G
- Status
G
GKC
Guest
A
adf417
Guest
Again, thank you for your reply Edwin.
Basic interpretation and conclusion vs. authority of interpretation and submitting
The problem I see in this discussion is the Protestant is only considering what their interpretation is and how it can be the only interpretation, while the Catholic will be arguing the list and trying to define authority and who gets to do the interpreting, all the while talking over each other. IMO, and Catholics in general, the only way this will ever be resolved it to deal with the authority issue first. If there is alternative approach to resolve this I would love to hear it.
Personally I wish we could just nullify the Catholic Church just for one day so we can ask the same question Mark Shea asked – “by what authority” do you translate the bible. Once all of Christianity agrees on one authority, one canon, one agreement on doctrine, with or without a pope, I believe all Catholics would feel right at home.
Continued…
How about “there was no bible, as we know it today, for 300 years”? Which is the way I have been seeing Catholics try to clear up (nuance) your statement above on internet forums. As you know people, me included, tend to not read the complete story and often want to have only the summary. How many non-Catholics, or Catholics for the matter, do you feel read all of the official Catholic documents before debating the issue? Surly you are not suggesting Catholics, on the internet forum, refer to volumes of documents as their only retort to comments like “the EFC’s did not interpret the bible that way”.
I agree with this but in my experience here, limited as it is, even your clarification above does not address the distinction needed between those divinely inspired writing and those that were considered to be divinely inspired but were not. To me that seems to be the biggest misunderstanding or misrepresentation of “divinely inspired writings have been around sense the 1st century because the Apostles wrote them”. Sure, they have been in existence from the beginning. No one in their right mind would dispute this, but making the distinction between divinely inspired and not divinely inspired has been the point and is the only point of retorts like “there was no Bible for 300 years.”
I can see your point on this one.
Basic interpretation and conclusion vs. authority of interpretation and submitting
The problem I see in this discussion is the Protestant is only considering what their interpretation is and how it can be the only interpretation, while the Catholic will be arguing the list and trying to define authority and who gets to do the interpreting, all the while talking over each other. IMO, and Catholics in general, the only way this will ever be resolved it to deal with the authority issue first. If there is alternative approach to resolve this I would love to hear it.
Personally I wish we could just nullify the Catholic Church just for one day so we can ask the same question Mark Shea asked – “by what authority” do you translate the bible. Once all of Christianity agrees on one authority, one canon, one agreement on doctrine, with or without a pope, I believe all Catholics would feel right at home.
Continued…
A
adf417
Guest
I have never heard of this from Catholics. Often I see the wording of the decision being from one council, Carthage, but not one day. But again, if anybody wants to know the full truth the correct information is out there. If anybody wants to read summaries and not check them out, “all the bishops got together and issued a decree one day, and that’s not how it happened” will be all they here. You well know this summary to one with an open and truly searching mind will look differently to one without an open mind. Is that really the responsibility of the writer or reader when the writer is summarizing volumes of documents?
I was going to ask this above but I decided to move it here.
What would be the common response from a Protestant if asked - What DID the councils of Rome, Hippo, & Carthage do if not deal with canon issues? What was their purpose?
Continued…
A
adf417
Guest
Not sure I understand this.
You say Catholics have coherent and reasonable answers to these questions but say these questions need to be answered by both sides.
I agree with your premise that in general both sides need to define or answer questions in order to further dialogue but you also agree there is no Protestant “side” right?
I will continue praying for you in this respect. Funny though, what is holding you back is the very motivator for me, but I’m sure there is more to your story here.
continued…
A
adf417
Guest
Im glad you wrote this last part as It helps me see your side better. But IMO we are ALL in the same boat as your “most Christians”.
As you have admitted above…“the early Church, which discerned that certain books were inspired by God, was so ordered.” tells me whether or not you are nerdy, you also have reliance on the early church to base your every theological thought, right? Don’t we ALL have reliance, to varying degrees, on the previous generations for knowledge?
Peace!!!
S
SyCarl
Guest
Has the issue of the canon ever really been settled? Protestants don’t accept the deuterocanonical books. The Orthodox have more books in the Old Testament than Catholics. The Ethiopian church has more books in both the Old Testament and the New Testament. These are differences I am awar4e of. I don’t know if there are others.
S
SyCarl
Guest
While the can of Scripture may be a problem for Protestants, the Catholic position also has its problems. This thread asks how we know that the words of Jesus are true. But how can we know the authority of the Church without knowing Christ’s words are true first? Catholics object to the use of private interpretation. However they can only get to the position that the Catholic Church is right and the one founded by Jesus by their own private interpretation of the evidence, whether Scriptural or otherwise.
S
SyCarl
Guest
I don’t think that the hierarchal nature of the original Church is that clear although it clearly arose at an early date. My reasons are as follows.
- Of Paul’s many letters to churches, only Philippians includes a greeting to the clergy, specifically bishops and deacons. I find it odd that he would not address the bishops of other churches if they existed, particularly of Rome if its bishop is the head of the Church. Also note that the plural of bishops is used indicating more than bishop in the city.
- In Titus Paul uses the terms bishop and presbyter interchangeably indicating that there was only one office.
- In Acts Paul summoned the presbyters from Ephesus with no mention of bishops.
- In 1 Clement the letter indicates that it came from the Church sojourning at Rome rather than its bishop.
- Clement says nothing of the bishop of the Corinthian Church but speaks only of sedition against the presbyters.
- Clement mentions the appointment of the clergy originally being by the apostles and subsequently by other eminent men with the approval of the whole church. He says eminent men rather than saying by bishops or presbyters.
- Ignatius of Antioch mentions the bishops of the churches to which he wrote in all of his letter except to the one in Rome. Why would he omit the bishop if there was one particularly if he was head of the Church?
- Ignatius also indicates that his church would now have Christ as its bishop which does not seem recognize that another man would be his successor.
- The Didache says to appoint for yourselves bishops and deacons. Again the reference to bishops is plural.
- A number of Church fathers, including Jerome indicate that the originally churches were governed by a council of presbyters with the appointment of bishops being a subsequent development.
- The order of the first few bishops of Rome (Linus, Anacletus and Clement) are given differently by a number of early sources. Could this be because they were all in office at the same time as part of a council such as Jerome mentions?
S
SyCarl
Guest
Let me say first that I am not a fan of the development of doctrine. Jude indicates that the faith was once for all delivered and John indicates that the Holy Spirit would lead to all truth. Neither of them indicated that the deliverance or leading would be over the course of more than a thousand years. If something was not necessary for the early Christians to believe I cannot see how it can become necessary at a later date whether the teaching is true or not. If something must be believed it must have been necessary from the start as God’s requirements do not change. If something is defined after hundreds of years it is not necessary. If it was necessary it would have been necessary from the start. By not defining it until later the Church would have failed earlier Christians who did not believe what the Church later defined as necessary.
With respect to the Church I would agree that it consists of all true believers whatever particular church or organization they belong to. What was accepted in the early Church was much broader than what is accepted by the Catholic Church now. For example, references in the chu5rch fathers can be found to faith alone or that all the required truth is set out clearly in Scripture. Where these things were mentioned, there is nothing showing they were condemned. If we accept development of doctrine, these references can be seen as the initial seeds that later developed into the teaching of the Reformation.
As time passed less tolerance was accepted and ideas were condemned and those who held them were excluded from what was called the Catholic Church. Each time this was done the nature of the Catholic Church was changed in that it previously had included people who held the belief that was condemned or did not hold a newly defined doctrine but afterwards it did not contain them. If there were true believers in those excluded then the true Church was no longer solely found in the church that excluded them. If these people who were excluded formed a new church then that church could claim to be a descendant and true part of the original Catholic Church.
I would say that there were probably true Christians among the Arians. It was the Arians who evangelized and converted many of the “barbarians”. While I am a Trinitarian I don’t think those who did not hold the exact Trinitarian doctrine that eventually was defined could still be called Christians. To me the Trinitarian formula is the best we can understand about the nature of God. However it must be remembered that our understanding of God can never really be complete. He is infinite and ineffable and beyond our limited and finite minds to comprehend so I would not necessarily exclude those who do not understand his nature exactly as we do. To do so would be to acknowledge that the Church failed those people by not correcting them at an earlier date. Should an Arian who died prior to the Council of Nicaea be condemned because they did not hold the doctrine that was only defined after their death?
S
SyCarl
Guest
I have a problem with the concept of any organization or person being infallible. I think that it is a dangerous belief. In 2 Thessalonians Paul talks of the man of lawlessness who will take his seat in the temple of God. What is the temple of God now except the Church. Even the notes in my copy of the Douay-Rheims Bible indicate that this can be a reference to a Christian church and the Haydock Commentary also mentions this possibility. If the Catholic Church is indeed the true Church would it not be the temple of God? It says the temple of God, not a temple of God. I do not think that any Pope has been the man of lawlessness but I can see nothing that would suit his purpose more, when he does come, than a visible church that teaches it cannot err in matters of faith and morals and with a leader who has the same infallibility and from whose decisions there is no avenue of appeal.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Then where do you believe St. Paul erred in these encyclicals?
usccb.org/bible/scripture.cfm?bk=Romans&ch=
usccb.org/bible/scripture.cfm?bk=1%20Corinthians&ch=
usccb.org/bible/2corinthians/1
P
Picky_Picky
Guest
Why do you ask this?
Someone who is fallible can write something that is not erroneous.
Someone can write something without error but still not be infallible.
S
SyCarl
Guest
corrected a mistake
T
Thorolfr
Guest
Paul’s letters, in my opinion, have errors and he is only giving his opinion, especially when he talks about women. For example:
1 Corinthians 14: 33-36: (As in all the churches of the saints, 34 women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says. 35 If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. 36 Or did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only ones it has reached?)
B
benjohnson
Guest
The context of this really matters - this passage is not proof that St. Paul was a sexist idiot.
T
Telstar
Guest
"ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS (Pope John Paul II)
"1. Priestly ordination, which hands on the office entrusted by Christ to his Apostles of teaching, sanctifying and governing the faithful, has in the Catholic Church from the beginning always been reserved to men alone. This tradition has also been faithfully maintained by the Oriental Churches.
When the question of the ordination of women arose in the Anglican Communion, Pope Paul VI, out of fidelity to his office of safeguarding the Apostolic Tradition, and also with a view to removing a new obstacle placed in the way of Christian unity, reminded Anglicans of the position of the Catholic Church: "She holds that it is not admissible to ordain women to the priesthood, for very fundamental reasons. These reasons include: the example recorded in the Sacred Scriptures of Christ choosing his Apostles only from among men; the constant practice of the Church, which has imitated Christ in choosing only men; and her living teaching authority which has consistently held that the exclusion of women from the priesthood is in accordance with God’s plan for his Church."
But since the question had also become the subject of debate among theologians and in certain Catholic circles, Paul VI directed the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to set forth and expound the teaching of the Church on this matter. This was done through the Declaration Inter Insigniores, which the Supreme Pontiff approved and ordered to be published.
- The Declaration recalls and explains the fundamental reasons for this teaching, reasons expounded by Paul VI, and concludes that the Church “does not consider herself authorized to admit women to priestly ordination.” To these fundamental reasons the document adds other theological reasons which illustrate the appropriateness of the divine provision, and it also shows clearly that Christ’s way of acting did not proceed from sociological or cultural motives peculiar to his time. As Paul VI later explained: “The real reason is that, in giving the Church her fundamental constitution, her theological anthropology-thereafter always followed by the Church’s Tradition- Christ established things in this way.”
In fact the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles attest that this call was made in accordance with God’s eternal plan; Christ chose those whom he willed (Mk 3:13-14; Jn 6:70), and he did so in union with the Father, “through the Holy Spirit” (Acts 1:2), after having spent the night in prayer (Lk 6:12). Therefore, in granting admission to the ministerial priesthood, the Church has always acknowledged as a perennial norm her Lord’s way of acting in choosing the twelve men whom he made the foundation of his Church (Rv 21:14). These men did not in fact receive only a function which could thereafter be exercised by any member of the Church; rather they were specifically and intimately associated in the mission of the Incarnate Word himself (Mt 10:1, 7-8; 28:16-20; Mk 3:13-16; 16:14-15). The Apostles did the same when they chose fellow workers who would succeed them in their ministry. Also included in this choice were those who, throughout the time of the Church, would carry on the Apostles’ mission of representing Christ the Lord and Redeemer.
- Furthermore, the fact that the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God and Mother of the Church, received neither the mission proper to the Apostles nor the ministerial priesthood clearly shows that the non-admission of women to priestly ordination cannot mean that women are of lesser dignity, nor can it be construed as discrimination against them. Rather, it is to be seen as the faithful observance of a plan to be ascribed to the wisdom of the Lord of the universe.
The New Testament and the whole history of the Church give ample evidence of the presence in the Church of women, true disciples, witnesses to Christ in the family and in society, as well as in total consecration to the service of God and of the Gospel. “By defending the dignity of women and their vocation, the Church has shown honor and gratitude for those women who-faithful to the Gospel-have shared in every age in the apostolic mission of the whole People of God. They are the holy martyrs, virgins and mothers of families, who bravely bore witness to their faith and passed on the Church’s faith and tradition by bringing up their children in the spirit of the Gospel.”"and from “Dominicae Cenae”"The priest offers the holy Sacrifice in persona Christi; this means more than offering “in the name of’ or “in place of” Christ. In persona means in specific sacramental identification with “the eternal High Priest” who is the author and principal subject of this sacrifice of His, a sacrifice in which, in truth, nobody can take His place.”
(emphasis mine)
A woman can never stand “in persona Christi”.
T
Telstar
Guest
Exactly. Paul was simply stating the fact that women were not called by Jesus to preach the Gospel, nor to perform any of the other functions that were reserved only to the Priesthood of the Apostles. God did not create men and women for the same purposes. He created them to be different from each other, with each one having its own separate and unique role in the Church, as well as in all other areas of society in general. They are not interchangeable, no matter how much feminists might wish they could be.
T
Thorolfr
Guest
Perhaps a woman could not stand “in persona Chrisit” when Christianity was still at the stage of a mustard seed, but “when it is sown, it grows and becomes the greatest of all shrubs, and puts forth large branches, so that the birds of the air can make nests in its shade” (Mark4:30-32). So now that some branches of Christianity have evolved and grown into great shrubs, it’s appropriate, in my opinion, that woman be ordained. We don’t have to remain at the mustard seed stage forever
- Status