How would a protestant cope with being in a first century church?

[Erich]

Is it that Catholics are more open to or tolerant of internal dissent? How is this standard applied? I’ve always been confused about this.

It’s safe to say you’re not the only one who’s confused by this

Some of the confusion has to do with the fact that, despite popular opinion to the contrary, the Catholic Church really isn’t the monolithic institution it’s often portrayed to be. I hesitate to use Wikipedia as an authoritative source regarding anything Catholic, but in this case, it’s accurate:
The Bishop or Eparch of any see, even if he does not also hold a title such as Archbishop, Metropolitan, Major Archbishop, Patriarch or Pope, is the centre of unity for his diocese or eparchy, and, as a member of the College of Bishops, shares in responsibility for governance of the whole Church (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 886). As each local particular Church is an embodiment of the whole Catholic Church, not just an administrative subdivision of something larger, the bishop who is its head is not a delegate of the Pope. Instead, he has of himself primary teaching, governance and sanctifying responsibility for the see for which he has been ordained bishop.

Within each diocese, even if the Eucharist is celebrated by another bishop, the necessary communion with the Bishop of the diocese is signified by the mention of his name. In Eastern-Rite eparchies the name of the patriarch, major archbishop or metropolitan is also mentioned, because these also have direct responsibility within all the eparchies of the particular Church in question. For the same reason, every Catholic celebration of the Eucharist has a mention of the Pope by name.
That said, the Bishop of Fort Wayne-South Bend (the diocese that includes the University of Notre Dame) does not hire/fire the faculty… the university has its own trustees/board of governors/etc. Also, the principle of subsidiarity holds that a larger and greater body (e.g. the diocese) should not exercise functions which can be carried out efficiently by one smaller and lesser (e.g. the university). Finally, just as each local diocese is not an administrative subdivision of something larger, so too there is no “big boss” who can come in and issue decrees at whim; even the Pope, himself a bishop (the bishop of Rome), traditionally uses the title “Venerable Brother” when writing formally to another bishop.

 

[Mikeoffaith]

Actually you do need to be concerned if you plan to have children. Paul’s teaching says you don’t have to circumcise your children when the torah says you do. So by sola scriptura standards, wouldn’t you have to argue that Paul is teaching contrary to the Torah?

I probably wouldn’t be having children or getting married in the first century church since Paul was certain the second coming was imminent then there would be absolutely no need.

 

[Mikeoffaith]

So. by what authority, and when, was it deemed necessary? How was the mantle of authority passed from Peter’s Successor to the Bible? Was there some kind of special ceremony, or did a miracle take place, or how did it happen?

So how did the mantle get passed from Peter to Linus?

 

[jmcrae]

So how did the mantle get passed from Peter to Linus?

Linus was appointed by Peter himself, to be his successor, by the laying on of hands in a special ceremony that was witnessed by the rest of the Bishops and Apostles.

 

[Mikeoffaith]

How do you know it is only a gentile congregation? Jews were dispersed.

Why would you care about torah? Because you practice sola scriptura so you need scripture to test Paul’s teaching to make sure it is on track.

Jews care about torah because it is the revelation of God and they are commanded to be circumcised by that revelation. Since they were christians, they needed to justify Paul teaching them something differently than what they were taught their whole life.

OK fine, then I’m a Jew living outside of Palestine and I have the Torah, and Paul says to me, “Hey, you don’t need to be circumcised.” I’m going to say to Paul, “Paul, the Torah says in order to be a good Jew I need to be circumcised.” Paul will say, “Are you circumcised?” I will say, “Why certainly!” And he will say, “Mazel Tov, when it grows back then you can worry about what I’m saying.”

 

[Dave_Noonan]

So have I, but it seems as if it’s the norm to have teachers and professors in Catholic schools with a wide variety of view-points - there are even Jews and atheists on staff at our local Catholic University here in town, and it’s considered one of the more orthodox schools.

But I don’t imagine the Jews and atheists teach in the theology department. Or do they?

 

[Dave_Noonan]

That said, the Bishop of Fort Wayne-South Bend (the diocese that includes the University of Notre Dame) does not hire/fire the faculty… the university has its own trustees/board of governors/etc. Also,

the principle of subsidiarity holds that a larger and greater body (e.g. the diocese) should not exercise functions which can be carried out efficiently by one smaller and lesser (e.g. the university). Finally, just as each local diocese is not an administrative subdivision of something larger, so too there is no “big boss” who can come in and issue decrees at whim; even the Pope, himself a bishop (the bishop of Rome), traditionally uses the title “Venerable Brother” when writing formally to another bishop.

So Fr. McBrien must be very popular within Notre Dame then? Just not outside??

 

[Erich]

It seems to me that if someone taught something contrary to core denominational views at say, a Southern Baptist seminary, that person would be out like a light–tenure or no.

So Fr. McBrien must be very popular within Notre Dame then? Just not outside??

Not sure how popular he is within the Notre Dame community as a whole (over time, he went from Head of Theology to Department Chair to Professor), but he is tenured – and (at age 74) he must still have friends in high places because he hasn’t completely retired (or been asked to, as near as I can tell).

I have seen Fr. McBrien’s book Catholicism referred to as “critically acclaimed (acclaimed, that is, by every noted critic of the Church)”

 

[jmcrae]

But I don’t imagine the Jews and atheists teach in the theology department. Or do they?

Yes, they do. The Jewish person teaches Old Testament History, and there is an atheist teaching Moral Theology.

 

[schaick]

Here is the scenario. You are a protestant christian in the church of Galatia during the first century. Paul writes you a letter telling you that you don’t need to be circumcised. Knowing that the OT scripture teaches that all need to be circumcised, how are you going to test the truth of Paul’s statement? It seems to me that by the standards of sola scriptura, you would have to reject Paul’s teaching on at least two points. 1) It contradicts existing, i.e., ot scripture. 2) It is not taught in scripture.

The above two points seem redundant but they are there to set the context of this discussion. First of all if you can test that Paul was not teaching contrary to OT scripture. Then you still have the issue that he was teaching doctrine not found in scripture, which still needs to be tested. So how would you test him in either of those situations?

**This information passes the test in that this is first hand knowledge. **

Paul met Jesus on the road to Damascus and has first hand knowlefge of what Jesus taught. Paul walked with the Disciples- direct students of Jesus.

Popes did not meet Jesus and never walked with the Disciples. This is not an issue of hidden, secret traditions-pope infallibility, Mary doctrines, etc., appearing centuries after a “deposit of faith” given to the Apostles.

 

[Erich]

This is not an issue of hidden, secret traditions-pope infallibility, Mary doctrines, etc., appearing centuries after a “deposit of faith” given to the Apostles.

Hidden, secret traditions? Neither papal infallibility nor the Marian doctrines appeared “centuries after” the ‘deposit of faith’ was given to the Apostles.

From Papal Infallibility:
…Christ instructed the Church to preach everything he taught (Matt. 28:19–20) and promised the protection of the Holy Spirit to “guide you into all the truth” (John 16:13). That mandate and that promise guarantee the Church will never fall away from his teachings (Matt. 16:18, 1 Tim. 3:15), even if individual Catholics might.

As Christians began to more clearly understand the teaching authority of the Church and of the primacy of the pope, they developed a clearer understanding of the pope’s infallibility. This development of the faithful’s understanding has its clear beginnings in the early Church. For example, Cyprian of Carthage, writing about 256, put the question this way, “Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?” (Letters 59 [55], 14). In the fifth century, Augustine succinctly captured the ancient attitude when he remarked, “Rome has spoken; the case is concluded” (Sermons 131, 10).

An infallible pronouncement—whether made by the pope alone or by an ecumenical council—usually is made only when some doctrine has been called into question. Most doctrines have never been doubted by the large majority of Catholics…
From Mary: Ever Virgin:
An important historical document which supports the teaching of Mary’s perpetual virginity is the Protoevangelium of James, which was written probably less than sixty years after the conclusion of Mary’s earthly life (around A.D. 120), when memories of her life were still vivid in the minds of many.
Mary: Full of Grace and Mary: Mother of God also each contain quotes from the first and second centuries.

We now return to our regularly-scheduled thread…

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Yes, they do. The Jewish person teaches Old Testament History, and there is an atheist teaching Moral Theology.

Interesting. I can understand the Jewish person teaching Old Testament–that happens in a lot of Catholic colleges–where “Bible” is somehow considered something outside of theology. (I’m not saying this is necessarily good, that’s just my observation of the way things are.) But having an atheist teach moral theology seems highly, highly unusual to me. Not saying this person couldn’t do it, but I’m not sure what this might be saying to the students.

 

[traillius]

they couldn’t rely on Sola Scriptura and remain christian.

 

[jmcrae]

Interesting. I can understand the Jewish person teaching Old Testament–that happens in a lot of Catholic colleges–where “Bible” is somehow considered something outside of theology. (I’m not saying this is necessarily good, that’s just my observation of the way things are.) But having an atheist teach moral theology seems highly, highly unusual to me. Not saying this person couldn’t do it, but I’m not sure what this might be saying to the students.

I don’t know - I think they are just trying to be “provocative” and “out of the box” - that’s also how I was educated, and it’s taking me a life time to try and find the basic “orthodoxy” if you will that they were rebelling against - but there is just this whole attitude in education that “normal is boring” - but if you go through your whole academic career never finding out what “normal” looks like, you won’t be able to function in the real world.

Sometimes I think it would make more sense just to send kids to the library and let them research their topics of interest for themselves, instead of sending them to school.

 

[jphilapy]

So? None of this changes the fact that scripture repeatedly presents signs and wonders as the tool used in particular instances to verify that the message was from God. Do you think Moses should have refused to believe God’s message on the basis that Satan can also pull off miracles? You realize that this isn’t science, right. One isn’t going to be able to prove (by objective standards) that someone is presenting a message from God. It is a matter of faith and miracles do assist in the formation of that faith….it is seen over and over in scripture.

Moses was face to face with God. What kind of test does he need? It is one thing to believe God. It is another to believe a man is from God. Satan never came to anyone with the credentials that God came with.

“One isn’t going to be able to prove (by objective standards) that someone is presenting a message from God.”
This certainly undercuts your argument for Scripture as a modern day test.

I don’t know why you persist in ignoring that message from scripture on this point.
well, so far the only miracle worker that I have met in first century Galatia is the apostle Paul…and I am inclined to believe him. I note your objection that he might be a false prophet, but that seems to be just wild speculation on your part. Other than it being a remote possibility to consider, why do you think I should suspect Paul of being a false prophet? What about him makes you think that he might be a false prophet? If nothing, then why all the fuss?
…and this has been proven to you how?

Miracles being the ultimate test fails you since you werent really in the first century, and you didn’t really see the apostles do miracles. So on what basis do you believe scripture since you don’t have any miracles to validate it?

Up until now you kept saying “only authority” …I guess now you have realized that a qualifier such as “infallible” or “reliable” or “final” needs to be added. For me it is “reliable”.

Actually I never provided an argument at that point….your comment makes no sense to me.

Actually you did provide an argument. you said there is no other reliable authority.

I don’t have access to everything that the apostle Paul taught so I can hardly submit to all of it.

Not relevant. We are talking about you being in the first century listening to or reading any and everything Paul teaches.

I recognize Paul’s apostolic authority as very reliable, but I wouldn’t think of him as being infallible on all matters. This should be easy for you to understand as your Pope is claimed to be infallible only on certain occasions (and not WRT to all that he says and writes).

Everything the Pope says or writes does not have to be believed either. We still have to test it. However you have undercut yourself testing the apostles teaching when you insist that you as a first century believer would follow everything he says on the basis that he did miracles. If not, then you need some kind of test to excuse you from following everything, including error.

This reasoning isn’t good. At the same time that the apostles were part of the church, there were false prophets and false apostles and preachers of a different gospel that were part of the church. The latter also wrote and taught and their writings were not reliable presentations of the revelation from God. Using your reasoning one should then conclude that their existence makes the church an unreliable source that Jesus left on earth. Your reasoning produces conflicting conclusions.

You just undercut yourself again. So if false teachers can do miracles and teach false doctrine and that invalidates the church as a reliable source, then the scriptures you tout as reliable could very well have come from an unreliable source. And could have very well been compiled by an unreliable source.

 

[jphilapy]

**This information passes the test in that this is first hand knowledge. **

Paul met Jesus on the road to Damascus and has first hand knowlefge of what Jesus taught. Paul walked with the Disciples- direct students of Jesus.

Popes did not meet Jesus and never walked with the Disciples. This is not an issue of hidden, secret traditions-pope infallibility, Mary doctrines, etc., appearing centuries after a “deposit of faith” given to the Apostles.

Who told you that Paul met Jesus on the road to Damascus? How do you even have that story? It was eventually handed down to you by men who did not meet Jesus and never walked with the disciples. So for all you know, they could have been lying to you.

 

[AmateurPianist]

Here is the scenario. You are a protestant christian in the church of Galatia during the first century. Paul writes you a letter telling you that you don’t need to be circumcised. Knowing that the OT scripture teaches that all need to be circumcised, how are you going to test the truth of Paul’s statement? It seems to me that by the standards of sola scriptura, you would have to reject Paul’s teaching on at least two points. 1) It contradicts existing, i.e., ot scripture. 2) It is not taught in scripture.

The above two points seem redundant but they are there to set the context of this discussion. First of all if you can test that Paul was not teaching contrary to OT scripture. Then you still have the issue that he was teaching doctrine not found in scripture, which still needs to be tested. So how would you test him in either of those situations?

It all depends on what your definition of sola scriptura is. If your definition allows for either (a) apostolic authority (2) claims it is not applicable in the apostolic church then this scenario is not applicable.

 

[jphilapy]

It all depends on what your definition of sola scriptura is. If your definition allows for either (a) apostolic authority (2) claims it is not applicable in the apostolic church then this scenario is not applicable.

Of course it is not applicable, which is the point. Sola Scriptura does not have it’s basis in scripture. Which means it is not applicable at any time since it denies it’s own principle.

 

[jphilapy]

I probably wouldn’t be having children or getting married in the first century church since Paul was certain the second coming was imminent then there would be absolutely no need.

It appears that by avoiding one mud puddle you stepped into another. So you think Paul was wrong then about the second coming?

 

[AmateurPianist]

Of course it is not applicable, which is the point. Sola Scriptura does not have it’s basis in scripture. Which means it is not applicable at any time since it denies it’s own principle.

So if you claim Sola Scriptura is “unBiblical” may I ask you what your standard for “unBiblical” is?