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

[bookgirl32]

It wasn’t a question.

Besides, it seems that you approach this from a “the RCC is right until explicitly proven wrong” – a faulty approach for any belief system. Until this changes, I’m not certain that anything presented to you will be sufficient, or will be reasonably responded to.

On the other hand, I adopt the position that for me to believe something, there needs to be reasonable support for it, consisting of at least some evidence that cannot reasonably be explained in another way.

This entire thread is filled with arguments that claim to support the RCC – but you have to rely on the RCC to interpret the evidence in order for that to happen. Some have claimed to simply read scripture and other writings for what they actually are, but nearly all participants have a certain bias – for instance, ut assumes that the writings must be taken in a context of a hierarchal church with a pope, etc. When effectively assuming what is to be proved…I dunno, it seems a lose-lose proposition to me, rather than a discussion of benefit.

By the way, I really would like to see your response, bookgirl (and others) to my questions about confession. If James clearly says that we should confess our sins to one another and pray, and we’ll be forgiven…how does it become required that at least some sins must be confessed to a priest (or bishop, etc), who then issues penance and forgiveness in the place of Christ? What’s the earliest reference to required confession to a priest in history?

First of all, NOTHING can physically prove anything to you. Faith comes first, which is the basis we’re starting from. And it doesn’t seem like you are. You want to believe in God, and you assume He provided some instruction here on Earth, so you’re picking the one which you reason to be more accurate by men’s standards. You claim scripture alone, yet you admit that even scripture does not state sola scriptura, so we’re just arguing with your opinions, which seems kind of pointless. I believe in real truth, outside of what we think or believe, that it exists and was made absolutely available to us, with a guarantee that it would not be corrupted. So do most people who believe in sola scriptura. The debate there would be HOW did God provide for us? In scripture alone? Or in scripture, oral tradition, and a Church to interpret and guide both? Both of those arguments at least assume that the truth does exist outside of our opinion, outside of human proof of it. You sound like you’re not even really convinced that that exists.

 

[bookgirl32]

Nope. So, when left with two things, neither of which have been explicitly promised by God, it stands to reason (for me anyway), that a written source of teachings would be more beneficial, and thus would be part of the means God would use.

For a verbal tradition to be passed on inerrantly, not only do the original speakers of that truth need to be completely open to God’s will, but so do all recipients. That’s just not going to happen.

So how did it happen with the writers of scripture? You’re talking about the origen of relevation physically here on Earth. So the inspired writers of the Bible would have to be completely open to God’s will as well, wouldn’t they?

And you never answered the question about the Old Testament, that the majority of it was handed down verbally for quite some time. Abraham did not write about himself. How was that preserved until someone wrote it down?

 

[PC_Master]

…I may just be too stuck on the “head-knowledge” of what I read in Scripture.

I don’t understand what you’re getting at here, Joy. Are you suggesting that what we should believe is unintelligible? It seems odd that God would design the universe with such order, and then make faith something not only above and beyond, but seemingly contradictory to, logic and reason.

Anyway, I’ll be praying for you too.

On the contrary! The NT itself is such an indication. Written 30-60 years after the events took place, it is inspired-inerrant because it proceeds from the Sacred Tradition that was preserved.

So the original traditions were inspired, and the authors simply wrote them down much later? I think not – it’s more reasonable to believe God inspired the authors to create the written works.

Can you remember what you learned in class 20 years ago? Only the HS could preserve His Word in this way.

No doubt that he can, but does he? Clearly, God intervened with the scripture authors (and perhaps others who were equally open to his guidance), but to assume that he would do so with thousands of people in every generation, allowing them to perfectly transmit the truth…seems very odd.

Then you have to throw out your NT, and also the Canon, which was formed on the basis of those Sacred Traditions.

Not at all – though I certainly am not willing to exclude anything outside of “canon” as completely invalid. As for those sacred traditions…even if your assertion was true, the very lack of written evidence to support certain practices (papacy, confession to a priest, etc) requires you to interpolate history with more modern thinking to get a picture that supports your views.

I will not presume to tell you what you “should” believe, but I can tell you that without a doubt, God is able to watch over His word to perform it.

You and I seem to agree on his capability – we simply disagree on his activity.

He prepared the Jewish people, whose faith is inseparably entrenched in Sacred Oral Tradition, and brought salvation to the world through them.

That’s quite another issue – for there were many things in Jewish teaching (and presumably “sacred tradition”) that weren’t quite right. But that’s an entirely separate discussion.

To me, it seems that you have a Trust issue. It is not really the Catholic Church you doubt, but God.

Actually, it is the RCC that I doubt – I doubt the veracity of its claims. The thing you trust, or do not trust is that which makes a claim or supposedly does an action.

For instance, I trust Christ’s teachings. I trust that Paul received revelation from God directly. I do not trust the RCC when it makes the same claim. So, yes, I have a trust issue…but it’s certainly with the RCC.

That NT that you appear to accept without question contains within it the commandment to preserve the Sacred Traditions.

Actually, it’s rather specific – it didn’t say to preserve “all sacred traditions”. It says to follow the things that Paul taught, either by word or letter. “Follow my teachings of truth” is not the same as a generic “Follow sacred tradition”. And then comes the question of how the people would know the specifics of these sacred traditions, and whether an item actually was a sacred tradition.

For instance, the author of the epistle of James seems to have been unaware of the necessity of priests in the process of confession. How could James, whether James the Just (bishop of Jerusalem and “brother of the Lord”) or James the Great (brother of John, son of Zebedee), have been unaware of this crucial thing? Surely, if there was sacred tradition, James would have clearly known and understood the necessity of confessing sins to a priest, wouldn’t he?

For some reason, you seem to think that God would command something He could not effect.

Nope – I just doubt that he commanded it.

2 Thess 2:14-15
15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

Since the two came from the same Source, what makes you think that less attention would be given to one?

You’ll note this didn’t say “sacred traditions” or any such things – it wasn’t a blanket statement of “remember the traditions of the church”. This was specific – they (Paul and those with him) had taught the church at Thessalonica things in person and by writing, and Paul was here instructing them to remember what he had taught. This wasn’t a matter of “sacred tradition”, but rather a specific exhortation to remember what Paul considered to be Godly teaching. He neither endorses nor makes mention of teaching from any other source but himself in this instance.

Continued…

 

[PC_Master]

Except when it comes to preserving the inerrant-inspired revelation that comes by word of mouth. Then I guess the Devil is stronger?

Not at all – lack of an action does not provide for incapability of an action. To say that God did not adequately cause verbal transmission of “sacred tradition” is only a negative if God intended to do that in the first place.

For example (and remember, this is just an example, not a real claim) – let’s say I believe (for whatever reason), that when God said he’d never flood the earth with water again (after the “great flood” as found in the Old Testament), he actually meant he’d never allow it to rain again either. Now, you jump up and down emphatically saying – “But see, its raining!!!”

Does that mean God’s a liar? Of course not – all it means is that my understanding of God’s promise was wrong. That God did not prevent it from raining doesn’t mean that God could not prevent it from raining. It doesn’t mean that God tried, but the devil won the fight.

Do not, for one moment, be under the illusion that I believe God incapable of anything he so desires to do. If you’re interpreting my words in a way that sounds as though I’m limiting the capability of God, I can tell you that you’re misinterpreting what I said.

To be clear – it’s not that God cannot cause perfect verbal transmission of the truth from one generation to the next all the way through history – it’s that he does not. (In my opinion, of course.)

Plenty of spiritually mature elders fell into heresy. A study of the Arian controversy will show this. Authority has everything to do with it.

Define “plenty”. Also, you seem to be confusing authority with infallibility. The two, though seemingly related, are not the same. Authority can be had without infallibility (the RCC has some authority – though not from a divine source in my opinion).

If authority is what makes one right – why did Paul need authorization in your view? He claimed to be an apostle authorized by none other than Jesus himself.

Well, aren’t we all? How do we determine who is correct? Why did Jesus say to take the dispute to the Church, instead of to the Writings?

You seem to still think of me as a sola scripturist. While I readily confess I believe scripture, if read clearly with an open mind and a moderate understanding of Jewish culture and metaphors, can settle many disputes, I have certainly never claimed that it is the source we should appeal to. Ultimately, the appeal is to God himself. But you’re still looking for an visible source to write a ruling on every question, so that it can be stored and codified for all – why is it you believe God has to work that way?

If you wish to determine if you are correct in a belief that the holy spirit has given you, there are a few things I think are beneficial:

1. Consult scripture – see if there’s something there, or elsewhere equally early in church history, which contradicts your new belief.
2. Consult other believers of spiritual maturity – these individuals can help you to be aware of self-deceptions, and can aid you by praying.
3. Pray often. The revelation comes from God, and so the clarification or verification must also come from him.

Now, before we go elsewhere, I’d like to mention also that the passage for settling disputes is found in Matthew 18, and concerns what to do “if your brother wrongs [sins against] you”. This isn’t really to deal with a question of doctrinal agreement.

It is in our nature. That is why Jesus established a Church, and gave authority to the Apostles.

God provided a tangible church because our nature is to want that? I think that’s a rather unsubstantiated reason. God’s reasons are not so guided by the desires of man.

While not sharing the beliefs generated by them, I (hope I) do respect your subjective experiences and the importance they have for you.

I see what you’re saying now. Essentially, you’re saying you respect me in that you believe I really think these things did happen and were of God. I might phrase it that you respect my integrity in this, but disagree with the beliefs I have.

Anyway, it seems like we understand each other on this issue now.

Again, we see a disunity of beliefs as having no meaning about the reliability of the source.

Agreed – but the question of “who can we go to to settle a dispute” cannot be answered with “the magisterium, of course” if the magisterium isn’t guaranteed to provide a conclusive answer (which as we’ve covered, it frequently doesn’t).

So, both the RCC and Protestantism share two flaws – constituents will disagree sometimes, and in many of those cases, the differences cannot, or will not, be resolved. I think the biggest difference is that with my belief, the holy spirit is always willing and able to answer these disputes – it’s only us that’s the limiting factor. With the RCC, it won’t necessarily answer a dispute, even if both parties are willing, due to the small size of the dispute. (As previously discussed, the RCC can’t/won’t/shouldn’t have to resolve every dispute.)

Continued…

 

[PC_Master]

I have given several different answers to similar questions. Let’s try now this one. Noone is building his “do it yourself” Scripture there. I hope you won’t reply “What use is (a shared) Scripture, if we christians undertsand it differently ?”

(By “there” I assume you mean “in the RCC”.)

I would disagree – as we’ve discussed, scriptural interpretations differ even in the RCC. So while there may be a concise set of documents (though even that might be questionable – I think I’ve heard of books [modern ones] officially endorsed by the RCC that some consider heretical), interpretations and understandings still differ. Also of note is that the men who supposedly canonized scripture weren’t all in complete agreement with one another over which works should have been placed in the canon. They supposedly established a unified set, yes, but there was disagreement, where each person that came to the respective councils effectively did “build their own scripture” – they decided which volumes to vote for, and argue against, etc. Why is it that they were capable of doing this? You would agree that it was the guidance of the holy spirit, right? So why shouldn’t I be able to allow the holy spirit to guide me to understand which works are valid and which aren’t?

Please, understand how difficult it is for me accepting that the Holy Spirit inspires different NT, breaking even that common source of unity still existing among christians.

I thought we already covered that there is only one truth. If a work is totally and completely inspired by God, this is the message that will be given by the holy spirit to each person listening. Likewise, if the works of Tertullian prior to his montanistic period are valid, and the later ones aren’t, the holy spirit would reveal this same message to each listening person.

Clearly, the holy spirit did not reveal to the ECFs, council members, or church leaders throughout that only the volumes in the “New Testament canon” were valid and contained the truth of God.

OK. But I hope you are not using those passages just to show that point. Do you really consider those passages by Ignatius and Justin as supporting the symbolic view of the Lord’s Supper ? Will you interpret them to show us that ?

I was hoping not to deal with that here – we’re already off-topic enough as it is, I think. Still, I’ll see what I can do – probably won’t get to this for a few days, however.

We approach alleged contradictions of a source according to our degree of trust in it. You know hundreds of purported contradictions are attributed to Scripture by some non christians. You and I are not willing to accept that without further research.

True, but I do at least consider the possibility, and usually do the research.

But I think this is a different can of worms – I trust scripture because it has proven to be accurate and an incredible work which could (in my experience and opinion) have only come about by the hand of God. Here, I’m effectively being asked to accept the claim that the RCC is valid based on nothing more than its own interpretation of scripture that says so, and some semi-logical reasoning that amounts to “this is what I, as a human, think is the best way to run things”. Do you really expect that I can accept that without something to really demonstrate that the RCC really was the church back then…that the papacy really did exist…that confessions to a priest really were considered necessary…and so on?

( BTW I’d like to debate alongside you sometimes, rather than with you. Sometimes I happen to guess we christians spend too much energy debating with each other and too little with the remaining humanity).

That could be fun. I’d actually like to debate against some atheists some time.

Someone could just say: you see, many contradictions there. We can just assume they are or are not contradictions, or we can try to understand what they really are. Which is not so easy, in some cases.

True, but honestly, most of the contradictions I’ve heard from non-Christians are things like “Why does Moses have two different father-in-laws listed?” – things like this are very simply answered (he quite possibly had two wives).

The alleged contradictions about Magisterium are often explained IMHO in terms that betray a mistaken understanding of what is stated, in what context,. The language of the Church is often quite alien to those who claim a seeming contradiction IS a contradiction.

I do understand the point, but I don’t think I really fit into the category of someone uneducated in this.

Doesn’t that seem strange to you, sometimes, that some scriptural interpretations you consider “obvious” are far from what I won’t say some believers, but most of Christianity can share ?

Yes – it does seem strange. Then again, so does the fact that so many people can reject the existence of God or any sort of supernatural being. That doesn’t mean I stop thinking of it as obvious.

When I see that we “confess your sins to one another”, I think it’s rather obvious that it means to confess your sins to your brothers and sisters in Christ (as this was written to a group of Christians, not to people in general). I just don’t see “confess your mortal sins to your priest, and he will prescribe penance and will forgive your sins (in the place of Christ)”.

Tell me how that’s not obvious, please.

First of all, NOTHING can physically prove anything to you. Faith comes first, which is the basis we’re starting from.

So faith is independent of and exclusive from logic, reason, and evidentiary support?

Continued…

 

[PC_Master]

And it doesn’t seem like you are. You want to believe in God, and you assume He provided some instruction here on Earth, so you’re picking the one which you reason to be more accurate by men’s standards.

Actually, it’s men’s standards I reject – I personally think it makes much more sense for God to have instituted a visible church hierarchy. Even more so I think it makes sense for Christ to have simply stayed on earth. However, the fact that he didn’t do that which seems most beneficial to me demonstrates that my understanding is flawed. Thus, I do the best to understand what God’s reasoning and methods are.

You claim scripture alone, yet you admit that even scripture does not state sola scriptura, so we’re just arguing with your opinions, which seems kind of pointless. I believe in real truth, outside of what we think or believe,

1. I never claimed sola scriptura as valid. I believe the holy spirit is the primary source of revelation.
   2) It’s always opinions that are being debated, whether they’re yours or mine or ut’s or pneuma’s.
   3) Yes, truth is absolute, even if we don’t understand it correctly. I think I’ve said this a few dozen times already.

…that it exists and was made absolutely available to us, with a guarantee that it would not be corrupted.

Yes, the holy spirit, by divine nature, is incorruptible, and thus the truth is available to us.

The debate there would be HOW did God provide for us? In scripture alone? Or in scripture, oral tradition, and a Church to interpret and guide both? Both of those arguments at least assume that the truth does exist outside of our opinion, outside of human proof of it. You sound like you’re not even really convinced that that exists.

You’re excluding the most important option – in scripture and revelation from the holy spirit. This is the best option in the bunch, because it’s what God actually did.

Christ did, after all say that he would send the holy spirit, and that it would lead us into all truth (and that it has no words of its own, but expresses only what it receives from God above). All that’s left is for us to follow.

So how did it happen with the writers of scripture? You’re talking about the origen of relevation physically here on Earth. So the inspired writers of the Bible would have to be completely open to God’s will as well, wouldn’t they?

Yes, and I believe they were – at least very, very much so. Perhaps not to perfection, but enough to allow God’s word to be written through them in an accurate way.

And you never answered the question about the Old Testament, that the majority of it was handed down verbally for quite some time. Abraham did not write about himself. How was that preserved until someone wrote it down?

It’s an interesting point, but there’s a couple of things:

1. Scholars have long stressed that the genealogies (for instance) in scripture can’t be trusted as accurate, for frequently, only important details of the genealogies were memorized from generation to generation.
2. While the historical data is interesting, the details of faith pertaining to it are minuscule compared to the amount of information in the NT alone, much less compared to all the supposed developments from the RCC, that were explicitly understood in the apostolic church.
3. The laws and most important details of the faith were penned by Moses and later authors from things they personally were witness to (and I wouldn’t be surprised if Moses kept a journal).
4. Genesis is of unknown origin to some extent, and so may actually contain a close to eye-witness record.
5. This is the important one – all of these verbal traditions, if passed down from generation to generation as an oral tradition and/or oral history, would have held a precise form, and a specific set of things to be said. What I mean by this is, for example, if you were passing down the story of the boy who cried wolf, it contains a specific form, and it is a set story, basically. It’s not to be said that all tellers and hearers of the story implicitly understood that the boy’s cries went unanswered because he’d deceived the townspeople too many times – that is explicitly stated. As I understand, OT tradition also had such a form. Thus, if NT tradition had such a form as well, how do we know what it was? Surely someone would have written the oral traditions down, as was done with Jewish ones (the early Talmud was a good source of most of this, I understand). ***Why would something, transmitted verbally, have no set form or precise set of contents?

***Also, since I’ve answered your question, will you answer mine – where in history or scripture do we see confession to a priest as necessary?

 

[bookgirl32]

So faith is independent of and exclusive from logic, reason, and evidentiary support

No, I said faith comes first.

 

[PC_Master]

No, I said faith comes first.

To order faith, logic, reason, etc in one way or another indicates that they contradict one another. I don’t think this is a reasonable conclusion.

 

[bookgirl32]

Christ did, after all say that he would send the holy spirit, and that it would lead us into all truth (and that it has no words of its own, but expresses only what it receives from God above). All that’s left is for us to follow

So we’re back to the Holy Spirit leading everyone to all different sorts of truth, not one, absolute truth.

I will answer the others, just too late tonight.

The confession thing, I’ll give you scriptural basis, but we’re going to have to deal with the interpretative (is that a word ?) authority of the Church before that anyway.

 

[utunumsint]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

You’re again assuming a hierarchy without first demonstrating that. The “council of Jerusalem” doesn’t qualify as a ruling body for the entirety of Christianity, by any means. You assume that it was, and accept that without question – but there’s nothing that really shows that.

 

[utunumsint]

So you say. And essentially you’re also saying that I don’t. There is a difference between you believing that you interpret scripture and other writings in an unbiased manner and actually doing it.

Likewise my friend. So what is the point in making such accusations except to score rhetorical points or to be agravating?

Are you sure that’s what he said? I think you should read what he wrote more clearly. (Specifically take notice of the reasons why he said the individual in question should not be ejected from office – it wasn’t for the sake of the office, nor for who appointed him.)

If a bishop were not fulfilling his duties blamelessly, and the people had just cause to reject him, I’m sure he could be removed. But there are other reasons for not removing the bishop, according to Celement. Bishops are in a clear line of succession from the apostles who appointed proved them by the spirit and instructed them to do likewise with their successors. Bishops appoint other bishops, the laity consensts- Likewise the laity cannot arbitrarily kick their bishop out of office. Clement mentions that one or two were causing the whole church to succeed from the authority of the Bishop. The Bishop had a major rebellion on his hands and required the intervention of the Bishop of Rome. The bishop of Rome upholds the authority of the bishop based on apostolic succession, and based on the innocence of the bishop in question.

What I find interesting in this letter is the fact that Clement emphasises the office of the bishop much more over any charismatic preaching abilities of the deposed bishop. The bishop had duties and responsibilities that he fulfilled blamelessly. Clearly defined duties and responsibilities. In Chapter 40, to 44 Clements spends a long time describing the proper order in a church. In chapter 40 he clearly equates the bishop/priest/deacon ministry to the ordered ministry of the high priest/levites/and laity. Clearly defined offices. A clearly define…Hiereachy!!!

Really? Let’s have a look at the earliest record we have…

James says that we should confess our sins and pray, and we will be healed from our sicknesses and be forgiven of our sins. It says nothing of confessing to a priest (or bishop, pastor, deacon, apostle, etc) – it says “to one another”. It says nothing of penance in a brief glance-through. So, was James wrong?

Continued…

Right. He is not very specific on the details, is he. Thats why I require further clarification from the church fathers.

God bless,
Ut

 

[pneuma07]

Extra-scriptural…I suppose you could call it that, though I prefer to think of it only as explanation of God’s truth, as contained in scripture. It’s not unlike the interpretation the RCC does

 

[bookgirl32]

To order faith, logic, reason, etc in one way or another indicates that they contradict one another. I don’t think this is a reasonable conclusion.

Um, how exactly is that? So are faith, hope and love contradicting one another, since the greatest of these is love?

 

[guanophore]

I would disagree – as we’ve discussed, scriptural interpretations differ even in the RCC. So while there may be a concise set of documents (though even that might be questionable – I think I’ve heard of books [modern ones] officially endorsed by the RCC that some consider heretical), interpretations and understandings still differ. Also of note is that the men who supposedly canonized scripture weren’t all in complete agreement with one another over which works should have been placed in the canon. They supposedly established a unified set, yes, but there was disagreement, where each person that came to the respective councils effectively did “build their own scripture” – they decided which volumes to vote for, and argue against, etc. Why is it that they were capable of doing this? You would agree that it was the guidance of the holy spirit, right? So why shouldn’t I be able to allow the holy spirit to guide me to understand which works are valid and which aren’t?

I think you should, you should just not do it in isolation from the authorities appointed by Christ to fulfill this purpose. the Truth is not defined by the dissenters, though they may sharpen it. Jesus Truth is found in unity. This is how He set it up. All those in union with the Head will be in union with the HS, and one another.

I thought we already covered that there is only one truth. If a work is totally and completely inspired by God, this is the message that will be given by the holy spirit to each person listening. Likewise, if the works of Tertullian prior to his montanistic period are valid, and the later ones aren’t, the holy spirit would reveal this same message to each listening person.

This is true, but the ability of each individual to receive the revelation is based upon their own degree of openness.

 Clearly, the holy spirit did *not* reveal to the ECFs, council members, or church leaders throughout that *only* the volumes in the "New Testament canon" were valid and contained the truth of God.

I agree. clearly, we can see the doctrines of truth woven throughout, even works that have been declared heretical containing some.

True, but I do at least consider the possibility, and usually do the research.

kudos to you! :bowdown:

Here, I’m effectively being asked to accept the claim that the RCC is valid based on nothing more than its own interpretation of scripture that says so, and some semi-logical reasoning that amounts to “this is what I, as a human, think is the best way to run things”. Do you really expect that I can accept that without something to really demonstrate that the RCC really was the church back then…that the papacy really did exist…that confessions to a priest really were considered necessary…and so on?

Not if you have made up your mind in advance that it cannot be. Jesus said that the Kingdom would be like a mustard seed. The plant that grows from a mustard seed is not recognizeable from the seed. He said there were things they were not yet ready to understand, but that they would later.

When I see that we “confess your sins to one another”, I think it’s rather obvious that it means to confess your sins to your brothers and sisters in Christ (as this was written to a group of Christians, not to people in general). I just don’t see “confess your mortal sins to your priest, and he will prescribe penance and will forgive your sins (in the place of Christ)”.

The practice of confession, as with all the sacraments, has developed over time. Clearly James urges them to call for the elders (presbyters/priests) and then confess. Jesus commissions the apostles to retain or forgive sins. The Apostles passed this authority on to the bishops, and they to the presbyters. Why would you NOT want to confess to someone who had been given authority by Christ to forgive them?

Also, since I’ve answered your question, will you answer mine – where in history or scripture do we see confession to a priest as necessary?

The answer to this question cannot be separated from Christ’s commission to the Apostles:

John 20:21-23
21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” 22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

How did the Father send Christ?

With the authority on earth to forgive sins.

Christ sends the Apostles with that same authority.

How do you imagine that the Apostles will be able to decide to forgive or retain?

 

[pneuma07]

In other words, you’re saying a written message can and will be understood differently by different people in different places? That’s interesting – it also means that the supposedly infallible papal documents are not infallible, because a variety of interpretations will come from them by necessity.

 

[pneuma07]

Woah!!! You’re twisting things around here – when did I say that I

 

[PC_Master]

So we’re back to the Holy Spirit leading everyone to all different sorts of truth, not one, absolute truth.

Why do you assume that because I understand the holy spirit differently than hypothetical guy Joe Smith, the holy spirit is actually sending different messages?

To keep with the leading/following analogy – if a shepherd leads two sheep, and they end up in different places, does that mean the shepherd actually led them in two different directions? Of course not! It simply means that at least one of the sheep didn’t follow the shepherd.

It’s not a question of where the holy spirit leads – it’s a question of how well we follow.

I’ve said this many times in this thread, so I think I’m about done with that particular point.

The confession thing, I’ll give you scriptural basis, but we’re going to have to deal with the interpretative (is that a word ?) authority of the Church before that anyway.

Scriptural basis would include some reference that shows specifically that confession to a priest or other specific leader is necessary for the forgiveness of sins. I don’t see how interpretive authority really enters into it, unless you’re going to present what scripture says as an ambiguity.

Yes…there is, and I have proved this over and over again. The Apostles did not just provide an opinion (simply asserting this does not prove it to be true). They made a definitive ruling that no individual believer could make.

I think we’re just going to have to agree to disagree here. I personally see no evidence of the kind of authority you suggest they have. You assume, with no real written evidence to support it, that everyone implicitly knew that Jerusalem was in charge, and that the apostles and elders made a decision that was binding on all the faithful.

It is the nature of authoritative bodies to legislate. These “necessities” show that the council were not only abrogating Jewish laws, but upholding some as well. These are clearly acts of ruling!

Yes – you assume they were an authoritative body, and so you see legislative action on their part. I see that they were a body of spiritually mature individuals being consulted by those in dispute, and I see the result as an attempt at spiritual guidance to their brothers.

The letter to the Galatians has him clearly making the statement that he went to consult with the council…“lest he run in vain”. As I’ve amply proved that the council was an authoritative ruling body, I find that it is clear to me that Paul was appealing to this earthly authority.

Clearly you have not read Galatians 1 & 2 recently. If anything, they’re anti-authority. I have just concluded doing some word studies on that passage, and I strongly advise the Amplified Bible as a largely valid rendering of the original text. I won’t go into full detail (you should read Galatians on your own), but here’s a couple of key points:

1. Paul claims to be an apostle not of or by men, but by Christ and God the father. (Gal 1:1) He tells the story of his commissioning by Christ – never does he say he was commissioned by the church.
2. The first two chapters of the letter seem to be defending the gospel that he taught, showing its validity over the others (perhaps Judaizers) being taught. (Gal 1:6-7)
3. Paul says that not even an angel from heaven has the authority to preach another gospel. (Gal 1:8)
4. Paul repeatedly disclaims any authorization of or source of his teachings from earth. (Gal 1:11-12) He emphasizes that after his appointment by Christ as an apostle, he did not go to Jerusalem to see the other apostles (Gal 1:16-17), and even when he did (three years later), he only saw Peter and James, and no others (Gal 1:19).

Now, the point you were driving at is found in chapter two.Galatians 2:1-11 Amplified

1. THEN AFTER [an interval] of fourteen years I again went up to Jerusalem. [This time I went] with Barnabas, taking Titus along with [me] also.
   So, around two weeks meeting with Peter, and a bit with James – then he doesn’t see them again for fourteen years. So here we are, nearly twenty years after the start of his ministry, before he met with the supposed magisterium in Jerusalem. So, by Paul’s own writing, unless Peter endorsed him in private, without meeting with the rest of the apostles and elders, Paul could not have been authorized for two decades after the start of his ministry!2. I went because it was specially and divinely revealed to me that I should go, and I put before them the Gospel [declaring to them that] which I preach among the Gentiles. However, * privately before those of repute, [for I wanted to make certain, by thus at first confining my communication to this private conference] that I was not running or had not run in vain [guarding against being discredited either in what I was planning to do or had already done].
   Now, admittedly, there’s a good deal of interpolation in the Amplified Bible here. However, to the best of my understanding from studies on the verses, the rendering is pretty accurate.

It was revealed to Paul that he should go to Jerusalem – now, this visit to Jerusalem may have been in regards to the circumcision/Mosaic law issues in Acts 15, in which case this can be understood as the reason for the revelation to go there.

Continued…*

 

[PC_Master]

Note that Paul makes specific note here that he did not present his teaching to the full “magisterium” here. He presented it to those of reputation. Why? Let’s see…3. But [all went well!] even Titus, who was with me, was not compelled [as some had anticipated] to be circumcised, although he was a Greek.
4. [My precaution was] because of false brethren who had been secretly smuggled in [to the Christian brotherhood]; they had slipped in to spy on our liberty and the freedom which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might again bring us into bondage [under the Law of Moses].
Paul was concerned that Titus, a Greek, might be compelled to be circumcised, but at the private meeting, this didn’t happen. He seems relieved here, and explains why he’d taken the precaution – there were false brethren who had come into the church (such as the Judaizers). 5. To them we did not yield submission even for a moment, that the truth of the Gospel might continue to be [preserved] for you [in its purity].
Paul didn’t want to yield submission of his teaching to these false individuals. Notice that if he was going to meet with a magisterium, he’s directly saying here that he would not yield his teaching. 6. Moreover, [no new requirements were made] by those who were reputed to be something–though what was their individual position and whether they really were of importance or not makes no difference to me; God is not impressed with the positions that men hold and He is not partial and recognizes no external distinctions–those * who were of repute imposed no new requirements upon me [had nothing to add to my Gospel, and from them I received no new suggestions].(A)
Please study the wording here in detail – I use Strong’s and Thayer’s Greek dictionaries for this, plus comparisons of other word uses via concordance. Specifically, it can be rendered that they who seemed of repute imparted not one single thing to me. Paul’s saying that these “men of repute” did not add a single thing to his own teaching – again supporting his authority from Christ.

He also makes mention that those who were of stature made no difference to him because God doesn’t care about such distinctions. Again, if you doubt the translation – check the definitions yourself. I have at length and am thoroughly satisfied. 9. And when they knew (perceived, recognized, understood, and acknowledged) the grace (God’s unmerited favor and spiritual blessing) that had been bestowed upon me, James and Cephas (Peter) and John, who were reputed to be pillars of the Jerusalem church, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, with the understanding that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised (Jews).
10. They only [made one stipulation], that we were to remember the poor, which very thing I was also eager to do.
They recognized the appointment of God, and supported the missionary work of Paul, asking only that he should remember the poor – and notice also that Paul makes mention that “I wanted to do that anyway”. 11. But when Cephas (Peter) came to Antioch, I protested and opposed him to his face [concerning his conduct there], for he was blameable and stood condemned.
Now, I know this verse is commonly used for attacking papal infallibility here – this is not what I’m doing. I’m only saying that this is the very next verse after talking about his trip to Jerusalem. If his point in mentioning that was to appeal to authority there, he is effectively using the very next verse to destroy that appeal! (I appeal to them, but then I attacked Peter when he was wrong in Antioch…but you should listen to me because Peter says so. )

The council, and Peter guarantee the authenticity of the Paul’s teachings. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Interestingly, Paul makes no mention of presenting the whole of his teachings to the “council”. He says only that he presented them to “those of repute” (presumably James, Peter and John, as they’re the ones mentioned later in the chapter).

Continued…*

 

[PC_Master]

Because so few people agree with your points?

Nope. That’s not it at all. It’s just like scripture says – narrow is the way that leads to salvation, and few are those who find it.

Arianism, again for one.

This seems, to me, to have been supported by a very small portion of the church, and thus was not a major issue.

Or capable. This a point I’d like to follow up on. There are people out there who do not have the ability or the skill to delve into the scriptures like you do. Lets consider literacy for a moment. How many people in the time of the Apostles were literate do you think? These iliterates would be really and truly dependant. They would be sheep. They also did not have any clearly defined bible. Who did they turn to? They turned to their priests and bishops for guidance.

And the holy spirit was just totally non-active in the lives of these? Also, you still haven’t shown how it’s certain that those doing the teaching were accurately doing it.

Likewise my friend. So what is the point in making such accusations except to score rhetorical points or to be agravating?

You’ll excuse me if I don’t understand, but I don’t recall ever saying that I am unbiased in my understanding. That I believe scripture has all that’s necessary plainly obvious in its contents doesn’t mean that my understanding is perfect. I’ve never made any such claim. It’s you that has said “I just read it for what it says”, not I. My constant point has been that the truth is out there, and it is clear in scripture, and is clear in revelation from the holy spirit…if only we have the maturity to understand it.

If a bishop were not fulfilling his duties blamelessly, and the people had just cause to reject him, I’m sure he could be removed. But there are other reasons for not removing the bishop, according to Celement.

For now, I’m going to defer on this until I have time to reread Clement’s letters. I have a feeling that, like Galatians, the commonly quoted portions are simply not in keeping with the whole of the volume, and it’s been a while since I read those.

The Bishop had a major rebellion on his hands and required the intervention of the Bishop of Rome. The bishop of Rome upholds the authority of the bishop based on apostolic succession, and based on the innocence of the bishop in question.

Or the bishop of Rome was simply a well-respected believer, much like Paul, whose opinions and spiritual understanding carried great weight.

In chapter 40 he clearly equates the bishop/priest/deacon ministry to the ordered ministry of the high priest/levites/and laity. Clearly defined offices. A clearly define…Hiereachy!!!

As I said, I intend to reread, but as I recall this hierarchy is missing a papacy.

Right. He is not very specific on the details, is he. Thats why I require further clarification from the church fathers.

This is not an issue of ambiguity – James wrote to, as I recall, the scattered Jews. Thus, when he says to confess your sins to one another, he obviously means to another in the group he was writing. For instance, if I were speaking to a group, and said “we’re going to take a break – grab some coffee, and chat with one another”, would you not interpret my meaning to mean that I should chat with someone else in that group? It’s pretty clear, and lacks any mention of a priest being involved in confession.

I see here the great alternative again: the “self” versus the Catholic Church.

I think we’ve hit a wall here. It’s not self versus RCC. It’s interpretation of the holy spirit versus interpretation of RCC’s interpretation of the holy spirit. Self is involved in each. I see no difference in that regard.

The signs of the direct call by God to individual human beings are miracles (Moses, Saul/Paul …).

So seeming miracles validate something as truth?

The key word is “seems”.

Well, in this case, “seems” means that considering it non-contradictory would require blind obedience for me, since it seemingly defies logic and understanding. This is not how God works, in my opinion.

I guess you admitting a sort of episcopalian model for the sub-apostolic Church. Are you ?

Not as an appointed hierarchy. Time to reread Ignatius too.

…can be seen as providing evidence of the special role of Rome, by comparing his letter to Rome with the other ones.
( I am aware this is debated).

I’m one who has debated it. As I recall, the conclusion I reached was that there was nothing explicit showing particular authority or honor of Rome.

Continued…

 

[PC_Master]

It is clear that if everyone has to obey a well defined recognizable group of guys ( as we get from Ignatius), those guys do govern the Church. As the Apostles did govern the Church in Acts.

There’s a couple of things…

1. If everyone has to obey, you’re correct. But do they have to? We see very little action on the part of Jerusalem to be able to make a distinction here.
2. Even if the apostles, by the unique experience (in the scope of history) they had, held authority, this simply doesn’t validate the concept of apostolic succession.

looks like it is speaking about the eucharistic sacrifice they would present every sunday, as we do today in the Catholic Church.

Here, I’d say “looks like” is the operative term. I’ll have to add the Didache to my reading list.

www.newadvent.org/library/doc_jp02dv.htm

404 error. Try again, please?

The important things are not so easy to get from Scripture, in many cases. About salvation, for example, I cannot see it that easy. People get fond of a couple of passages about that, and decide thay can do without other passages which happen to seem in contradiction with the beloved ones.

And this is a flawed means of looking at things. We must understand that Christ cannot lie. Thus all of what Christ says must be truthful. However Christ also used parables to express truths. Thus some of the seemingly contradictory things (John 6) can easily be explained. Christ said that he who believes shall have eternal life – I simply can’t ignore that, so when I see other things that speak of eternal life, I have to evaluate and understand them in relation to that.

It all fits together, for me at least, without any real stretching of things. (John 6 is probably at the outer edge of the “stretching”, if you can call it that.)

Which would bring us back to post 274 . Maybe you could start this time, to change the situation.

I can’t really affirm a negative. All I can say is:

1) We see nothing explicitly authoritative in scripture by a council or other similarly-styled ruling body.
2) We see no explicitly-papal actions in scripture.
3) Paul makes no mention of the authority of Jerusalem or Rome, except to say that he doesn't really care who is of repute or not.
4) Peter makes no mention of his authority or of the authority of Jerusalem.

Um, how exactly is that? So are faith, hope and love contradicting one another, since the greatest of these is love?

Not at all. In context, Paul was speaking of spiritual gifts (starting in I Corinthians 12 and continuing through 13). He was saying that if one is to desire a single gift, love is the best to have, for reasons explained in chapter 13.

I think you should, you should just not do it in isolation from the authorities appointed by Christ to fulfill this purpose. the Truth is not defined by the dissenters, though they may sharpen it. Jesus Truth is found in unity. This is how He set it up. All those in union with the Head will be in union with the HS, and one another.

Well, you may keep saying "unity, unity!" all you like, but as we've covered ad nauseam by now, the RCC doesn't possess unity (of belief).

This is true, but the ability of each individual to receive the revelation is based upon their own degree of openness.

Exactly right.

I agree. clearly, we can see the doctrines of truth woven throughout, even works that have been declared heretical containing some.

Yup.

Not if you have made up your mind in advance that it cannot be.

Though I may have formed previous opinions, that doesn’t mean that I’m opposed to changing those opinions if I see valid reason to do so – but there must be reason. I cannot simply accept what the RCC says without something to support it any more than I could accept God’s existence without something to support it (the universe is a good piece of that puzzle).

Jesus said that the Kingdom would be like a mustard seed. The plant that grows from a mustard seed is not recognizeable from the seed.

Interestingly, the surrounding parables have essentially nothing to do with that idea. The mustard seed parable itself says nothing of becoming unrecognizable. This is a parable you’re drawing yourself. It was speaking of size, not composition.

The practice of confession, as with all the sacraments, has developed over time.

So confession to a priest wasn’t actually practiced in the apostolic church?

Continued…