Dear Protestant: Where Did You Get Your Bible?

[rcwitness]

So let me understand. The ancient magisterium would be a “council” in accord with the Bishop of Rome?

A council would represent the Magisterium. The Magisterium is the Teaching authority of the Church. Jesus gave this to Peter first and foremost, then he confirmed the others, when
He applied it to forgiving or retaining sins. They were to give a binding judgment with authority from heaven.

Acts 15 and Paul’s process of leading the appeal to the whole Church is an example.

Peter used his position to assert an answer. Paul knew that Peter had a position in the Church that could be appealed to when he went to stay with him for 15 days.

All that was needed was for them to ask Peter in a formal manner, but they needed to hash things out and dispute one another.

Now a council can be called together for multiple reasons, and it’s not as simple as the Bishop of Rome just magically giving answers. He needs to be properly informed, and most likey draw wisdom from his fellow Bishops.

The whole point, as I understand it, is to settle matters in the Church. They cannot go on in endless conflict.

Titus
But avoid stupid controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels over the law, for they are unprofitable and futile. As for a man who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned.

Did Jesus or His Scriptures ever tell the Church to have a Council? Not that I know of. How are we commanded to admonish and be admonished with authority, but never commanded to hold councils? And if they are the highest authority, why are we not told this in Scripture?It happens for the effort of discerning, informing and making decisions. Disputes and disagreements are inevitable, and there has to be appeals made. Is there not an ultimate appeal? At what point are you finally satisfied with a judgment? What makes that judgment final and authorative?

 

[Duane1966]

Can. 17 “If priests, deacons, and inferior clerics complain of a sentence of their own bishop, they shall, with the consent of their bishop, have recourse to the neighboring bishops, who shall settle the dispute. If they desire to make a further appeal, it must only be to their primates or to African Councils. But whoever appeals to a court on the other side of the sea (Rome), may not again be received into communion by any one in Africa.

I’m not sure how this can’t be clear. You sound like you are saying Bishops are under Rome but lower ranks are for some reason not. I’m not sure that’s how a hierarchy looks. I think the purpose of the canon is pretty clear.

Saying it was implicitly understood is a bit of a stretch.

Look, the canon, which is canon125, clearly says members of the lower clergy. No mention of bishops being bound by this canon. Carthage clearly leaves bishops free to appeal to Rome.

Once again, can you show me where Carthage banned bishops from appealing to Rome? You won’t find it, because they wanted to leave the same option open for themselves of appealing to Rome like St. Athanasius did.

 

[rcwitness]

Once again, can you show me where Carthage banned bishops from appealing to Rome? You won’t find it, because they wanted to leave the same option open for themselves of appealing to Rome like St. Athanasius did.

philvaz.com/apologetics/num51.htm

 

[JMM1957]

Can. 17 “If priests, deacons, and inferior clerics complain of a sentence of their own bishop, they shall, with the consent of their bishop, have recourse to the neighboring bishops, who shall settle the dispute. If they desire to make a further appeal, it must only be to their primates or to African Councils. But whoever appeals to a court on the other side of the sea (Rome), may not again be received into communion by any one in Africa.

I’m not sure how this can’t be clear. You sound like you are saying Bishops are under Rome but lower ranks are for some reason not. I’m not sure that’s how a hierarchy looks. I think the purpose of the canon is pretty clear.

Saying it was implicitly understood is a bit of a stretch.

Even prior to Carthage, at Sardica year 344, Canon 5 allowed for bishops to have recourse to Rome for disputes.

 

[mattp0625]

Irenaeus of Lyon 130AD – 202 AD, Bishop of Lugdunum in Gaul:

1. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
2. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Just like you put a flash drive in your computer and print something, think of it like the flash drive came from heaven, and the writer is the printer. You can’t praise the printer for the content.

By your definition anything an Apostle wrote is scripture? Although we know very well about Peter being rebuked by Paul. So they can be wrong, although as soon as they write it is Scripture? This seems rather to support us as anything the Apostles did means nothing if not for the Holy Spirit.

But I’m not really sure we are on point here.

In your example, how do we know the flash drive came from heaven? That’s the point. We simply go by tradition to tell among the multiple flash drives we have to say which ones came from heaven.

Apostles, by their very status of being apostles, have heaven, the Holy Spirit, behind them. Yes, whenever an apostles teaches, whether orally or written, it is infallible, and if written, it is scripture. And we therefore cannot pit apostle against apostle. That would be pitting the Holy Spirit against Himself, a paradox. Now, of course apostles can sin, and behave improperly, set bad examples, and may need to be reminded how to behave, but an apostle cannot teach error.

An apostle is like a printer that will only print from flash drives that come from heaven. Therefore, if that printer prints something, we know it is from heaven! That’s how we can tell! And as soon as it is printed. The same with an apostle, as soon as an apostle writes something in his capacity as apostle, it is scripture.

The trouble arises when years later, there are a bunch of writings, some from apostles or their followers, and some not. How do we know which writings are from apostles or their followers (and hence scripture), and how not? In the case of the gospels, they are not signed and do not say who wrote them. How can it be determined years later if this was written by an apostle? Well, by remembering who wrote it. By memory. This memory is call Tradition.

So, how do we know who wrote the gospel of Mark? We don’t know, unless we go by Tradition. That’s the contradiction those who discount Tradition are in.

 

[MichaelP3]

Look, the canon, which is canon125, clearly says members of the lower clergy. No mention of bishops being bound by this canon. Carthage clearly leaves bishops free to appeal to Rome.

Once again, can you show me where Carthage banned bishops from appealing to Rome? You won’t find it, because they wanted to leave the same option open for themselves of appealing to Rome like St. Athanasius did.

Okay I think we are not referring to the same concept here. Oh and pointing to something else that did happen hardly disproves the current question.

I’ll explain how it sounds. We have a worker, a manager and a CEO. The worker goes and does something his manager doesn’t like and the manager fires him. The worker explains his case to the CEO and the CEO decides the worker is okay and re-appoints him. The manager decides the CEO is wrong and makes a declaration to his workers that if anyone of them ever asks the CEO to intervene, they will have no place in his department. Does this sound like the CEO has authority in the eyes of the manager?

By asking if the manager may still appeal to the CEO hardly disproves my question. I would rather ask if it matters concerning the current question? So I am asking again, explain the statement.

The question isn’t was the Pope an authoritative figure. The question is was it believed by everyone? The canon still states the negative.

 

[JMM1957]

Okay I think we are not referring to the same concept here. Oh and pointing to something else that did happen hardly disproves the current question.

I’ll explain how it sounds. We have a worker, a manager and a CEO. The worker goes and does something his manager doesn’t like and the manager fires him. The worker explains his case to the CEO and the CEO decides the worker is okay and re-appoints him. The manager decides the CEO is wrong and makes a declaration to his workers that if anyone of them ever asks the CEO to intervene, they will have no place in his department. Does this sound like the CEO has authority in the eyes of the manager?

By asking if the manager may still appeal to the CEO hardly disproves my question. I would rather ask if it matters concerning the current question? So I am asking again, explain the statement.

The question isn’t was the Pope an authoritative figure. The question is was it believed by everyone? The canon still states the negative.

I guess you need to ask yourself these questions, if Apiarius wanted to appeal his case, and the African Church had their own code of handling disputes that came up within their jurisdiction, then why did Apiarius undertake the long trans Mediterranean journey to Rome and the Pope? Was he not aware that this type of appeal across seas was prohibited in the African code (seems he would have)? Or did he believe that even though he was aware of the prohibition in the local code, he knew the seat of Peter had ultimate authority over the universal Church and thought he could get the decision ruled in his favor there? And if the African Church looked at Rome as being their equal, then why were the African bishops at Carthage upset with Rome’s decision regarding Apiarius, not only once, but twice? Sounds to me like maybe the African Church was acting a little like a rebellious child who didn’t get their way, doesn’t it?

 

[MichaelP3]

Okay I think we are not referring to the same concept here. Oh and pointing to something else that did happen hardly disproves the current question.

I’ll explain how it sounds. We have a worker, a manager and a CEO. The worker goes and does something his manager doesn’t like and the manager fires him. The worker explains his case to the CEO and the CEO decides the worker is okay and re-appoints him. The manager decides the CEO is wrong and makes a declaration to his workers that if anyone of them ever asks the CEO to intervene, they will have no place in his department. Does this sound like the CEO has authority in the eyes of the manager?

By asking if the manager may still appeal to the CEO hardly disproves my question. I would rather ask if it matters concerning the current question? So I am asking again, explain the statement.

The question isn’t was the Pope an authoritative figure. The question is was it believed by everyone? The canon still states the negative.

Simply stating you don’t know why they said it but you believe and have faith in this and that would be an answer I can totally respect without having anything to reply. And in my opinion this won’t refute Catholicism in any way. But for some reasons Catholics have a hard time doing this.

 

[JMM1957]

Simply stating you don’t know why they said it but you believe and have faith in this and that would be an answer I can totally respect without having anything to reply. And in my opinion this won’t refute Catholicism in any way. But for some reasons Catholics have a hard time doing this.

As for me, if I didn’t know why about something, I would say so, but in this case I do know why. And I’m Catholic, imagine that.

 

[Reuben_J]

Okay I think we are not referring to the same concept here. Oh and pointing to something else that did happen hardly disproves the current question.

I’ll explain how it sounds. We have a worker, a manager and a CEO. The worker goes and does something his manager doesn’t like and the manager fires him. The worker explains his case to the CEO and the CEO decides the worker is okay and re-appoints him. The manager decides the CEO is wrong and makes a declaration to his workers that if anyone of them ever asks the CEO to intervene, they will have no place in his department. Does this sound like the CEO has authority in the eyes of the manager?

By asking if the manager may still appeal to the CEO hardly disproves my question. I would rather ask if it matters concerning the current question? So I am asking again, explain the statement.

This is only true if the Church functioned this way. Catholics can only shake their heads at how this idea should come about but it is understandable if you are not familiar with this; or if in your church you manage it by democratic method and minor/local dispute can be brought up to the highest level, the CEO.

Not the Church. She has a way of dealing with this kind of situation.

The local Bishops/Ordinaries are pretty much autonomous and a regional Church e.g. Asian Conference of Bishop, do decide much about matters in their region. They can set their own codes regarding such matters.

Bishops in many ways are extension of the Pope who cannot be in all the places at the same time.

Priests are ordained by the Bishops without having to get permission from the Pope, who themselves are appointed by him.

The Pope does not micromanage and an inferior clergy has total submission to his local superior in matters of local administration and jurisdiction.

Thus the regional church can set a code for usage of the region and Canon 125 is one such example. The local inferior clergy should submit to his Bishop and not to ask for Rome (the Pope) to arbitrate. This is even more pertinent today as the number of the clergies increased.

The question isn’t was the Pope an authoritative figure. The question is was it believed by everyone? The canon still states the negative.

The Bishops being members of the larger college would have met and deliberate on matters affecting the Church. The Pope, if he was present, would usually act as the coordinator or head of such meetings. They could be smaller meetings or major ones with Council status.

They would know with what was going on. In other word, inside information. They would know why certain leeways were allowed or what the belief was or exception was.

 

[MichaelP3]

This is only true if the Church functioned this way. Catholics can only shake their heads at how this idea should come about but it is understandable if you are not familiar with this; or if in your church you manage it by democratic method and minor/local dispute can be brought up to the highest level, the CEO.

Not the Church. She has a way of dealing with this kind of situation.

The local Bishops/Ordinaries are pretty much autonomous and a regional Church e.g. Asian Conference of Bishop, do decide much about matters in their region. They can set their own codes regarding such matters.

Bishops in many ways are extension of the Pope who cannot be in all the places at the same time.

Priests are ordained by the Bishops without having to get permission from the Pope, who themselves are appointed by him.

The Pope does not micromanage and an inferior clergy has total submission to his local superior in matters of local administration and jurisdiction.

Thus the regional church can set a code for usage of the region and Canon 125 is one such example. The local inferior clergy should submit to his Bishop and not to ask for Rome (the Pope) to arbitrate. This is even more pertinent today as the number of the clergies increased.

The Bishops being members of the larger college would have met and deliberate on matters affecting the Church. The Pope, if he was present, would usually act as the coordinator or head of such meetings. They could be smaller meetings or major ones with Council status.

They would know with what was going on. In other word, inside information. They would know why certain leeways were allowed or what the belief was or exception was.

This made me think of the recent synod. Help me if I am wrong, but every paragraph voted on before it is accepted, does sound like a democracy of human opinions. But then I heard some arguments trying to inform me on Papal infallibility. Meanwhile I think I do understand the dogma, but then it just makes me wonder whats the purpose of the pope in our current life? But I think that’s another discussion in a way.

I can hardly imagine here in Africa, a local Parish declaring they can make their own decisions today and going against the Pope. (Anyone that wonders, my entire family in law is Catholic. I married a Polish Catholic and she is very irritated that I spend this much time on this site, maybe I should scale it down). Anyway, I have attended numerous services in the Latin rite. I don’t think I know nothing. But that’s besides the point. Point is, I don’t think all regional parts has much autonomy. So that doesn’t do it for me.

Your last part is a bit confusing. I maybe have a different idea of the word “supreme”. This shouldn’t have any limitation to it in my viewpoint. So if you say the Pope (Bishop of Rome) is supreme with some limitation in his authority, well idk. I would rather believe a supreme authority has jurisdiction over whatever. Be that low down the hierarchy, idk. But I still don’t think my question has been directly addressed.

 

[JMM1957]

This is only true if the Church functioned this way. Catholics can only shake their heads at how this idea should come about but it is understandable if you are not familiar with this; or if in your church you manage it by democratic method and minor/local dispute can be brought up to the highest level, the CEO.

Not the Church. She has a way of dealing with this kind of situation.

The local Bishops/Ordinaries are pretty much autonomous and a regional Church e.g. Asian Conference of Bishop, do decide much about matters in their region. They can set their own codes regarding such matters.

Bishops in many ways are extension of the Pope who cannot be in all the places at the same time.

Priests are ordained by the Bishops without having to get permission from the Pope, who themselves are appointed by him.

The Pope does not micromanage and an inferior clergy has total submission to his local superior in matters of local administration and jurisdiction.

Thus the regional church can set a code for usage of the region and Canon 125 is one such example. The local inferior clergy should submit to his Bishop and not to ask for Rome (the Pope) to arbitrate. This is even more pertinent today as the number of the clergies increased.

The Bishops being members of the larger college would have met and deliberate on matters affecting the Church. The Pope, if he was present, would usually act as the coordinator or head of such meetings. They could be smaller meetings or major ones with Council status.

They would know with what was going on. In other word, inside information. They would know why certain leeways were allowed or what the belief was or exception was.

The African Church being far removed across seas from Rome, along with most of the other ancient major regional Churches, legislated their own individual code of laws by the bishops. Because of the great distances between Churches, communication was at a snail’s pace. This caused the Churches to develop a sense of independence from Rome which when looking at the Carthage 419 controversy, you can detect an autonomous attitude with the Africans, and probably the other Churches likewise. This in no way was a refusal to acknowledge the Pope in Rome and his sovereignty, they just wanted to be more in control of their own affairs in their own region.

 

[Duane1966]

The question isn’t was the Pope an authoritative figure. The question is was it believed by everyone? The canon still states the negative.

You also said this earlier:

Not at Carthage 419. Where it was explicitly stated you will be separated from the African Church if you appeal to him.

Your argument fails on multiple levels. All that canon says is that the lower clergy are not to appeal to Rome for a decision. But there are multiple major factors that easily show you are wrong, from the canons of Carthage. Here is the canon once more:

Canon 125. (Greek cxxvi.)

That presbyters and clerics are not to appeal except to African Synods

Item, it seemed good that presbyters, deacons, or other of the lower clergy who are to be tried, if they question the decision of their bishops, the neighbouring bishops having been invited by them with the consent of their bishops, shall hear them and determine whatever separates them. But should they think an appeal should be carried from them, let them not carry the appeal except to African councils or to the primates of their provinces. But whoso shall think of carrying an appeal across seas he shall be admitted to communion by no one in Africa.

From the canon itself we know that:

1.) It clearly only applies to the lower clergy. If it applied to the bishops, they would have added the words bishops, or just said the clergy, as they did in other canons. They clearly left open the door for the pope to settle disputes amongst themselves.

Since the bishops left open the door for themselves to appeal across the sea, if the pope had no authority, as you say, why not close the door on themselves also?

2.) Another place where your argument fails is the fact that particular canon never even mentions the pope at all. It does show the authority that the bishops held over their lower clergy, but from that canon we have know way of knowing what they felt the authority the pope had.

3.) The biggest part that hurts your argument, again is the canons of Carthage.
They had seen the way the pope had gotten involved in the Athanasian dispute. If they really felt the pope had no authority over them, all they had to do was formulate a canon saying as such. They didn’t, and that is extremely damaging to your argument.

By the way, in 417, St. Augustine and four other bishops APPEALED to Pope Innocent in the Pelagius affair, trying to persuade the pope to their viewpoint. Why write to him, if he had no authority? I hope you will not reply that it was good to have the pope in your corner, like a lucky rabbit’s foot, but not necessary, as another poster on another forum once said to me.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

my entire family in law is Catholic. I married a Polish Catholic and she is very irritated that I spend this much time on this site, maybe I should scale it down). .

:takethat:

 

[Reuben_J]

This made me think of the recent synod. Help me if I am wrong, but every paragraph voted on before it is accepted, does sound like a democracy of human opinions. But then I heard some arguments trying to inform me on Papal infallibility.

It would be a method chosen to come up with a document. The Pope can choose on how he wants it decided. Votes, yes, can be used, and has the Pope assenting to it.

I can hardly imagine here in Africa, a local Parish declaring they can make their own decisions today and going against the Pope.

It depends pretty much on the topics. There are many things that the regional church and even the local ordinaries can decide on their own. Is it enculturation, which is allowed or is it against the doctrine, which is disallowed?

For example, a local/regional church can decide on an alternative day to fast for a day of abstinence if the traditional day is inconvenient to the local population that year but he cannot allow artificial birth control, which involves doctrine.

Your last part is a bit confusing. I maybe have a different idea of the word “supreme”. This shouldn’t have any limitation to it in my viewpoint. So if you say the Pope (Bishop of Rome) is supreme with some limitation in his authority, well idk. I would rather believe a supreme authority has jurisdiction over whatever. Be that low down the hierarchy, idk. But I still don’t think my question has been directly addressed.

I am not sure also what the issue here is. Maybe you can state what you think what the position of the Pope is, and I will comment on it, to correct it.

How do you use the word ‘supreme’? I can think of the ‘supreme Pontiff’ which means he is the highest clergy. I am not sure what you mean by ‘limitation’. Perhaps you can elaborate on that.

 

[Reuben_J]

The African Church being far removed across seas from Rome, along with most of the other ancient major regional Churches, legislated their own individual code of laws by the bishops. Because of the great distances between Churches, communication was at a snail’s pace. This caused the Churches to develop a sense of independence from Rome which when looking at the Carthage 419 controversy, you can detect an autonomous attitude with the Africans, and probably the other Churches likewise. This in no way was a refusal to acknowledge the Pope in Rome and his sovereignty, they just wanted to be more in control of their own affairs in their own region.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

The African Church being far removed across seas from Rome, along with most of the other ancient major regional Churches, legislated their own individual code of laws by the bishops. Because of the great distances between Churches, communication was at a snail’s pace. This caused the Churches to develop a sense of independence from Rome .

Good point and a huge problem for the Eastern churches. They developed bad habits and refused to break them even before the official split. Still no universally approved canon after all these years. They claim to be the Church of the councils but Trullo and Nicaea II both authorized the Carthaginian canon, yet the EO’s failed to apply it.

 

[Rasoleil]

It fell out of the sky one day and whoop, there it is!

 

[JMM1957]

Good point and a** huge problem for the Eastern churches**. They developed bad habits and refused to break them even before the official split. Still no universally approved canon after all these years. They claim to be the Church of the councils but Trullo and Nicaea II both authorized the Carthaginian canon, yet the EO’s failed to apply it.

Yes, them especially. I understand that there was already visible tensions between Rome and the East in the 4th century, may have even been earlier than that.