Is the Catholic Church as an authority a circular argument? (Edited Title)

[PC_Master]

If the Church has not clearly defined something, although I am pretty sure it has on the issue of salvation outside the Church, there may be different interpretations. What’s important is that the end result of these different interpretations be in harmony with the other teachings and with each other. In that sense, you do have unity because the end result is the same.

And what is that end result? How can interpretations which include “absolutely no one that isn’t on the member rolls of the RCC will go to heaven” (which I’ve heard in person from a “devout” Roman Catholic) as well as other interpretations that indicate non-Roman-Catholic Christians can end up in heaven all have the same result?

More importantly, even if the result is the same (and please bear in mind that I don’t concede that it is), the differing “road” by which that end is reached constitutes disunity itself.

The Church is protected from teaching error. This is how it is able to uphold the truth and where we find the source of unity.

And what, besides the claim of unity is there actually to support this? And even if the whole of the RCC hierarchy were united, that still doesn’t make the whole of the RCC united.

If someone knowingly disagrees with the Church, they are moving away from the source and no longer in full unity.

And what if they don’t knowingly disagree with the teachings of the RCC, and yet are in disagreement?

“The promise of the gates of hell not prevailing should NOT BE taken to mean…”

Question: What then SHOULD it be taken to mean?

For the gates of hell to not prevail against the church is for the gates of hell to not completely overwhelm and destroy the church. It doesn’t mean that absolutely no error or heresy will happen.

Secondly, you say that there were those who fell into error. This is obviously a given if you trust the Scriptures. The question would be, how did the early Church determine error.

Paul cited and corrected it independently in several cases, obviously. While we do see the collective of the apostles acting at the “Council of Jerusalem”, we don’t see this happening in most of the other cases regarding Paul’s (and other) writings.

In essence, the apostles had the final say of what was error and what wasn’t.

Really? Where’s the scripture to demonstrate that this happened?

In essence, if you reject a central teaching authority all you are left w/ is anarchy and chaos. Is God a God of chaos? No, God clearly established a structured institution w/ bishops, priests, & deacons (elders) [see Timothy].

This is a nice pseudo-straw-man, but it just doesn’t work. The fact of the matter is that independent Baptist churches (for instance) are quite orderly, even without a centralized hierarchy. I see no chaos.

By the way, I still await a response from Teflon (or anyone else who holds all Roman Catholics to be in complete unity) regarding the definition of “unity”.

 

[agangbern]

I was responding to PC Master earlier. As agangbern says, Paul met with the leaders to confirm if his teaching was correct. There’s a difference between getting permission to do something and getting approval for the things you did or are doing.

Sorry that I took the liberty of letting St. Paul answer your question. The question was just admirable and timely…

 

[SCALCO]

By the way, I still await a response from Teflon (or anyone else who holds all Roman Catholics to be in complete unity) regarding the definition of “unity”.

Here is a Catholic “defintion” on unity that I think says it better than I probably can.

The Catholic conception of the mark of unity, which must characterize the one Church founded by Christ, is far more exacting. Not only must the true Church be one by an internal and spiritual union, but this union must also be external and visible, consisting in and growing out of a unity of faith, worship, and government. Hence the Church which has Christ for its founder is not to be characterized by any merely accidental or internal spiritual union, but, over and above this, it must unite its members in unity of doctrine, expressed by external, public profession; in unity of worship, manifested chiefly in the reception of the same sacraments; and in unity of government, by which all its members are subject to and obey the same authority, which was instituted by Christ Himself. In regard to faith or doctrine it may be here objected that in none of the Christian sects is there strict unity, since all of the members are not at all times aware of the same truths to be believed. Some give assent to certain truths which others know nothing of. Here it is important to note the distinction between the habit and the object of faith. The habit or the subjective disposition of the believer, though specifically the same in all, differs numerically according to individuals, but the objective truth to which assent is given is one and the same for all. There may be as many habits of faith numerically distinct as there are different individuals possessing the habit, but it is not possible that there be a diversity in the objective truths of faith. The unity of faith is manifested by all the faithful professing their adhesion to one and the same object of faith. All admit that God, the Supreme Truth, is the primary author of their faith, and from their explicit willingness to submit to the same external authority to whom God has given the power to make known whatever has been revealed, their faith, even in truths explicitly unknown, is implicitly external. All are prepared to believe whatever God has revealed and the Church teaches. Similarly, accidental differences in ceremonial forms do not in the least interfere with essential unity of worship, which is to be regarded primarily and principally in the celebration of the same sacrifice and in the reception of the same sacraments. All are expressive of the one doctrine and subject to the same authority.

newadvent.org/cathen/15179a.htm

On different interpretations: There is a difference between ignorance or misunderstanding of Church teaching and someone who rejects it. An otherwise righteous person could have a misunderstanding and still be joined to the Church. There is also a difference between matters of doctrine and discipline.
A Catholic might in good conscience hold that the discipline of mandatory celibacy for priests might not be a good idea but still be fully joined to the Church. This discipline could change. On the other hand, the Church’s teaching that women cannot be accepted for holy orders is a doctrine that will not change. I might disagree with this teaching and still continue to be in union with the Church. It may not be complete oneness of mind, but it’s still the mindset where one is prepared to submit themselves to whatever the Church teaches.

Actually, it does not matter if a doctrine has not been clearly defined because the essence of the doctrine has always been taught correctly and is currently being taught correctly. A doctrine will never change; it will only become more precise. Transubstantiation is an example.

 

[pneuma07]

Dear PCM and all,

it looks like we’re back to issues already dealt with in the present thread.

Therefore, consider, please, this:

The unity born out of accepting a living informant.
When two catholics show a different opinion on a question of faith, let’s ask ourselves: is one , at least, of them rejecting the magisterial teaching on that issue ? Then, no surprise, the informant is not really accepted on that particular matter. The principle on which catholic unity is built is simply not at work. Otherwise they can differ in their interpretations of Magisterium, or - quite often - can simply choose one of the several options allowed by Magisterium on that issue. Here unity does work. And, in case the interpretation is really different, the case can be solved in principle…by asking Magisterium.
That is the giant bonus you have in dealing with a living verifiable source !

In any case any personal journey starts from yourself. It is our finite modest means which have to tackle the issue. It’s up to you to decide. It’s you who can accept or reject Divine Revelation. It’s you who can accept or reject a guide on Divine Revelation outside yourself and identify it. It’s you who have to answer the question: “Is the best interpreter ever of Divine Revelation me or the Catholic Church ?” We can explore together on what ground the former or the latter can make sense, on what ground can each of us possibly suppose to be a better interpreter of Revelation than the Catholic Church, and what sort of Christianity can come out of such a claim. The rest of the world can be your advisor. You’re the decision-maker.

 

[pneuma07]

Possible answer:

• 17 Obey your leaders and do what they say. They keep watch over your souls. They have to tell God what they have done.*

From Heb. 13

And the context clearly points to a “visible earthly leadership”, do you agree ?

At present, who are your leaders ?

 

[PC_Master]

Here is a Catholic “defintion” on unity that I think says it better than I probably can.

I read your definition, and here’s what I saw:

Unity of faith.
Unity of worship.
Unity of government.
Unity of doctrine.
External, professed unity.

Now, while all of these define types of unity, they don’t define the term unity itself. For the terms of my reply, I will assume unity to at least mean “holding/believing the same”. Let’s look at the section you quoted…

Not only must the true Church be one by an internal and spiritual union, but this union must also be external and visible,

This takes the approach that the external union is more difficult than the internal one, but I’m arguing that the internal union is what the RCC doesn’t have.

…consisting in and growing out of a unity of faith, worship, and government.

Unity of faith – let’s consider this all the different tenets of the Roman Catholic faith – the actual beliefs themselves. This, I argue, doesn’t exist in Roman Catholicism any more than it does in any other denomination.

A unity of worship…how far does this extend? Do you worship with the same mass? No. Do all of your constituents pray, confess, say rosaries, and perform all other acts of worship in the same way? No.

Government…here, you’ve got a point. There is a unity in the earthly hierarchy.

…unity of doctrine, expressed by external, public profession;

Note that we’re focusing on an external view here. External unity is not the same as internal unity.

…in unity of worship, manifested chiefly in the reception of the same sacraments;

How about beliefs regarding exactly what the sacraments are, how important they are, and what they mean? Again, your text focuses on external views only, and not true internal unity.

…and in unity of government, by which all its members are subject to and obey the same authority, which was instituted by Christ Himself.

If this issue is a matter of the ultimate authority that you recognize, I’d say that all members of any given denomination have a unity of authority.

In regard to faith or doctrine it may be here objected that in none of the Christian sects is there strict unity, since all of the members are not at all times aware of the same truths to be believed. Some give assent to certain truths which others know nothing of.

This is correct. However, there’s an addition that must be made – individuals also give assent to conflicting truths (I’ve previously demonstrated this).

Here it is important to note the distinction between the habit and the object of faith.

Actually, it’s important to note the distinction between the habit and the faith itself – and it’s the habit which Roman Catholics have unity in, not the underlying faith.

The habit or the subjective disposition of the believer, though specifically the same in all, differs numerically according to individuals,

You’ll excuse me if I don’t get this – how can the habit (“or the subjective disposition”) of the believer be the same in all, yet differ in relation to individuals?

…but the objective truth to which assent is given is one and the same for all.

The objective truth is assented to by all…okay, let’s look at this. Let’s pick a truth. For instance, whether or not any individual outside the membership roll of the RCC will enter heaven. Objectively, the answer is either yes, or no. I’ve heard devout Roman Catholics espouse both positions. How is that a case where “the objective truth to which assent is given is one and the same for all”?

…it is not possible that there be a diversity in the objective truths of faith.

I agree with this 100%. The objective truth (of anything) is precise – it’s not diverse. There are no multiple answers that are correct. In accordance with this, it’s then logical to say that no one person could hold multiple conflicting beliefs as being true. However, what that doesn’t say is that no two individuals can hold conflicting beliefs regarding the truth of faith.

The unity of faith is manifested by all the faithful professing their adhesion to one and the same object of faith. All admit that God, the Supreme Truth, is the primary author of their faith,…

All right, so we have a unity of belief in God as the primary author of the faith – this would include Protestants, Orthodox, etc.

…and from their explicit willingness to submit to the same external authority to whom God has given the power to make known whatever has been revealed…

Okay, so we have a unity of authority – all Roman Catholics believe the Pope is God’s earthly representative, basically.

That’s unity, yes, but it’s not complete unity – it’s unity of one single belief. That belief does not even include infallibility, the extent of the pope’s authority, etc. It’s one small piece of what would be necessary for total unity.

Continued…

 

[PC_Master]

…their faith, even in truths explicitly unknown, is implicitly external.

So, there were none in the Roman Catholic Church who ever (at any time) opposed the belief in infallibility of the pope? What about limbo? How about salvation of those not explicitly in the membership roll of the RCC? It’s ridiculous to say that one can have faith in something unknown. The next bit clarifies…

All are prepared to believe whatever God has revealed and the Church teaches.

Assuming all Roman Catholics agree with this, the unity is not in the truths unknown – the unity being spoken of is unity of faith in the accuracy of the RCC. This, again, is one tiny piece of total unity.

Similarly, accidental differences in ceremonial forms do not in the least interfere with essential unity of worship, which is to be regarded primarily and principally in the celebration of the same sacrifice and in the reception of the same sacraments. All are expressive of the one doctrine and subject to the same authority.

Okay, so we have unity of governing authority (agreed). We have unity of at least the definition of sacraments (again, agreed). We have unity of worship (which as I stated above, would require the same worship practices by every Roman Catholic – an impossible thing to achieve).

On different interpretations: There is a difference between ignorance or misunderstanding of Church teaching and someone who rejects it. An otherwise righteous person could have a misunderstanding and still be joined to the Church.

Agreed, however, either of these things constitutes disunity.

A Catholic might in good conscience hold that the discipline of mandatory celibacy for priests might not be a good idea but still be fully joined to the Church.

If someone holds that it’s not a good idea, then doesn’t that mean they believe that the objective truth is that celibacy for priests is wrong? And that’s a more explicit case, with obvious implications.

On the other hand, the Church’s teaching that women cannot be accepted for holy orders is a doctrine that will not change. I might disagree with this teaching and still continue to be in union with the Church. It may not be complete oneness of mind, but it’s still the mindset where one is prepared to submit themselves to whatever the Church teaches.

Submission/deference to the RCC is not the same as union (oneness of mind) with the RCC. You’re trying to make the two be the same, when the former is a matter of action, while the latter is a matter of belief.

Actually, it does not matter if a doctrine has not been clearly defined because the essence of the doctrine has always been taught correctly and is currently being taught correctly. A doctrine will never change; it will only become more precise. Transubstantiation is an example.

If a doctrine were taught correctly and clearly throughout history, there would never be a need to clearly define it. On the other hand, the very fact that these things have been clearly defined indicates that one or more individuals were in disagreement, and thus disunity.

Note that I’d still like to hear a definition of the word unity from someone.

pneuma> I read your posts, however I’m unsure that there’s anything to respond to in them that hasn’t already been addressed in this post.

 

[pneuma07]

So, there were none in the Roman Catholic Church who ever (at any time) opposed the belief in infallibility of the pope? What about limbo? How about salvation of those not explicitly in the membership roll of the RCC? It’s ridiculous to say that one can have faith in something unknown. The next bit clarifies…

Assuming all Roman Catholics agree with this, the unity is not in the truths unknown – the unity being spoken of is unity of faith in the accuracy of the RCC. This, again, is one tiny piece of total unity.

Okay, so we have unity of governing authority (agreed). We have unity of at least the definition of sacraments (again, agreed). We have unity of worship (which as I stated above, would require the same worship practices by every Roman Catholic – an impossible thing to achieve).

If someone holds that it’s not a good idea, then doesn’t that mean they believe that the objective truth is that celibacy for priests is wrong? And that’s a more explicit case, with obvious implications.

Submission/deference to the RCC is not the same as union (oneness of mind) with the RCC. You’re trying to make the two be the same, when the former is a matter of action, while the latter is a matter of belief.

If a doctrine were taught correctly and clearly throughout history, there would never be a need to clearly define it. On the other hand, the very fact that these things have been clearly defined indicates that one or more individuals were in disagreement, and thus disunity.

Note that I’d still like to hear a definition of the word unity from someone.

pneuma> I read your posts, however I’m unsure that there’s anything to respond to in them that hasn’t already been addressed in this post.

Dear PCM,

 let's add a quotation from the CCC to those already offered by Teflon:

*814 From the beginning, this one Church has been marked by a great diversity which comes from both the variety of God’s gifts and the diversity of those who receive them. Within the unity of the People of God, a multiplicity of peoples and cultures is gathered together. Among the Church’s members, there are different gifts, offices, conditions, and ways of life. "Holding a rightful place in the communion of the Church there are also particular Churches that retain their own traditions."263
The great richness of such diversity is not opposed to the Church’s unity. Yet sin and the burden of its consequences constantly threaten the gift of unity. And so the Apostle has to exhort Christians to "maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace."264 *

As we can see we should explore the relation between unity and diversity ( variety, multiplicity). I hope you can agree with this view: that diversity is both an unavoidable part of human experiences and a richness , within human kind as well as within the Church.
You certainly remember that you expressed earlier in this thread a fear that being or becoming catholic means being or becoming “automatons”, later apologizing for any possible offensive implications. But now, if you pay attention to your present stance, aren’t you afraid you are just ultimately asking catholics to really approach precisely a sort of robotized standardization you looked so afraid of ?

You insist catholics lack complete unity within themselves. Maybe you could give your own definition of complete unity
in order to assess together your statements.

For example, if we share that unity is a goal, that there can be infinite degrees of unity, then I guess we all can agree that among catholics there is not “complete unity”. Is there complete unity
in a happy family ? Maybe in any home there’s something to say
sometimes or often. So, I’d say NO. Is that the same thing as a profoundly divided family, medidating about divorce ? Not at all. Within every family you have degrees of unity or disunity. There are fundamental differences among those degrees. While there is no perfect unity, which is and remains a goal.

On a given Sunday you can find the same readings in the Mass,
from OT and NT, in Florida as in Oregon, in Canada as in Uruguay,in Holland as in India, the very same prayers. Does that say anything about unity in worship ?
You say it is impossible having the same worship practices among individual catholics. Well, if we’re are speaking about an impossibility, then it used to be observed “ad impossibilia nemo tenetur”, and the question is settled.
Do you mean we do not have the very same hearts and minds when we follow/perform liturgy ? Of course I agree. Every human being there, child and adult, woman and man, healthy and ill bears in herself/himself attitudes, thoughts, needs. They are definitely NOT the same.

I insist that a fundamental choice is about what according to us is the best interpreter of Divine Revelation. Here you distinguish in principle the protestant versus the catholic attitude: the respective answers are “myself” and “the Church”.
These substantially different attitudes are certainly fundamental
in determining what degree of unity is or can be achieved.
When two ( groups of) fellow catholics disagree on something they can always decide, in principle: "OK, let’s ask Magisterium who is right ( who is nearer to being right, whether both of us can be considered right …).

Nothing of that kind is possible among people claiming each
his own direct inspiration from the Holy Spirit ( or his own "perpicuous " interpretation of Scripture). Is it ?

I’d really need to know what religious human leaders you obey.

 

[PC_Master]

let’s add a quotation from the CCC to those already offered by Teflon:

Bear in mind that the most recent quotations are from SCALCO, and also that there’s certainly not unity on the interpretation of the words you’re quoting. But even so, let’s have a look…

814 From the beginning, this one Church has been marked by a great diversity which comes from both the variety of God’s gifts and the diversity of those who receive them.

Unity is about oneness of mind, not diversity. In fact, I’d say diversity is a sign of disunity.

Among the Church’s members, there are different gifts, offices, conditions, and ways of life. “Holding a rightful place in the communion of the Church there are also particular Churches that retain their own traditions.”

But the important question is one of belief. Your own text says that you aren’t united in gifts, offices, conditions, cultures, ways of life, or particular church traditions. All of this I have no qualms with. What I have problem with is that you also lack unity of (oneness of mind in) belief.

The great richness of such diversity is not opposed to the Church’s unity.

Insomuch as the “great richness of such diversity” results in different individuals holding different beliefs, it is not only opposed to unity, but in fact it is disunity.

I hope you can agree with this view: that diversity is both an unavoidable part of human experiences…

On this part I agree, which is precisely why I believe it’s impossible to have actual unity. Unity (with the spirit of God) is something we should strive for, but unity with one another can never be achieved, certainly not totally. While it can be achieved partially, I’d say that the whole of independent baptists are probably about as united as the whole of Roman Catholics.

But now, if you pay attention to your present stance, aren’t you afraid you are just ultimately asking catholics to really approach precisely a sort of robotized standardization you looked so afraid of ?

Not at all. In fact, I’d say my approach is far less strict – I essentially trust in God alone to guide me. How is that becoming an automaton?

You insist catholics lack complete unity within themselves. Maybe you could give your own definition of complete unity
in order to assess together your statements.

I’ve provided a definition of unity, but I’ll do so again:

“oneness of mind, feeling, etc., as among a number of persons; concord, harmony, or agreement.”

If the word unity means to have oneness of mind, then “the constituents of the RCC are united” actually means “the constituents of the RCC are of one mind”, which is patently false. It’s not a matter of explaining the whole concept of how the RCC should be united. The question is whether it has unity – oneness of mind.

In a vague sense, yes, I imagine almost all share oneness of mind in that they wish to honor Christ. They believe in God. They trust the authority of the RCC. But beyond a few basic things, there’s certainly rampant disagreement.

For example, if we share that unity is a goal, that there can be infinite degrees of unity, then I guess we all can agree that among catholics there is not “complete unity”.

Unity is certainly a goal (something we do not currently possess), but there aren’t “infinite degrees” thereof. For me, it comes down to this – unity is claimed as a huge benefit the RCC has; but what makes it a benefit?

There are differing ways of observing mass, there are different languages preached in, and so on – this in itself isn’t a bad thing. But at the core of it is the faith – the belief in the absolute moral and factual truths of reality. If these things are not agreed on, then what makes you any better in the grand scheme of things than any other denomination?

Within every family you have degrees of unity or disunity. There are fundamental differences among those degrees. While there is no perfect unity, which is and remains a goal.

Exactly right – but again, the question is, to what benefit is unity if it doesn’t apply to the beliefs of the individual member. Without that, all you have is an earthly hierarchy, with millions of followers…who don’t believe the same things (or don’t even know what they believe).

If the role of the RCC is to properly guide the beliefs of the faithful, it has failed, at least in parts, because current active members of the RCC are in disagreement. If the unity you speak of is simply a matter of everyone accepting the authority of the RCC and the pope, I’d say it’s useless unless the precise extent of what has been said and done by them is clarified so that there’s no ambiguity and no room for differing interpretations.

On a given Sunday you can find the same readings in the Mass, from OT and NT, in Florida as in Oregon, in Canada as in Uruguay,in Holland as in India, the very same prayers. Does that say anything about unity in worship ?

What’s more important – the form of worship, or the spirit of worship? If it’s about form, then different languages are a hindrance to that, I’d say. If it’s about the spirit of worship, the form isn’t so important, and a different spirit can exist within the hearts of each individual no matter how ritualized and formalized you get.

Do you mean we do not have the very same hearts and minds when we follow/perform liturgy ?

This is indeed what I mean, and is the more important part of the question.

Continued…

 

[PC_Master]

I insist that a fundamental choice is about what according to us is the best interpreter of Divine Revelation. Here you distinguish in principle the protestant versus the catholic attitude: the respective answers are “myself” and “the Church”.

Actually, I think you misinterpret the situation – from all I’ve studied, the answer is more like this:

Roman Catholic: “I believe the Church best interprets God’s will, and I believe it says this.” (Note that, as demonstrated before, two different well-meaning Roman Catholics can and will come to different interpretations of the teachings of the RCC.)

Generic Protestant: “I believe the Holy Spirit will reveal God’s will to me, and I believe it’s telling me this.” (And again, two well-meaning individuals can come to differing conclusions.)

Here’s the problem: for the proposed Roman Catholic system to work, in my mind, you have to have every iota of information about doctrine and dogma clearly and quite verbosely, so that there can be no room for differing interpretation. As you say, things can and are clarified more in the future as need is determined – this is a demonstration of the problem. That there is need for clarification means that there is disunity.

When two ( groups of) fellow catholics disagree on something they can always decide, in principle: "OK, let’s ask Magisterium who is right ( who is nearer to being right, whether both of us can be considered right …).

This is true – however, more often than not I’ll bet what happens is that both simply sit there and quote various RCC-endorsed writings in support of their differing positions.

Until and unless the RCC can rule authoritatively and verbosely on every issue of question raised by any member, there will be disunity, and so it’s effectively as dysfunctional as you claim Protestantism is.

The RCC has done well at codifying one thing – religious traditions and practices. The words of the mass, the way in which you confess – all of the practices and rituals you perform are clearly spelled out. But if you remove all of those things, what’s left? The beliefs simply aren’t spelled out clearly and concisely enough for there to ever be unity.

I’d really need to know what religious human leaders you obey.

Why? You haven’t even established that obedience to human leaders is necessary. In short, you’re trying to draw this back out into a “our system works better than your system includes anything which isn’t Roman Catholic” instead of answering the simple question – what does the word “unity” mean?

By extension, I’d also like to know – what good is this supposed unity if there’s not a unity of belief included in that? If there are “members” of the RCC who don’t believe at all, or who don’t even understand what the RCC teaches, or who believe the RCC is wrong on its teachings about homosexuality or celibacy or women in the priesthood, or who disagree on the interpretation of RCC teaching with other Roman Catholics…how is it any better than you claim Protestantism is? About the only thing left for you to agree on is who the pope is (and at that, probably not even what his authority or role in the church is).

 

[SCALCO]

Bear in mind that the most recent quotations are from SCALCO, and also that there’s certainly not unity on the interpretation of the words you’re quoting. But even so, let’s have a look…

I have not had time to completely read your posts, but this jumped out. What specifically are you referring to?

As I said before, I did not intend to get into a long discussion and mainly only have time to take notes.

That said, I may not have time to adequately respond to all of your posts anytime soon, but I will try. Like you have said many times in other threads, it does not mean I am conceding or giving up on the discussion.

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

I’d really need to know what religious human leaders you obey.

PC MASTER: Why? You haven’t even established that obedience to human leaders is necessary.

Certainly the Bible has established the necessity of obeying human leaders.

*Hebrews 13:7Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation. *
*8Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. *
*9Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines. For it is a good thing that the heart be established with grace; not with meats, which have not profited them that have been occupied therein. *
*10We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle. *
*11For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp. *
*12Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate. *
*13Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach. *
*14For here have we no continuing city, but we seek one to come. *
15By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name. *
16But to do good and to communicate forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased. 17Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you. *

Here we have Scripture clearly telling us that we should submit to human authority, however, it also tells us not to be carried away by “strange doctrines”. So this submission/obedience is not a blind submission. There must be a way to determine if the authority being exercised is in truth.

So, the question is: how do we determine which leaders to submit to, and what are “strange doctrines”? What basis should we use to determine this?

Luke 1

*1Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, *
*2Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; *
*3It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, **4That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed. *

A church has to demonstrate faithfulness to the Scriptures; faithfulness to the original apostolic traditions, doctrines, practices, etc…

Just my 2cents.

I’m enjoying following this thread as it continues…

 

[PC_Master]

Here we have Scripture clearly telling us that we should submit to human authority, however, it also tells us not to be carried away by “strange doctrines”. So this submission/obedience is not a blind submission. There must be a way to determine if the authority being exercised is in truth.

Actually, what the passage says is to obey those who speak the word (truths, teachings, etc) of God. This is an explicit qualification for who can be considered such an authority. Likewise, those who teach you falsehoods should not be followed, right? So then, to determine the veracity of any claimed teaching source, you must determine the veracity of the teaching itself.

All in all, it’s important to obey the teachings of man insomuch as they reflect the will of God. If a teaching does not reflect the will of God, whether it claims to or not, whether the person teaching claims authority to teach or not, such a teaching is not to be obeyed.

So, the question is: how do we determine which leaders to submit to, and what are “strange doctrines”? What basis should we use to determine this?

Certainly, the closer to Christ the source was, the better, I’d think.

I like what you mentioned about Luke – the text strongly implies that Theophilus (whoever he was) had received teaching of some kind, probably from a local church, and questioned its veracity. Thus Luke gave an account of the truth so that there would be no question about it. Luke, who accompanied Paul, and who spoke to many who knew Jesus, makes an excellent source historically. The other works contained in scripture, written by apostles largely, have similar reliability.

So, yes, scripture is an excellent source for verifying teachings.

A church has to demonstrate faithfulness to the Scriptures; faithfulness to the original apostolic traditions, doctrines, practices, etc…

What you say is correct. It seems nearly inconceivable to me that the apostles themselves lacked anything in their faith or the practice thereof. So, it makes sense that the original practices and traditions should be strongly considered. It all comes back to antiquity, it seems.

I’m enjoying following this thread as it continues…

Same here, though I wish someone would explain to me what the word unity means (not the overall concept) if not “oneness of mind”.

 

[pneuma07]

Unity is about oneness of mind, not diversity. In fact, I’d say diversity is a sign of disunity.

disunity.

Remember the Church is One and Catholic. Being catholic, ie universal, she reflects the variety/diversity of humanity: our cultures, attitudes. We cannot even imagine a thorough singlemindedness imposed to humanity, its diversity, its history.

We saw the Catechism does not deny the structural condition of variety: it does affirm it. So no question about that. If your idea of unity is so abstract that it cannot entail, be conjugated with, any variety, then we have to wonder how workable it is, in our context. The matter is similar to what we could say, with J. H. Newman, about development

*if Christianity be an universal religion, suited not simply to one locality or period, but to all times and places, it cannot but vary in its relations and dealings towards the world around it, that is, it will develope. Principles require a very various application according as persons and circumstances vary, and must be thrown into new shapes according to the form of society which they are to influence. *
Now, if you think of it, development means variety in time, which is as natural as synchronic variety among individuals, peoples, cultures, genders…
What kind of unity would you like with your “she”, or with your dearest friend, or your future child ? No “you” and no “me” along with “us” ?

which is precisely why I believe it’s impossible to have actual unity. Unity (with the spirit of God) is something we should strive for, but unity with one another can never be achieved, certainly not totally.

We cannot and should not achieve absence of individuality, I’d guess.

While it can be achieved partially, I’d say that the whole of independent baptists are probably about as united as the whole of Roman Catholics.

Here we’d need accepted verifiable parameters of unity. i’m open to proposals. Meanwhile serious doubts are permitted.

Not at all. In fact, I’d say my approach is far less strict – I essentially trust in God alone to guide me. How is that becoming an automaton?

You appeared to fear that catholics can be or become automatons ( and correctly apologized for offensive implications of your expression). Now you are charging catholicism with being just incapable of unity as protestantism is. You should clarify with us what precisely the problem of catholicism is in your opinion.

I’ve provided a definition of unity, but I’ll do so again:

“oneness of mind, feeling, etc., as among a number of persons; concord, harmony, or agreement.”

If the word unity means to have oneness of mind, then “the constituents of the RCC are united” actually means “the constituents of the RCC are of one mind”, which is patently false. … But beyond a few basic things, there’s certainly rampant disagreement.

If you mean the degree of unity ( within the variety the Church does affirm ) is not enough, then we certainly agree. We have to pray and work about that.

Unity is certainly a goal (something we do not currently possess), but there aren’t “infinite degrees” thereof.

In my view there do not exist (completely) united families: there do exist families which are much more united than others. I hope this clarifies why I am speaking about degrees, or level if you prefer of unity. A binary choice ( presence-absence), does not respect reality, IMHO.
And there is no point in calling both of two families, one of which appears much more united, “in unity” or “not united”. Except if that is needed for a feel good factor by members of the much less united one.

For me, it comes down to this – unity is claimed as a huge benefit the RCC has; but what makes it a benefit?

There are differing ways of observing mass, there are different languages preached in, …
…all you have is an earthly hierarchy, with millions of followers…who don’t believe the same things (or don’t even know what

they believe).

If the role of the RCC is to properly guide the beliefs of the faithful, it has failed, at least in parts, because current active members of the RCC are in disagreement. …

If you mean: I will not acknowledge any unity or its benefits, if I cannot see that any catholic in any part of the world, of any age, of any cultural background…believes exactly the very same things, with exactly the same sensitivity, the same emphasis, the same interests., in any moment of life…OK, you will never see it. Is that foreseeble that we can achieve that ? I do not believe so.
Is that what we need ?

What’s more important – the form of worship, or the spirit

of worship? If it’s about form, then different languages are a hindrance to that, I’d say. If it’s about the spirit of worship, the form isn’t so important, and a different spirit can exist within the hearts of each individual no matter how ritualized and formalized you get.

This is indeed what I mean, and is the more important part of the question.

While I’d like an explanation of the linguistic differences as contrary to harmony ( are you proposing Masses in Latin only as asolution to the “problem” ?), what you can always expect is that the same message is perceived somehow differently by the different receivers. There always is a unique meeting within message and receiver.

QUOTE]

 

[Genesius61]

TO PCMASTER:

You wrote: For the gates of hell to not prevail against the church is for the gates of hell to not completely overwhelm and destroy the church. It doesn’t mean that absolutely no error or heresy will happen.

So you believe that error and heresy can creep into the Church? If it has, how early? And if it did very early on, then how do you know that what you have inherited from the Catholic Church (The Sacred Scriptures) does not contain heresy or error?

Secondly, you wrote: Paul cited and corrected it independently in several cases, obviously. While we do see the collective of the apostles acting at the “Council of Jerusalem”, we don’t see this happening in most of the other cases regarding Paul’s (and other) writings.

This statement in no way refutes what I said. Whether or not there was a council present is irrelevant to my statement. I said that ultimately the word of the apostles is what determined error. Paul was an apostle was he not? I also wrote: “In essence, the apostles had the final say of what was error and what wasn’t.” To which you responded, “Really? Where’s the scripture to demonstrate that this happened?” I think you did a wonderful job answering your own question above.

Thirdly, you wrote: “This is a nice pseudo-straw-man, but it just doesn’t work. The fact of the matter is that independent Baptist churches (for instance) are quite orderly, even without a centralized hierarchy. I see no chaos.”

I am quite familiar w/ my Independent Fundamental Baptist brethren as I used to be one. Yes, they are orderly. However, I have never heard of a Fundamental Baptist ‘bishop’ and yet that term is very biblical, yet I have never seen the term ‘pastor’ anywhere in an english translation of the Bible, have you? (btw, I don’t rely on the Bible only to define terms such as ‘pastor’ or ‘priest’. As such I recognize their validity outside the bible).

Secondly, you see no chaos because you are only considering the Independent Baptists, while ignoring the myriad of other denominations that all disagree w/ one another, including the baptists. Is this not definitive of chaos?

Why is there not only ONE Protestant Church? If there were, I may have considered more carefully joining the Catholic Church.

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

If you mean: I will not acknowledge any unity or its benefits, if I cannot see that any catholic in any part of the world, of any age, of any cultural background…believes exactly the very same things, with exactly the same sensitivity, the same emphasis, the same interests., in any moment of life…OK, you will never see it. Is that foreseeble that we can achieve that ? I do not believe so.
Is that what we need ?

How about a simple unity on some of the most central teachings of the church? I don’t have a statistic for you, but there is an astounding percentage of Catholics who use contraception, marry outside the church w/out an annulment then go back to church to receive communion, don’t believe in transubstantiation of the real presence…

Obviously these folks don’t believe in the church’s supposed supreme authority either or there wouldn’t be such blatant disobedience. But can I call the CC united when such facts are evident??? No more so than I can call protestant denominationalism “united”. So whether your authority rests primarily in Scripture or the church magesterium/bible/tradition, there is going to be disunity and disobedience.

The unity of the church exists in those who obey God - Catholic or otherwise. The question is: what is God’s will and where shall we find it?

 

[PC_Master]

Remember the Church is One and Catholic. Being catholic, ie universal, she reflects the variety/diversity of humanity: our cultures, attitudes. We cannot even imagine a thorough singlemindedness imposed to humanity, its diversity, its history.

I agree – and I’d also argue that the primary reason that such a single mindedness is impossible is because each and every one of us is farther away from being in unity with Christ than we should be. If we were all in total unity with Christ, single mindedness would be possible. However, since we aren’t, unity is impossible, and thus calling your church united is wrong.

If your idea of unity is so abstract that it cannot entail, be conjugated with, any variety, then we have to wonder how workable it is, in our context.

I didn’t say such a concept of unity is workable in the real world. In fact I would agree that it is not. And that’s the very reason I can say with certainty that true unity does not exist in the RCC. Remember, it is not I that stated unity to be a requirement of the “one true church”.

Principles require a very various application according as persons and circumstances vary, and must be thrown into new shapes according to the form of society which they are to influence.

For a practical use, this is very true. What this negates, however, is unity.

What kind of unity would you like with your “she”, or with your dearest friend, or your future child ? No “you” and no “me” along with “us” ?

What would I like? Compassion and understanding, despite disagreement. I share a relationship very much like this with a close friend of mine. I’m not sure if I would like total unity – after all, I’m rather imperfect myself. Having a loved one share those imperfections is probably not a good thing.

We cannot and should not achieve absence of individuality, I’d guess.

That’s human nature.

Here we’d need accepted verifiable parameters of unity. i’m open to proposals. Meanwhile serious doubts are permitted.

What’s so hard to understand about “oneness of mind”, at least in regards to belief? That is, for any given matter of faith or morality, any two “united” people should share the same understanding or the matter. For instance, if we consider contraception (thanks for the example, Joy) a moral issue – any two Roman Catholics should agree on the issue, lest one be considered out of unity with the other.

You appeared to fear that catholics can be or become automatons ( and correctly apologized for offensive implications of your expression). Now you are charging catholicism with being just incapable of unity as protestantism is. You should clarify with us what precisely the problem of catholicism is in your opinion.

The problem is that it’s constantly claimed that it’s one (united), holy, catholic (universal), and apostolic. Simply put, I feel that these claims are unwarranted.

If you mean the degree of unity ( within the variety the Church does affirm ) is not enough, then we certainly agree. We have to pray and work about that.

I agree that it’s sorely lacking in both Roman Catholic and Protestant communities.

In my view there do not exist (completely) united families: there do exist families which are much more united than others.

This is true, but if one family has differing religions but shares many of the same beliefs, and another shares the same religion, but disagrees on contraception, drugs, alcoholism, etc…who’s to say one is better than the other? And even if one can be stated better than the other, that doesn’t mean that the better one is the best available, or even truly “good”. A “my approach is better than typical Protestantism as I see it” isn’t a good enough argument for me, and yet that’s the same thing you guys keep reiterating over and over.

Except if that is needed for a feel good factor by members of the much less united one.

This is simply untrue, and the implication is not appreciated. To give you a better example – it’s like saying that my family is better than some others I know because I don’t do drugs, drink, and so on. We could sit here and say that we’re moral people, while others are not. The reality, however, is that for me to make that comparison, is to deny the truth – that my own morality (like Roman Catholic unity) leaves much to be desired.

…OK, you will never see it. Is that foreseeble that we can achieve that ? I do not believe so.
Is that what we need ?

It’s not what “we” need. It’s what you claim you have. That’s what I have a problem with.

…what you can always expect is that the same message is perceived somehow differently by the different receivers. There always is a unique meeting within message and receiver.

Precisely.

Continued…

 

[PC_Master]

So you believe that error and heresy can creep into the Church? If it has, how early? And if it did very early on, then how do you know that what you have inherited from the Catholic Church (The Sacred Scriptures) does not contain heresy or error?

First, scripture was compiled well before the RCC existed as it does today. Second, it’s obvious that heresy was creeping into the church even in the apostles’ day. Paul wrote many letters to many churches correcting improper teaching.

This statement in no way refutes what I said. Whether or not there was a council present is irrelevant to my statement. I said that ultimately the word of the apostles is what determined error. Paul was an apostle was he not?

The position of the RCC is not that any one bishop (successors of the apostles) can make such a determination, but that the whole of the magisterium must do so. Paul is a clear example that one individual possessing the truth of God is authorized to teach that, without approval, authorization, or instruction by any earthly body.

I also wrote: “In essence, the apostles had the final say of what was error and what wasn’t.” To which you responded, “Really? Where’s the scripture to demonstrate that this happened?” I think you did a wonderful job answering your own question above.

When you said “the apostles”, I assumed you were speaking collectively of the apostles as a hierarchal leadership of the church. If you’re saying that the apostles, individually, had authority because they knew the truth of God, then I have no objection to that.

However, I have never heard of a Fundamental Baptist ‘bishop’ and yet that term is very biblical, yet I have never seen the term ‘pastor’ anywhere in an english translation of the Bible, have you?

You assume that scripture supports a hierarchal system that consists of a pope, bishops, priests and deacons. Yet when I look into scripture, I see only two offices – that of the overseer/bishop/priest/pastor, and that of the deacon. The first seemingly is a godly office, and seemingly wasn’t limited to a single one per congregation. The second was a man-made office created to serve a practical, non-religious, purpose. I don’t see any reference in scripture to an office above that of the local church leader. I suppose you might infer that the apostles held such an office, but this would clearly be distinct from that of a bishop/overseer/pastor, as there’s nothing in scripture linking the two offices.

(btw, I don’t rely on the Bible only to define terms such as ‘pastor’ or ‘priest’. As such I recognize their validity outside the bible).

That’s fine – show me a source in antiquity that defines the offices as separate.

Secondly, you see no chaos because you are only considering the Independent Baptists, while ignoring the myriad of other denominations that all disagree w/ one another, including the baptists. Is this not definitive of chaos?

Ignoring other Protestant denominations, which presumably split with one another over the centuries, is no different than considering Roman Catholicism while ignoring all of the other denominations who split with (not from) the RCC over the centuries. This would at least include Eastern Orthodoxy (and all its variants), the Old Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, and many, many other groups.

How about a simple unity on some of the most central teachings of the church? I don’t have a statistic for you, but there is an astounding percentage of Catholics who use contraception, marry outside the church w/out an annulment then go back to church to receive communion, don’t believe in transubstantiation of the real presence…

I know several personally who disagree with the teachings of the RCC on one or more of these issues, and yet consider themselves very devout. They simply hold that the RCC is wrong on one or two issues, and will eventually change its teaching (yeah, they don’t believe that the RCC has never changed its teachings either). And this is just on issues where it’s pretty black and white, with little room for ambiguity.

The unity of the church exists in those who obey God - Catholic or otherwise. The question is: what is God’s will and where shall we find it?

Amen to that!

 

[pneuma07]

I think you misinterpret the situation – from all I’ve studied, the answer is more like this:

 

[pneuma07]

Hi Joy !
Nice to meet you again.

Obviously these folks don’t believe in the church’s supposed supreme authority either or there wouldn’t be such blatant disobedience.