Couple Questions regarding Authority

[rightzilla]

I am a Catholic and also enjoy attending evangelical church with my friends. (I really enjoy the music). I am taking a class with them on bibliology. It is supposed to be college level, however, it is clear the instructor is not a college instructor. He is a former Catholic by admission. However, I doubt he knows as much as he thinks from his time in Catholic church, judging from several comments made so far in class.

I would like to intelligently, and without malice, set the record straight on the authority of Scripture. I believe God breathed the scripture to the writers. I also believe that the oral tradition passed down teaching and continues to be safe-guarded by the Church. When he tells the group that the Catholics are clinging to traditions that are contrary to the bible, I want to set it straight. Last night, it was the clinging itself that he said was wrong. He is quite upset by the immaculate conception. I could not get through my scriptures fast enough to be able to address the issue intelligibly. I do think most of what the split off evangelicals believe about the Church is myth and a sort of Bashing-tradition. That being said…any suggestions on how to prepare for these encounters and, of course I will be in thigh deep when we get to the dutero books!

 

[TEPO]

The word of God: Brought to the world by the Catholic Church.

 

[rightzilla]

I agree, but that argument must have support beyond my mere assertions. I have quite a bit of historical data regarding the “books”, but I lack references to support the premise that Scripture is the ultimate authority and that Apostolic tradition is the implementation of God’s word as well.

 

[TEPO]

I agree, but that argument must have support beyond my mere assertions. I have quite a bit of historical data regarding the “books”, but I lack references to support the premise that Scripture is the ultimate authority and that Apostolic tradition is the implementation of God’s word as well.

I wish I could help… I know some other posters who have very good notes and book keeping on these types of things, but not me…

All I can give you is Matthew Chapter 16, where Jesus gives Simon (Peter) the “Keys” to heaven and the authority to build the Church… (Peter was the first Pope)

"Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood 12 has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.

18
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
20
15 Then he strictly ordered his disciples to tell no one that he was the Messiah.
21
16 From that time on, Jesus began to show his disciples that he 17 must go to Jerusalem and suffer greatly from the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed and on the third day be raised."

Unfortunately most Protestants believe that it was Peters* faith* as opposed to Peter himself who is the “rock” in which Jesus will build His Church…

 

[rightzilla]

Thank you so much. I was relying on that as well and will continue to. This class I am taking is a good opportunity to dispel some myths. I think my evangelical friends are blinded to the Apostolic tradition because they simply have been told it is not valid and even though they read scripture, they are not led to understand how the tradition is revealed within the scripture.

 

[Magnanimity]

Rightzilla,

I really like the way that dei verbum of Vatican II explains the relationship between Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition (and the Magisterium, as well). Especially the opening section to that document-so excellent. If you haven’t read it yet or in a while, it would benefit you a lot in these regards. At the very least, it would help you Protesetant friends to avoid erecting a straw man of Catholicism. For something more theological, I really liked Francis Sullivan’s book Magisterium, especially, again, the opening 50 pages or so.

But, more basic than all of this, there’s nothing wrong with you turning the tables on your friends. There are so many arguments to be made against Protestants/Evangelicals from history, on the canon of Scriptures, and on and on it goes. If anything, the notion of authority within the Church is an Achilles Heel of Protestantism, I would say. Sungenis’ (ed.) Not by Scripture Alone is also very good.

 

[Ruthie_again]

The real question is, what did the Church use as authority before the Gospels were written down, and canonized?

Did Paul and the Apostles preach only the OT to those they converted? No, they taught the Gospel of Christ - which had not been written down yet. They preached from memory.

But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.
John 21:25 (RSV)

Does the NT contain everything that Jesus taught? It’s possible that it doesn’t, according to the Gospel of John. It certainly does not contain the Trinity; only “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” (Matt 28:19, RSV) Jesus said, “The Father and I are one,” but where does He say that about the Spirit? Yet the great majority of Christians agree that the Father, the Son, and the holy spirit are one God. I think that makes it a Sacred Tradition!
The word “tradition” (Strong’s G3862) is used 11 times in the NT. 10 of these passages condemn the traditions of “men,” of the Pharisees, or of “your forefathers.” The other is very different.

Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.
2 Thess 3:6 (RSV)

It certainly looks as if there was a Christian Tradition developing, well before the writing of the Bible was finished.
Have you explained the difference between big-T Tradition, and small-t tradition?

HTH, and God bless you,

Ruthie

 

[imkingdad]

Thank you so much. I was relying on that as well and will continue to. This class I am taking is a good opportunity to dispel some myths. I think my evangelical friends are blinded to the Apostolic tradition because they simply have been told it is not valid and even though they read scripture, they are not led to understand how the tradition is revealed within the scripture.

---

I would suggest that you copy down this website & use it as a reference, show a friend or two how to search out the questions & answers of just what the Actual Teachings of the Catholic Church are ( Hey, you could even use it to prepare for your encounters). That way they can be challenged to LEARN for themselves, to do the research necessary to grow in the knowledge of God, Church History,etc.
Only when they take the initiative to learn about others with whom they disagree will they be able to better understand their Faith System & the other persons.

However expect to be rebuffed & perhaps even worse as those that are in error are forced to do mental & scriptural gymnastics to try & justify some of their beliefs.

But the Keys of the Kingdom given to Peter 1st & then to the other Apostles is a good starting point for Church Teaching authority, Tradition is mentioned several
times by Paul ( the Protestant Messiah at times) in his letters Corth. Thes, and else
where.

Again this site has some very good Tracts available that you can read copy share etc. Use them… Good Luck.

 

[kepha1]

rightzilla, I suggest you get out of that cult and go back when you are better versed in apologetics. The reason they have this untrained, unqualified “Bible teacher” is that he is an ex-Catholic, hence anti-Catholic. It’s no coincidence he has been picked to “teach” you. They have one mission: to save you from the Church. If you have to talk to any of them, keep it on your terms, and don’t let them corner you with more than 1 person at a time.

 

[Drawmack]

rightzilla, I suggest you get out of that cult and go back when you are better versed in apologetics. The reason they have this untrained, unqualified “Bible teacher” is that he is an ex-Catholic, hence anti-Catholic. It’s no coincidence he has been picked to “teach” you. They have one mission: to save you from the Church. If you have to talk to any of them, keep it on your terms, and don’t let them corner you with more than 1 person at a time.

Your implications here are many,

1. That every Evangelical church is a cult.
2. That every ex-Catholic is an anti-Catholic.
3. That every Evangelical church is trying to save people from Catholicism.

Could you please provide credible sources for these assumptions or apologize for the prejudice you have displayed?

 

[Scoobyshme]

I am a Catholic and also enjoy attending evangelical church with my friends. (I really enjoy the music). I am taking a class with them on bibliology. It is supposed to be college level, however, it is clear the instructor is not a college instructor. He is a former Catholic by admission. However, I doubt he knows as much as he thinks from his time in Catholic church, judging from several comments made so far in class.

I would like to intelligently, and without malice, set the record straight on the authority of Scripture. I believe God breathed the scripture to the writers. I also believe that the oral tradition passed down teaching and continues to be safe-guarded by the Church. When he tells the group that the Catholics are clinging to traditions that are contrary to the bible, I want to set it straight. Last night, it was the clinging itself that he said was wrong. He is quite upset by the immaculate conception. I could not get through my scriptures fast enough to be able to address the issue intelligibly. I do think most of what the split off evangelicals believe about the Church is myth and a sort of Bashing-tradition. That being said…any suggestions on how to prepare for these encounters and, of course I will be in thigh deep when we get to the dutero books!

You might focus, first, on putting the Bible in its proper perspective. You would gain a good overall view by watching the free, 3-part video online, “Origin of the Bible” at the following link: alabamacatholicresources.com/Bible.html

Furthermore, keep in mind the following points:

1. Nowhere in the Bible does it say the Bible is the “rule of faith” or the end all/be all source of faith. It doesn’t say faith comes by “reading” but by “hearing.”
2. Not everything Jesus said or did is IN the Bible (see John 21:25)
3. Yet, Jesus commanded the Apostles to go forth and teach ALL that He had taught them. (See Matt. 28:20)
4. Combining both 2 & 3 creates a gap, so to speak. Jesus commands the Apostles to teach everything, but everything is not in the Bible. So, where’s the rest?! It’s in Holy Tradition, a.k.a., Oral Tradition. (See 2 Thes 2:15)

The Bible, without an authentic interpreter, has lead to constant splintering of Protestantism. That’s why there are over 30,000 Protestant denominations (or however many there are now. Two are too many.)

The Bible says that the CHURCH is the “pillar and foundation of truth.” (See 1 Tim 3:15) It doesn’t say, anywhere, that the individual, sitting down reading his/her own Bible is anything of the sort.

Also, Jesus never commanded anyone to write anything, much less write anything Himself, that we know of. He didn’t create a Bible-reading Church. He created a teaching/preaching Church and trained 12 Apostles to do that work, commanding them to likewise train others. This is exactly what the Church, through the guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit, has done for 2000 years now. From a practical standpoint, it wasn’t till the 1900’s that the majority of people could read and write. Most were illiterate before that time because it wasn’t a skill necessary for most jobs. Add to that the fact that before the printing press in the 1400’s, most Bibles were incredibly expensive (equivalent to about $100,000) because they were written on velum (cow, goat, sheep stomachs) and would literally take a whole big herd to make the paper for it. Then, it required years for the monks to hand pen the words. So, the bottom line is that this notion of a Bible-reading, self-interpreting church is completely man-made. Martin Luther, the father of Protestantism (and an ex-Catholic monk) created two brand new doctrines out of thin air: Sola Fide (we are saved by faith alone) and Sola Scriptura (Scripture is the sole rule of faith). Just look at the fruits of it and the never-ending splintering that goes on, with mere men creating their own chruches based on their personal interpretation of Scripture (which, by the way, St. Peter talks against in 2 Peter 1:20).

As the old saying goes, if you sleep with dogs, you’re going to get fleas. My suggestion is to stop sleeping with dogs, come back to the Church, and spend more time in prayer before the Blessed Sacrament, go to Confession regularly, and learn your faith better! Then, you’ll be ready for such situations.

 

[FCEGM]

This website with its many excellent articles on the Church and Authority might prove very helpful to you:

bringyou.to/apologetics/apolog.htm#DOCTRINE

 

[NHInsider]

I agree, but that argument must have support beyond my mere assertions. I have quite a bit of historical data regarding the “books”, but I lack references to support the premise that Scripture is the ultimate authority and that Apostolic tradition is the implementation of God’s word as well.

This is actually not an accurate statement. Scripture is PART OF Apostolic tradition. Tradition cannot contradict Scripture because they are all part of the deposit of faith, but Scripture does not “trump” tradition, and Apostolic Tradition predates Scripture, it does not “implement” it.

 

[Scoobyshme]

This is actually not an accurate statement. Scripture is PART OF Apostolic tradition. Tradition cannot contradict Scripture because they are all part of the deposit of faith, but Scripture does not “trump” tradition, and Apostolic Tradition predates Scripture, it does not “implement” it.

NHInsider, well said. Excellent post!

 

[Ruthie_again]

Only when they take the initiative to learn about others with whom they disagree will they be able to better understand…

Imkingdad, that makes me laugh with joy! That’s exactly what I did, and I wound up swimming the Tiber. And I started right here, with the Catholic Answers tracts. God bless that poor fan of the Jack Chick Tracts who caused me to research Catholicism.

And, Rightzilla, NHInsider is right. Read his post carefully. I missed that point.

God bless us all,

Ruthie

 

[kepha1]

Your implications here are many,

1. That every Evangelical church is a cult.
2. That every ex-Catholic is an anti-Catholic.
3. That every Evangelical church is trying to save people from Catholicism.

Could you please provide credible sources for these assumptions or apologize for the prejudice you have displayed?

I aplogize for the prejudice.

1. However, evangelical churches are based on one persons vision of what they think a church is, born from the disharmony of their predecessors. And evangelical ministers have more control of the private lives of their followers than the Pope has over Catholics. It may not specifically be a cult, but I would argue that many evangelical churches are ‘cult like’, using standard definitions of “cult”.
2. not all ex-Catholics are anti-Catholics, but ex-Catholics knee deep in other ecclesial communities are anti-Catholics, because anti-Catholicism is the brick and mortar of Protestantism, and has been since its inception.
3. maybe not “every” Evangelical church is trying to save people from Catholicism, but wake up. Most of them are.

Does this Evangelical church you frequent have a web site?

 

[Scoobyshme]

I aplogize for the prejudice.

1. However, evangelical churches are based on one persons vision of what they think a church is, born from the disharmony of their predecessors. And evangelical ministers have more control of the private lives of their followers than the Pope has over Catholics. It may not specifically be a cult, but I would argue that many evangelical churches are ‘cult like’, using standard definitions of “cult”.
2. not all ex-Catholics are anti-Catholics, but ex-Catholics knee deep in other ecclesial communities are anti-Catholics, because anti-Catholicism is the brick and mortar of Protestantism, and has been since its inception.
3. maybe not “every” Evangelical church is trying to save people from Catholicism, but wake up. Most of them are.

Does this Evangelical church you frequent have a web site?

That’s a fair, honest post. I think the word “cult” these days always seems to have a negative connotation. It was not always so, in my opinion. I think it used to be that a “cult” was a group of people with like “culture.” In other words, like beliefs and practices.

With regard to ex-Catholics, they are, in my experience, the most anti-Catholic, by far. And the reason for this, I believe, is that somewhere deep inside, they are trying to justify their leaving the Church. I have notice, in general, that those to whom I’ve spoken, who have left the Church never talk about what they’re going “to” but what they came “from.” A bad priest, problems with another parishoner, etc. Contrary, those to whom I’ve talked who have come into the Church, never talk about what they came “from” but what they’re coming “to.” The Sacraments, the Mass, etc. But you are right. The only real unifying principle of Protestantism is anti-Catholicism.

 

[ncgolf]

I am a Catholic and also enjoy attending evangelical church with my friends. (I really enjoy the music). I am taking a class with them on bibliology. It is supposed to be college level, however, it is clear the instructor is not a college instructor. He is a former Catholic by admission. However, I doubt he knows as much as he thinks from his time in Catholic church, judging from several comments made so far in class.

I would like to intelligently, and without malice, set the record straight on the authority of Scripture. I believe God breathed the scripture to the writers. I also believe that the oral tradition passed down teaching and continues to be safe-guarded by the Church. When he tells the group that the Catholics are clinging to traditions that are contrary to the bible, I want to set it straight. Last night, it was the clinging itself that he said was wrong. He is quite upset by the immaculate conception. I could not get through my scriptures fast enough to be able to address the issue intelligibly. I do think most of what the split off evangelicals believe about the Church is myth and a sort of Bashing-tradition. That being said…any suggestions on how to prepare for these encounters and, of course I will be in thigh deep when we get to the dutero books!

I pulled a definition of the word authority from dictionary.com. I would say the authority of Scripture comes from definition 5 … the source being ultimately God. We, as Christians, accept this but the real crux of the word authority is from definition 1, it is a power.

By this definition a book, no matter how holy, cannot wield authority? It is something left to people.

Catholic Tradition is the “living transmission of the gospel”. This is key since many issues we have today are not spoken of in Scripture. How is one to know if in-vitro fertilization is proper within the context of Scripture? I don’t recall it being mentioned yet we are to test all things against Scripture, so Scripture must have the content required to answer this question. Who answers these questions in the Protestant tradition? Is it up to individuals to make a judgment?

An example is the 1st Amendment … freedom of speech. How could of the founding fathers realistically addressed the internet. They didn’t … they set up a legitimate body to make a determination of what the intent was and that their decision is binding on us. We may not agree or the decision or the decision can be bad one but we recognize their given authority over interpretation. We agree, that the authoritative document, in this example is the Constitution yet the ongoing, living portion of this process is the Court.

au⋅thor⋅i⋅ty (from dictionary.com)
–noun, plural -ties.

1. the power to determine, adjudicate, or otherwise settle issues or disputes; jurisdiction; the right to control, command, or determine.
2. a power or right delegated or given; authorization: Who has the authority to grant permission?
3. a person or body of persons in whom authority is vested, as a governmental agency.
4. Usually, authorities. persons having the legal power to make and enforce the law; government: They finally persuaded the authorities that they were not involved in espionage.
5. an accepted source of information, advice, etc.
6. a quotation or citation from such a source.
7. an expert on a subject: He is an authority on baseball.
8. persuasive force; conviction: She spoke with authority.
9. a statute, court rule, or judicial decision that establishes a rule or principle of law; a ruling.
10. right to respect or acceptance of one’s word, command, thought, etc.; commanding influence: the authority of a parent; the authority of a great writer.
11. mastery in execution or performance, as of a work of art or literature or a piece of music.
12. a warrant for action; justification.
13. testimony; witness.

 

[Scoobyshme]

I pulled a definition of the word authority from dictionary.com. I would say the authority of Scripture comes from definition 5 … the source being ultimately God. We, as Christians, accept this but the real crux of the word authority is from definition 1, it is a power.

By this definition a book, no matter how holy, cannot wield authority? It is something left to people.

Catholic Tradition is the “living transmission of the gospel”. This is key since many issues we have today are not spoken of in Scripture. How is one to know if in-vitro fertilization is proper within the context of Scripture? I don’t recall it being mentioned yet we are to test all things against Scripture, so Scripture must have the content required to answer this question. Who answers these questions in the Protestant tradition? Is it up to individuals to make a judgment?

An example is the 1st Amendment … freedom of speech. How could of the founding fathers realistically addressed the internet. They didn’t … they set up a legitimate body to make a determination of what the intent was and that their decision is binding on us. We may not agree or the decision or the decision can be bad one but we recognize their given authority over interpretation. We agree, that the authoritative document, in this example is the Constitution yet the ongoing, living portion of this process is the Court.

au⋅thor⋅i⋅ty (from dictionary.com)
–noun, plural -ties.

1. the power to determine, adjudicate, or otherwise settle issues or disputes; jurisdiction; the right to control, command, or determine.
2. a power or right delegated or given; authorization: Who has the authority to grant permission?
3. a person or body of persons in whom authority is vested, as a governmental agency.
4. Usually, authorities. persons having the legal power to make and enforce the law; government: They finally persuaded the authorities that they were not involved in espionage.
5. an accepted source of information, advice, etc.
6. a quotation or citation from such a source.
7. an expert on a subject: He is an authority on baseball.
8. persuasive force; conviction: She spoke with authority.
9. a statute, court rule, or judicial decision that establishes a rule or principle of law; a ruling.
10. right to respect or acceptance of one’s word, command, thought, etc.; commanding influence: the authority of a parent; the authority of a great writer.
11. mastery in execution or performance, as of a work of art or literature or a piece of music.
12. a warrant for action; justification.
13. testimony; witness.

I would make a distinction between authority and power, in that authority is usually given and power is usually taken. Small, point, I know, but perhaps meaningful.

 

[ncgolf]

I would make a distinction between authority and power, in that authority is usually given and power is usually taken. Small, point, I know, but perhaps meaningful.

How so meaningful in the context of the Bible? I consider authority as a type of power. A person with authority exercises some dominion over another. This is not necessarily bad or evil.