Hypothetical from a Protestant: SS vs. Trad+S

[ahs]

In a discussion on another forum website regarding SS or S+Trad+Magesterium, a poster has posed a hypothetical scenario. It was directed at another member, but absent an answer I plan on giving some answer, but I want to see some other responses first. Here is his hypothetical:

*Next door to me lives a Christian Jew. He claims to be directly descended from St Peter, and has literature to prove it, although I can’t verify that from external sources. I can go back some way, but the first couple of hundred years are a bit hazy.

He claims that he is guided by the Holy Spirit, and cannot err. If I have a problem with a particular biblical text I go to him and he helps me to understand it. Large numbers of people I know also go to him. Over the last few years he’s come up with some pretty whacky ideas, like Jesus’ mother not being buried after death but being teleported up to heaven, although he can’t say whether this was before or after she died. But I trust him anyway, and so do all the others, because he tells me that he’s guided by the Holy Spirit, and you can’t get better than that, right?

Together, my friends and I, under the leadership of my neighbour, form a church which we claim was the very church Christ founded whilst on Earth, all other churches being in error.

Question: In what way is my fictional character less reliable than the Catholic Church?*

 

[Goya]

In a discussion on another forum website regarding SS or S+Trad+Magesterium, a poster has posed a hypothetical scenario. It was directed at another member, but absent an answer I plan on giving some answer, but I want to see some other responses first. Here is his hypothetical:

*Next door to me lives a Christian Jew. He claims to be directly descended from St Peter, and has literature to prove it, although I can’t verify that from external sources. I can go back some way, but the first couple of hundred years are a bit hazy.

He claims that he is guided by the Holy Spirit, and cannot err. If I have a problem with*** a particular biblical text**** I go to him and he helps me to understand it. Large numbers of people I know also go to him. Over the last few years he’s come up with some pretty whacky ideas, like Jesus’ mother not being buried after death but being teleported up to heaven, although he can’t say whether this was before or after she died. But I trust him anyway, and so do all the others, because he tells me that he’s guided by the Holy Spirit, and you can’t get better than that, right?

Together, my friends and I, under the leadership of my neighbour, form a church which we claim was the very church Christ founded whilst on Earth, all other churches being in error.

Question: In what way is my fictional character less reliable than the Catholic Church?

1. Your ‘neighbor’ has no corroborating witnesses or evidence–the Catholic Church does;
2. The neighbor in his childish hypo didn’t give him his bible; he presumes to have a bible sitting around, without any involvment of his neighbor, as if the HS, in the form of a dove, just…dropped it out of the sky, full of authority;
3. In contrast, the Catholic Church assembled and preserved the Bible against all kinds of attack–extrinsic and intrinsic–perserved it inviolate, through the centuries;
4. We must presume that the hooldlums from the 'hood, stole the bible from the hypothetical neighbor (Christian Jew), and pretended all kinds of authority from it, if we want to conform the silly hypo to modern protestantism;
5. The hyoptehical ‘neighbor’ stands alone on his own claim; the Catholic Church is buttressed by her kinfolk–the Eastern Catholic and orthodox churches–who while they deny papal infallability, and the like–do not deny that the See of Rome, was the See of St. Peter;
6. These same kinfolk–who can also claim and demonstrate apostolic succession-- further corroborate the hypothetical ‘Christian Jew’s’ claim, in that they observe and administer the sacraments, including the holy orders–i.e.–bishops and priests–and celebrate a sacraficial, Eucharistic mass-- (and therefore interepret their bibles) largely in the same way–starkly in contrast to the way the hoodlums from the 'hood figured it should be interpreted;
7. The bible which just…magically appeared to the hoodlums’ from the hood, speaks of the Church which the Christian Jewish nighbor champions; it says nothing of the hoodlums’ from teh ‘hood’s precioius bible. (Shockingly, all hoodlums’ claimed authority rests on a book…but the book doesn’t claim any such authority itself).

…gotta’ run…I was going for an even 10, but alas, life beckons…perhaps someone else can finish out the rest/

peace.

 

[Ad_Orientem]

His caricature is lacking in many respects.

For one thing, he’s sawing off the branch he’s sitting on. If he’s going to demand explicit, crystal clear, continuous historical evidence for doctrines from the first century onwards, along with corroboration from non-Christian sources, then we have the right to demand the same from him. In that case he won’t be able to trace his own religion to the sixteenth century, let alone the first.

Another point is that the apostolic succession is not the only thing that can be traced back, but all the basic features of our religion, including doctrine. We didn’t invent the Assumption in 1950.

Oak from the acorn.

 

[bzkoss236]

The biggest thing that stands out to me is that in his hypothetical, the neighbor’s friends along with the neighbor, start a church. This suggests that it happened much time later than the time of Jesus. This doesn’t apply to the Catholic Church because Jesus started the Church, putting Peter at the head in His place. So, it is literally the Church started by Christ. Also, there is some loose biblical evidence for the assumption in Revelation. And it certainly doesn’t contradict scripture. Nor does it contradict history, because no actual evidence of Mary’s body has been found anywhere. And considering who she was, certainly some culture would know where she would have been buried, if in fact she were.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Together, my friends and I, under the leadership of my neighbour, form a church which we claim was the very church Christ founded whilst on Earth, all other churches being in error.

This is the biggest hole in the analogy.

Christ founded a Church Matt 16:18, Matt 19- Solving disputes.

The fact that in this scenario the church was hidden for 2000 years and then created makes no sense.

Further, Peter’s Authority did not reside in himself, but in his office as prince of the apostles. So too today, the successor of Peter, the Pope’s, authority does not lie in the man, but within the office within the church.

 

[MaryT777]

1. Your ‘neighbor’ has no corroborating witnesses or evidence–the Catholic Church does;
2. The neighbor in his childish hypo didn’t give him his bible; he presumes to have a bible sitting around, without any involvment of his neighbor, as if the HS, in the form of a dove, just…dropped it out of the sky, full of authority;
3. In contrast, the Catholic Church assembled and preserved the Bible against all kinds of attack–extrinsic and intrinsic–perserved it inviolate, through the centuries;
4. We must presume that the hooldlums from the 'hood, stole the bible from the hypothetical neighbor (Christian Jew), and pretended all kinds of authority from it, if we want to conform the silly hypo to modern protestantism;
5. The hyoptehical ‘neighbor’ stands alone on his own claim; the Catholic Church is buttressed by her kinfolk–the Eastern Catholic and orthodox churches–who while they deny papal infallability, and the like–do not deny that the See of Rome, was the See of St. Peter;
6. These same kinfolk–who can also claim and demonstrate apostolic succession-- further corroborate the hypothetical ‘Christian Jew’s’ claim, in that they observe and administer the sacraments, including the holy orders–i.e.–bishops and priests–and celebrate a sacraficial, Eucharistic mass-- (and therefore interepret their bibles) largely in the same way–starkly in contrast to the way the hoodlums from the 'hood figured it should be interpreted;
7. The bible which just…magically appeared to the hoodlums’ from the hood, speaks of the Church which the Christian Jewish nighbor champions; it says nothing of the hoodlums’ from teh ‘hood’s precioius bible. (Shockingly, all hoodlums’ claimed authority rests on a book…but the book doesn’t claim any such authority itself).

…gotta’ run…I was going for an even 10, but alas, life beckons…perhaps someone else can finish out the rest/

peace.

What a fabulous post! Well said.
Come back and finish to 10

 

[pablope]

In a discussion on another forum website regarding SS or S+Trad+Magesterium, a poster has posed a hypothetical scenario. It was directed at another member, but absent an answer I plan on giving some answer, but I want to see some other responses first. Here is his hypothetical:

*Next door to me lives a Christian Jew. He claims to be directly descended from St Peter, and has literature to prove it, although I can’t verify that from external sources. I can go back some way, but the first couple of hundred years are a bit hazy.

He claims that he is guided by the Holy Spirit, and cannot err. If I have a problem with a particular biblical text I go to him and he helps me to understand it. Large numbers of people I know also go to him. Over the last few years he’s come up with some pretty whacky ideas, like Jesus’ mother not being buried after death but being teleported up to heaven, although he can’t say whether this was before or after she died. But I trust him anyway, and so do all the others, because he tells me that he’s guided by the Holy Spirit, and you can’t get better than that, right?

Together, my friends and I, under the leadership of my neighbour, form a church which we claim was the very church Christ founded whilst on Earth, all other churches being in error.

Question: In what way is my fictional character less reliable than the Catholic Church?*

*He claims that he is guided by the Holy Spirit, and cannot err. *

How does he follow this:

1John 4:

4 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God; for many false prophets have gone out into the world… 6 We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us, and whoever is not from God does not listen to us. From this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.

Look at this example from St. Paul:

Galatians 1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days.

Galatians 2:2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain.

Paul had a direct revelation from Christ. Yet, from the two passages above, he goes to visit Cephas/Peter and submits himself to Peter. Gal 2: 2 states his purpose…to present his gospel/message to make sure it is in line with the Apostles and what they were handed down from Christ.

Notice, the revelation from the HS will not say he is to go out and claim the truth for himself…but the HS will guide him to submit first to apostolic authority, in the present date.

He has to prove obedience first, which is what St. Paul did prior to being ordained and sent to his first missionary journey:

1Sam15:
22 But Samuel replied:
“Does the LORD delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices
as much as in obeying the LORD?
To obey is better than sacrifice,
and to heed is better than the fat of rams.

Acts 13:
1 Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul. 2 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 3 So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off.

He also has to physically show who ordained him, and who sent him:

Romans 10:
14 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15 And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!”[g]

So the question is…will he submit to a local bishop?

 

[Steveabrous]

Question: In what way is my fictional character less reliable than the Catholic Church?

I would pose another hypothetical.

“I have a neighbor who is Jewish and claims to be the son of God incarnate, the living word of God. Many people gather around him and listen to his wisdom. Further more many people have given up their jobs and homes and families to live a communal life with him. Though I personally have not witnessed it, many of his followers claim that he can perform miracles. he says we must give up everything and follow him”

Question: In what way is my fictional character less reliable then Jesus of Nazareth?

The answers is the same to both hypotheticals. Reliable witnesses, historical facts, and a claim that has stood the test of time.

In my hypothetical anyone would recognize this is a false teacher and a cult, even though I have described the claims made 2000 years ago by Jesus of Nazareth. The difference is we have reliable witnesses to his ressurection.

It’s the same with the Pope. We have reliable witnesses and historical facts that testify to his authority. Not to mention bible verses.

I would also point out that Peters authority is one of office not lineage. It doesn’t matter that this man is the biological decendant of Peter. the CEO of Coca-cola’s son is not owed his fathers chair because he is his son. The board chooses his successor. Much like in the Catholic church.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

1. Your ‘neighbor’ has no corroborating witnesses or evidence–the Catholic Church does;
2. The neighbor in his childish hypo didn’t give him his bible; he presumes to have a bible sitting around, without any involvment of his neighbor, as if the HS, in the form of a dove, just…dropped it out of the sky, full of authority;
3. In contrast, the Catholic Church assembled and preserved the Bible against all kinds of attack–extrinsic and intrinsic–perserved it inviolate, through the centuries;
4. We must presume that the hooldlums from the 'hood, stole the bible from the hypothetical neighbor (Christian Jew), and pretended all kinds of authority from it, if we want to conform the silly hypo to modern protestantism;
5. The hyoptehical ‘neighbor’ stands alone on his own claim; the Catholic Church is buttressed by her kinfolk–the Eastern Catholic and orthodox churches–who while they deny papal infallability, and the like–do not deny that the See of Rome, was the See of St. Peter;
6. These same kinfolk–who can also claim and demonstrate apostolic succession-- further corroborate the hypothetical ‘Christian Jew’s’ claim, in that they observe and administer the sacraments, including the holy orders–i.e.–bishops and priests–and celebrate a sacraficial, Eucharistic mass-- (and therefore interepret their bibles) largely in the same way–starkly in contrast to the way the hoodlums from the 'hood figured it should be interpreted;
7. The bible which just…magically appeared to the hoodlums’ from the hood, speaks of the Church which the Christian Jewish nighbor champions; it says nothing of the hoodlums’ from teh ‘hood’s precioius bible. (Shockingly, all hoodlums’ claimed authority rests on a book…but the book doesn’t claim any such authority itself).

…gotta’ run…I was going for an even 10, but alas, life beckons…perhaps someone else can finish out the rest/

peace.

Wonderful!

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Next door to me lives a Christian Jew. He claims to be directly descended from St Peter, and has literature to prove it, although I can’t verify that from external sources. I can go back some way, but the first couple of hundred years are a bit hazy.

First mistake: In his juvenile hypo… “He” is a person alone… The Church is a “We”. This is not one person making a claim to a direct succession, but the 11 Apotles, plus the 3,000 that converted on Pentecost, plus Stephen and the other 2, plus Paul, Barnabas, **et. al. **. Going forward to today, we have Catholic and Orthodox who while in schism, all recognized the line of succession throughout history.

This is the biggest downfall of Protestantism… the singleness of an individual and the downfall of communion under one authority.
ahs;10802848:

He claims that he is guided by the Holy Spirit, and cannot err. If I have a problem with a particular biblical text I go to him and he helps me to understand it. Large numbers of people I know also go to him. Over the last few years he’s come up with some pretty whacky ideas, like Jesus’ mother not being buried after death but being teleported up to heaven, although he can’t say whether this was before or after she died. But I trust him anyway, and so do all the others, because he tells me that he’s guided by the Holy Spirit, and you can’t get better than that, right?

This same Holy Spirit delivered to these group of men the biblical text he so holds dear.

The wacky ideas are not from a lonesome individual, but revealed mysteries to the same entity that received the biblical text he so holds dear.

Together, my friends and I, under the leadership of my neighbour, form a church which we claim was the very church Christ founded whilst on Earth, all other churches being in error.

This assumes that the Church was founded today… again failing to look at the time when our Lord walked the earth with the twelve, teaching them all the things that the Father told Him. And this same Lord who promised His disciples (plural) that He would be with them always till’ the end of times and that He would send the Holy Spirit to be with them (plural).

In short, it all falls down on the singularness of his proposal and the complete ignorance of history and actual ignorance of Scriptures themselves. After that, it is just the rambling of someone trying too hard to be cute and unique in his scenario…

 

[ahs]

Thank you all for your informative insights and responses. I quoted some from here (and gave proper credit) and replied as well with this:

…the hypothetical admitted that it was the neighbor who founded this “church”. But if any Church is going to claim to be “THE” Church, it would necessarily have to claim that it was founded 2,000 years ago by Christ Himself. So, the neighbor ruled himself out already. Making that claim of antiquity, however, one could then explore the Scriptures and the history to see for certain 1) what did that Church that Christ founded look like/how did they worship/what did they believe and practice and teach, etc… and 2) does this “church” making the claim today look like that one, teach the same things? Now, here you could say, "well, the “today” Church teaches something that the Church of “then” didn’t (Assumption of Mary, for example). But an indepth study of that Church will also show that it’s Doctrines were rarely defined, if ever, until they were challenged or there was some significant reason to specifically define them. So, in my opinion, one could not rule out the “today” Church on that basis…more needs to be considered.

 

[Filioque]

*Next door to me lives a Christian Jew. He claims to be directly descended from St Peter, and has literature to prove it, although I can’t verify that from external sources. I can go back some way, but the first couple of hundred years are a bit hazy.

Question: In what way is my fictional character less reliable than the Catholic Church?*

Forgive me for not reading the entire thread. Someone else may have asked. Is this hypothetical person claiming to be a blood decendant of St. Peter, or have Apostolic Succession from a line of bishops tracing themselves to St. Peter.

If the first, then the authority is not familial like the Tribe of Levi but rather through apostolic succession and election to the See of Rome

If the Second, then he has no authority if he was not elected to the See of St. Peter in Rome. The Patriarch of Antioch is a Successor of St. Peter, but is not a successor as St. Peter vacated that see and left it to another so he could go to Rome where he headed the entire Church until his death, the Patriarch of Antioch is not the Pope of the Universal Church.

 

[Goya]

Thank you all for your informative insights and responses. I quoted some from here (and gave proper credit) and replied as well with this:

…the hypothetical admitted that it was the neighbor who founded this “church”. But if any Church is going to claim to be “THE” Church, it would necessarily have to claim that it was founded 2,000 years ago by Christ Himself. So, the neighbor ruled himself out already. Making that claim of antiquity, however, one could then explore the Scriptures and the history to see for certain 1) what did that Church that Christ founded look like/how did they worship/what did they believe and practice and teach, etc… and 2) does this “church” making the claim today look like that one, teach the same things? Now, here you could say, "well, the “today” Church teaches something that the Church of “then” didn’t (Assumption of Mary, for example). But an indepth study of that Church will also show that it’s Doctrines were rarely defined, if ever, until they were challenged or there was some significant reason to specifically define them. So, in my opinion, one could not rule out the “today” Church on that basis…more needs to be considered.

Good reply. It was a simplistic/childish hypo–clearly oversimplified (surely by design). There are a number of flaws with it–some of which you, and others–pointed out. To me, the most glaringly intentional distortion of the hypo–was putting the ‘Christian/Jewish neighbor’ on equal footing with the person to whom he was a neighbor.

That to me, betrays the fundamental flaw of protestant thinking–they actually view themselves and their churches, on equal footing–with the Churches which actually demonstrate apostolic succession.

…as if those 1,500 years of organic growth, amounted to nothing more than paving the way for the true apostles of Christ–the reformers.

(*=I really have a hard time with that label for the founders of the protestant heresy–they did absolutely nothing of the sort–that is, they didn’t reform anything. They splintered Christendom into literally thousands of pieces, and continue dividing the Body of Christ to this day–that’s hardly reform, by any definition; destruction, and division, perhaps–reformation—not even close).

 

[Goya]

What a fabulous post! Well said.
Come back and finish to 10

just for kicks…

…

1. The Christian/Jewish neighbor is 70+ years old; he founded the neighborhood; he built the neighborhood Church; his descendants dominate the ‘right’ side of the street; the hoodlums moved in a few years ago; they’re all young punks; they founded a book club based on the book produced by the nieghborhood Church–they drew ppl. from the church to the bookclub…which promply broke down into 50 other book clubs, one for each new hoodlum ‘family’, occuppying the wrong side of the street.
2. The hoodlums are clueless about how the street came to be;
3. The hoodlums take their book clubs to all the nearby streets, and tell everyone all about their book clubs, and act like they wrote the book upon which their book clubs are based (all the while misconstruing the actual meaning of the book).
4. (bonus): Much like Lord of the Rings, they read it superficially–like thinking LOTR is actually about wizards, and elves, and the like–and they spend all their time doing the equivalent of plaiyng dungeons and dragons…

 

[Jon_S_1]

What an interesting article and question. Thanks!

 

[Isaiah45_9]

(*=I really have a hard time with that label for the founders of the protestant heresy–they did absolutely nothing of the sort–that is, they didn’t reform anything. They splintered Christendom into literally thousands of pieces, and continue dividing the Body of Christ to this day–that’s hardly reform, by any definition; destruction, and division, perhaps–reformation—not even close).

Oh, do I agree with you on this… It is arrogant and ignorant at the same time… It really rubs me the wrong way and I need to pray for patience in this regard… They won’t believe a 2,000 year Church and all of its leadership, but they will believe a new pastor.

You can only “reform” from within, never from without. If it is without, then it is a new thing.

Reform theology and Post-Modernism is starting to look a lot a like for me lately.