I don’t think we get any single doctrine or dogma solely from the book of Hebrews.
Yes, the entirety of the Mosaic law is done away with. One cannot point to a single section of the Mosaic Covenant and say “this applies, but this doesn’t.” The entire thing is obsolete and done away with. That includes the Decalogue, the sacrificial system, the theocracy, all of it.LOL LOL…that’s pretty true really. I have noticed over the years in CAF that the argument is always how we are NOT saved through faith alone, but somehow with works. James is always, I mean always, referenced right away. But how exactly the works fit into the formula for salvation I’ve never understood. How, if we are “credited” as Paul says, with righteousness and the Law, as you pointed out a day or two ago in Colossians, is “nailed to the Cross with its legal claims against us” I find it hard to believe in those contexts that legalese can be ignored and infusion and sanctification before justification makes sense? The Law does sound more like the entire moral code of Judaism along with the circumcision and straining of gnats and the rest…
And yes, the final argument is always Matthew 16!
If you need a specific, real world example of what I’m saying, the thread Going to hell for leaving the Catholic church demonstrates quite clearly how, Catholics of good faith, seeking to follow the church can take the exact same Magesterial texts and interpret them with completely opposite meanings.
These Catholics may need to familiarize themselves with the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Amen, Non. I have yet to see how the thousands of volumes of theological writings, canonical laws, encyclicals, conciliar decrees, ex cathedra statements, and compilations of the church fathers helps to clarify the simple meaning of:
Hmm. I’m not sure which side of this I’d come down on, but have you looked at any of the discussions of what the CCC says about capital punishment? It has the same problem, people read it and see different things.
It is a mistake to imagine that the Catholic Church has a rule for every particular situation for every particular person in every particular time.
People, including Lutherans, tend to justify teaching(s) with quotes form the bible, not vice versa. This is a theological hair splitter that ultimately requires little action in one’s life, it mostly allows folks to claim some kind of pseudo-intellectual superiority.
You want some syrup on those waffles?
Scanning church documents, is there a list of these non-negotiable teachings that all Catholics would agree with? Or even just a list that has official approval? If not, your authority has missed another opportunity to unify the faithful.
OR, it is comforming one’s beliefs to the tachings of the Apostles’ as clearly laid out in Scripture-a good thing really, .
Perhaps if you stay with your theoretical mental construct of Catholic authority-the actual version playing out on the other thread leaves much room for improvement. You might also consider this poll while not authoratative in any sense, questions 16-18 do demonstrate a clear breakdown in the chain of authority you are so proud of, at least among those surveyed.
True-and yet Catholics keep coming back to post.
How do you know the development of the episcopate wasn’t under divine guidance in the early Church? Because of diversity??
If it was under divine guidance, then why would there be such diversity? If, as the aforementioned communions claim, the monarchical episcopate was the command of the apostles, given them by the direct revelation of Christ, and the idea of a succession of individual bishops was mandated, then why wouldn’t every single church that the apostles founded have a monarchical episcopate? Is it really an argument to say, “Christ founded Peter as the head of the Church, Peter went to Rome and set up his succession there. Oh, but his succession didn’t really start to be practiced by the Church at Rome for over a hundred years after his execution. Before that, they had a plurality of elders, each with equal authority.”
Non,It amuses me how Catholics who believe they need a Magesterium to interpret Scripture for them somehow believe that they can interpret the “plain meaning” of the Magesterial texts. In reality all they have done is pushed the step of self-interpretation back one level. The Bishops aren’t there with you making sure you’ve read and understood the Catechism correctly, nor does the Pope live at your house making sure to correctly explain his latest encyclical until you have it down pat. And yet Catholics disagree on the nature, authority and meaning of these texts.
So, Steve, you can choose to remain in your worlds of “we need an interpreter to understand anything” with its inherent self-referential flaw (i.e. the last level of "“official” interpretation still needs to be interpreted by the end reader) or you can acknowledge that texts have a plain sense which can be discussed amongst those who take the time to study them and inform themselves with regard to language, history, culture, etc.
If I’m eating a hot dog and someone writes about it, there can be debate about whether it was an all-beef hot dog or beef/pork, what the significance of the toppings was (if any) and what was the context in which I was eating it (at a ball game, I was hungry at lunch, etc). The plain sense is that I was eating a hot dog, there can be layers of speculation/interpretation that don’t contradict that plain sense and that may deepen the understanding of those reading.
But if someone comes along and claims to infallibly declare that I am actually eating a hamburger, the folks around us are going to laugh him out of the stadium in a mustard-stained robe. He’s contradicted the plain sense of things-and been rejected in his “interpretation” as a result.
Applying this to the question of the episcopate, shows the same result. As I stated in a previous post:
We see from Paul’s and John’s writings a plural episcopacy as well as in the Epistle of Clement, likewise we see in other ECF’s a mention of monarchical episcopacy, so there was at least one gvovernance model used in apostolic times (plural episcopacy) and more than one governance model in use in the churchs immediately after the Apostolic period (both plural and monarchical episcopacy). This isn’t opinion, but rather fact-so to claim that the Apostoles’ taught only a monarchical episcopate and thus it is “Tradition” is disproven by the plain sense of Scripture and the historical support from at least one of the ECF’s.
And by the way, that looks like a bit of mustard on your collar.
How does reading and understanding a simple statement claim some kind of intellectual superiority? How else are we to justify teachings other by looking at what Scripture says about those teachings?
I agree that there is muddiness among some Protestant communions who have turned to theological liberalism. They have abandoned not only their own communions statements of faith, but the authority of the Scriptures themselves. It’s an unfair comparison because you cannot take a communion which no longer functions as a representative of the teachings of the communion and then blame the teachings for it. There are millions of Catholics who support abortion on demand, birth control, women in the priesthood, etc. A supposedly infallible teaching authority has not prevented this, either. Nor would I expect it to. The fault lies in the sin of humanity.
Were there not single overseers at Churches as well?? Did not some have more authority thant others? Did it not develop very early? I dont see diversity as necessarily negating divine guidance.Acts 20:28-30 and Titus 1:9-11 shows the importance of the episcopate preserving apostolic teaching free from heresy. The lists of bishops in the second century demonstrated a line of legitimate teachers as a guarantee that the Church teachings represented that of the apostles. I think the claim that this system cannot be under divine guidance because it didn’t exist in its current form from day one isn’t necessarily convincing.
The only example we are given that single authorities had more authority than plural ones is in the case of the Apostles, which is a given. Develop early? I suppose that’s relative. If the appearance of a certain form of church government on the scene at a certain period in history is important, then surely the lack of a monarchical episcopate in the post-apostolic church wouldn’t bode well for it being apostolic dictum. When there was a plurality of elders serving at the Church of Rome, if it was the intention of apostolic witness that there be one bishop, vested with infallible supremacy over the entire church, and yet it wasn’t even close to being practiced, don’t you think some of the apostles who were still alive at the time of Clement may have been concerned about that?
Titus 1:9-11 does not presuppose a monarchical episcopate. You are correct in saying it shows the importance of elders preserving apostolic teaching. This in no way necessitates a monarchical episcopate with apostolic succession. It stresses the importance of apostolic teaching having succession, but not individual men. The same is also true of the Acts passage. In this passage, what is the stress on? A succession of single, authoritative bishops, or those bishops, however many there may be, being faithful to apostolic teaching and defending the flock from false teachers?
First and foremost, there is tremendous confusion concerning the early “lists” of the bishops of Rome (and many other cities), and for good reason. Different sources give different renderings. Why? As simple as it may sound, the reason is easily discovered: no one really cared for the first century of the history of the church at Rome. All the lists come from at the earliest many decades later, and show a concern that did not arise until the Church as a whole began struggling with heresy and began formulating concepts of authority to use against heretics. But in those first decades, even into the middle of the second century, no one was particularly concerned about who the bishop of Rome was. Why? Because no one had the concepts that Rome now presents as “ancient.” No one thought the bishop of any one church was above any other, or that the bishop of Rome was somehow invested with any particular authority.
I must confess to having been somewhat hungry myself when choosing that explanation.Non,
your making me hungry
Its the pot calling the kettle black. It’s the speck of dust and the beam. With all the complaints about supposed Catholic (or Orthodox) authority coming from people who’s very beliefs rely on a failed (Catholic) authority, I see no improvement to the authority structure.
I jumped into this discussion of Orthodox authority because I saw in your posts jabs at Catholic authority.
So how is it that teachings are all over the place. Even no-brainers like abortion?
Don’t you have a thread to fix? If you get that finished there’s always Very confused on “No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church.” as well. Until then, your comments about “teachings all over the place” apply just as well to Catholicism as any Protestant denomination.
My complaints are about the doctrines behind the concepts of authority in West and East. My complaint is not that it has resulted in confusion among the laity, or disagreements within Catholicism or Orthodoxy. My complaint is that it is opposed to apostolic witness.