What Is Your Authority?

[Janet_S]

grandfather,

I agreed with you up until the last paragraph. Don’t lump all Protestants into that fine little mold you have formed for them. They won’t fit.

However, when you speak of the authority going to the church, keep in mind it is not the oraganization called the Catholic Church that is the church that has the authority although many of her members do. It is Christ’s church which are all that believe on Him and have been touched by the Holy Spirit through whom Jesus passes this authority to His church.

Bamm

If the authority of Christ does not reside in the Catholic Church, where does it reside?

You seem to recognize that the Church has authority, but how is that authority exercised? For example, we see in Act 15 the Church acting and deciding authoritatively. How would the Church (according to your definition–“all that believe on Him and have been touched by the Holy Spirit”) today go about deciding an important issue like they did in Acts 15?

Can you think of any decision the Church (meaning “all that believe on Him and have been touched by the Holy Spirit”) has made authoritatively in your lifetime? Is this decision accepted by “all that believe on Him and have been touched by the Holy Spirit?”

Do you accept all decisions made by the Episcopal church or the Southern Baptist convention for example?

 

[NotWorthy]

**Material Sufficiency **means that the Bible contains all that is necessary for salvation.

**Formal Sufficiency **means that the Bible is clear and that no infallible teaching Magisterium is necessary to interpret it.

In general, Catholics agree with the idea of material sufficiency but not with the idea of formal sufficiency.

I think Formal Sufficiency is what I was looking at. We would see no changes in teaching of things like Contraception from bible-only churches if the Bible was formally sufficient.

 

[JRKH]

grandfather,

I agreed with you up until the last paragraph. Don’t lump all Protestants into that fine little mold you have formed for them. They won’t fit.

However, when you speak of the authority going to the church, keep in mind it is not the oraganization called the Catholic Church that is the church that has the authority although many of her members do. It is Christ’s church which are all that believe on Him and have been touched by the Holy Spirit through whom Jesus passes this authority to His church.

Bamm

Forgive my butting in but I would like to point out that the term “Catholic” means “universal” When the term was origionally used it was refering to the universal Church of Christ - That is the Christians - All the Christians - And these Christians were under the authority of the Bishops appointed through apostolic succession.

So when you speak of Catholic as “the organization”, as you refer to it above, you are refering to the Universal Church founded by Jesus and handed down to us via the aforementioned apostolic succession. The term “Catholic” as distinct from other Christians wasn’t known until the reformation.

Christ’s Universal Church began with those who knew Jesus “in the flesh” and were taught by Him. They were the first to receive the Holy Spirit and proclaim the Good News (Gospel) It was they who began traveling and teaching orally and by letter what they had been taught by our Lord. So if we look at your own signature quote:

*Eph.4:3 Endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.(KJV) Do all you can to preserve the unity of the Spirit by the peace that binds you together.(Jerusalem) *

So when Paul wrote this, admonishing the Ephesians to preserve their unity, was he talking about maintaining a spiritual unity while rejecting his or the other apostles authority? Of course not. The unity in spirit involves a unity in authority as well. The authority of the teaching as passed on to them by Paul and the Apostles through apolstolic succession.

It was also they (Christ’s Chosen 12 plus Paul) who began the practice of appointing Bishops and thus began the practice of apostolic succession and it was these early Bishops who determined it best to create the “Heirarchy” we call the magisterium and to accept the Bishop of Rome as the See of Peter and leader of the Visible Church on Earth.

Does that mean that down over the centuries every Bishop has been a good one? Of course not. But the systems put in place by the Early Church Fathers has allowed the Church to right itself and continue to grow in grace.

Peace

James

 

[Janet_S]

I think Formal Sufficiency is what I was looking at. We would see no changes in teaching of things like Contraception from bible-only churches if the Bible was formally sufficient.

Yes, artificial birth control was considered intrinsically evil by all Christians up until the 1930’s. The reformers did not accept it.

Also the Marian dogmas. The reformers, who were sola Scripturists, believed some of the Marian dogmas. Martin Luther believed Mary’s Immaculate Conception. Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and John Wesley all believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity.

And with the popularity of the idea of “formal sufficiency” we have not only old beliefs that are now rejected but also new beliefs that were never taught before. For example there is widespread belief in the the pre-trib Rapture among sola Scripturists in spite of the fact that no one believed this doctrine or saw it in the Bible until John Nelson Darby came up with it in the 19th century.

I can understand some teachings in the Bible are obscure. But divorce is not, yet we have a considerable number of sola Scriptura Protestants who see nothing wrong with divorce and remarriage. They may not teach divorce is the best option, but they make excuses for anyone who wants to get a divorce and remarry someone else.

 

[Bamm]

Christ is the head of His church. His authority “resides” with Him. He annoints His followers with power by way of the Holy Spirit. He does this the same today as He did on the day of Pentecost. The result is not always as dramatic as that first baptism, but it occurs none the less.

The people are the church. They are the ones who receive the annointing no matter what organization they belong to. If they are His, they are His.

The various parishes within the Catholic Church have a certain amount of authority to make their own decision on some matters. The organization has set rules that have to be adhired to, but otherwise the parishes have authority.

The same with Christ. He has His own agenda that he requires His followers to adhire to, but each individual person/follower has authority to govern themselves. If there is a problem, most Protestants will take it directly to the High Priest namely Christ. Catholics usually take it to their local priest, if he can’t handle it, he goes a step higher and so on. The result is the same, Christ’s will is done.

Right now Christ has called me and many other followers, even some that are Catholics, to work deligently to end the discord between His members. The petty bickering, pointing of fingers, and claiming “we’re the chosen ones” brings Him much grief. Check with your organizational leaders meaning priests, pastors, preachers, or what ever you call your spiritual leader and ask them if they do not meet with fellow spiritual leaders in their community to discuss this very matter. I pray they do.

Bamm

 

[NotWorthy]

The same with Christ. He has His own agenda that he requires His followers to adhire to, but each individual person/follower has authority to govern themselves. If there is a problem, most Protestants will take it directly to the High Priest namely Christ. Catholics usually take it to their local priest, if he can’t handle it, he goes a step higher and so on. The result is the same, Christ’s will is done.

Right now Christ has called me and many other followers, even some that are Catholics, to work deligently to end the discord between His members. The petty bickering, pointing of fingers, and claiming “we’re the chosen ones” brings Him much grief. Check with your organizational leaders meaning priests, pastors, preachers, or what ever you call your spiritual leader and ask them if they do not meet with fellow spiritual leaders in their community to discuss this very matter. I pray they do.

Bamm

Yes, they do meet. But not to be a stick in the mud, but what teachings has the Church held since Apostolic times do we need to give up in order for the Christian Faiths to unite.

When I look at the Protestant churches that desire this unity (as we all should) I see little kids asking the parents to change the rules of the family in order for unity.

If the Catholic Church feels that everything She teaches is the Truth, then She should be unwilling to change one “iota” in order to preserve unity, for the Truth is more important than Unity.

 

[Janet_S]

The same with Christ. He has His own agenda that he requires His followers to adhire to, but each individual person/follower has authority to govern themselves. If there is a problem, most Protestants will take it directly to the High Priest namely Christ. Catholics usually take it to their local priest, if he can’t handle it, he goes a step higher and so on. The result is the same, Christ’s will is done.
Bamm

If Christ speaks authoritatively to each Christian, individually, one-on-one, why did He bother to found a Church?

I don’t doubt your good will, but it is this view of the Church (each individual person/follower having authority to govern himself about issues of faith) that is responsible for division in the Church.

This philosophy was unheard of (except among some heretical groups) until the time of the Reformation. We know for certain that the early Church did not operate this way. Read the NT Epistles and Acts (especially Acts 15) if you don’t believe me. If Christians don’t abandon this unbiblical point of view, they will be driven further and further apart. Discord will multiply. If things keep going the way they are now, I won’t be surprised if in the near future every man will be the pastor of his own Church.

If Truth is something that matters to you, you owe it to yourself to examine your idea of “Church” and how this sqares with the idea of “Church” as Christ intended and as lived out in the first few centuries.

 

[jcrichton]

Christ is the head of His church. His authority “resides” with Him. He annoints His followers with power by way of the Holy Spirit. He does this the same today as He did on the day of Pentecost. The result is not always as dramatic as that first baptism, but it occurs none the less.

***Hi, Bamm!

I think that you should read the Holy Scriptures more closely… though it is true that Jesus founded His Church and annointed the Eleven with the Holy Spirit (and the others found at Pentecost), He made it very clear that the Church would be guided by the Holy Spirit (St. John 14-16 and Acts)–aside from Saul’s experience and the very first chapter of Acts, our Lord Jesus Christ is not seen actively involved with the Church.

When you say that God, Jesus, does not change… you are totally correct!.. but when you say that Jesus is the Paraclete that works with the Church… you are simply reading your own interpretation of Scriptures.***

The same with Christ. He has His own agenda that he requires His followers to adhire to, but each individual person/follower has authority to govern themselves. If there is a problem, most Protestants will take it directly to the High Priest namely Christ. Catholics usually take it to their local priest, if he can’t handle it, he goes a step higher and so on. The result is the same, Christ’s will is done.

---

That is a great cause! I have been praying for the unity of the Church for many many years… I include it in my every prayer… I’ve even visited non-Catholic sites hoping to get this very thought into the mind of other Christians… sadly, we (humanity) are slow to listen and even more slow at giving up what we consider our individual “rights and advantages.”

Maran atha!

Angel***

 

[pismopal]

Thanks for your opinion here. It looks like Catholics cannot in fact prove that the Bible actually says that it is “insufficient” or “incomplete,” and that perhaps their “apologetic” script needs to be re-written.

Could you enlighten me on the Church Authority that used the terms " the Bible is incomplete" or "insufficient? Having Tradition as an additional guide to our faith does not seem to me to imply that the Bible is insufficient any more than having a Father-Son and Holy Spirit would imply insufficiency of any one of the three.
Did you ever answer the question about the “authority of the Bible”? I find a lot in the Bible but where is that authority spelled out?

 

[Petergee]

Most Protestants partake of the body and blood Christ, also. And they take it very serious.

Nonsense. Even if you include all Anglicans and Lutherans as “Protestants” (which some would object to being called), the vast majority of protestants explicitly deny that anybody ever partakes of the Body and Blood of Christ.

The early churches had pot luck style dinners and this is when they had their Communion like Christ did. So, in all faithfulness, we should all, Protestants and Catholics alike; celebrate Him with every meal we consume.

I’m sorry, but I think this is the funniest “objection” to Catholicism that I’ve seen, and I’ve seen some doozies. The fundamentalists having a potluck dinner, andthe Baptists having a barbecue, believe that they are partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ? Utterly ridiculous.

 

[NotWorthy]

I’m sorry, but I think this is the funniest “objection” to Catholicism that I’ve seen, and I’ve seen some doozies. The fundamentalists having a potluck dinner, andthe Baptists having a barbecue, believe that they are partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ? Utterly ridiculous.

I think the good poster is describing the Agape. The problem is, Paul condemned the Agape’s in Corinthians.

 

[po18guy]

All I am asking for is a detailed explanation of something in the Bible that is actually not “complete” or “sufficient.” Catholics say that the Bible is not “sufficient.” Well; not sufficient for what? Can you name something in the Bible which would come up so short, that it needs to be trumped by something in the apocrypha? (since you say that the apocrypha is also “the word of God” (the infallible authority of “solo Luther” said it was NOT) you should be able to easily point out examples).

If you are Pro-life, or the SDA church is pro-life, where is that to be found in scripture? It’s not. You need more than scripture to arrive at that moral teaching. Same with Monogamy. There is scarce evidence in scripture to support it. The bible is not complete as the sole rule of faith. The Reformers re-defined centuries of consistent Christian practice, which was established by Christ, or the Apostles. John 6 and 1 Corinthians 11 are prime examples of this. Once Tradition was thrown away, scripture can suddenly mean many different things. Scripture and Tradition are the left and right hands of faith. You really should read a compact book on this very matter: By What Authority? by Mark P. Shea, a former Evangelical. His theological excursion and investigation is illuminating. If you are open minded enough to read it, I will gladly mail you a copy.

Eternal life is that important.

Christ’s peace.

 

[Bamm]

I have no objections to the Sacrements of the Roman Catholic Church. My statements were meant as an admonishment to all Christians.

When told that others that were not of His 12 were using His name Jesus said,

“You must not stop him: anyone who is not against you is for you.” Luke 50 (the Jerusalem Bible).

Bamm

 

[Petergee]

I have no objections to the Sacrements of the Roman Catholic Church. My statements were meant as an admonishment to all Christians.

When told that others that were not of His 12 were using His name Jesus said,

“You must not stop him: anyone who is not against you is for you.” Luke 50 (the Jerusalem Bible).

Bamm

And you think that Catholics want to stop non-Catholic Christians from using Christ’s name?? Where did you get that idea?

 

[clpage86]

Protestant 101,

There are occasions in the Bible when God speaks to us through the words of the Apostle Paul reminding us to hold on to oral traditions.

I’m assuming you like the KJV, and I like the DRV. I’ll use both:

King James:

Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you. --1 Corinthians 11:2

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

Douay-Rheims:

Now I praise you, brethren, that in all things you are mindful of me and keep my ordinances as I have delivered them to you. 1 Cor. 11:2

Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle. --2 Thess. 2:14

These verses suggest that, since traditions “delivered” and learned “by word” are just as necessary and important as those learned (rather, affirmed) “by…epistle,” the epistles alone do not suffice.

 

[JRKH]

Protestant101

The thread seems to be digressing a bit so I would like to summarize a bit and get it back on your track.
Your OP asked Catholics to show where the Bible is insufficient or incomplete. You stated this:

Many times in Scripture; truths are implied or illustrated,
without being said verbatim; or “proven” expicitly. So in this first post, I would like to challenge the Catholic “script” here; and ask Catholics to **prove that the Bible is not sufficient. **What in this Holy Book of God would be classed as “insufficient” or “incomplete?” (for salvation).

From the various posts I have gleened the following points in answer:

1. The Bible does not answer every question that has arisen over the centuries.
2. The writings compiled in the Bible do not comprise the totality of apostolic teachings since much of it was contained in Oral Tradition.
3. The Bible (in 1 Peter) adnonishes the faithful to beware of those unlearned who offer their own interpretations. Thus there needs to be an authority for interpretation.
4. The Bible is Materially sufficent but not Formally sufficient. That is, it contains all that is necessary for salvation, but is not clear in all matters. Many heretics have used the Bible to bolster their heretic teachings.
5. The Bible and Tradition are right and left hands of faith. Either one without the other is insuficient.

To these I will add:

1. The Bible was assembled by the Church as a basic compendium of faith, not as a salvation textbook. It was to give the Church a single – common set of writings for reference.

I may have missed some points and if I did, I apologize.
Personally I think points # 3 and #4 say it best. The problem has to do with interpretation. This is best evidenced by the large number of protestant denominations created since Luther first broke with the Church. Each one claiming to be correct.

One of the most important things we, as catholics, can do for our protestant brothers is to encourage an understanding of the Bible within historical and Church history. Too many protestant faithful have no idea of how the Bible came to be and therefore cannot judge for themselves the sufficiency of the Bible or their interpretation of it.

So protestant101, do any or all of the points fit the bill?

James

 

[po18guy]

Protestant 101, There are occasions in the Bible when God speaks to us through the words of the Apostle Paul reminding us to hold on to oral traditions. I’m assuming you like the KJV, and I like the DRV. These verses suggest that, since traditions “delivered” and learned “by word” are just as necessary and important as those learned (rather, affirmed) “by…epistle,” the epistles alone do not suffice.

The SDA church has traditions, but doesn’t believe that it does. Additionally, their predecessors discarded many of Paul’s sacred Traditions. And, once Tradition was removed, scripture was mis-interpreted (“twisted”), as Peter stated, so as to justify almost everything. It is indeed difficult to believe that there is more to faith than you have been taught.

Christ’s peace.

 

[po18guy]

Protestant101

The thread seems to be digressing a bit so I would like to summarize a bit and get it back on your track.
Your OP asked Catholics to show where the Bible is insufficient or incomplete.
From the various posts I have gleened the following points in answer:

1. The Bible does not answer every question that has arisen over the centuries.
2. The writings compiled in the Bible do not comprise the totality of apostolic teachings since much of it was contained in Oral Tradition.
3. The Bible (in 1 Peter) adnonishes the faithful to beware of those unlearned who offer their own interpretations. Thus there needs to be an authority for interpretation.
4. The Bible is Materially sufficent but not Formally sufficient. That is, it contains all that is necessary for salvation, but is not clear in all matters. Many heretics have used the Bible to bolster their heretic teachings.
5. The Bible and Tradition are right and left hands of faith. Either one without the other is insuficient.

To these I will add:

1. The Bible was assembled by the Church as a basic compendium of faith, not as a salvation textbook. It was to give the Church a single – common set of writings for reference.

I may have missed some points and if I did, I apologize.
Personally I think points # 3 and #4 say it best. The problem has to do with interpretation. This is best evidenced by the large number of protestant denominations created since Luther first broke with the Church. Each one claiming to be correct.

One of the most important things we, as catholics, can do for our protestant brothers is to encourage an understanding of the Bible within historical and Church history. Too many protestant faithful have no idea of how the Bible came to be and therefore cannot judge for themselves the sufficiency of the Bible or their interpretation of it.

So protestant101, do any or all of the points fit the bill?

James

Very well said. But, over time, and particularly in the past 500 years, many “refutations” have arisen.

(2 Peter 3:16) “He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction”.

All we can do is speak the truth and pray that the Holy Spirit illuminates all hearts.

Christ’s peace.

 

[Bamm]

And you think that Catholics want to stop non-Catholic Christians from using Christ’s name?? Where did you get that idea?

Petergee,

No, that is not what I think.

I do think that you had to reach pretty far out there to pull that out of my posting.

Please reread my posting with the thought in your mind that I am not attacking anyone.

In Christ’s love, Bamm

 

[Petergee]

Petergee,

No, that is not what I think.

I do think that you had to reach pretty far out there to pull that out of my posting.

Please reread my posting with the thought in your mind that I am not attacking anyone.

In Christ’s love, Bamm

OK, I’ve read it again. You quote a familiar Gospel verse.You say you are making your statements as an admonishment to all Christians.
I am not aware of any Catholic who has ever told a non-Catholic not to use Christ’s name. It’s pretty rare even for a non-Catholic to tell Catholics not to use Christ’s name. So what was the point of your post?