Universal Jursidiction

[Peter_J]

Three bags ready.

“Ready” doesn’t rhyme with “wool”. (Just saying.)

 

[Fevronia]

You know this is actually a very interesting analogy.

Anyone interested in starting his own university would have to demonstrate his academic credentials not only to those students who might consider studying under him, but also to the larger academic community through the process of accreditation.

Others would want to know who he studied under, what his own level of accomplishment was, what papers he had published in peer-reviewed journals and what standards his students would be held to, etc. Only when their investigation was concluded when Newbie U. be allowed to open its doors and confer degrees that carry any weight in the larger public square.

I’m not sure that Luther met ANY of those requirements. He simply opened up a storefront church, put a sign in the window and started preaching. (Well, okay, it was a little more complicated that that. )

By what authority did he do this? I can point to the scriptures wherein Jesus conferred his authority on the Twelve and I can show how they did the same thing with those that came after them, but where did Luther get authority from God to simply walk out of the Church built by Jesus and start another?

Yes, I feel that this is certainly well pronounced during the reformation.

The whole idea of suddenly accepting a mere student/ lesser authority as the authority over everyone else should have been an obvious issue in the minds of people. It’s the equivalent of someone tomorrow saying every Physicist is wrong and gives a a text/speech of his own teaching, and people start following him. While he is doing so, all the Top authorities conclude that this man is wrong but he continues and so do his followers. Even if we take the case of Einstein, in the end his theories had to be verified and accepted by the top authorities at the time before he was considered legitimate.

So it feels like some common sense on the part of the people would have been enough to avoid the reformation.

 

[Fevronia]

I’m sorry if I mislead you into reading my words as Gospel. Feel free to hear the Gospel proclaimed by your good priest as you should.

Do you think anyone can just pick up a physics text and teach correctly? Who is more likely right, that person or the one who has been certified to teach in case of an inconsistency between them? Or to raise it a bit more, is it more likely that the person is right when almost every other certified authority concludes the opposite ?

I’m not sure I follow, but I do my best to face the Cross. You are, of course, free to disagree are tell me otherwise.

I am asking you how you know any of what you believe is what Jesus actually taught? If I wanted to learn what Einstein taught, I don’t ask a person who claims he knows what Einstein taught. I would rather listen to someone certified from Einstein himself or one of his students as certified to teach.

If that certification gets revoked by the top authorities in Physics, I will then find a different certified teacher. Not stick with that person.

But Lutherans did just that. First they listened to Luther (who has no authority to teach in the sense he did). Then they proceeded to listen to him after the top authorities (Church) had condemned him.

If you wait a few posts, I’ll say something inane and you can pounce on that, but I ask you to wait for it rather than put words into my mouth.

What you are saying makes no sense from the Lutheran standpoint.

My question is on why you are even IN the Lutheran standpoint. You should be looking at everything from a standpoint of reason before you pick a side. As it stands, to become Lutheran seems unreasonable, yes?

I’ll wait till you debate facts (and ideas) plainly and not some university of the mind.

Not sure what you mean.

Lutherans, of course, interpret - but they should do the least ‘interpreting’ as possible while proclaiming the Gospel from the pulpit.

What do you mean proclaim? Just read the text? How do you know that is what we must do? Who told you that is what Jesus taught?

You, as a good Catholic, as I understand it, are obliged to think this.

No, I am not obliged to think this as a Catholic. I feel obliged to think this as a reasonable person. So if you feel that its not the case, can you explain to me why that is?

Because how can it be reasonable to listen to a man who self designated himself an authority over every other actual authority that kept saying “he is wrong” at the time? You don’t act that was in any other Academic field so why act that way in this case?

 

[cath4alltime]

2Ti 3:13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
2Ti 3:14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
2Ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Well he’s gone but that does not say to follow Scriptures alone

 

[SanctusPeccator]

Speaking only for myself:

I’ve noticed that very intelligent Catholics have what seems a legal approach to some debates - they understand a framework of concrete ideas that allows for some ideas to have definite meaning in one context and a different meaning in a differing context. That by combining this framework and ideas they can come up with very clever ‘escapes’ to questioning, or conversely, by demanding precise definitions and adherence to those definitions (that are by they nature an approximation) can stymie those that can accept ambiguity especially when it comes to accepting God’s mysteries.

I prime example for us Lutherans is when we say that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ because Jesus told us so.

When Catholic counter with definitions of various approximations, it drives us miserable Lutherans even more crazy when we’re forced to defend and counter approximations that we don’t even espouse.

This ‘legalistic’ (I’m sure there’s a better name for it) approach can come across a being abrasive to those of us that don’t share the same framework.

…

A second point… when we have debates, to declare for your opponent the predicates that you think they espouse is especially bad for debates about religions. Quite often it can be wrong, and comes across as being crass.

Those of us in the Western tradition should take care with our Eastern friends - even if we understand the words of what we think they profess, they very well may have a different meaning that we need to understand (or for me, admit that I don’t understand) before moving forward.

Some members of the Catholic Answers Forums have requested a response as they believe your comments might be an oblique reference to one’s specific method of posting? If so, possibly your reply is unaware this self-described “legal approach” is hardly limited to the Catholic denomination since it was actually predated by over four centuries?

 

[SanctusPeccator]

Randy Carson;11216998:

MB-

You and Cavaradossi have remarkably thin skins. You come to a Catholic Apologetics Forum to defend Orthodoxy, but you abandon the discussion when things get a little testy?

Isn’t that like a guy stepping into a boxing ring and whining after his nose gets bloodied?

Dude, what did you expect? Man up and defend your position like the Bishops of old!

Honestly, what is this garbage? What is is about the RCs in this discussion that they can’t stay on topic, but instead have to cast aspersions or, worse, flat out insult those of other Churches?!

I don’t think any of the Orthodox are here to “defend” our Faith in battle. Explain, correct misunderstandings, or discuss differences yes…but there is no Charity in personal verbal assaults, Randy Carson. I don’t blame them for withdrawing, lest this arrogant spectacle spark animosity in our hearts and tarnish all our wretched souls even more. Can it with the cheap shots…dude.

Since we’re discussing Universal Jurisdiction (presumably), perhaps I should print this out & mail it to the Vatican for (name removed by moderator)ut from The-Boss-of-You.

As a segue for the sake of public transparency, any posters are free to present where the sincere intentions, religious faith, or individual persons of Cavaradossi and Misplaced_Book were specifically impugned [by one’s posts]? Seems instead their responses may possibly indicate an apparent inability and/or unwillingness to consistently adhere to the rational parameters of thorough inquiry and rigorous cross-examination for their claims? And sadly without mistakenly personalizing this impartial process of critical reasoning as an unfounded ad hominem attack?

 

[Church_Militant]

Well he’s gone but that does not say to follow Scriptures alone

Quite true! (He’ll be back I suspect, and that’s a good thing!)

There are always those who put forth that doctrine, but the fact is that the word of God nowhere lays claim to that authority and in fact teaches that the Church “is the Pillar and ground of the truth.”

 

[benjohnson]

Do you think anyone can just pick up a physics text and teach correctly? Who is more likely right, that person or the one who has been certified to teach in case of an inconsistency between them? Or to raise it a bit more, is it more likely that the person is right when almost every other certified authority concludes the opposite ?

I’ll respond to this one, as we’re going in circles.

You’re assuming a predicate that we don’t see - 500 years ago the catholic church (in our view) was promulgating a teaching that was potentially putting souls in danger of thinking they could purchase their way out of purgatory and into heaven, and perhaps thinking money could solve deeper problems.

That is what we reacted to - we didn’t remove ourselves from this horrid situation as a lark, but as a response to some rather horrid circumstances.

We didn’t react against a perfect teacher, or whatever your analogy, we reacted to some pretty cruddy stuff.

Thankfully, the rest of the Catholic church reacted to eventually - you no longer holds those teachings.

 

[benjohnson]

Some members of the Catholic Answers Forums have requested a response as they believe your comments might be an oblique reference to one’s specific method of posting?

I’m was perhaps being too coy. From what I’ve seen, you’ve driven several Orthodox posters away in short order - a rather curious turn of events as I’ve never known Orthodox to be especially squeamish.

I appreciate their perspective, so this troubles me.

I assume you didn’t intend this outcome, my post had the intention of offering up a reasonable explanation of why your posts seem to have driven them away.

 

[benjohnson]

Do you believe that the pope is the head of the universal Church? No?

Then they preached more than just the Gospel.

We acknowledge the primacy of Peter as early church. It’s the recent innovations we feel are not Gospel.

 

[JRKH]

Quite true! (He’ll be back I suspect, and that’s a good thing!)

There are always those who put forth that doctrine, but the fact is that the word of God nowhere lays claim to that authority and in fact teaches that the Church “is the Pillar and ground of the truth.”

Yes - RJ is on the bench for now. I kind of hope that the suspension is lifted at some point…

In fact I would suggest that these types of persons actually serve a good purpose in that they help others sharpen, not just their knowledge, but their patience and charity in apologetics.

meanwhile - back to the topic…

Peace
James

 

[twopekinguys]

2Ti 3:13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
2Ti 3:14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
2Ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

John 21:25, “And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.”

and

2 Thess 2:15 “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.”

So, as you can see, even the Bible says it isn’t the only source.

Good try though.

 

[Novocastrian]

As a segue for the sake of public transparency, any posters are free to present where the sincere intentions, religious faith, or individual persons of Cavaradossi and Misplaced_Book were specifically impugned [by one’s posts]? Seems instead their responses may possibly indicate an apparent inability and/or unwillingness to consistently adhere to the rational parameters of thorough inquiry and rigorous cross-examination for their claims? And sadly without mistakenly personalizing this impartial process of critical reasoning as an unfounded ad hominem attack?

Ok, I’ll give you one thing you could do to make yourself sound less aggressive when you’re debating/discussing online. Stop writing whole posts in the form of endless rhetorical questions. You’re not Socrates, and it can seem as if you’re unwilling to answer the questions of others except by re-taking control of the conversation and asking your own.

I enjoy reading your posts and find what you have to say interesting, but you unintentionally come across as rude and hostile.

 

[Novocastrian]

You know this is actually a very interesting analogy.

Anyone interested in starting his own university would have to demonstrate his academic credentials not only to those students who might consider studying under him, but also to the larger academic community through the process of accreditation.

Others would want to know who he studied under, what his own level of accomplishment was, what papers he had published in peer-reviewed journals and what standards his students would be held to, etc. Only when their investigation was concluded when Newbie U. be allowed to open its doors and confer degrees that carry any weight in the larger public square.

I’m not sure that Luther met ANY of those requirements. He simply opened up a storefront church, put a sign in the window and started preaching. (Well, okay, it was a little more complicated that that. )

By what authority did he do this? I can point to the scriptures wherein Jesus conferred his authority on the Twelve and I can show how they did the same thing with those that came after them, but where did Luther get authority from God to simply walk out of the Church built by Jesus and start another?

He wasn’t just a layman, thought. As a priest he was committed to preaching and celebrating the sacraments, and as an university professor he was committed to the exposition of Sacred Scripture. From Luther’s point of view he was doing just that, and it was the Roman Church which wrongly reacted against him, and excommunicated him for (what he considered to be) his orthodox beliefs.

 

[JRKH]

I came to this thread quite late - and have not read through all 30+ pages - so forgive me if I am repeating…but I would like to go back to the original premise here and offer some thoughts.

From Scripture, it can be readily discerned that Christ intended His Church to be universal, visible, united and authoritative. As many here will know from my various posts, I base this on a number of biblical references, most notably the combination of Mt 18:15-18 (instructions) and Acts 15 (application) but there are others as well.
Mt 16-17-19 and John 21:15-17 likewise show a particular role and responsibility given to Peter.
Jesus only uses the word “church” twice – both times in Matthew and both times associated with the authority to “bind and loose - whatever”.
The Epistles contain numerous calls to a profound unity of mind and Jesus even prays to the Father for such unity.
All of these things - expressly contained in Scripture - point to something well organized, visible and authoritative.

Now having said that, there CAN be some discussion – and even disagreement – over just how the Church is organized and how the authority of the Church, and the papacy is structured and expressed. The East obviously sees a somewhat different role than the west does for the bishop of Rome. Yet both the East and the West do see the value of communication, of councils, of discussion, of consensus within the Ekklesia – all of the things that lead toward unity rather than away from it and all the things that Scripture so clearly points to.

This common view – regardless of the specific role or authority residing in the Bishop of Rome – is really the bedrock upon which the Church, east and west, needs to build.

Of course the other “view” – or more correctly – “views” in this is the protestant one of Sola Scriptura. Something that is understood in different ways by different groups.
However – for the Catholic, it is important to try to show such people that the Bible itself points to Church and not to itself as authority. I try to make a habit of leaving the specific Roman Catholic model out of the discussion and just sticking with Scripture.
In this way the protestant communions can be encouraged to seek greater unity among themselves – and so become more biblical. Such a move would inevitably bring them nearer to the teachings and structure of the Catholic and EO Churches even if disagreements were to still exist.

Looked at from another angle……
There is much historical baggage that makes it difficult sometimes to have fruitful conversations with others. As the Catechism readily admits…blame in such instances generally lies with both sides.
I believe that it is important to look at how the Church developed in the East and in the West and what strengths and weaknesses exist in each approach as well as the potential pitfalls of each. Being a Catholic – in the Latin Tradition – I have more experience with the western view. In this I see that a problem evolved when the papacy became both a spiritual office and a political one. These roles were really incompatible and were (IMHO) the source of many problems.
The eastern model – where the Emperor continued to reign as civil leader and the Patriarch stood as the spiritual leader seems a better model, but this still has it’s problems. Each one has a legitimate claim on the loyalty of those under their care and there will inevitably be tension between the civil and spiritual needs and desires.

Finally – removing the civil aspect….the interrelationship between the various Patriarchs, including Rome, is a delicate one. Each is deserving of his place of office and each carries a huge responsibility. The greater the communication that can be had between these servants of the servants the better. It makes the unity of the Church stronger and in many ways, it can lighten the load and responsibility of he who sits on the chair of Peter.

So – I guess in all of this prattle – the bottom line is this. I believe that Scripture shows Christ founding an authoritative Church. Also it shows that there was to be a leader – Peter being the first. However – the leadership is much more about responsibility than it is power…and the example we have in Scripture is one of councilior debate and consensus building rather than one person imposing his will.

I guess that’s it….Just some thoughts.

Peace
James

 

[benjohnson]

Peter is dead.

Finally! It’s about time! I was getting worried there…

I happen to have a little bit of sympathy with the idea that “this age is not the same age as before, so we can cast off all those old shadows and cobwebs.”

But we shouldn’t do that - there is too much to learn from the early church and from the traditions and customs that have been faithfully brought forward from those times. We need to hold fast to what God have given us as much as possible - for in those traditions and customs is a bit of Gospel.

Those were dark times - when Christians were slaughtered for their faith. Even if we didn’t have anything to learn from them, I would still be inclined to honor them and do as they did as a poke in the eye of the memory of those that killed them.

…

When your suspension is hopefully lifted, I would also encourage you to not use some of the harsher Biblical quotes against our Catholic hosts - there was one you used about evil doers. Our Catholic friends are in Christ and even if we feel they are wrong, if we want them to listen, we can’t level the charge that they are evil and maintain a conversation.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I’ll respond to this one, as we’re going in circles.

You’re assuming a predicate that we don’t see - 500 years ago the catholic church (in our view) was promulgating a teaching that was potentially putting souls in danger of thinking they could purchase their way out of purgatory and into heaven, and perhaps thinking money could solve deeper problems.

That is what we reacted to - we didn’t remove ourselves from this horrid situation as a lark, but as a response to some rather horrid circumstances.

We didn’t react against a perfect teacher, or whatever your analogy, we reacted to some pretty cruddy stuff.

Thankfully, the rest of the Catholic church reacted to eventually - you no longer holds those teachings.

Ben-

That’s essentially correct…we could quibble…but the result is the same.

Since we “no longer hold those teachings” - what the heck are you still protesting???

At some point, protesters need to put down their picket signs and go about their business.

The Reformation and Counter-Reformation is OVER.

Yet, people remain separated from Rome.

So, it’s not really about indulgences anymore, is it? :nope:

It’s not about Marian doctrines, because Luther was a supporter. It’s not about the Real Presence, and I doubt it’s really and truly about transubstantiation.

That just leaves Universal Jurisdiction…a matter that I personally believe can be resolved by deep reflection on half a dozen scriptures.

 

[concretecamper]

Ben-

That’s essentially correct…we could quibble…but the result is the same.

Since we “no longer hold those teachings” - what the heck are you still protesting???

At some point, protesters need to put down their picket signs and go about their business.

The Reformation and Counter-Reformation is OVER.

Yet, people remain separated from Rome.

So, it’s not really about indulgences anymore, is it? :nope:

It’s not about Marian doctrines, because Luther was a supporter. It’s not about the Real Presence, and I doubt it’s really and truly about transubstantiation.

That just leaves Universal Jurisdiction…a matter that I personally believe can be resolved by deep reflection on half a dozen scriptures.

Nicely summarized… Q.E.D.

 

[Randy_Carson]

We acknowledge the primacy of Peter as early church. It’s the recent innovations we feel are not Gospel.

And since these are matters are NOT the gospel, then the LCMS have taught you more than the gospel…they have taught you bits of ecclesiology that are unknown to other Christians.

 

[benjohnson]

That just leaves Universal Jurisdiction…a matter that I personally believe can be resolved by deep reflection on half a dozen scriptures.

Yep… you right in that we’re much closer to unity in Christ than in a long time. For our part, we must remain steadfast and not introduce novelties (ordination of women) and I think on your part what remains probably one of the hardest things ever for Pope to do - to counter the previous Papal dogmas of Papal Infallibility and (unbridled) Universal Jurisdiction.

To you second point that we don’t preach the Gospel only, that’s a fair point - but then again, I don’t think any church has historically always preached the Gospel only. May God have mercy on us!