Show me a Church teaching that is not consistent with Scripture and at least implicit therein.
Hi Randy,Show me a Church teaching that is not consistent with Scripture and at least implicit therein.
And at what point?
Somewhere between, “Whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven” (Mt 16:19) and “They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them.” (Acts 2:3)
I’m pretty confident that Apostolic Authority was firmly established either by or somehwhere between these two events.
I agree ben. Luther’s initial teaching was that ALL individuals had the right and the authority to interpret Scripture. However, about 7 years after the beginning of his Revolt, he realized that if the individual had that authority, there were going to be a LOT of people who disagreed with him. At that point, he moved towards the concept of himself having the right. Later this ‘evolved’ into the Lutheran community having the authority to interpret, and NOT the Church. So, in that respect, I agree, that “Private Interpretation” in this sense should be used to mean that various individuals and various communities claim to have that right.
Agreed again – wrong interpretations lead to fracturing. As you admit, Protestants do a lot more fractioning, which I guess would mean that they have, overall, more ‘wrong interpretations’.
Hi T,
OK. This from Jesus speaking of the Pharisees, who sit in Moses seat , from which they are to be obeyed. Yet they had leaven (impurity), which was later described to be "bad doctrine’’. We are told to "beware’’ of such leaven, and obviously not follow it, implying it certainly is not from Moses seat, but man made.
Yes, but not just Catholics, but really something all churches are challenged with: a congregation tolerant of bad doctrine/practice.
Well yes , in my opinion , as contrary to scripture, hearing the Lord’s voice of discernment as it relates to His scripture and His His/story/tradition.
Now you are misrepresenting me. I have never said the Bishop of Rome does not have primacy. He does. this is consistent with the early Church and scripture. What I have said is that I do not believe that this mean universal ordinary and immediate jurisdiction. It does not mean supremacy. Disagree with me if you wish, but please say I believe something I do not.
Hypothetically: Why? If, as you say, St. Peter does / did not need the others to act, why go through the exercise?
That’s fine… But I would say the same about, say, the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, as an example, has to be there too, and has to approve. Otherwise, it isn’t ecumenical.
Eric, I’ve said this multiple times on this thread, and on this forum.
Agreed. One could also discuss this as to whether the Bishop of Rome wanted to cooperate.
Hyperbole. I am a cradle Lutheran. I have very high regard for the popes of my lifetime, and numerous ones from centuries before. He has a unique and special place in the Universal Church. He has a historic primacy, scripturally, and in the Tradition of the Church. That is not the issue, as far as I am concerned. I don’t think that’s the issue from the perspective of the EO, nor Anglicans AFAIK.
This is where we disagree.
When I speak of Private Interpretation I am including ‘individual interpretation’. The issue is whether and individual can interpret apart from the Church.
It seems that here you admit that the Bishop of Rome has, at least, primacy over the Church, meaning at the very least, over the Western Church. I agree with you that that is very clear from the Fathers. Now if Lutheranism is part of the universal Catholic Church as you claim, then that would mean that Lutheranism accepts the primacy of the Pope.
Good . We are on same page. An individual is not the only one who can be wrong, have private interpretation.
An individual must interpret apart from the Church when it is wrong.
No. We were discussing “private interpretation” as cited by Peter as not holding God’s inspired view and individual conscience about what that is.
Yes. I am saying that since the garden we have had individual interpretation/understanding, before any institution.
That is another question than the previous. Yes and no.Yes, in that the church took some time before ruling on the things that she has ruled on over the last two thousand years, and therefore allowed various interpretations to exist side by side. So that is really not apart from the church but from within. No in your sense of the question, that once the Church rules it was obligatory to abide by it (not be apart). However , Luther was not the first to oppose one sector (patriarchs) of the churches ruling. Luther was also not the first one to oppose any western Roman church ruling /understanding/interpretation/practice. Yes, it is customary to label one as heretic when opposing their particular church.
I am not misrepresenting anything because I wasn’t arguing for Peter’s primacy. I am arguing that Christ mandate to him gave him the legitimate authority to feed/tend the lamb and sheep i.e. lead the Church. The details weren’t given by Christ. So when Christ gave you a job, do you limit your own scope? Even if fellow Christians reject you, does it in anyway excuse yourself for reducing your own scope? Would you expect Peter to tell Christ that he wasn’t welcomed by the others and therefore he ended tending only his own backyard? If you were Peter, where would you stop feeding/tending lambs/sheep? I don’t think anyone can stop at all.
I told you the answer. Listen to what others have to say. For those accused of heresy or wrongdoing, they can demand to be heard. And to teach.
And you can substantiate that?
Of course but provided within limits of scriptures and tradition. However the personal style of the Bishop of Rome varies and some are more approachable than others. Popes have realized to get things done in those days they need to persuade, reason, cajole other Bishops. But with the Arian heresies, the heretical Patriachs are not willing to be persuaded or reasoned with. How can Peter “cooperate” with them? He can’t.
I wasn’t arguing for his primacy. You misread me.
It is ok to disagree. I am just arguing for Peter’s burden which he has been legitimately entrusted and that is something which he can’t shirk, with or without the cooperation of others.
I am not T
Is the sum of its parts the same as individuals?
So any understanding is possible. Which of course would lead to the next question why should anyone place any credence on your personal opinion. How can you guarantee that your opinion is perfectly true and not just another professional opinion based on available information/education/experience/personal quirks? What if your opinion is the opposite of another fellow Christian and assuming ceteris paribus?
Let us just call it personal interpretation. Does it make any difference? If it is personal you can’t immune yourself from error.
Why is that a bombshell? Yes, what is wrong about abdicating of self-dignity? Christ lowered himself from God to a common criminal to be mocked, spat, whipped, stripped naked and crucified. So didn’t he abdicate his self-dignity and deepest essence of God? The Egyptian eunuch Acts 8:31 didn’t think he lost any self dignity by admitting he need someone to guide him. Pride is the fruit of self-ego.
The power to bind and loose is given by Christ, not everyone has it. Tell him he carried the institutional separation too far. One thing is clear, if one hasn’t been given that power to bind and loose, don’t call it sour grapes. And there are good reasons why not everyone has been given that power.
Forget about the fingers. Either one has the authority or one doesn’t.
I am not claiming individuals are incapable of divine giftings. I am claiming that not all have the authority even if they have been gifted, are good and holy people.
So sorry for calling you T,Topper. I have been close a few times in that kind of goof up, and looks like I finally did it erric.
I don’t think so.
I would say so. That is why I do not like the word infallible. It kind of takes away an aspect of free will, makes the Church/individual a robot, and I think actually takes away a little honor and glory to God for His graciousness in keeping her/us inerrant, which is a much better word. It implies a deeper dependency on God for being “right on”.
One should place credence where the Lord leads you to do so. Be ye convinced yourself by His unction , even in whatever He has also convinced me.
I guarantee only one thing , His unction is sufficient to discern these things.
That all depends on the specifics, doesn’t it ? I mean for quite a while the Dominicans fought heavily against the Immaculate Conception, even against the Franciscans I think . They both remained Catholic. Yet another example is the east’s opposition to Rome being supreme. Apparently both sides consider themselves Catholic. So I guess it all depends again on what we are talking about.
It shouldn’t. Just that some think" personal" is same as “private”, and it is not always.
Discussed this already above. The individual is not infallible, nor is any particular congregation/church. The Church at large is infallible in this: we will be presented as a spotless Bride on that great day, and, His Truth is marching on, thru her/us.
Look, if you want to compare us to Christ, then let us do all things lawful to his rites (baptism and communion) , but also rely on personal,divine fellowship, and doing nothing without being one with the Father. He did not consult the magisterium/San Hedrin , the high priest, rabbis, and was one with Writ. In that he fulfilled all the One true religion of the OT.
Self dignity, as given by God, and our essence, as being made in His image, was actually fully utilized when the Ethiopian "called out to the Lord/Philip’’. Pride is not the opposite of God given dignity/essence.
Agree. They are His dispensations . All I said is that one can take it too far, as we both know has happened before, and in OT. “Salvation is of the Jews” even the church now. Yet in the end, an institution can not save, except thru Jesus Christ.
Agreed. It is either God given or self given/taken.
OK. Yet I would say any one in the ecclessia has some authority in Christ. You are in one army or the other. Even a ‘private’ has some authority over an enemy.
See above. We all do to some extent. If we have none, we are not a disciple yet.
We do accept papal primacy , he exercises it as a Shepherd.
Exactly ben. When I speak of ‘Private Interpretation’ I mean interpretation apart from the Catholic Church, which is exactly how the Fathers meant it. As you mention, there are a LOT of ‘community based interpretations’ which are formulated by this or that denomination. Many of these interpretations conflict with others, which means that only one of them can be correct - if not both. From what I can see, any Sola Scriptura based interpretation is by definition on very shaky ground, and I mean ANY form of Sola Scriptura.
It seems to me that you are suggesting that Christianity remained relatively unified doctrinally for the first 1000 years and yet, still, practiced some form of Sola Scriptura? Are you really saying that?
I think that you made an important point. It is true that Luther was not the first to ‘challenge’ various NT books. However, after the 5th century, there was VERY LITTLE of that being done. The fact that Luther did it as a convicted heretic should count for something with regards to his authority to do so. There is also the ‘reasons’ that he did so. In addition, there were literally dozens and dozens of issues that Luther challenged, which then begs the following question:
You have seen Dave Armstrong’s list of 50 things that Luther challenged/refuted/denied/rejected etc before he was excommunicated – right ben? Are you saying that Luther really didn’t introduce anything ‘new’ or radical, or in opposition to established Church teaching?
And you argue it well,
because you argue it from the Catholic position. A few simply want to bash others. It happens both ways, sadly.No answers?
OK, you accept papal primacy. So, what does the Pope have primacy over exactly? Is it the western Church? Does that mean that he has ‘primacy’ over all of Western Christendom?
Understand, and that is how you qualified the original question. I answered both , but will say again that is not the original intent but: “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”
Tradition /historic hermeneutics is also then on shaky grounds.
I don’t think so. I will certainly say SS was normative , even as it was "hot of the press’’. Do not think there was unity until a full millennia.
Yes, and that with normative Writ as it was available/written. Only the first generation relied more heavily on the apostles oral words .
To me, with scant knowledge, would say the books were way down the list and timeline for what he and others earlier challenged.
Again,not sure about all the issues, but maybe more the general ones. We could really stray of topic here. But as in our last discussion of this, don’t think what Luther challenged was in place for 1500 years.
Again, old stuff from previous curtailed, properly so, thread.
“In principle, any bishop, priest or layman may be called by the Holy Spirit to proclaim the true faith.”