Continuation...church authority and sola scriptura

[Knight4God]

This is a continuation from the Purgatory thread, but it got off topic to the authority of Rome itself, so I’m starting a new one and instead of quoting everyone and responding, I’m going to try and coalesce it all (makes discussion boards cleaner! )

I. I can accept the cannon and not the Magisterium

Actually, so do the Orthodox, so if I were to reject Sola Scriptura, it would not make Rome right by default. So I don’t think the cannon can be used to defend the magisterium itself.

I actually agree with you that you cannot “squeeze an infallible document from a fallible church”. But I do not accept the Cannon an inherently infallible, in other words. “My screen name is Knight4God” is an infallible statement. Not because I’m an infallible person, but because what I said lines up with reality. So I accept the cannon because I believe it lines up with reality, not because of church authority. It is possible they were mistaken. I would agree with R.C. Sproul (doesn’t always happen, but…) what the Cannon is a “fallible” collection of infallible books. Christ did not have to write anything down, nor did the Apostalci church have to have sola scriptura, see below.

II. Apostles and Tradition

The authority for doctrine and binding/loosing was given to the Apostles as part of the office of Apostle. No more Apostles, no more Apostolic authority. Actually it is more accurate to say I only agree with sola scriptura indirectly. I believe in Apostolic authority alone, and that due to the deaths of the Apostles and the possibility of community memory loss over time, the only known certified records of Apostolic teaching are the Scriptures. I see no evidence that in ordaining others, the Apostles passed on some type of infallible teaching ability. Especially considering that we would all agree people, rightfully ordained in “Apostolic Succession” have been wrong before and fallen into Apostasy. Hence, just because one can trace one’s ordination line to Peter or Paul or Thomas seems to be no reason for trusting them more then anyone else. This doe not, and never has discounted the authority of teachers within the church, it just means that Church teachers can be trustworthy, but not given innate infallibility. The Church then did not write the scriptures, the Apostles as temporary heads of the Church did.

II. Need of an infallible interpreter

I see no need in that, it has not been proven to me by “scripture and reason”. The fact that we have different interpretations does not make an inherently infallible interpreter necessary, only that God raise up educated trustworthy ones. The question becomes in some cases (like my disagreement with the verses for Purgatory) who then judges Rome? How do I come to an objective acceptance of Rome or Constantinople’s authority without assuming there interpretation is correct, without that it, having it proven without appealing to them? If it can been shown a verse says “A” due to historical, cultural and linguistic reasons, then if Rome says it’s “B” would you say Rome is still right? I would have to say that is evidence against there authority. You can’t use Rome to prove itself. Perhaps you don’t have official interpretations of some verses, which would make a difference, but I got the impression from those on Purgatory that was the case, as the objection to my interpretations was that I don not claim certifiable infallibility.

So besides a response to above, I have a few questions then:

1. How do you know, assuming sola scriptura being false, that Rome is the Church to follow and not the Orthodox. Or something else (have to leave the possibility open to start with)
2. How is it not paradoxical to use one’s private judgment to decide on which authority (Rome or Constantinople or Whichever) to follow because you cannot trust your private judgment. Seems you still don’t solve the problem because you still are making a final decision yourself on what God’s will is and the correct doctrine to follow.
3. Explain Tradition to me, what exactly do you mean. If for instance we were on the Magisterium deciding on whither or not the Pope should Dogmatically declare the Immaculate Conception (if iit works that way), then how does one go about in practice “Scripture and Tradition”. Do we look at the Church Fathers? What if they disagree? Does it really just come down to a majority vote in the Magisterium and ratification by the Pope? If so then how do you ever know if they’re wrong and maybe not really infallible? If it is objective then what are these sources of tradition followed?

wow, sorry this is long!

(btw- hope ya’ll had a good celebration of Holy Cross day this past week, St. Cyprian day too right?)

-Pax Vobiscum-

 

[scylla]

Very good questions, let me see if I have a minute to address one point.

To answer the questions quickly as I have to put my kids to bed.
I commonly see this assertion that the apostles died out and that was it, yet if I look at Acts I see Matthias being put in by the Apostles to replace Judas, since he died. In addition to that we have Paul ordaining others and exhorting them to be careful who they appoint to pass on the understanding of the faith.

This is what led me to Rome, reading Acts and seeing the handing on of the faith. I then decided to read early Christian writings to really check to see what did early Christians think of their faith.

I decided to get a book that wasn’t Catholic and bought Early Christian Writings from Penguin Books.

For me it was kinda boring and hard to read, because I had never read anything like it. Yet as I read it became easier and very much more interesting.

I saw how the Church had a structure and it maintained communication to keep a proper understanding of the faith. Orthodox is the closest I can find in theology to the early Christian writers, but I could not find the unity there. For me it was a more nationalistic approach to the faith.

Now on to private judgement, ultimately everything comes down to our own private judgement, yet where are we getting that understanding of the faith. If I am Baptist my understanding of the faith is filtered through a Baptist understanding, If I am Evangelical likewise, some people hop from church to church until they are comfortable.

What this felt like to me was a sort of relativism. There is one truth and one understanding of the faith that Jesus gave us. I just needed to find it. My understanding close to 2000 years removed wouldn’t suffice.(or approx 1965 years removed since I attended a church called Calvary Chapel)
I would listen to Peter Kreeft on relativism, great stuff, kinda crummy quality though.
peterkreeft.com/audio.htm

What is difficult is to leave what you are comfortable and go anywhere for Jesus Christ and that for some people takes years. I was lucky, I was raised Catholic, fell away, heard some crazy things about the Catholic Church and was willing to give it a chance as the things I heard were so crazy I knew them not to be true, yet I had many doubts about other things coming from an evangelical church.

The infallible interpreter, turned me off as I had an outside understanding of it, and actually I am very free to read scripture, I just now have an understanding I can fall back on when I have a question and it all fits together. It is not like I have my hands tied or anything. When things are looked at objectively, historically and linguistically it all falls into place. I haven’t found one instance where the Catholic Church led me astray, it just sometimes takes a little looking into.
(reading non-catholic material sometimes gives me doubts, but every time I have checked into it I am satisfied and come out firmer in my faith)

Well I have to go since I am out of time, I didn’t really quote you or expressly answered your questions as I was just quickly typing this to try and give you my perspective.

I had reservations of the Catholic faith as I was scared of leaving things behind, yet I find a fulfillment in my faith and found my fears were for nothing, it is the best decision I ever made.

God Bless
Scylla

Sorry if the message is a little wandering, but I have had a hard day of posting on other forums so I felt like just some nice typing.

 

[Todd_Easton]

Knight4God:

I see no evidence that in ordaining others, the Apostles passed on some type of infallible teaching ability.

In Acts 15, when the Church leaders met in Jerusalem to decide whether or not Gentile converts needed to practice Jewish customs (circumcision, kosher food and sabbath laws, etc.) they decided not to burden the Gentiles with these things. They wrote that their decision, which was delivered to the churches for observance, was also the decision of the Holy Spirit. The Church leaders who made this decision were not the Apostles only but also the presbyters, presumably those ordained by the Apostles as church overseers (bishops). From this incident, it would appear that those ordained as presbyters (bishops) by the Apostles shared in the Apostles’ power to bind and loosen on heaven and earth and there is no reason to believe that they lost this power when the Apostles died, as there is no reason to believe that the Apostles lost any of their power when Jesus Ascended to heaven.

 

[Scott_Waddell]

I. I can accept the cannon and not the Magisterium

Actually, you are accepting a Magisterium. A magisterium of one–yourself. This is the whole Protestant excercise: This tradition is valid, but that tradition is a Catholic corruption. Of course the reasons for picking and choosing which are which are completely arbitrary.

1. How do you know, assuming sola scriptura being false, that Rome is the Church to follow and not the Orthodox. Or something else (have to leave the possibility open to start with)

We don’t know in the scientific sense of knowing–we believe it and can muster a biblical, historical and logical argument in support of it unlike Protestantism, whose key tennent Sola Scriptura isn’t even implicitly contained in Scripture.

1. How is it not paradoxical to use one’s private judgment to decide on which authority (Rome or Constantinople or Whichever) to follow because you cannot trust your private judgment. Seems you still don’t solve the problem because you still are making a final decision yourself on what God’s will is and the correct doctrine to follow.

This is the infallibility regress argument. It doesn’t work because it destroys everyone’s position Catholic and non-Catholic alike. Again, it is a function of faith. As Dave Armstrong put it: It requires faith to believe this, and that is what a Catholic does: we have faith that this Church can exist and that it can be identified and located. We don’t say this rests on our own individual choice. It is already there; like “stumbling upon” the Pacific Ocean or Mt. Everest. We don’t determine whether the thing exists or not. And we must believe it is what it claims to be by faith, absolutely. Why should that surprise anyone except a person who thinks that Christianity is determined purely by arbitrary choice and rationalism without faith?

1. Explain Tradition to me, what exactly do you mean. If for instance we were on the Magisterium deciding on whither or not the Pope should Dogmatically declare the Immaculate Conception (if iit works that way), then how does one go about in practice “Scripture and Tradition”. Do we look at the Church Fathers? What if they disagree? Does it really just come down to a majority vote in the Magisterium and ratification by the Pope? If so then how do you ever know if they’re wrong and maybe not really infallible? If it is objective then what are these sources of tradition followed?

Tradition is simply the teachings of Christ handed to the apostles and their successors which Our Lord granted authority and promised to protect it from error. And again a Catholic does not have to know this, he only has to believe it. And it is a reasonable belief.

Scott

 

[gap51]

Knight4God:

I. I can accept the cannon and not the Magisterium

Actually, so do the Orthodox, so if I were to reject Sola Scriptura, it would not make Rome right by default. So I don’t think the cannon can be used to defend the magisterium itself.

Well then at least Rome or the Orthodox have it right.

I actually agree with you that you cannot “squeeze an infallible document from a fallible church”.

Sorry if I missed something but who is this “you” please?

II. Apostles and Tradition

The authority for doctrine and binding/loosing was given to the Apostles as part of the office of Apostle. No more Apostles, no more Apostolic authority. Actually it is more accurate to say I only agree with sola scriptura indirectly. I believe in Apostolic authority alone, and that due to the deaths of the Apostles and the possibility of community memory loss over time, the only known certified records of Apostolic teaching are the Scriptures. I see no evidence that in ordaining others, the Apostles passed on some type of infallible teaching ability. Especially considering that we would all agree people, rightfully ordained in “Apostolic Succession” have been wrong before and fallen into Apostasy. Hence, just because one can trace one’s ordination line to Peter or Paul or Thomas seems to be no reason for trusting them more then anyone else. This doe not, and never has discounted the authority of teachers within the church, it just means that Church teachers can be trustworthy, but not given innate infallibility. The Church then did not write the scriptures, the Apostles as temporary heads of the Church did.

Correct me if I’m wrong; but Luke was no apostle (cf Luke 1:3) & he wrote the 3rd Gospel & The Acts of the Apostles.

II. Need of an infallible interpreter

I see no need in that, it has not been proven to me by “scripture and reason”. The fact that we have different interpretations does not make an inherently infallible interpreter necessary, only that God raise up educated trustworthy ones. The question becomes in some cases (like my disagreement with the verses for Purgatory) who then judges Rome? How do I come to an objective acceptance of Rome or Constantinople’s authority without assuming there interpretation is correct, without that it, having it proven without appealing to them? If it can been shown a verse says “A” due to historical, cultural and linguistic reasons, then if Rome says it’s “B” would you say Rome is still right? I would have to say that is evidence against there authority. You can’t use Rome to prove itself. Perhaps you don’t have official interpretations of some verses, which would make a difference, but I got the impression from those on Purgatory that was the case, as the objection to my interpretations was that I don not claim certifiable infallibility.

So then how would you interpret Matthew 23:2-3

So besides a response to above, I have a few questions then:

1. How do you know, assuming sola scriptura being false, that Rome is the Church to follow and not the Orthodox. Or something else (have to leave the possibility open to start with)

Pray. Pray that God will guide your reasoning.

1. How is it not paradoxical to use one’s private judgment to decide on which authority (Rome or Constantinople or Whichever) to follow because you cannot trust your private judgment. Seems you still don’t solve the problem because you still are making a final decision yourself on what God’s will is and the correct doctrine to follow.

If with all good intentions you seek the truth God will reveal His truth to you.

1. Explain Tradition to me, what exactly do you mean. If for instance we were on the Magisterium deciding on whither or not the Pope should Dogmatically declare the Immaculate Conception (if iit works that way), then how does one go about in practice “Scripture and Tradition”. Do we look at the Church Fathers? What if they disagree? Does it really just come down to a majority vote in the Magisterium and ratification by the Pope? If so then how do you ever know if they’re wrong and maybe not really infallible? If it is objective then what are these sources of tradition followed?

There is only one Truth. Seek and you shall find.