Historical evidence for self-authenticating scripture?

[steve-b]

Eark:

upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.” How does this position get around this?

One could ask how does the CC get around this also, in areas they are not apostolic, even Petrine?

Other churches do not consider themselves to be apart from apostles, even from Peter, as I am sure CC does not either.

Apostolic is as apostolic does.

You and I had a few conversations on this point on this thread HERE

 

[mcq72]

How easy you toss those terms around… Didn’t fallible men write infallible writ?

Not any easier than others who say their institution infallibly holds God’s infallible truths.

 

[Eark]

Hi there mcq!

Neither was Linus and Clement.

I don’t know either of these guys, but looking them up, it seems they were early Popes. Maybe I should’ve been more clear: as I understand it, the Catholic (and Orthodox) churches claim apostolicity. That’s the basis on which they claim to be the church that Christ mandated. If that claim fails, then I’m not sure how it could be that Christ mandated a visible and institutional church at all. So, the Lutheran claim still wouldn’t hold water, as I’m currently understanding it. I hope @JonNC can weigh in to clear things up.

 

[JonNC]

I agree, it’s unsurprising. At the time of my earlier post I had a different impression of your beliefs. I didn’t know of a Protestant position that affirmed a visible and institutional Church. I know you take issue with protestant, so I guess I’ll use ‘non-Catholic-or-Orthodox’, which is the next best denotation I can think of.

I take issue with the misuse of the term Protestant. One could say I am a Protestant because I’ve spent most of my life in the tradition that actually participate in the formal protest, but beyond a loose categorization, the term has little meaning.

This is very interesting to me, but I’m not sure how to respectfully ask you about it. The only non-Catholic-or-Orthodox position like it that I know of is baptist successionism, but I’m fairly confident you’re a Lutheran, given that link you posted earlier. So the obvious interpretation is that you think that the church which Christ mandated is the Lutheran church.

Goodness no. Where one finds word and sacrament, one finds His Church. One finds these in a Catholic or Orthodox Church, Lutheran and Anglican, etc.
That isn’t relativism, it is recognizing that our human sin of division does not impact the means of grace. So the Church is found there.
My experience with Lutheranism is the view that it is a tradition within the historic Church, not that it is only and exclusively the Church.

 

[JonNC]

Hi there mcq!

mcq72:

Neither was Linus and Clement.

I don’t know either of these guys, but looking them up, it seems they were early Popes. Maybe I should’ve been more clear: as I understand it, the Catholic (and Orthodox) churches claim apostolicity. That’s the basis on which they claim to be the church that Christ mandated. If that claim fails, then I’m not sure how it could be that Christ mandated a visible and institutional church at all. So, the Lutheran claim still wouldn’t hold water, as I’m currently understanding it. I hope @JonNC can weigh in to clear things up.

I agree there is a claim of apostolicity , and that’s important, though not limited to succession. That said, Lutherans point to the historic practice of presbyter ordination, as well as the historic fact the presbyter and bishop are of the same order.

 

[Eark]

My experience with Lutheranism is the view that it is a tradition within the historic Church, not that it is only and exclusively the Church.

This is a very appealing position to me, but I’d need to think about it a lot. Three questions spring to mind:

1. What is the precise process by which a person can discern true Churches (which have Christ’s mandate) from false churches (which do not)?
2. Is ‘true Church’-ness a matter of degree? That is, is it that there are some number of denominations / sects / parishes that totally have the mandate of Christ, and some that do not? Or is it that there are only better and worse Churches, which are more or less in possession of Christ’s mandate?
3. When you say this:

I agree there is a claim of apostolicity , and that’s important, though not limited to succession.

What’s the alternative method by which Christ’s mandate is handed down from generation to generation? (Alternative to apostolicity). Thanks!

 

[JonNC]

What is the precise process by which a person can discern true Churches (which have Christ’s mandate) from false churches (which do not)?

I lack the authority to make such a call. As I said before, for me it all revolves around word and sacrament. That’s not to say a communion that doesn’t recognize sacraments is false. I’d say they are in error. But as the Catholic Catechism says, the Spirits works through them, too.

Is ‘true Church’-ness a matter of degree? That is, is it that there are some number of denominations / sects / parishes that totally have the mandate of Christ, and some that do not? Or is it that there are only better and worse Churches, which are more or less in possession of Christ’s mandate?

See above about word and sacrament.

What’s the alternative method by which Christ’s mandate is handed down from generation to generation? (Alternative to apostolicity). Thanks!

I’m not sure there is.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

leaving me few options.

interesting

Word and sacrament, Steve. Limited choices regardless of where you live. Where I live, even fewer.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

How easy you toss those terms around… Didn’t fallible men write infallible writ?

Not any easier than others who say their institution infallibly holds God’s infallible truths.

We need to make a HUGE distinction there.

Who created Protestantism in all it’s forms and names, 1500+ yrs after Jesus institutes HIS Church?

Protestantism is ALL, 100% man made.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

JonNC:

leaving me few options.

interesting

Word and sacrament, Steve. Limited choices regardless of where you live. Where I live, even fewer.

Jon,

I’m just giving information. What anyone does with it is their business.

AND

You know me and quotes

SO: Re: errors in thinking

For information purposes, what anyone does with it is their business.

Historically speaking, Pius IX addresses errors in thinking, not only in his day, but looking ahead in time. IOW these errors are heresies.

Excerpt From: Pius IX Pius IX is 255th successor to St Peter,

THE SYLLABUS OF ERRORS CONDEMNED BY PIUS IX

III. INDIFFERENTISM, LATITUDINARIANISM

1. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. – Allocution “Maxima quidem,” June 9, 1862; Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851.
2. Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation. – Encyclical “Qui pluribus,” Nov. 9, 1846.
3. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ. – Encyclical “Quanto conficiamur,” Aug. 10, 1863, etc.
4. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church. –
   Encyclical “Noscitis,” Dec. 8, 1849.

I mention that because

Going further back in history, of Petrine succession , is important , for understanding, and providing, evidence for, and authenticating, answers to religious issues.

 

[JonNC]

You know me and quotes

Thanks, Steve, sincerely. I was particularly impressed with the link.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

You know me and quotes

Thanks, Steve, sincerely. I was particularly impressed with the link.

You’re welcome.

And I always approach these subjects we talk about with the same approach

What anyone does with information I quote , hopefully helps, but it is up to them to accept or reject…

 

[steve-b]

JonNC:

My experience with Lutheranism is the view that it is a tradition within the historic Church, not that it is only and exclusively the Church.

This is a very appealing position to me, but I’d need to think about it a lot. Three questions spring to mind:

1. What is the precise process by which a person can discern true Churches (which have Christ’s mandate) from false churches (which do not)?
2. Is ‘true Church’-ness a matter of degree? That is, is it that there are some number of denominations / sects / parishes that totally have the mandate of Christ, and some that do not? Or is it that there are only better and worse Churches, which are more or less in possession of Christ’s mandate?
3. When you say this:

I agree there is a claim of apostolicity , and that’s important, though not limited to succession.

What’s the alternative method by which Christ’s mandate is handed down from generation to generation? (Alternative to apostolicity). Thanks!

Eark,

Prayers ascending for your journey into the Catholic Church.

You have asked good questions of Jon.

I would just say, sharing a few thoughts, that historically speaking, people who leave the Catholic Church are no longer “IN” the Church they left nor are those “IN” the Church who don’t officially become incorporated into the Church in the first place.

Examples:

As in Lutherans, Anglicans, Presbyterians… etc. they are no longer “IN” the Catholic Church nor are those who join them.

Nor

are all the divisions that come from them, Methodists, Baptists and on and on it goes etc etc etc .

Such divisions

διχοστασία dichostasia = division / dissension / schism / factions /sedition / sects, which wrongly separate people into pointless (groundless) factions, that we see in Protestantism, regardless of name they go by, as an example, as we see in scripture, is condemned.

Note: Regardless of one’s English translation, that Greek word διχοστασία dichostasia is the same, in these 2 references

Romans 16:17-20 Note: one doesn’t serve Our Lord, and (division) comes from Satan

&

Gal 5:19-21 Note: if one remains in division, they won’t go to heaven

That doesn’t come from me that’s scripture teaching that.

IOW

an often heard phrase

outside the Church there is no salvation.

Comes from scripture.

SO

One asks, What Church is scripture talking about?

Answer

Acts 9:31 the church throughout all ἐκκλησία καθ’ ὅλης τῆς

Translation:
ἐκκλησία (ecclesia) = church ,
καθ’ (kata)= according to
, ὅλης (holos)= whole / all / complete / universal ,
τῆς (ho)= the ,
= the Kataholos Church = the Catholic Church.

Fuller explanation HERE

 

[mcq72]

Protestantism is ALL, 100% man made.

Understand, just as you understand I must say your statement is 99% man made, not 100 because nothing is perfect yet on this side of eternity, save God Himself.

I pray not to hold the CC perception of her perfection against her.

 

[mcq72]

Going further back in history, of Petrine succession , is important , for understanding, and providing, evidence for, and authenticating, answers to religious issues.

Well, our Jewish foundation also had a sort of “succession” called lineage or tribalism. Lineage to forefathers could be good , as in Christs’ case, or could be bad, or ineffectual, as in many cases, such as put Him on the cross.

A little bit of leaven can spoil the whole lump is an old teaching. Only Christ is pure, and our purity is conditional upon our actual abiding in Him, to the last farthing or sinew even teaching.

 

[mcq72]

factions, that we see in Protestantism, regardless of name they go by, as an example, as we see in scripture, is condemned.

Yes, many things are condemned in scripture. Church leadership and teachers are held most accountable.

Thank you for your history of the term “catholic”. It however does not address any of the reformers concerns. In fact such a history is often used to invalidate them.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Going further back in history, of Petrine succession , is important , for understanding, and providing, evidence for, and authenticating, answers to religious issues.

Well, our Jewish foundation also had a sort of “succession” called lineage or tribalism. Lineage to forefathers could be good , as in Christs’ case, or could be bad, or ineffectual, as in many cases, such as put Him on the cross.

A little bit of leaven can spoil the whole lump is an old teaching. Only Christ is pure, and our purity is conditional upon our actual abiding in Him, to the last farthing or sinew even teaching.

True,

And regarding "abide", (we in Him and He in us,) Jesus explained that in a do this or else answer.
HERE

To even do THAT, also requires obedience to everything else Jesus commanded.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

factions, that we see in Protestantism, regardless of name they go by, as an example, as we see in scripture, is condemned.

Yes, many things are condemned in scripture. Church leadership and teachers are held most accountable.

True,

And as you also imply, because of free will, we in extension, aren’t let off the hook either. We are accountable as well.

mcq72:

Thank you for your history of the term “catholic”.

You’re welcome

mcq72:

It however does not address any of the reformers concerns. In fact such a history is often used to invalidate them.

That’s because THEY didn’t reform anything. They revolted, they didn’t reform. Just look at the results.

Reform in the Church always takes place in the Church, by local and ecumenical councils. The Protestant revolt and their errors, for example, was addressed in the council of Trent which was the 19th ecumenical council from Nicaea…

Listing of ecumenical councils

HERE

AND

as the errors evolved from Luther
Listed, in 1520. HERE

Then Came

Luther’s excommunication 1521 HERE

In Short

He didn’t start a reform he started a revolt. And look at all the divisions 500 yrs later, that resulted from that.

 

[mcq72]

To even do THAT, also requires obedience to everything else Jesus commanded.

CC teaching of doing “that” is part of her leaven, according to many who do not teach transubstantiation.

That’s because THEY didn’t reform anything. They revolted, they didn’t reform. Just look at the results.

Well, that is part of your " invalidation" , and not looking at her (CC) own “results”.

Agree the CC didn’t reform anything, save some practices.

Reform in the Church always takes place in the Church , by local and ecumenical councils.

If I am correct, not one iota of doctrine was reformed at Trent. If anything, the council only solidified, fortified defenses against doctrinal changes.

He didn’t start a reform he started a revolt. And look at all the divisions 500 yrs later, that resulted from that.

Yes, division is sad, but does not address any CC teaching errors.

Also reminds me of this:

“The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are , extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.”( insert “divisionists, divorcers, abortioners, like these Protestants”).

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

To even do THAT, also requires obedience to everything else Jesus commanded.

CC teaching of doing “that” is part of her leaven, according to many who do not teach transubstantiation.

For clarification, please explain

That’s because THEY didn’t reform anything. They revolted, they didn’t reform. Just look at the results.

mcq72:

Well, that is part of your " invalidation" , and not looking at her (CC) own “results”.

You’re writing cryptically. Please explain

Reform in the Church always takes place in the Church , by local and ecumenical councils.

mcq72:

If I am correct, not one iota of doctrine was reformed at Trent. If anything, the council only solidified, fortified defenses against doctrinal changes.

Said differently, No council has ever nullified a doctrine.

He didn’t start a reform he started a revolt. And look at all the divisions 500 yrs later, that resulted from that.

mcq72:

Yes, division is sad, but does not address any CC teaching errors.

Again, be specific, not cryptic

mcq72:

Also reminds me of this:

“The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are , extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.”( insert “divisionists, divorcers, abortioners, like these Protestants”).

Are you referring to the pope addressing Luther’s errors?