P
Is the Catholic Church as an authority a circular argument? (Edited Title)
- Status
P
pneuma07
Guest
I hope I see your position. And I agree you need evidence. That’s why we’re here.
BTW, why are you trying to explain away the scriptural “Obey your leaders. and …,”
to make those leaders not recognizable ? I know my bishop is my leader. Whom ( I mean, what human being(s) ) do you obey at present as a believer ?
P
pneuma07
Guest
P
pneuma07
Guest
P
pneuma07
Guest
P
pneuma07
Guest
pneuma >
Christ, Revelation, Holy Spirit, Apostles, Church, transmission of the faith through the Apostles and through the generations…
We come often into the relations between all of them in our dialogue.
Allow me then to quote from “Dominum et vivificantem”, encyclical by John Paul II, paragraphs 3 and following, to get an exposition of the catholic understanding about the action by the Holy Spirit
*"The evangelist John, who was present, writes that, during the Last Supper before the day of his Passion and Death, Jesus addressed the Apostles with these words: “Whatever you ask in my name, I will do it, that the Father may be glorified in the Son . . . I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counsellor, to be with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth”. [17]
It is precisely this Spirit of truth whom Jesus calls the Paraclete – and parakletos means “counselor”, and also “intercessor”, or “advocate”. And he says that the Paraclete is “another” Counselor, the second one, since he, Jesus himself, is the first Counsellor, [18] being the first bearer and giver of the Good News. The Holy Spirit comes after him and because of him, in order to continue in the world, through the Church, the work of the Good News of salvation. Concerning this continuation of his own work by the Holy Spirit Jesus speaks more than once during the same farewell discourse, preparing the Apostles gathered in the Upper Room for his departure, namely for his Passion and Death on the Cross.
The words to which we will make reference here are found in the Gospel of John. Each one adds a new element to that prediction and promise. And at the same time they are intimately interwoven, not only from the viewpoint of the events themselves but also from the viewpoint of the mystery of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, which perhaps in no passage of Sacred Scripture finds so emphatic an expression as here.
Much to reflect on for all of us.
.
Christ, Revelation, Holy Spirit, Apostles, Church, transmission of the faith through the Apostles and through the generations…
We come often into the relations between all of them in our dialogue.
Allow me then to quote from “Dominum et vivificantem”, encyclical by John Paul II, paragraphs 3 and following, to get an exposition of the catholic understanding about the action by the Holy Spirit
*"The evangelist John, who was present, writes that, during the Last Supper before the day of his Passion and Death, Jesus addressed the Apostles with these words: “Whatever you ask in my name, I will do it, that the Father may be glorified in the Son . . . I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counsellor, to be with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth”. [17]
It is precisely this Spirit of truth whom Jesus calls the Paraclete – and parakletos means “counselor”, and also “intercessor”, or “advocate”. And he says that the Paraclete is “another” Counselor, the second one, since he, Jesus himself, is the first Counsellor, [18] being the first bearer and giver of the Good News. The Holy Spirit comes after him and because of him, in order to continue in the world, through the Church, the work of the Good News of salvation. Concerning this continuation of his own work by the Holy Spirit Jesus speaks more than once during the same farewell discourse, preparing the Apostles gathered in the Upper Room for his departure, namely for his Passion and Death on the Cross.
The words to which we will make reference here are found in the Gospel of John. Each one adds a new element to that prediction and promise. And at the same time they are intimately interwoven, not only from the viewpoint of the events themselves but also from the viewpoint of the mystery of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, which perhaps in no passage of Sacred Scripture finds so emphatic an expression as here.
- A little while after the prediction just mentioned, Jesus adds: “But the Counsellor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you”. [19] The Holy Spirit will be the Counsellor of the Apostles and the Church, always present in their midst even though invisible as the teacher of the same Good News that Christ proclaimed. The words “he will teach” and “bring to remembrance” mean not only that he, in his own particular way, will continue to inspire the spreading of the Gospel of salvation but also that he will help people to understand the correct meaning of the content of Christ’s message; they mean that he will ensure continuity and identity of understanding in the midst of changing conditions and circumstances. The Holy Spirit, then, will ensure that in the Church there will always continue the same truth which the Apostles heard from their Master.
- In transmitting the Good News, the Apostles will be in a special way associated with the Holy Spirit. This is how Jesus goes on: When the Counselor comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness to me; and you also are witnesses, because you have been with me from the beginning". [20] The Apostles were the direct eyewitnesses. They have heard and have seen with their own eyes", “have looked upon” and even touched with their hands" Christ, as the evangelist John says in another passage. [21] This human, first-hand and “historical” witness to Christ is linked to the witness of the Holy Spirit: “He will bear witness to me”. In the witness of the Spirit of truth, the human testimony of the Apostles will find its strongest support. And subsequently it will also find therein the hidden foundation of its continuation among the generations of Christ’s disciples and believers who succeed one another down through the ages.
Much to reflect on for all of us.
A
agangbern
Guest
I am sure I was not the one who equated the gate with RCC. As far as I can remember, it was you who equated the gate, the wide gate, with RCC, in your post#300 here.
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
Clever.
P
pneuma07
Guest
New Covenant:
- 1To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ’s sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed: 2Be shepherds ( *the greek verb is precisely the same as in John 21:16 !) of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve; 3not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. 4And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away. 1 Peter 5
P
PC_Master
Guest
Sorry it took me so long to get to this. I’ve been busy lately.
Yes, I know you’ll say that the RCC has gradually come into a better understanding of the deposit of faith, but would that not in fact constitute that “better understanding” having been revealed to the church leaders? If there was only one revelation, then the first century church possessed this in full. And if that’s the case, and we assume that they had a reasonable understanding of this faith (after all, the apostles were with Jesus himself, and the holy spirit guided them as well, so much so that they performed miracles), then how do you justify change without saying the first century church was severely lacking?
The only solution, given that I’m not willing to say the first century church was so lacking in its faith, is that such alterations and “better understandings” of the faith are not essential to Christian living. This includes the later understanding that a formalized church hierarchy is important.
We do indeed see the same analogy used in the New Testament. The keys in Matthew 16 are also a symbol. Christ explains that they represent a binding and loosing authority. This much we agree on. However, there are three flaws with assuming this was exclusive to Peter…
So then, why is there no passage in scripture (or early church history) which speaks of officers decided upon by this universal church as an institution? That’s the problem I have – if such things are necessary, and were in that day, why is there no evidence to support this conclusion?The Church can teach only because She has been taught.
All of us are part of the Church ( the Body of Christ, the People of Christ, or also His flock, as you appear to prefer). We saw the existence of a teaching ministry according to Paul. In the Church there are teachers. ( “call no man Rabbi”
If the deposit of faith was “revealed” to the apostles, and they passed this revelation, apparently verbally, to their successors in full, why would there ever be alteration in church teaching?
Yes, I know you’ll say that the RCC has gradually come into a better understanding of the deposit of faith, but would that not in fact constitute that “better understanding” having been revealed to the church leaders? If there was only one revelation, then the first century church possessed this in full. And if that’s the case, and we assume that they had a reasonable understanding of this faith (after all, the apostles were with Jesus himself, and the holy spirit guided them as well, so much so that they performed miracles), then how do you justify change without saying the first century church was severely lacking?
The only solution, given that I’m not willing to say the first century church was so lacking in its faith, is that such alterations and “better understandings” of the faith are not essential to Christian living. This includes the later understanding that a formalized church hierarchy is important.
Scripture says that many, besides the early church leaders, received the holy spirit, does it not (even just Pentecost gives us some 3,000 others)? If that spirit is not sent for the purpose of guiding us in Christian living, what was its purpose, and why would it have been sent to the apostles for different reason than to the rest of the church?
So, in order that this might be well understood, Jesus clearly explained to the apostles that the church would receive this deposit of faith, and would have special guidance from the holy spirit to distribute understanding thereof to the masses?
I do. I believe that the Old Covenant is no longer in force (Christ’s death symbolically broke it if Israel’s disobedience hadn’t already). If this New Covenant isn’t in effect yet, God essentially left us without a promise. That just doesn’t fit, for me.
True, but this doesn’t fit the papacy. Why? Simply, you must look at what “the keys” represented. Yes, in some cases they were physical keys, but in most cases, it represented the power to authoritatively bind and loose things (usually buildings opening or closing, actions as permissible or non-permissible, etc). It was symbolic – not that the actual possession of keys mattered in most cases.
We do indeed see the same analogy used in the New Testament. The keys in Matthew 16 are also a symbol. Christ explains that they represent a binding and loosing authority. This much we agree on. However, there are three flaws with assuming this was exclusive to Peter…
- That Peter is used as an example is not to say that it only applies to Peter. The centurion’s servant was healed because of the faith of the centurion. We might assume this were unique to the centurion if not for the woman who touched Jesus and became healed instantly. Had that one bit been omitted from the gospels, would that mean it had not happened? Would it mean that Jesus exclusively acted in that way toward the centurion? Of course not!
P
PC_Master
Guest
- Tying in with #1 above, there’s a specific reason that Peter is used as an example. Origen’s “Commentary on Matthew” outlines this well, explaining that this passage applies to each of us who have the faith that Peter had. Among these he clearly included the other apostles (James and John by specific mention, and the others by reference). Even if the keys had been unique, surely the promise of not being overcome by the gates of hell was not exclusive to Peter, but in fact applied to the whole church.
- As I noted above, the keys are symbolic of the power to bind and loose, with this being described in Matthew. Clearly, we’re speaking, regarding Peter, in terms of spiritual issues (this action is sin, or is not sin), rather than earthly binding and loosing (you may, or may not, enter this building). However, check out Matthew 18, where nearly identical language is used, and specifically identified as applying to the twelve. Admittedly I assume that it applies to each of them individually, though the Greek doesn’t specifically exclude the other possibilities as I understand it. Regardless, the “keys”, since they’re just a symbol of binding and loosing, apply to the rest of the twelve as well. It’s pretty plain in the text.
Paul’s writings, are mostly the indicator of this. We’re not physically part of that lineage, but we are spiritually “grafted in”, as part of God’s chosen people. Since the passage in Isaiah was referring to Israel in a spiritual sense (I believe), that was the concern I wished to address before it came up as a counterpoint by someone.
And how do you demonstrate that Chrysostom was correct?
No – I’m not complaining, saying “I need to see an alternate passage, or I won’t believe it was applicable to anyone else”. I’m only saying that you can’t use the absence of such a passage as proof that the examples didn’t apply to anyone but Peter.
You might say that perhaps it was obvious to the early church who was in charge, and thus emphasizing this point wasn’t important, and thus this really did apply to just Peter, and the gospel authors just didn’t note that in their texts.
On the other hand, I’d say that perhaps there was no clear central authority in the early texts, and the apostles were more concerned with spreading the gospel rather than emphasizing the hierarchy (or lack thereof) in the church, and thus didn’t think to mention that the things exemplified in Peter were also applicable to others.
The lack of information can be legitimately spun either way without reaching too far. What I’m looking for is a way to preclude one of those two possibilities. Currently, I believe Jesus’ own words speaking of authority preclude the possibility of Peter having been in charge.
So Jesus didn’t know how Peter felt ahead of time?Yes, the verbs are initially agapao and * fileo*. Then Jesus too passes to fileo. He accepts Peter’s human level, or maybe his new preference for understatement after the sin during the Passion of the Lord.
How is trusting in the words of Christ any sort of abandonment? To be recognizable in a regular earthly sense…how do you demonstrate that this is what Christ said, or is otherwise necessary? I admit, an earthly organization seems better to me too, but that doesn’t mean it’s best according to God.
The problem is I need more than that. I don’t just need “here’s what we believe”. I need details. I need to know why you believe the keys were exclusive to Peter only, and didn’t apply to the other apostles, despite the passage in Matthew 18. I need to know how you figure that an earthly prince is how Jesus intended things to be, despite his warnings against authority.That’s fair. Consider anyway what we are doing: I am asked to show the catholic case, you are showing whether you can assent, and why that is not at present the case. So I am not simply asking " Why shouldn’t we accept the perspective ", I am just trying to show the perspective. Or I hope so.
Continued…
P
PC_Master
Guest
Well, I can see no importance in knowing who’s in communion with an earthly body. All that matters to me is being in communion with God, and knowing who else is or is not (so that I can hopefully be used by God to help guide them to him). Thus, I see no benefit to an organization over a non-organization. Both require divine assistance to get close to ascertaining who is truly righteous.I maintain I will never get to know who belongs to a Church of “true believers”. About who will end up in heaven I perfectly agree I do not know that, you don’t, the Church doesn’t. Only God…What I do know ( in principle ) if whether you are in communion with the Mother Church. Which is completely different.
I don’t think I’m trying to “explain away” anything. Had the early church had a hierarchy of priests, bishops, deacons, and a pope, I might accept such a system today. But we don’t see that. We see deacons (people to oversee the physical needs of the congregation) and bishops (overseers; spiritual leaders) in scripture, and these seem to be specific to each congregation.I hope I see your position. And I agree you need evidence. That’s why we’re here.
BTW, why are you trying to explain away the scriptural “Obey your leaders. and …,”
to make those leaders not recognizable ? I know my bishop is my leader. Whom ( I mean, what human being(s) ) do you obey at present as a believer ?
And if we look at scripture and early church documents, we see that these leaders were not unilaterally selected by church leadership. The Roman Catholic system just doesn’t fit with what I can see in scripture.
True – since both claim the authority of Christ, it would seem that one is not entirely correct in this claim. But how do we determine this?
Interestingly, it seems that the point of selecting successors was to replace existing “officers” in case of death, that the ministry might be continued on. In most cases, this would not allow for the laying on of hands by the outgoing person to “transfer the office”, so to speak. Also, the laying on of hands has significance in Jewish culture. I gather that it was basically a sort of ceremony of recognition, so that everyone would know that the new officer had the confidence of the people.
I have no doubt that Paul intended there to be successors to the ministry – people to continue it onward – but there’s nothing in his letters that indicates this must be a 1:1 relationship, nor that this is a formal hierarchal system.
Care to elaborate more on what this indefectibility is and how you ascertain from scripture that Christ intended it this way?
Continued…
P
PC_Master
Guest
That earthly beings have met many times throughout history to try to understand, as best they could, what was God’s intent, is not in dispute. In Acts, they (a group of elders, including several apostles, but not necessarily a recognized hierarchy) were asked by Paul (and those from Antioch who sided with him) regarding a particular matter. Seeking spiritual counsel from those who have greater spiritual maturity just makes sense. But if you’ll notice, in Acts we just don’t see Peter in charge. He was one (noted) speaker among many. Paul and James were also noted. Moreover, we see that the whole of the congregation in Jerusalem sent their advice, not saying that “this is what we, as the infallible mother church, say you must do,” but rather sending a note of concern over the recent events in Antioch, and expressing that “it seems good to the Holy Spirit and to us” that it should be a certain way. They were attempting to provide spiritual guidance to their brothers and sisters in Christ, not to rule on an issue authoritatively.That that Council did not produce a decision, that it was only a matter of being “mature”, seems a strange reading.
And if that Council was not at central level,
we probably never had one.
Also, if indeed they had the full deposit of faith, why did they list only a few requirements for that church, as opposed to the many we have today?
The apostles were recognized as having great spiritual maturity, and thus served as authority figures by virtue of this spiritual understanding. However, it’s not as though they held office as we might think of it today.
As for succession – that is a common earthly way of passing authority. Check out what Paul writes – he says nothing about succession as some kind of sacrament or as some supernatural ritual. It’s simply a caution to ensure there are spiritually mature people around when you die, so that the ministry doesn’t die with you.
If a line is to be drawn anywhere, why not at the canon of scripture we have? Yet even the RCC doesn’t hold to that. They accept the apocryphal Pre-gospel of James and thus declare the perpetual virginity of Mary, and so on, though historians agree that the work is not reliable from a historical perspective, much less a spiritual one.
So, where would you like to draw the line? If you draw it with the leaders of the early church and their successors, then you’re in the position of having to demonstrate who those leaders were, and what the hierarchy looked like, and I don’t think you can do that without later documents and theories. If you’re accepting the word of later sources, how do you know they’re accurate?
As I’ve shown, the passages concerning Peter, the apostles, the church, and others can be interpreted in multiple ways. You assume a particular interpretation to be correct because the RCC espouses it. Yet, how do you know that the RCC is not just a false “one true church” and that its interpretation of scripture and history is not equally false? There has to be an outside source.
Continued…
P
PC_Master
Guest
Mind giving me a link to the work in question so I can read up more fully before responding to this one?
No, I believe I’m a better interpreter, not than the apostles themselves, but rather their so-called successors who are just as far removed from them (almost 2000 years) as I am. You’re assuming a perfect transition of knowledge from one generation to the next. This simply isn’t humanly possible, and I don’t believe God acted in this manner either. Thus, with each generation, you can lose something in the translation. Thus, I choose to go back to the earliest sources to confirm practices and beliefs, believing that God did not consider as spiritually depraved the early church.
I’m curious as to precisely what you mean regarding “Christocentricity test” and “non-fictional procedure”.
Sure. I just don’t accept it was done through a succession of individuals (with the guidance of the holy spirit) only, and not through the general faith of believers.
Easy there – I don’t claim to be the master of revelation. In fact, God does that. All I believe I’m doing is listening to what he’s saying, and acting accordingly. I don’t doubt that you believe the RCC leadership does that. What I doubt, however, is whether or not the holy spirit actually speaks only to the leadership of the RCC.
It’s subjective…highly subjective.
Your point is taken, but as the term is identical to what was used to describe Peter’s role, it seems then that Peter, as a universal bishop, doesn’t fit.
P
pneuma07
Guest
P
pneuma07
Guest
Let’s consider my quotation from Jeremiah, if you agree, as a small contribution to the new general debate on Peter you are programming. ( There would be too much to say here, I guess).
See meanwhile the little thread started by Utunumsint “Master of the palace in relation to Matthew 16:19” on the Scripture subforum.
Unless you consider it necessary to explore your points here.
P
pneuma07
Guest
P
pneuma07
Guest
P
pneuma07
Guest
P
pneuma07
Guest
[/QUOTE]
- Status