No more use for the Apostles

[MiserereMei]

having accepted the premise that the Church is infallible

This here is the primary reason why I am not Roman Catholic, I suppose. I do not accept the premise, as it has not been sufficiently demonstrated, from what I have seen, in order for me to accept it.

For your statement about Sola Scriptura and Baptism in your most recent post, I have had similar experiences with Baptists on the same topic. And the literal-mindedness exists among some Lutherans as well, with both the Bible and the Confessions. I saw the same reaction among the Orthodox in terms of church teaching. The anti-intellectualism seems to infect everyone, but for some communions, it is not determinative.

The intellectual rigor is part of why I am a Lutheran (leaning towards the Finnish school, with a few other influences). It was a prerequisite for consideration when I was looking for a church home. I am glad you found your waystation on this pilgrimage of ours. I hope we will be able to continue conversing and learning from each other going forward.

 

[ZMystiCat]

This here is the primary reason why I am not Roman Catholic, I suppose. I do not accept the premise, as it has not been sufficiently demonstrated, from what I have seen, in order for me to accept it.

I’ve already quoted St. Vincent of Lerins here, so I won’t take the space to do so again, but it does capture a bit of the thought process I had while Protestant. It does not seem reasonable to me, given what we know of God simply through the Person of Christ, for Him to reveal Himself to us but then leave us in the dark regarding how to understand that revelation. The Scriptures, and Tradition if you accept it, are obviously big parts of that, but they also clearly aren’t sufficient for understanding, not because they lack the teachings for understanding, but because they can’t interpret themselves, and understanding requires interpretation.

Obviously, there is the Holy Spirit, but stopping there still leaves a few open issues, able to be seen in how Protestantism does effectively use the Holy Spirit as the sole infallible guide:

1. If we accept the teachings of Scripture itself on the Holy Spirit, He desires peace and unity, yet Protestantism is defined more by division than any single doctrine anymore.
2. Due to the divisions of Protestants, it does not appear that that infallible understanding is given on, well, any topic.

Now I’m aware that this is attributed to our personal faults, but that’s part of the problem: This understanding via an infallible guide would be subject to whether or not fallible people listened to Him, which seems foolish for an all-wise God. Sure, we could fall back on the Holy Spirit guiding invisibly, but that doesn’t seem consistent with God’s workings in the giving of revelation, Who visibly gave us the revelation of Himself through Jesus Christ.

So there appears a need for some infallible body that the Holy Spirit works through, and the visible Church seems the most likely candidate. Sure, that still doesn’t necessarily lead to the Roman Catholic Church itself, considering at least the Eastern Orthodox, but it does at least seem to lead away from Protestantism.

 

[MiserereMei]

Good sir/ma’am,
Is English perhaps not your native language? I ask, because I fear you have not understood what I have been trying to say, and your grammar and English idiom is peculiar, to say the least. If that is the case, I apologize, and will try to use simpler wording from here on out.

You mean the written words of first hand witnesses, right? This is not evidence.

So, you are telling the former agnostic that the historical evidence for the Resurrection isn’t actually evidence? Peculiar. You do know that texts can be studied, and that there is some (albeit limited) corroborating evidence outside the text of the Gospels, Acts, and Pauline Epistles for the Resurrection event, right? And that the Bible being studied just like any other historical document is a now-old practice in academia, right? I would advise you read N.T. Wright’s masterful work The Resurrection of the Son of God. Non-believers may or may not find the evidence convincing, but that is a different matter from objectivity. For example, many conservatives in the US do not find global climate change to be true, but the data supporting it is by definition objective.

Hmmmm! I hope you dont use this when witnessing to someone searching for the Christian message. Its very alarming!

Is it? I find being honest has gotten me more mileage than pretending to have all the answers. Perhaps it is just my social circle, but any of the people in my social circle would turn and walk the other way if someone said they had all the pieces to the puzzle or all the answers, including myself. No second chances.

We do have all the pieces and His name is Holy Spirit and He comes to guide us. Why would you think we dont have all the pieces?

1. According to Paul, the full revelation of God given to us is Jesus, not the Holy Spirit. (Col. 1:15)
2. You have all the pieces of the puzzle, all the answers? Good, then read Job for me. All of it. Then tell me what it all means. Then read the Psalms. All of them. Then tell me what they all mean. I will recant this point if you can do this.

Wait, you haven’t finished defining “this particular place”.

Here, we have a case where we were doing two different things. I was conversing. You apparently were debating. I am sorry, I didn’t (and don’t) have my debating socks on, so I was simply using common, conversational English idiom. That, and I had to delete over a quarter of my post for it to be accepted, and didn’t feel like double-dipping. I also have a strict personal policy of not wasting time on the internet when I can spend a precious few hours with my wife.

You are spending a lot of energy showing the flaw we (man) sometimes wrongly choose subjectively vs. objectively.

Yeah. That’s kinda my schtick. I have a high view of God, and a terribly low view of humanity. The Psalmist certainly seems to have a similar view.

 

[MiserereMei]

I am familiar with the arguments, and as far as I am aware, it is only the Roman Catholics who make the claim to infalliability being located effectively in an office occupied by a single individual (I am aware there is more nuance). The Orthodox, as far as I am familiar with them, cringe from the concept, at least as it is defined and understood in the Christian West. This points to the Roman Catholic doctrine of infalliability being a more recent innovation and a historical accident, probably as a response to the Protestant Reformation.

The issue with the quote from St Vincent is that it doesn’t actually teach infalliability, per se. A Lutheran could very well say “Amen” to that quote, in fact that is the very purpose of the Lutheran Confessions, to provide in writing such a standard!

Now, we both agree that human reason is darkened, correct? Though we may disagree to the extent, I assume that is a position you hold to. Please correct me if I am being presumptuous. Infalliability works logically, granted. Infalliability is at least a benefit according to the logic, granted. However, human logic is flawed. How logic as a discipline works has even had changes over the past few centuries, rendering what were once written as valid arguments in antiquity now invalid. I am much more comfortable with epirical data than logic alone. Thus, if you had such to support the positive existence of a quality or mode like infalliability, I would be happy to consider it. And yes, before the issue is repeated here, the doctrine of every church has changed. On more than one issue, what was once considered acceptable in your communion is now called heresy. The East as well has changed: Hesychasm has no apparent relation to any patristic stream except rank mysticism, what is treated as sin for the Russians is not for the Greeks, etc. Additionally, I am familiar with Church Fathers speaking of the perfection of Scripture and of the authority of the Church, but I have not yet come across any mention of the Church being infalliable in itself. Perhaps I missed it; there are a lot of authors and texts to comb through, after all. I am always open to changing my views, but I do not do that without caution and sufficient proof. Have a nice evening.

 

[ZMystiCat]

I am familiar with the arguments, and as far as I am aware, it is only the Roman Catholics who make the claim to infalliability being located effectively in an office occupied by a single individual (I am aware there is more nuance). The Orthodox, as far as I am familiar with them, cringe from the concept, at least as it is defined and understood in the Christian West.

Generally when I read criticisms of Papal Infallibility, whether Protestant or Orthodox, it generally misses some of the nuances and goes into territory like thinking it means all that comes out of the Pope’s mount is infallible. So I’m not entirely sure if finding it abhorrent has more to do with finding the misunderstood version abhorrent or the actual teaching itself abhorrent.

This points to the Roman Catholic doctrine of infalliability being a more recent innovation and a historical accident, probably as a response to the Protestant Reformation.

Coincidentally, Pints with Aquinas recently did an episode showing hints of the doctrine in St. Aquinas’ writings, which obviously predates Protestantism and wouldn’t use “Papal Infallibility”, since the term itself is after Aquinas’ time.

The issue with the quote from St Vincent is that it doesn’t actually teach infalliability , per se.

While he does not explicitly mention infallibility, he does declare that the Catholic interpretation is what one must hold to to be right. That idea of it always being right so that one can faithfully submit to it at least carries with it an implicit decree of infallibility.

A Lutheran could very well say “Amen” to that quote, in fact that is the very purpose of the Lutheran Confessions, to provide in writing such a standard!

So does a Lutheran frame their doctrine according to their church, or do they choose their church based on their doctrine? And if one believes Scripture disagrees with a doctrine of their church, what do they do? I’m aware that some may still remain in their church and even not talk about it openly, but there’s also no call to clear up one’s own misunderstanding.

Additionally, I am familiar with Church Fathers speaking of the perfection of Scripture and of the authority of the Church, but I have not yet come across any mention of the Church being infalliable in itself.

To be fair, I’m also not aware of them explicitly saying Scripture itself is infallible. We can infer that by how they talked about it, but they also spoke of the Church the same way, some even speaking of the Bishop of Rome the same way.

 

[deMontfort]

So does a Lutheran frame their doctrine according to their church, or do they choose their church based on their doctrine? And if one believes Scripture disagrees with a doctrine of their church, what do they do? I’m aware that some may still remain in their church and even not talk about it openly, but there’s also no call to clear up one’s own misunderstanding.

Orthodox Lutheran doctrine is framed by the Book of Concord, which itself is framed by scripture. The Book of Concord in no way contradicts scripture.

BookOfConcord.org · The Original Home of the Book of Concord

 

[MiserereMei]

To be fair, I’m also not aware of them explicitly saying Scripture itself is infallible. We can infer that by how they talked about it, but they also spoke of the Church the same way, some even speaking of the Bishop of Rome the same way.

I would be interested in the passages, if you have them on hand, or else know who wrote them.

So does a Lutheran frame their doctrine according to their church, or do they choose their church based on their doctrine? And if one believes Scripture disagrees with a doctrine of their church, what do they do? I’m aware that some may still remain in their church and even not talk about it openly, but there’s also no call to clear up one’s own misunderstanding.

We are supposed to frame our doctrine according to our Confessions. That is the whole point of a confessional subscription and confirmation vows. The divisions within the Lutheran world seem, from where I stand, at least, to be due more to stubbornness and pettiness and misunderstanding than any substantive confessional differences (other than women’s ordination). I myself left the LCMS due to differences primarily on the issue of biblical criticism, not a confessional difference, and, if it were not for my particular circumstances, I would have remained. I left so as to not give a false impression about my friends’ and classmates’ views on the academic approach to the Bible. Most of the time, people seem to stay, and some work to change doctrine or else force a dialogue on an issue. Sometimes, a pastor is disciplined, reassigned (in the Lutheran world, this is generally getting dismissed from and by one’s congregation), or defrocked if they refuse to comply if they have been tried and found guilty. Basically, no different from Roman Catholics. There is a process of doctrinal review for “problem” pastors in the LCMS, and bishops have similar responsibility in the ELCA. It is easier to herd pastors from top down (with the assumption that pastors will herd the laity) than it is to herd the clutter of cats that is the laity.

Coincidentally, Pints with Aquinas recently did an episode showing hints of the doctrine in St. Aquinas’ writings, which obviously predates Protestantism and wouldn’t use “Papal Infallibility”, since the term itself is after Aquinas’ time.

Hmm. Sounds interesting. Is this archived online? As has been said before, some of the particularities unique to both post-Reformation Roman Catholicism and Lutheranism predate the Reformation, and coexisted for centuries. And, as I have said, I am open to correction.

 

[ZMystiCat]

Orthodox Lutheran doctrine is framed by the Book of Concord, which itself is framed by scripture. The Book of Concord in no way contradicts scripture.

That really doesn’t answer my question. I’m asking about the individuals, not the denomination itself.

I would be interested in the passages, if you have them on hand, or else know who wrote them.

Including those already mentioned, there is also St. Irenaeus of Lyons (includes a comment regarding Rome):

We should not seek from others the truth which can easily be received from the Church. For in her, as in a rich treasury, the Apostles placed in fullness all that belongs to the truth, so that whoever wishes can receive from her the water of life. She is the entrance to life.

As I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house…For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the tradition is one and the same

But the path of those belonging to the Church circumscribes the whole world, as possessing the sure tradition from the apostles…And undoubtedly the preaching of the Church is true and steadfast, in which one and the same way of salvation is shown throughout the whole world.

the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition

Clement of Alexandria:

He, who has spurned the ecclesiastic tradition and darted off to the opinions of heretical men—he has ceased to be a man of God and to remain faithful to the Lord.

Origen

The teaching of the Church has indeed been handed down through an order of succession from the apostles and remains in the churches even to the present time. That alone is to be believed as the truth which is in no way at variance with ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition

Cyprian of Carthage (also contains comments on the Pope):

The bishops who are set over the churches of the Lord by divine grace, throughout the whole world, maintain the plan of evangelical truth and of the tradition of the Lord. They do not depart, by human and novel institution, from that which Christ our Master both commanded and did.

Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?

If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith?

I’ll stop there. This post is too long already.

 

[deMontfort]

That really doesn’t answer my question. I’m asking about the individuals, not the denomination itself

Individuals should be referencing the Book of Concord, not just the denomination.

 

[ZMystiCat]

I myself left the LCMS due to differences primarily on the issue of biblical criticism

And that, to me, indicates that one goes to a church because it agrees with them. Sometimes the choice is major (e.g. Lutheran, Presbyterian, Anglican, etc.) or minor (e.g. LCMS vs. ELCA, PCA vs. OPC, etc.). But there does not appear to be an inherent call to submit to any real authority when a major enough disagreement makes one want to leave. Sure, there are Lutherans and Presbyterians who go forward like that, but at least those I knew generally did so because there wasn’t anything better within a short enough drive.

Hmm. Sounds interesting. Is this archived online?

Here is the episode. It was actually the one released this last Tuesday.

Individuals should be referencing the Book of Concord, not just the denomination.

And what if one takes issue with a doctrine taught in the Book of Concord and makes a Scriptural case for why they take issue with it?

And to go back to some of my original questioning: Is there any reason to declare the Book of Concord an entirely correct exposition of Scripture beyond its agreement with how you interpret Scripture?

 

[MiserereMei]

I assume these quotes are found in the standard volumes? Having the citation would have been preferable, so I could just plug them into Logos and look at them in context. (Sorry!) Thank you for the quotes, however.

But there does not appear to be an inherent call to submit to any real authority when a major enough disagreement makes one want to leave.

Unfortunately, no one is really safe from this. What if a Roman Catholic disagreed with papal infalliability, or a male-only priesthood, etc? There may be the call, but said call can be ignored—with anyone and anywhere. What power has Rome to make people submit if they will not? Excommunication? Pointless if they just go to the Episcopalians down the road. (The US makes a mess for everyone! Managing rebellious layfolk was so much easier for church bodies when there were fewer options!)

And to go back to some of my original questioning: Is there any reason to declare the Book of Concord an entirely correct exposition of Scripture beyond its agreement with how you interpret Scripture?

Is there any reason to accept the Roman Catholic Church as correct and true beyond how you interpret the Fathers and Scripture? The Orthodox also accept all the Fathers you quoted above, but they interpret them so as to point elsewhere than an infalliable Roman bishop.

There are only a few I have not run across before, but reviewing them again will be good. Before I say more on the quotes, I want to look at them in their literary and historical context. Quotes taken out of context can make people say really weird things. It may be a few days until I follow up. Sunday is one of the few days my wife and I can spend together anymore due to work.

As I have said before, Rome (and the Orthodox Church) is safer and easier. But, for one such as I with honest doctrinal disagreements that aren’t going away anytime soon, there isn’t a point in signing up, especially not when I have no lack of the Body and Blood of the Lord (except for when Pastor has scheduled Matins for the service I can attend, and Mass at the other)—though Rome does not recognize it on my church’s altar—, because I do not buy the premise behind the rejection.

 

[MichaelP3]

Not at all. Seems more like you are addressing Apostolic succession.

Protestants of all stripes should argue there is a great need for the Apostles.

 

[ZMystiCat]

I assume these quotes are found in the standard volumes? Having the citation would have been preferable, so I could just plug them into Logos and look at them in context. (Sorry!) Thank you for the quotes, however.

Sorry. Citations count towards the character limit, which I already hit. I’m unsure where the first St. Irenaeus quotes come from. The rest are from Against Heresies. The Clement of Alexandria one comes from Miscellanies. Origen’s comes from The Fundamental Doctrines, and Cyprian of Carthage’s comes from Letters. If you want more, I used this and this to copy/paste the quotes, because I’m certainly not writing out such long quotes by hand.

Unfortunately, no one is really safe from this. What if a Roman Catholic disagreed with papal infalliability, or a male-only priesthood, etc? There may be the call, but said call can be ignored—with anyone and anywhere.

As mentioned already, I acknowledge that. That has, after all, been the case from the time of the Apostles with groups like the Judaizers and Gnostics. That of course, prior to Protestantism, was never seen as a reason to not maintain unity. If anything, it fueled the call for unity and submission, but I digress.

I am, of course, not comfortable with the idea of establishing a system where each person can pick and choose as they see fit, especially when it is uses as a standard writings that consistently called for unity. It is one thing for that to be inherently part of the human experience, since many people claim truth. It is another entirely to encourage that through teaching and structure.

Pointless if they just go to the Episcopalians down the road. (The US makes a mess for everyone! Managing rebellious layfolk was so much easier for church bodies when there were fewer options!)

That wouldn’t be a problem if no one rebelled.

 

[adf417]

Good sir/ma’am,
Is English perhaps not your native language? I ask, because I fear you have not understood what I have been trying to say, and your grammar and English idiom is peculiar, to say the least. If that is the case, I apologize, and will try to use simpler wording from here on out.

LOL! Yes. You can just count me in with the simple and ignorant but I did understand everthing you have said.

So, you are telling the former agnostic that the historical evidence for the Resurrection isn’t actually evidence? Peculiar. You do know that texts can be studied, and that there is some (albeit limited) corroborating evidence outside the text of the Gospels, Acts, and Pauline Epistles for the Resurrection event, right? And that the Bible being studied just like any other historical document is a now-old practice in academia, right? I would advise you read N.T. Wright’s masterful work The Resurrection of the Son of God. Non-believers may or may not find the evidence convincing, but that is a different matter from objectivity.

…a different matter? Yep that is the way i see it.

For example, many conservatives in the US do not find global climate change to be true, but the data supporting it is by definition objective.

While the statement may be true its a bad example to compare with. But then again, i am the simple one, right?

Continued…

 

[adf417]

…Continued

Is it? I find being honest has gotten me more mileage than pretending to have all the answers. Perhaps it is just my social circle, but any of the people in my social circle would turn and walk the other way if someone said they had all the pieces to the puzzle or all the answers, including myself. No second chances.

I understand, i really do. The truth does hurt and yet and i find the fullness of truth (Ps 119:103) sweeter than partial truth. The people in your social circle sound like those referred to in Jn 6:60.

1. According to Paul, the full revelation of God given to us is Jesus, not the Holy Spirit. (Col. 1:15)

I was under the impression you considered them to be of the same source. Curious, what do you think the purpose is of the HS?

1. You have all the pieces of the puzzle, all the answers? Good, then read Job for me. All of it. Then tell me what it all means. Then read the Psalms. All of them. Then tell me what they all mean. I will recant this point if you can do this.

I am sorry i gave you the impression i could read your mind and heart. Please dont try to twist this from a doctrinal truth discussion into a spiritual enrichment discussion. They are completely different and im pretty sure you know that.

Here, we have a case where we were doing two different things. I was conversing. You apparently were debating. I am sorry, I didn’t (and don’t) have my debating socks on, so I was simply using common, conversational English idiom. That, and I had to delete over a quarter of my post for it to be accepted, and didn’t feel like double-dipping. I also have a strict personal policy of not wasting time on the internet when I can spend a precious few hours with my wife.

Very honorable and I respect you for that brother.

 

[MiserereMei]

I am not going to continue trying to correct you. Perhaps if we were to meet over coffee and converse face-to-face we would be able to understand each other better and converse amicably and honestly. If there is one thing I have learned here is this: an online forum is not the appropriate place to talk about theology in any serious or enjoyable manner. A bar or cafe is the appropriate place for equals to discuss such things. There is too much lost with the medium of a forum or comment section. I am tired of people taking what I am saying out of context and trying to make me say something I did not, while claiming to understand me when it is obvious from their response they did not. Trying to track down and correct all the misunderstandings (to be charitable) here and elsewhere, all the setting the record straight from out of context assumptions has become—already—mentally exhausting. So, thank you for your time. This will be the last post I make for a while. I need to take a break. I may be back when I feel like I can put up with people again. Feel like you “won” a debate if you want. Simply put, I do not have the energy to keep this up in this format, deal with work, stress, and other obligations in the real world, and not go insane.

@ZMystiCat, if the thread is still up when I get back, I will post my reflections here. Otherwise, I will figure something else out. Maybe a PM or start another thread. I did enjoy our conversation. I hope the feeling was mutual, if only in part. Thank you. Especially, thank you for the quotes and the link with the citations. It gives me an excuse to spend time with some old friends.

 

[ZMystiCat]

@ZMystiCat, if the thread is still up when I get back, I will post my reflections here. Otherwise, I will figure something else out. Maybe a PM or start another thread. I did enjoy our conversation. I hope the feeling was mutual, if only in part. Thank you. Especially, thank you for the quotes and the link with the citations. It gives me an excuse to spend time with some old friends.

No problem. I get that things happen. Glad you enjoyed it.

 

[adf417]

I am tired of people taking what I am saying out of context and trying to make me say something I did not, while claiming to understand me when it is obvious from their response they did not. Trying to track down and correct all the misunderstandings (to be charitable) here and elsewhere, all the setting the record straight from out of context assumptions has become—already—mentally exhausting.

Im sorry if i have added to your frustration. I get it in a very similar way when people try to tell me what it is i do and do not understand. Maybe they mean to say “i fail to make my point” but to say “you dont understand” is always above their pay grade. So yeah, i get it!

Feel like you “won” a debate if you want.

I dont want and i dont think it will ever be possible for me or anyone to ever “win” a debate on this sort of forum.

Thank you for your time also and i hope to talk again soon.
Peace!!!

 

[Hodos]

Not really. You just keep regurgitating the same point

Because you keep repeating the same thing after I have demonstrated that you are misrepresenting what we believe. If you care to stop erecting straw man arguments that don’t reflect what we believe to begin with, we can then move on to a new discussion point.

 

[mdcpensive1]

We believe in both, and frequently cite the Church fathers in our confessions. The difference is that we evaluate the faithfulness of the work of the Church’s teaching authority and the writings of the Church Fathers by comparing them to the scriptures to see if they are in line with one another.

This is another problem with believing in the bible only or the non-Catholic view of testing only with scripture. If we look at Ephesians 3:10 we find that it is the “Church” that will give knowledge to angels, not just scripture. It is the Church which is composed of both scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magesterium that gives angels the truth that they find.