the authority question

[Erich]

What are the best arguments for the necessity of centralized authority when it comes to Christ’s church? I’m sure this is dealt with a lot here with Protestants, so I’m sure there are some well thought out ideas. Thanks!

Probably the best article I’ve seen anywhere on the subject of authority (and who has it and who doesn’t and why or why not) can be found here.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Good response re: the leadershiop of the Spirit. However this does not prevent so called minsters from misleading many under the guise of being “Spirit led”. I know of no faith system, or minister, who doesn’t believe he is led by the Spirit.
Thus in the context of this thread, it is the authority of The Church and her consistant teachings that prevents a lot of half baked ideas from misleading people.

Yes, that is true. Very much so. That is why we have the authority of the Church to correct and rebuke errant teaching. You and I are not different on that. You and I differ on whether that authority is infallible or not. I claim it is not infallible, but is inerrant. That is why we have confessions of faith and statements of the doctrine we teach. All the better to use against those who teach strange and unbiblical doctrines.

If it were a case of simply comparing sets of beliefs, there may be a case. However, I do not look simply at the belief systems. I’m not from Missouri but I still have to be shown things.
The Catholic Church has the history, continuity, lineage, etc. that sets it apart from any of the protestant Churches in my mind. None can trace themselves back any further than 1500 when there they join with Rome. To me that is the most compelling and convincing argument. That and the continual splitting that goes on in some non-catholic churches.

Peace
James

According to that theory, if I, were I Roman Catholic, the immediate question I would ask is; if the Church’s infallible authority prevents schism, then why did it not prevent schisms that occurred 1500 years prior to the Reformation, culminating in the largest schism in Church history…not the Reformation, the Orthodox/Roman schism. Is sola scriptura or sola fide to blame for that one? While the Reformation was enormous in Western Europe, in the greater scheme of all of Christendom, it was a blip.

If papal infallibility, apostolic succession and conciliar infallibility were set up by Christ to prevent schisms in the Church…it hasn’t worked all that well.

In contrast, we as Lutherans, simply maintain that we are the continuation of apostolic doctrine and teaching. It is not our contention that Rome’s history as the Western Church is invalid. Indeed, Luther himself praised the apostolic doctrine taught within Rome down through her history. It was the corruption of her history and teachings that Luther reformed.

 

[falisrm]

Yes, common sense. Or if you really want an answer, pray about it. God teaches us these principles all the time through the Holy Ghost

 

[nebula]

Yes, common sense. Or if you really want an answer, pray about it. God teaches us these principles all the time through the Holy Ghost

falisrm,

You’re obviously a mormon with the typical anti-catholic bias. It’s great that Catholic priests have to have an education, I think that’s one of the best parts of the RCC honestly. Being a priest is a serious vocation, not something to throw on every snot nosed 12 year old male because his parents drag him to church on sundays. I don’t see how that is such a great argument.

 

[falisrm]

Eric, Amazing how you can take scripture out of context.

1 Timothy 5:22
22 Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men’s sins: keep thyself pure.

1 Timothy 4:14
14 Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.

 

[Contarini]

The reason I’m asking this here is because this question is based in my experiences as an ex Mormon. The primary reason I left the LDS church is due to doctrinal reasons, I realized I was a monotheist and that flatly contradicts basic Mormon theology, but it also left me with an anti-authoritarian bias. I’m hoping you guys can help me out here, there are so many other elements of the RCC which are attractive. What are the best arguments for the necessity of centralized authority when it comes to Christ’s church? I’m sure this is dealt with a lot here with Protestants, so I’m sure there are some well thought out ideas. Thanks!

I don’t think authority should be as centralized as it is in the Catholic Church, but here’s my argument for the need for authority (not necessarily all the forms and structures it takes in modern Catholicism):

1. Christianity is a theological religion; it cannot exist in its concrete historical form without a number of rather paradoxical propositions which involve fairly sophisticated thinking to maintain without falling into one or another “heresy” (i.e., an unbalance of one or the other element of historic Christianity, “cutting the Gordian knot” of the basic paradoxes by eliminating or reinventing some important tenet). You discovered this as a Mormon–one cannot simply say (as Mormons tend to) “I believe that Jesus is the Savior and the Son of God” without asking what these things mean.
2. Furthermore, Christianity is an ethical religion; its purpose is to transform human beings into God’s likeness (Mormons get this part partly right, but it’s a much bigger task than Mormons recognize, because their “God” is way too small!). This means that Christianity must have clear teachings on basic ethical principles. It is not enough (of many of my fellow Episcopalians seem to think) to share the same liturgy and recite the same Creeds and let moral issues be thrashed out by philosophers and politicians.
3. And finally, Christianity is a political religion, by which I mean that it calls human beings into an organized community of followers of Jesus which is identified with the mystical Body of Christ, and which serves as the vanguard of God’s Kingdom on earth.
4. For Christianity to fulfill these purposes, it must have
   a. a means of maintaining unity (doctrinal truth, ethical clarity, and cohesion as a community are impossible otherwise); and
   b. a means of declaring that certain beliefs or practices put one outside the community (otherwise, again, doctrinal truth and ethical clarity are impossible). This is extremely unpalatable to modern people, but I think it follows necessarily from the kind of religion Christianity is.

Hence, Christianity must have an authoritative center from which it is never necessary (and hence never legitimate, given the imperative of unity) to separate. It does not follow that this authoritative center must be always wise or good, or that it never make mistakes–only that its errors and corruptions be such as do not absolutely prevent those in communion with it from achieving the ends for which the Church was established (they do of course make this more difficult, but hey–anything worth while is difficult, and nothing is more worthwhile than transforming human beings into sons and daughters of God).

That to me is the basic argument for Catholicism, and while I cavil with many aspects of Catholicism, I have never been able to refute this basic argument to my satisfaction.

Edwin

 

[falisrm]

Huh, no wonder i thought the episcopal church was wierd, your living proof.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

The laying on the hands never occured between the 12 apostles and the first bishops in the catholic church.

Sure it did. That’s exactly how the Apostles ordained the bishops as their successor, and it’s still how the bishops ordain their successors. If you have evidence that the Apostles never ordained the first bishops, then I’m all eyes and ears… Please support your claim. Otherwise, admit that it is just your own subjective opinion you have asserted here.
falism:

Otherwise, the bishops would have been ordained Apostles at that time or the Bishops lost the office of apostleship because they never received it.

No. They would have been ordained as bishops. The title of apostle is limited to those who were instructed by Jesus and who saw the risen Lord, as the regular conditions, with Paul being the extraordinary exception - see here. Perhaps this is why Paul referred to himself as the least of the Apostles.

Peace,
-Robert

 

[JRKH]

Yes, that is true. Very much so. That is why we have the authority of the Church to correct and rebuke errant teaching. You and I are not different on that. You and I differ on whether that authority is infallible or not. I claim it is not infallible, but is inerrant. That is why we have confessions of faith and statements of the doctrine we teach. All the better to use against those who teach strange and unbiblical doctrines.

I’m reminded of a quote that Ben Franklin used in a speech:

Full Speech here
That’s how I feel about a lot of our discussions truine, we are so close together on most everything that we wind up arguing over details. God bless you my friend.

According to that theory, if I, were I Roman Catholic, the immediate question I would ask is; if the Church’s infallible authority prevents schism, then why did it not prevent schisms that occurred 1500 years prior to the Reformation, culminating in the largest schism in Church history…not the Reformation, the Orthodox/Roman schism. Is sola scriptura or sola fide to blame for that one? While the Reformation was enormous in Western Europe, in the greater scheme of all of Christendom, it was a blip.

I guess I am not overly clear usually, but normally when I am refering to the Catholic Church I (mentally) include the Orthodox who have a legitimate apostolic line. You’ll notice that I almost never refer to the RCC, just to Catholic. Anyway as regards that schism (may God heal it soon) it is interesting to note that the Orthodox churches have not splintered into multiple and contradictory sects in the way that so many of the protestant Churches have.

In so far as the topic of this thread goes, that of authority, the protestant splintering is just such a wonderful example of the need for authority. Of course I understand that you, as a Lutheren, understand and accept authority as well - just another point upon which we agree.

If papal infallibility, apostolic succession and conciliar infallibility were set up by Christ to prevent schisms in the Church…it hasn’t worked all that well.

I wouldn’t say they were set up to prevent schism, but rather to protect the Truth of the Gospel. In that it has been extremely successful.

In contrast, we as Lutherans, simply maintain that we are the continuation of apostolic doctrine and teaching. It is not our contention that Rome’s history as the Western Church is invalid. Indeed, Luther himself praised the apostolic doctrine taught within Rome down through her history. It was the corruption

of her history and teachings that Luther reformed.
Fine and dandy.
And now that the corruptions that Luther protested against have been cleared up, May our dear Lord guide our respective Church leaderst to a speedy reconsiliation.

Peace
James

[/QUOTE]

 

[TriuneUnity]

I guess I am not overly clear usually, but normally when I am refering to the Catholic Church I (mentally) include the Orthodox who have a legitimate apostolic line. You’ll notice that I almost never refer to the RCC, just to Catholic. Anyway as regards that schism (may God heal it soon) it is interesting to note that the Orthodox churches have not splintered into multiple and contradictory sects in the way that so many of the protestant Churches have.

In response to the splintering issue…tell that to the communions such as the Macedonian Orthodox who are not in communion with Eastern Orthodoxy. They have splintered as well.

I realize the Orthodox are similar in points, but also very different in many major areas.

I wouldn’t say they were set up to prevent schism, but rather to protect the Truth of the Gospel. In that it has been extremely successful.

That’s where we differ; It is our main argument against Rome that she has obscured and clouded the Gospel with her teachings. Ultimately, that is the separating point.

As always, you are a gentleman and a dear Christian.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

I bet falisrm is a Mormom. His religion is listed as N/A. I’ve noticed that most Mormons do this.

 

[falisrm]

that’s only because we are too lazy to create a nice profile because we are never on here. I’m mormon.

 

[Erich]

Erich, Amazing how you can take scripture out of context.

Huh, no wonder i thought the episcopal church was wierd, your living proof.

Hmm, didn’t Ben Franklin once say that a spoonful or honey will catch more flies than a gallon of vinegar?

1 Timothy 5:22
22 Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men’s sins: keep thyself pure.

Whether your favorite translation says “Lay hands on no man lightly” or “Lay hands suddenly on no man,” one has to ask why Paul would admonish Timothy in this manner? Or, as you might ask, what’s the context?

There can be no other reason why St. Paul would leave his two spiritual “sons” (Ss. Titus and Timothy) explicit instructions about the qualifications for overseers, elders, bishops, etc. (c.f. 1 Tim 3:1-7, Tit. 1:5-9), than that he expects them to confer apostolic authority – by imposition of hands – on new men who meet those requirements!

1 Timothy 4:14
14 Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.

Whether using your translation or mine, this clearly shows that the laying on of hands most certainly did occur between the apostles and the first bishops… that is, after all, how Timothy received the “gift that is in him.” Thank you for making my point!

Are you certain that the man who shepherds your soul is a legitimate leader? Or are you following a self-appointed shepherd who is in rebellion against God’s appointed authorities? (Hint… don’t answer these questions until after you’ve read the short article By What Authority?)

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

Why does the Catholic church have some of the wierdest traditions. Everything from the robes of the Priesthood to praying to saints.

Classic examples of both “begging the question” and ad hominem fallacies in one sentence. Why didnt you try to work the “straw man fallacy” in as well?

 

[Erich]

Why does the Catholic church have some of the wierdest traditions. Everything from the robes of the Priesthood to praying to saints.

Careful how you phrase that (remember that bit about catching more flies with honey than with vinegar?) … otherwise someone will have to ask why the Mormon church has some of the weirdest traditions, from temple garments to baptism for the dead.
:tsktsk: