Incarnation and Authority

[Truthstalker]

The other thread was fatally hijacked, so:

Catholics operate out of a Scripture and Tradition mindset. It’s a consideration that it is NOT a presuppositional system but one logically arising from the doctrine of the incarnation. At this point I would, if pressed, argue that the recipe for apple butter arises from the doctrine of the incarnation, but I will spare us all that particular thread. We have revelation because of the incarnation. The challenge to the Catholic on this thread is to demonstrate that because of the incarnation we necessarily have a valid oral Tradition today as well as the written Scripture. The Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and so it is soli verbum dei. Somehow the incarnation involves the bride of Christ, the Church, and the church speaks, and when the church speaks, it is the incarnate Word speaking, so the tradition is valid. I THINK that is the Catholic line of argument, but the Protestants will no doubt find a few holes in it.

The challenge to Protestants is to meet the Catholic argument on its own terms, rather than on SS terms, as instead of the SS presuppositional system being in play, an S+T system must be employed. Alternately philosophically you could step back and find the common ground on which either system, SS or S+T, can be evaluated as evaluative systems, but I am not convinced that ground exists. You have to start somewhere.

 

[tequilamac]

The other thread was fatally hijacked, so:

Catholics operate out of a Scripture and Tradition mindset. It’s a consideration that it is NOT a presuppositional system but one logically arising from the doctrine of the incarnation. At this point I would, if pressed, argue that the recipe for apple butter arises from the doctrine of the incarnation, but I will spare us all that particular thread. We have revelation because of the incarnation. The challenge to the Catholic on this thread is to demonstrate that because of the incarnation we necessarily have a valid oral Tradition today as well as the written Scripture. The Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and so it is soli verbum dei. Somehow the incarnation involves the bride of Christ, the Church, and the church speaks, and when the church speaks, it is the incarnate Word speaking, so the tradition is valid. I THINK that is the Catholic line of argument, but the Protestants will no doubt find a few holes in it.

The challenge to Protestants is to meet the Catholic argument on its own terms, rather than on SS terms, as instead of the SS presuppositional system being in play, an S+T system must be employed. Alternately philosophically you could step back and find the common ground on which either system, SS or S+T, can be evaluated as evaluative systems, but I am not convinced that ground exists. You have to start somewhere.

I do not know, you guys, do we want to answer this with Truthstalker? So far he has posted repeated threads along the same lines, about 6 at my last count, repeating the same theme. And yet when we answer him, he just goes off an starts a new thread without responding to any answer on the old. Not sure what you are trying to get at here, Truthstalker. Is there an actual question or what? Shall I post the links to your incarnation threads that you have lost all interest in or what? I believe this is an empty exercise you are putting us through for the fun of it.

 

[Truthstalker]

Tequilamac,

You continue to be on my Ignore list. Probably you posted something nasty again.

 

[petra]

I do not know, you guys, do we want to answer this with Truthstalker? So far he has posted repeated threads along the same lines, about 6 at my last count, repeating the same theme. And yet when we answer him, he just goes off an starts a new thread without responding to any answer on the old. Not sure what you are trying to get at here, Truthstalker. Is there an actual question or what? Shall I post the links to your incarnation threads that you have lost all interest in or what? I believe this is an empty exercise you are putting us through for the fun of it.

The other Incarnation threads have not interested me, but actually I think this topic is fascinating. I would love to hear what others have to say. This really is the essence of why Catholics and Protestants see things so differently. So whether Truthstalker participates or not, I’d love to see this thread develop.

 

[JonathanKinsman]

Petra,

He’s correct: we have answered the oxymoronic Truthstalker on other threads. He avoids direct questions and persists in his quasi-dialectical method.

I say shake the dust off our sandals.

Pax Christi

 

[petra]

Petra,

He’s correct: we have answered the oxymoronic Truthstalker on other threads. He avoids direct questions and persists in his quasi-dialectical method.

I say shake the dust off our sandals.

Pax Christi

Okay, thanks!

 

[Randy_Carson]

The other thread was fatally hijacked, so:

Truthstalker-

Sorry you’ve had problems.

I recommend you take this question over to the Speak Your Mind Apologetics forum hosted by professional apologist Patrick Madrid…

The link is: envoymagazine.com/Forum/default.asp

 

[Stephen_C]

I do not know, you guys, do we want to answer this with Truthstalker? So far he has posted repeated threads along the same lines, about 6 at my last count, repeating the same theme. And yet when we answer him, he just goes off an starts a new thread without responding to any answer on the old. Not sure what you are trying to get at here, Truthstalker. Is there an actual question or what? Shall I post the links to your incarnation threads that you have lost all interest in or what? I believe this is an empty exercise you are putting us through for the fun of it.

That is totally uncalled for. If you don’t want to contribute to this thread just don’t. Do you know another person’s heart? Myself, I will leave that up to God.

God Bless,
Stephen

 

[Randy_Carson]

“In the mid-fourth century, St. Athanasius stood against the world for the Trinitarian doctrine “whole and undefiled” when it looked as if all the civilized world was slipping back from Christianity into the religion of Arius.”

C.S. Lewis

In his book, On the Incarnation, Athanasius wrote:

“A marvelous and mighty paradox has thus occurred, for the death which they sought to inflict on Him as dishonour and disgrace has become the glorious monument to death’s defeat. Therefore it is also, that He neither endured the death of John, who was beheaded, nor was He sawn asunder, like Isaiah: even in death He preserved His body whole and undivided, that there should be no excuse hereafter for those who would divide the Church.”

 

[Truthstalker]

“In the mid-fourth century, St. Athanasius stood against the world for the Trinitarian doctrine “whole and undefiled” when it looked as if all the civilized world was slipping back from Christianity into the religion of Arius.”

C.S. Lewis

In his book, On the Incarnation, Athanasius wrote:

“A marvelous and mighty paradox has thus occurred, for the death which they sought to inflict on Him as dishonour and disgrace has become the glorious monument to death’s defeat. Therefore it is also, that He neither endured the death of John, who was beheaded, nor was He sawn asunder, like Isaiah: even in death He preserved His body whole and undivided, that there should be no excuse hereafter for those who would divide the Church.”

Do they divide the Church who refuse to acknowledge papal authority, or do they divide the church who refuse to accept the validity of those parts of the catholic church that do not accept papal authority? I think the answer to this lies in our commonality of belief concerning the incarnation of Christ, and just authority is derived from Him, not from subsequent thinking. I am puzzled because He promised not to leave or forsake those who believe in Him, and “where two or more are gathered in My name, there I am in their midst”: to compel Protestant conversion to Catholicism, the Catholic must demonstrate the uniqueness of Catholic authority as an intrinsic derivitive of the doctrine of the incarnation, or on some other shared platform. We can’t seem to agree on the “On this rock” passage. Some other method must be presented.

 

[marci]

Do they divide the Church who refuse to acknowledge papal authority, or do they divide the church who refuse to accept the validity of those parts of the catholic church that do not accept papal authority? I think the answer to this lies in our commonality of belief concerning the incarnation of Christ, and just authority is derived from Him, not from subsequent thinking. I am puzzled because He promised not to leave or forsake those who believe in Him, and “where two or more are gathered in My name, there I am in their midst”: to compel Protestant conversion to Catholicism, the Catholic must demonstrate the uniqueness of Catholic authority as an intrinsic derivitive of the doctrine of the incarnation, or on some other shared platform. We can’t seem to agree on the “On this rock” passage. Some other method must be presented.

I think that this argument would be better served by a point by point discussion. I think your question is to broad in scope to deal with in one post.
I will give you one example of uniquely catholic christian tradition that the protestants would argue against and that is Confession.

I will quota a passage from “Why is That in Tradition?” by Patrick Madrid.

"Jesus Christ arranged things so that the sacramental forgiveness of sins would come through the ministry of the priest. If someone argues against that Tradition, he’s really arguing not so much against the Catholic Church, but against Christ himself…

The Lord promised his Apostles, ‘Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever regects you regects me’ (Luke 10:16, NAB)

The Council of Trent explained the essential elements of the Tradition of confession of sins to a priest: ‘As a means of regaining grace and justice, penance was at all times necessary for those who had defiled their souls with any mortal sin…Before the coming of Christ, penance was not a sacrament, nor is it since His coming a sacrament for those who are not baptized. But the Lord then principally instituted the Sacrament of Penance, when being raised from the dead, he breathed upon His disciples saying: ‘Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained’ (John 20:22-23). By which action so signal and words so clear the consent of all the Fathers has ever understood that the power of forgiving and retaining sins was communicated to the Apostles and to their lawful successors, for the reconciling of the faithful who have fallen after Baptism’ (session 14)."

 

[Nita]

Do they divide the Church who refuse to acknowledge papal authority,

Yes, that’s obvious. If all accepted papal authority there would be one Christian Church, no division.

or do they divide the church who refuse to accept the validity of those parts of the catholic church that do not accept papal authority?

**No, these are not the ones who divide the Church. That also is obvious. eg. If all Catholics left the Church and decided to join other denominations, there would still be division everywhere - the same thousands of Protestant divisions that currently exist. **

I am puzzled because He promised not to leave or forsake those who believe in Him, and “where two or more are gathered in My name, there I am in their midst”:

He has not left or forsaken those who have accepted and believed in Him and His teaching. He is present in the Eucharist; He sends His Holy Spirit to guide His Church and Magisterium to ensure that they teach infallibly only what is true. It’s interesting that Our Lord’s statement that you quote (“where two or more…”) is spoken to His appointed “disciples” and not to the general crowds/public..

to compel Protestant conversion to Catholicism, the Catholic must demonstrate the uniqueness of Catholic authority as an intrinsic derivitive of the doctrine of the incarnation, or on some other shared platform. We can’t seem to agree on the “On this rock” passage. Some other method must be presented.

**The Church does not wish to compel anyone to convert./**QUOTE]

Truthstalker,
I don’t mean to be shouting by putting my replies in bold. I just don’t know how to separate the sections of quote and insert replies the way I’ve seen others do it. And it seemed necessary to distinguish, in some way, my replies from your questions - so I chose to bold them.

Nita

 

[Truthstalker]

Nita,

Concerning the bold, when you reply to thread, there is a row of icons directly above the text field. The box with the lines in it is for putting quotes around something. You can also use the multiquote feature in the bottom right corner of the post you want to quote, and when you open the text window, they will come up. You can go over to the Sandbox subforum and play with them if you’d like.

 

[marci]

Nita,

click the “quote” button at the bottom right cornor of a post that you wish to reply to. The “reply to thread” window will pop up where you will see the title and the words of the poster in the “message box”.

Simply highlight the areas you don’t want to quote, then right click on the highlighted area and delete.

For the areas that you want to quote, highlight then click on the quote icon above the “message box”. It is located below the “redo” arrow.

hope that helps

 

[Truthstalker]

Truthstalker;1722852:

Do they divide the Church who refuse to acknowledge papal authority,

Yes, that’s obvious. If all accepted papal authority there would be one Christian Church, no division.

In 1 Corinthians 1, Paul complains about the problems in division of the church at that time: 1 Cor 1:12

Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.

I am not convinced that the simple acknowledgement of papal authority would do the trick. There is also significant division within the Catholic church on issues such as charismata, emphases on social agendae, Biblical literalism, conservative versus liberal interpretation of Scripture, Mary as co-redemptrix, etc.

No, these are not the ones who divide the Church. That also is obvious. eg. If all Catholics left the Church and decided to join other denominations, there would still be division everywhere - the same thousands of Protestant divisions that currently exist.

Perhaps Jesus had a different sort of unity in mind than organizational.

It’s interesting that Our Lord’s statement that you quote (“where two or more…”) is spoken to His appointed “disciples” and not to the general crowds/public…

Where does it say that this is restricted to the disciples and is not meant to be extended to all Christians?

The Church does not wish to compel anyone to convert

Agreed. A bad word choice on my part. But I am out of synonyms at the moment.

 

[Nita]

I am not convinced that the simple acknowledgement of papal authority would do the trick. There is also significant division within the Catholic church on issues such as charismata, emphases on social agendae, Biblical literalism, conservative versus liberal interpretation of Scripture, Mary as co-redemptrix, etc.

Nita

 

[Nita]

Thanks TruthStalker and Marci for the quote help. Looks like I got part of it right, but I’m still doing something wrong. Will keep trying.
Nita

 

[Truthstalker]

There’s a difference between division of the Church and differences that do not involve doctrine

Ok, but I’m still trying to figure out how church authority flows from the incarnation. How is the Pope organically linked in an authoritative role to Christ?

If by organizational you mean hierarchical, then I think you’re mistaken. It was Jesus who established the hierarchy. He chose 12 to be apostles (Matt 10:4); from these 12 he chose one to whom he handed over the keys (Matt 16:19). Beyond these he also appointed another seventy (Lk 10:1). As soon as you have a hierarchy you have some sort of an organization.

I don’t equate a hierarchy with an institution. There is the Church, alive and hoping and witnessing and faithful, and then there is the Church, bureaucratic and full of paper shuffling and apathetic and terminally dull. There is the Church, most of whom are not attending Mass or other worship services, and there is the Church, the separated brethren, whether Orthodox or Protestant. I think the concept of an invisible church at least drescribes what is happening.

Jesus final prayer before going to the Garden of Gethsemane was for unity. St. Paul expresses what this unity should be:
“There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all, …” You see the Catholic Church as the one in error. Are you trying to say that the unity Jesus’ wanted exists amongst all the thousands of Protestant denominations? that they share one faith, one baptism? If so, would you please explain to me what you consider unity to be.

Two things, at least. One is that I continue to explore the idea that the Catholic Church is right. I explore that on many levels and intensities, and I am trying to understand what it is saying. My attitude is not one of indictment and I am often amazed by things I find. At the same time I am angered by what I find in Catholics and in Catholic churches: if I become Catholic, it will be in spite of both (I mean no offense here; you probably know the kind of Catholics and have been to the kind of Masses I am thinking of). Sometimes I think they are out to make it as hard as possible to want to become Catholic.
I read one thing of what the Catholic church is; I see another thing in Catholics and the churches around me.

The second thing is unity. There is the expression “In essentials unity, in dubious things, liberty, in all things charity.” There can be, and should be, a shared zeal to reach the lost, to love the Lord, to do a million things that we all have in common. Catholics and Protestants are coming together as we discover we have shared goals, for example in the right to life movement. We can have respect for each other as people of conscience, as sincere Christians who don’t agree. Protestants are experts at putting up with disagreement, as we believe so many different things - yet most can worship with each other. There is a unity of the Spirit that transcends an institutional unity. To reduce it to belonging to a single expression of Christianity requires strong arguments - arguments I am trying to find, and I think you are trying to provide.

It doesn’t state that it is restricted to the disciples; neither does it state that it is meant to be extended to all Christians. It records the conversation Jesus had with His disciples (see verse 1 of Chapter 18). The passage where the “two or three” occurs does not follow a discourse on prayer, but about the power to excommunicate when someone will not heed the church!

You are correct about the context. I can see how a Catholic would read it. I just never read it that way. Hmmm.I’ve always looked at the passage as having a break between verses 18 and 19, and verses 19 and 20 being parallel expressions of the same concept. But I look past that, and here comes Peter, still talking about forgiveness. Now I have to go and read over the whole chapter again and rearrange my understanding of it. Interesting!

 

[Nita]

Ok, but I’m still trying to figure out how church authority flows from the incarnation. How is the Pope organically linked in an authoritative role to Christ?

I’m not sure what you mean by Incarnation in all your posts. “The Incarnation”, of course, is the Second Person of the Trinity uniting Himself to a human nature - the Invisible God making Himself visible and present to us humans on earth.
Now, that is what He does with/through the papacy. He makes His will known, speaks His truth in a visible and audible way through the pope. Scripture alone is not enough. Oh TruthStalker, you must know that. If it was, we’d (Christians) all be believing and proclaiming the same thing rather than contradicting things. You might say that the papacy is the “incarnational” way Our Lord has chosen to ensure the proper understanding of His truths. It is such a gift to mankind. Our own intellects are not too reliable unfortunately.

Two things, at least. One is that I continue to explore the idea that the Catholic Church is right. I explore that on many levels and intensities, and I am trying to understand what it is saying. My attitude is not one of indictment and I am often amazed by things I find. At the same time I am angered by what I find in Catholics and in Catholic churches: if I become Catholic, it will be in spite of both (I mean no offense here; you probably know the kind of Catholics and have been to the kind of Masses I am thinking of). Sometimes I think they are out to make it as hard as possible to want to become Catholic.
I read one thing of what the Catholic church is; I see another thing in Catholics and the churches around me.

I am sorry about all the ways in which you’ve been offended. These are troubled times in our Church because of all the dissent and disobedience which has taken place in the past 40 or so years. Some periods in history are better than others, but it will never be perfect here on earth. The Church itself - the defined truths, the sacraments - are one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic; but we members are not always so. Please remember that Our Lord came to call sinners, so don’t be too surprised when you find them here. ( Arriving at perfection takes a long time!! ) If you find a church full of perfect people, this side of heaven, rest assured it is not the one established by Our Lord. Expect sinners in His Church, and expect that Church to be ridiculed and persecuted.

I’m not sure just how Protestants do things. For eg. If the church one attends becomes disagreeable (pastor and what he preaches, congregation, …) does one just look for another one where the preaching is acceptable and the congregation friendly - regardless of denomination? (Especially if there is not another church of one’s denomination there.) If so, I can see why Protestant congregations might seem more loving. But in reality, it’s probably just because the ones they’d have had a more difficult time being charitable to have left.

The second thing is unity. There is the expression “In essentials unity, in dubious things, liberty, in all things charity.”

Do you know, that’s exactly how I find the Catholic Church. I suppose the only disagreement you and I might have would be on what constitutes “essentials”. For me, it is those teachings which the Church says must be accepted.

There can be, and should be, a shared zeal to reach the lost, to love the Lord, to do a million things that we all have in common. Catholics and Protestants are coming together as we discover we have shared goals, for example in the right to life movement. We can have respect for each other as people of conscience, as sincere Christians who don’t agree. Protestants are experts at putting up with disagreement, as we believe so many different things - yet most can worship with each other. There is a unity of the Spirit that transcends an institutional unity. To reduce it to belonging to a single expression of Christianity requires strong arguments - arguments I am trying to find, and I think you are trying to provide.

TRUTH - it is the strongest argument there is. I begged God for it and He gave it. I’ll pray He gives it to you also.

Nita

P.S. Can you believe it, I finally learned how to do the quotes.

 

[JaneFrances]

Ok, but I’m still trying to figure out how church authority flows from the incarnation. How is the Pope organically linked in an authoritative role to Christ?

Church authority flows from the Incarnation because the Incarnation expresses God’s eternal desire and design for covenantal order. It refers to Fatherhood and Sonship. These motifs of covenant and familial relationship then organically become signs of authoritative bonds. These bonds do not just translate into our relationship with God. These bonds are pervasive. They affect every aspect of our human life.

I will not be able to begin every line of thought and every link here and now. Suffice it to say, however, Peter and those who follow him as “father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the house of Judah” are an expression of God’s eternal plan to Father his people. The faithful Fatherhood of God provides us with “sure pegs,” with authority, on every level of our human experience. The Pope is a sign of this Fatherhood, in obvious ways, but also the Pope serves as a sign of Sonship in his office of service and immitation of Christ.

I don’t equate a hierarchy with an institution. There is the Church, alive and hoping and witnessing and faithful, and then there is the Church, bureaucratic and full of paper shuffling and apathetic and terminally dull.

Don’t you just wish you could sort the wheat from the weeds!???

There is the Church, most of whom are not attending Mass or other worship services, and there is the Church, the separated brethren, whether Orthodox or Protestant. I think the concept of an invisible church at least drescribes what is happening.

But, why do we settle for the invisible when we have a mandate to be a city on a hill for all to SEE? I can not believe that least common denomiator Christianity is invisibility.

At the same time I am angered by what I find in Catholics and in Catholic churches: if I become Catholic, it will be in spite of both (I mean no offense here; you probably know the kind of Catholics and have been to the kind of Masses I am thinking of).

No, no. . .it’s not fury. . .that warmth you feel radiating from your screen is just the flushing of our collective Catholic face from all your sweet talkin’.

Sometimes I think they are out to make it as hard as possible to want to become Catholic.

I always ask myself why my cross has to have splinters, too???