valuable to offer.

Having done these things the Steward makes the best desicion he can with the information he has been given. Once the decision is made, the Steward then should, indeed, “insist that subjects fall in line and accept the authority, right or wrong”, knowing full well that it will he who must accept the responsibility for the decision when he next stands before the King.
If the decision is wrong, especially if it is gravely wrong, it will be the steward, and possibly other members of the Government who will be held accountable, and not the faithful “citizen in the streets”.

Peace
James

Hmm, my expectation would be for the steward to meet with those in disagreement, hear their side, and try to work out a just and mutually supported outcome.
Of course, in our little scenario, we’ve agreed, for discussion’s sake, that the steward legitimately stands in the Lord’s stead. The scenario changes if the Lord had not intended the steward, who took more authority onto himself than provided by the Lord, to be anything more than perhaps first among his governmental equals, or maybe even a steward of only his own juristiction.

Jon

 

[JRKH]

Hmm, my expectation would be for the steward to meet with those in disagreement, hear their side, and try to work out a just and mutually supported outcome.

Like I said previously, it depends on the specific given situation. What you say here is perfectly acceptable in an appropriate situation. I think the point should be that, regardless, a wise steward is not going to deliberately do anything without at least discussion and the council of others.

Of course, in our little scenario, we’ve agreed, for discussion’s sake, that the steward legitimately stands in the Lord’s stead. The scenario changes if the Lord had not intended the steward, who took more authority onto himself than provided by the Lord, to be anything more than perhaps first among his governmental equals, or maybe even a steward of only his own juristiction.

Jon

Perhaps, but here again the question becomes, what is the obligation of “Joe citizen” in our “Kingdom”. If the Steward oversteps his bounds that is a matter between him and The King. I, as a cobbler, or farmer somewhere, have no idea what the King and the Steward have worked out, or how much communication they have between them. If I remain faithful to the authority of the Steward, left by the King, then I am in no danger from the King upon His return.

This is the significance of Jesus statement about the Jews and His disciples obeying what the Scribes and Pharasees told them. Even though we KNOW that those Scribe and Pharasees will have to answer for the errors of their teachings, the faithful Jew would not be held accountable.
The same thing is true in Christianity. When we obey The Church, we are obeying Christ because Christ Gave us the Church as His authority on earth. If those in the Church fail to teach properly, they will be held responsible, not those who obey the legitimate authority of The Church.

Gotta get Ready for Mass…

Great Coverstaion so far. I want to thank everyone.

Peace
James

 

[JonNC]

Gotta get Ready for Mass…

May the presence of Christ in word and sacrament be a blessing for you this evening.
Jon

 

[JRKH]

ttt
Just wanted to boot this up once.

Peace
James