If the priesthood of all believers rejects heirarchy, why have a leadership structure?

[Nicea325]

Actually, it did occur. The Bishop or Rome and the Bishop of Constantinople would excommunicate each other, make peace, excommunicate each other then make peace and so on until finally they couldn’t make peace. The Eastern churches never really bought into the Pope being the primary bishop in Christianity.

Plus the Roman Church had the backing of the state so not being a Roman Catholic was pretty much illegal. If you can forward with a teaching that the RCC disagreed with you were risking imprisonment, torture and even death.

The Waldensians existed 350 years before the reformation and managed to survive in the Mountains of Northern Italy despite being attacked by Papal forces several times. They later merged with Reformed churches. The Moravian Church traces its beginnings to John Hus (one of those killed for disagreeing with Rome) in 1415. Or course Wycliff in the 1300’s also got into deep trouble for denying the Pope as the supreme leader of the Church and was one of the first to distribute the Bible in the vernacular.

So while it is true that disagreeing that the Pope was the Supreme Pontiff was rare and it was sometimes politically motivated it did occur throughout Church history. I imagine that if it wasn’t illegal to believe otherwise it would have been expressed more often.

Historically such a position is not entirely true. Later on after the great schism, it became a common position and belief. However, read the writings of many Eastern fathers prior to the split and point one out who disagreed with the Bishop of Rome as being the prince of the bishopric?

It was no so much about being illegal; moreover, a question of drifting from orthodoxy. The Waldensians were heretical as countless of sects long before them. Arianism existed way before and they too pushed for their positions. Regardless of the papal errors, Christ left a church with sanctity.

 

[Nicea325]

I never said it did.

How do you know that?

AAhhhhh…because Christ said it! Or do you beg to differ with Jesus-seriously? Itwin do really truly believe Jesus did not cover such grounds? Itwin Jesus left His physical church on earth, guided by the Holy Spirit, never left Bibles to be the sole rule.

 

[lanman87]

Historically such a position is not entirely true. Later on after the great schism, it became a common position and belief. However, read the writings of many Eastern fathers prior to the split and point one out who disagreed with the Bishop of Rome as being the prince of the bishopric?

It was no so much about being illegal; moreover, a question of drifting from orthodoxy. The Waldensians were heretical as countless of sects long before them. Arianism existed way before and they too pushed for their positions. Regardless of the papal errors, Christ left a church with sanctity.

One historian I read put it something like this… When the Pope agreed with the Eastern Bishops he was the successor of Peter and holder of the keys, when the Pope disagreed with the Eastern Bishops he was just one of the bishops.

Really you can trace it back to the Easter Controversy. Many times from that point forward the Eastern Bishops gave lip service to the Bishop of Rome but ignored his rulings. Many times it was a power play with an emperor and sometimes it was just being disagreeable because they could.

However, the original point was that nobody ever thought the Pope and bishops didn’t have the authority they claimed. History shows many thought they didn’t have the authority they claimed but the RCC was mostly successful in putting down the “heretics”.

From what I can tell of the Waldensian’s they were Heretics from Rome but taught a very simple but authentic form of faith in Christ and they just wanted to be left alone.

 

[JMM1957]

That is why Protestant Reformers believed the church should not give any one man or group of men authority to teach what they think the Holy Spirit might be guiding them to teach at any given moment. That kind of authority should be rejected. Instead, all teachers within in the church should question themselves and look to Scripture for their authority.

Please give scriptural references which gave the Protestant Reformers this idea? What difference do you see between “a group of men in the church” and “all teachers within the church”?

 

[Vonsalza]

The Bishop or Rome and the Bishop of Constantinople would excommunicate each other, make peace, excommunicate each other then make peace and so on until finally they couldn’t make peace.

…I’m not so sure that’s how it actually happened.

The Waldensians existed 350 years before the reformation…

Oh I’m sure there were little pockets of heresy here and there across the centuries. But on the point that “they just wanted to be left alone”, when in history did the heretic or law-breaker not want to be left alone to spread their heresy and/or lawlessness?

I imagine that if it wasn’t illegal to believe otherwise it would have been expressed more often.

Arguments from silence can be used by anyone to support literally anything.

Really you can trace it back to the Easter Controversy. Many times from that point forward the Eastern Bishops gave lip service to the Bishop of Rome but ignored his rulings.

And on many occurrences we can find eastern bishops, including the one of Constantinople itself, providing exactly the recognition required him by the Roman bishop.

History shows many thought they didn’t have the authority they claimed but the RCC was mostly successful in putting down the “heretics”.

What an impossibly vague and broad brush.
I suppose the destruction of the Arians was done by the Church because they weren’t good Christians rather than by the Roman state because of their lawlessness?

Is the Church also responsible for colonialism?

 

[Vonsalza]

Please give scriptural references which gave the Protestant Reformers this idea? What difference do you see between “a group of men in the church” and “all teachers within the church”?

It literally does not exist. The authority must be visible and exclusive.

This reality is exactly why Paul spent weeks with Peter. He had to be confirmed as an apostle by the already visible body, or he was no more valid than any other false-prophet of the day,

 

[lanman87]

…I’m not so sure that’s how it actually happened.

Oh I’m sure there were little pockets of heresy here and there across the centuries. But on the point that “they just wanted to be left alone”, when in history did the heretic or law-breaker not want to be left alone to spread their heresy and/or lawlessness?

Arguments from silence can be used by anyone to support literally anything.

And on many occurrences we can find eastern bishops, including the one of Constantinople itself, providing exactly the recognition required him by the Roman bishop.

What an impossibly vague and broad brush.
I suppose the destruction of the Arians was done by the Church because they weren’t good Christians rather than by the Roman state because of their lawlessness?

Is the Church also responsible for colonialism?

The original statement was that everyone considered the pope to be “The Pope” and the bishops to be the authorities of the church before the reformation. I’m just pointing out that it isn’t that simple. There are examples of before the reformation when folks “went against Rome”. The difference was that the political landscape hand changed to offer Luther and Calvin protection against Rome. I have no doubt that if Luther had been born 200 years earlier he would have had the same fate as Wycliffe or Hus.

 

[JMM1957]

Every human being judges things according to their own interpretation. Just because you choose to believe the Catholic interpretation does not make you any different.

I would look to Scripture and commentaries and scholarship to help me understand the relevant Scripture. And of course, I would pray for God’s guidance and understanding as I would anytime I read the Word.

And you also said:

Yes, and your interpretation is that you defer to the interpretation of others. I understand.

You’re saying Catholics go by the interpretation of others when it comes to Scripture, and yet, above in bolded, you say you would do the same. So how are you any different?

 

[De_Maria]

I don’t believe in solo scriptura.

Lol! You guys make up doctrines at the drop of a hat and you don’t seem to care how ignorant it sounds. Your trying to make a doctrine distinct from “sola” by calling it “solo”. But it doesn’t work that way. Let me give you a little lesson in gender words.

Sola Scriptura. You see the “a” at the end of both words? That means that they are feminine words. Sola, the adjective, has to match Scriptura, the noun it is describing.

For you to say, “solo”, a masculine version of the word “only”, in Latin and put it in front of “scriptura”, a masculine noun, sounds ridiculous. Its like naming your son, Sue.

And you can’t solve it by saying, “solo scripturo” because Scriptura is a feminine noun. The gender of a noun isn’t changed at will. It just makes it sound like you never went to school.

So, you’ve made up a new doctrine because you discovered that Sola Scriptura doesn’t really work. Why not simply admit that?

So, this so-called “solo” doctrine is supposed to solve your problem because you define it as a strict Sola Scriptura which does not take anything into account except Scripture. But it’s a shell game. What you call “solo” is actually Sola by another name.

Now you’re admitting that Sola Scriptura, Scripture alone, doesn’t really work. You’ve come up with another doctrine that adds something to Scripture. So, Scripture alone becomes a misnomer. There must be something else.

Then, what you need to do is ditch the name “Sola Scriptura”, because it is no longer descriptive. And expound the new doctrine with a new, more appropriate name. For example. Are you saying that Scripture is first or Scripture is highest?

Therefore, you could say, “prima Scriptura”, Scripture is first. Or Ultra Scriptura, Scripture is highest. And here’s the surprise. The Catholic Church denounced Sola Scriptura. But the Catholic Church has not had time to consider thoroughly these other doctrines which are beginning to emanate from Protestants who have realized the failure of Sola Scriptura.

I hope that helps.

 

[De_Maria]

Scripture is not silent on the nature of the Godhead, nor is it silent on how Christ, the Father and the Spirit interact and relate with one another. No, it doesn’t use the term “Trinity” but that doctrine can be proved and defended by Scripture.

Really? Will Scripture get up and mount an argument? Or must someone read Scripture, discover the verses which imply the Doctrine of the Trinity and then stand up and propose that Doctrine?

See, that’s why Scripture alone doesn’t work. It is simply a false doctrine. Scripture can never be alone. Doctrine must be expounded by men. And Scripture is only a useful tool, a resource for so doing. Scripture itself is based upon the Teaching of Christ which is passed down by the Church, in Sacred Tradition.

 

[JMM1957]

Really? Will Scripture get up and mount an argument? Or must someone read Scripture, discover the verses which imply the Doctrine of the Trinity and then stand up and propose that Doctrine?

See, that’s why Scripture alone doesn’t work. It is simply a false doctrine. ** Scripture can never be alone. Doctrine must be expounded by men.** And Scripture is only a useful tool, a resource for so doing. Scripture itself is based upon the Teaching of Christ which is passed down by the Church, in Sacred Tradition.

Agree, and just to add this:

John 16:13:
“But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.”

Now, we know that all churches, regardless of denomination, claim that they are teaching the truth, but how can that be, since not all churches teach the same doctrines? Would the Spirit do that? No, of course not. So how do we know what church is teaching the truth? You cannot simply say, “go to the Scriptures to find out” because then we have gone full circle reasoning again.

 

[ltwin]

Please give scriptural references which gave the Protestant Reformers this idea?

We are told by an apostle to “test everything” and hold on to what is good (1 Thessalonians 5:21). This, it should be noted, was in the context of disputes over prophecy–disputes over speech linked to God. Still, we are to test it and everything else.

If the Bible is God’s word written, it is by definition sufficient to accomplish its purpose. As we are taught in Isaiah 55:10-11:

For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven
and do not return there but water the earth,
making it bring forth and sprout,
giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater,
so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth;
it shall not return to me empty,
but it shall accomplish that which I purpose,
and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it.

What is Scripture able to accomplish? It is “able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus” (2 Timothy 3:15). What is its purpose? “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

So, we test everything against that which will not be found empty—testing even oral teachings we are told go back to Christ or prophecy or just simple “impressions” a Christian may receive or even someone’s preaching and even ourselves.

Now, I know Catholics say that their oral teachings that they trace from Christ through the Apostles and on down through our own very day are necessary to fully understand Scripture. They even cite the presence of tradition in the Bible. Yet, we know of those traditions because they were recorded in what became the Bible. Unless a tradition, teaching, or revelation is recorded in the Bible or even just implied in the Bible, the only source for them are fallible men, no matter how holy and spiritual they may be.

This means elements of such oral teachings could be human made tradition. Some of these traditions may be pious or at least harmless, but when held up to bind the consciences of everyone as articles of faith that must be believed, human made traditions are also capable of obscuring the word of God. As Jesus noted to the Pharisees and scribes in Matthew 15:6-9:

So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God. You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said:

“‘This people honors me with their lips,
but their heart is far from me;
in vain do they worship me,
teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’”

This is not to say that everything outside of the Bible must be rejected or ignored or condemned. We should just remember that “God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men” (Westminster Confession Chapter 20).

So, I have, no doubt imperfectly, attempted to explain why Protestants believe “although the church is a witness and guardian to holy Scripture, it must not decree anything contrary to Scripture, nor is it to enforce belief in anything additional to Scripture as essential to salvation” (Article 20, Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion).

What difference do you see between “a group of men in the church” and “all teachers within the church”?

A group of men would be a group of men without any qualifications other than their gender. Teachers would be those in a teaching office or function.

But if you’re asking me about my quote, I made no distinction because the “group” I was speaking of was a group of teachers. As my quote makes clear, "the church should not give any one man or group of men authority to teach. . . " Men with authority to teach are teachers.

But, everyone should judge all teaching in the church against Scripture to see how the teaching holds up. I do not believe it is just the responsibility of the teacher (though he has greater responsibility because he is the one doing the teaching) but someone sitting in the pew would have responsibility to test what the teacher was saying.

 

[ltwin]

You’re saying Catholics go by the interpretation of others when it comes to Scripture, and yet, above in bolded, you say you would do the same. So how are you any different?

We’re not different. Which is my point. Catholics and Protestants aren’t different except that Protestants acknowledge that (with the exception of Scripture) our sources of knowledge can be fallible. We acknowledge that our churches can err in their interpretations of Scripture. Catholics do not, which is great if the Catholic Church is right about everything it teaches but a big problem if wrong.

 

[ltwin]

Lol! You guys make up doctrines at the drop of a hat and you don’t seem to care how ignorant it sounds. Your trying to make a doctrine distinct from “sola” by calling it “solo”. But it doesn’t work that way. Let me give you a little lesson in gender words.

And so on . . .

No thank you. I’m already over educated and under paid. You can keep your lesson and your sarcasm.

 

[Vonsalza]

The original statement was that everyone considered the pope to be “The Pope” and the bishops to be the authorities of the church before the reformation. I’m just pointing out that it isn’t that simple.

Sure, pick a date, any date, and I’ll concede that heresy and hard-heartedness existed on that date within the visible members of the Church. There were challenges to the faith 1 day in. Why shouldn’t we expect them 300 years in?

But as a fair counter, there were plenty that did consider the pope to be “The Pope”; Including bishops of Alexandria and Constantinople.

But if your point is simply “it’s not that simple”, then concession immediately granted. What effectively is?

There are examples of before the reformation when folks “went against Rome”. The difference was that the political landscape hand changed to offer Luther and Calvin protection against Rome. I have no doubt that if Luther had been born 200 years earlier he would have had the same fate as Wycliffe or Hus.

Sure. After the Avignon Crisis the face of the papacy had been irreparably blemished and lords began to chafe under Church influence as it seemed less transcendent and necessary in the aftermath. For the princes, they wanted the HRE or France to be ruled by royalty with the Church used as a tool, the Church wanted the HRE or France to be ruled by Christ with the governance to be used as the tool to affect that.

Enter the early rumblings of the separation of Church and state…
(Which, in hindsight, appears to be less achievable than believed even in this present day; especially with the “church” of secularism).

 

[Vonsalza]

We’re not different. Which is my point. Catholics and Protestants aren’t different except that Protestants acknowledge that (with the exception of Scripture) our sources of knowledge can be fallible. We acknowledge that our churches can err in their interpretations of Scripture. Catholics do not, which is great if the Catholic Church is right about everything it teaches but a big problem if wrong.

I think herein lies your greatest straw-man against the Church.

The leadership of the Church can be wrong all the time. Galileo was right about the earth and sun, several bishops were wrong about picking sides in the African genocides of the last 40 years. The child-abuse scandals in the Church happened and were handled poorly.
Bishops do occasionally “go solo”. When they do so, they step outside the confines of their office which they are to operate within.

The CCC-

890 The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium’s task to preserve God’s people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church’s shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. The exercise of this charism takes several forms:

891 “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421

-and-
92 "The whole body of the faithful. . . cannot err in matters of belief. This characteristic is shown in the supernatural appreciation of faith (sensus fidei) on the part of the whole people, when, from the bishops to the last of the faithful, they manifest a universal consent in matters of faith and morals."55

I think your understanding of infallibility and how it relates to the Church is erroneous, unfortunately. I offer that as charitably as I can.

 

[ltwin]

I think herein lies your greatest straw-man against the Church.

The leadership of the Church can be wrong all the time. Galileo was right about the earth and sun, several bishops were wrong about picking sides in the African genocides of the last 40 years. The child-abuse scandals in the Church happened and were handled poorly.
Bishops do occasionally “go solo”. When they do so, they step outside the confines of their office which they are to operate within.

The CCC-

I think your understanding of infallibility and how it relates to the Church is erroneous, unfortunately. I offer that as charitably as I can.

I didn’t bring up Galileo and that other stuff. You did. I have no wish to beat the Catholic Church over the head with failings that all humans and institutions are capable of.

My concern is Scripture and doctrine. As I stated above, “We acknowledge that our churches can err in their interpretations of Scripture. Catholics do not.”

Am I mistaken on this point? Do you believe the Catholic Church as an institution is capable of error when interpreting Scripture? How am I misrepresenting your church’s teaching?

 

[Vonsalza]

I didn’t bring up Galileo and that other stuff. You did. I have no wish to beat the Catholic Church over the head with failings that all humans and institutions are capable of.

My concern is Scripture and doctrine. As I stated above, “We acknowledge that our churches can err in their interpretations of Scripture. Catholics do not.”

Am I mistaken on this point? Do you believe the Catholic Church as an institution is capable of error when interpreting Scripture?

As it pertains to faith and morals, no. She simply cannot err as “the whole body of the faithful” or “the body of bishops” or when the pope “proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals”.

It makes sense. Her apostles wrote it, her bishops discerned and canonized it. Who else could possibly claim the chair of interpretation? You? Me?

Where do you think the Catholic Church interpreted its own scripture incorrectly?

 

[JMM1957]

What is Scripture able to accomplish? It is “able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus” (2 Timothy 3:15). What is its purpose? “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

I agree, but it must not be subject to each individual for their own interpretation. Scripture must be interpreted by the “Church”, iow, those qualified for teaching truth within the Church. As I indicated earlier, the Spirit is incapable of teaching confusion, it is man who confuses things. For the most part, non-Catholic Christian churches do not have the same teachings or interpretations of Scripture even among themselves, so how do you account for that? If asked, those same churches would say they are being guided by the Spirit to the truth.

 

[JMM1957]

I didn’t bring up Galileo and that other stuff. You did. I have no wish to beat the Catholic Church over the head with failings that all humans and institutions are capable of.

My concern is Scripture and doctrine. As I stated above, "We acknowledge that our churches can err in their interpretations of Scripture. Catholics do not."

Am I mistaken on this point? Do you believe the Catholic Church as an institution is capable of error when interpreting Scripture? How am I misrepresenting your church’s teaching?

How safe of a situation is that, salvation-wise, to not be sure of your church’s interpretation of Scripture, and yet, staying in that church? Seriously, do you think that is what Jesus intended when He established his Church?