When did the Church Go off the Rails

[CThomas]

Pneuma – thanks again. But your latest message confuses me a bit in its new focus on the question of authority. I certainly meant nothing in any of my earlier posts to question in any way the legitimate authority of the Church and its properly instituted officials. Of course, I as a Protestant probably have a different view than you do of all that (e.g., I believe in the autonomy of the local congregations, with each led by a plurality of elders, based on my view of the evidence of the apostolically instituted practices whereas you believe in an overarching superstructure of authority connecting the local congregations, etc.). But I would certainly join you in disagreeing with anyone who said that “a legitimate authority was no more” at some arbitrary point in time. You’re right that that would be a discontinuity, and a seemingly baseless one, but it’s certainly nothing that I would ever hold to.

On Ignatius, I’ve read him, but to be candid I couldn’t give you any intelligent view on the extent to which I view his writings on the episcopacy as problematic without going back and carefully reviewing them.

On perspicuity, you’re right – and it’s a fair point – that people do disagree even about points that I view as central. This isn’t a total answer to you, but I think it’s important in considering this to maintain a distinction between perspicuity and subjective ease of recognition. For instance, the answer to a basic arithmetical equation, say, (634,932 X 42,812) is a 100% perspicuous thing. There is a simple, objective and guaranteed operation that will produce a single right answer. But that doesn’t mean that if you give that problem to a roomful of randomly selected people with pencil and paper they will all get it right because it’s 100% perspicuous. People can still make errors about perfectly perspicuous theological doctrines, just as they can with perfectly perspicuous arithmetical problems. (The analogy doesn’t carry over in every respect, of course – it’s just an example to differentiate between the objective clarity of something and the subjective inability to perceive it.)

Thanks again for discussing this stuff with me.

CThomas

 

[jmcrae]

This isn’t a total answer to you, but I think it’s important in considering this to maintain a distinction between perspicuity and subjective ease of recognition. For instance, the answer to a basic arithmetical equation, say, (634,932 X 42,812) is a 100% perspicuous thing. There is a simple, objective and guaranteed operation that will produce a single right answer. But that doesn’t mean that if you give that problem to a roomful of randomly selected people with pencil and paper they will all get it right because it’s 100% perspicuous. People can still make errors about perfectly perspicuous theological doctrines, just as they can with perfectly perspicuous arithmetical problems. (The analogy doesn’t carry over in every respect, of course – it’s just an example to differentiate between the objective clarity of something and the subjective inability to perceive it.)

Thanks again for discussing this stuff with me.

CThomas

Okay - so, im agine that Jesus had established a charism of mathematical infallibility. He gives it to one of His Apostles, and it is handed down from generation to generation until someone completely balls it up, and the Holy Spirit transfers it to someone who seems to be rebelling against all of Christ’s mathematical authority - but in reality, he is simply trying to make the world know that the mathematical infallibility had transferred out of the ordinary line of succession, to him.

You would know that the charism of mathematical infallibility had not transferred to everyone in the room who got an incorrect answer to the math question.

However, you would be in a state of doubt over which of those who had not answered the question at all, and those who answered it correctly, was the true heir to the charism of mathematical infallibility.

If this would be the case if the subject under discussion were Math, which is independently verifiable, what are we to make of the dozens or perhaps hundreds of Protestant denominations, who each claim that the Holy Spirit has transferred from the Catholic Church (which, in their view, has become an apostate organization) to themselves? Since the work of the Holy Spirit is a little more difficult to verify independently?

 

[tomarin]

Nice dodge. You have run into the brick wall all Proestants run into. How does one account for the first 1,500 years of Christianity if the Catholic Church is wrong.? To know the history of the Church is to be Catholic

bob, i’ve often had exactly this same thought. however, just to play devil’s advocate, isn’t it possible that most protestants don’t recognize this as a brick wall is because they don’t actually think the catholic church went off the rails? that is, many ecumenical protestants see us not as some whore of bablyon but as just another denomination with some esoteric beliefs about mary, etc. is it possible that the neatness of your argument relies on a stereotype of “what protestants believe” which doesn’t apply to most in real life?

just a thought. i look forward to your response.

 

[Teflon93]

bob, i’ve often had exactly this same thought. however, just to play devil’s advocate, isn’t it possible that most protestants don’t recognize this as a brick wall is because they don’t actually think the catholic church went off the rails? that is, many ecumenical protestants see us not as some whore of bablyon but as just another denomination with some esoteric beliefs about mary, etc. is it possible that the neatness of your argument relies on a stereotype of “what protestants believe” which doesn’t apply to most in real life?

just a thought. i look forward to your response.

Which boils down to “Protestants don’t know their own history either.”

 

[estesbob]

bob, i’ve often had exactly this same thought. however, just to play devil’s advocate, isn’t it possible that most protestants don’t recognize this as a brick wall is because they don’t actually think the catholic church went off the rails? that is, many ecumenical protestants see us not as some whore of bablyon but as just another denomination with some esoteric beliefs about mary, etc. is it possible that the neatness of your argument relies on a stereotype of “what protestants believe” which doesn’t apply to most in real life?

just a thought. i look forward to your response.

Only if they can prove that a Christian Church other than the Catholic Church existed before the “reformation” Barring that they still must assert the Church was in error for 1,500 years. These esoteric beliefs were the beliefs of all Christians until the “reformers” came along. You simply can not reconcile Protestant doctrines such as sola scriputra or sola fidelis with the first 1,500 years of Christianity.

 

[tomarin]

Which boils down to “Protestants don’t know their own history either.”

on the contrary, many know much more than i do about the history and theology of the reformation. as a catholic i don’t bother to look into their theologies because well, i don’t believe they had the authority to teach what they taught.

perhaps what you really mean is that they don’t have a catholic understanding of what the reformation meant? i don’t think that’s entirely surprising, given human nature.

what i believe about the reformation is that while there was a real need for the church to reform corrupt aspects of itself (such as the habit of making aristocrats cardinals), the original protestants threw out the baby with the bathwater. naturally it’s very hard to get their descendents to think like us, now that so much time has passed.

 

[estesbob]

on the contrary, many know much more than i do about the history and theology of the reformation. as a catholic i don’t bother to look into their theologies because well, i don’t believe they had the authority to teach what they taught.

perhaps what you really mean is that they don’t have a catholic understanding of what the reformation meant? i don’t think that’s entirely surprising, given human nature.

what i believe about the reformation is that while there was a real need for the church to reform corrupt aspects of itself (such as the habit of making aristocrats cardinals), the original protestants threw out the baby with the bathwater. naturally it’s very hard to get their descendents to think like us, now that so much time has passed.

But the reformation itself ignores the first 1,500 years of Christianity. For instance anyone who understands the History of the Church knows that an assertion that Scripture alone is sufficient can not possibly be true.

 

[tomarin]

Only if they can prove that a Christian Church other than the Catholic Church existed before the “reformation” Barring that they still must assert the Church was in error for 1,500 years. These esoteric beliefs were the beliefs of all Christians until the “reformers” came along. You simply can not reconcile Protestant doctrines such as sola scriputra or sola fidelis with the first 1,500 years of Christianity.

right, but i’ve often noticed here they simply refuse to accept that these distinctively catholic “esoteric beliefs” (such as the immaculate conception and authority of the petrine office) do have a historical basis. that is, they think these things were not necessarily present in original christianity but evolved arbitrarily over hundreds or thousands of years. and its very hard, given the nature of what we’re talking about, to prove to them otherwise.

again, just devil’s argument (so to speak). i included the last paragraph in my previous post what i really think just in case anyone should think i’m interested in making sophistic arguments for their own sake (i’m not).

and i completely agree with you on the sola doctrines. i think we have an air-tight case there. but again, since not all protestants (or even most?) believe those things, we haven’t refuted all of protestantism by making that case. at least i don’t think we have – perhaps you will prove me wrong.

 

[tomarin]

But the reformation itself ignores the first 1,500 years of Christianity. For instance anyone who understands the History of the Church knows that an assertion that Scripture alone is sufficient can not possibly be true.

agreed on sola scriptura. it’s self-refuting.

we can also point to other apostolic christian churches in the east that have beliefs very similar to ours about the sacraments and so forth. but, obviously, it’s not a slam dunk because they disagree with us on papal authority.

 

[Teflon93]

on the contrary, many know much more than i do about the history and theology of the reformation. as a catholic i don’t bother to look into their theologies because well, i don’t believe they had the authority to teach what they taught.

perhaps what you really mean is that they don’t have a catholic understanding of what the reformation meant? i don’t think that’s entirely surprising, given human nature.

what i believe about the reformation is that while there was a real need for the church to reform corrupt aspects of itself (such as the habit of making aristocrats cardinals), the original protestants threw out the baby with the bathwater. naturally it’s very hard to get their descendents to think like us, now that so much time has passed.

No, what I really mean is they don’t know their history.

If we grant your premise that Protestants view the Catholic Church as “just another denomination”, we cannot simultaneously hold to the notion that they know their history, particularly of the Reformation.

In the eyes of the historically-literate, the Catholic Church must either be what she claims to be, or a nest of the most abominable liars. Nothing else explains the Reformation itself.

As a Catholic, and as a student of history, I recognize the Reformation as The Western Heresy Which Stuck.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

You’re kidding, right?

“Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

I’m not quite sure how it gets any clearer than that.

Again when U.S is favorable for Cath apologist they use it and when it backs them in the corner the dismiss it with LG.

 

[jmcrae]

Again when U.S is favorable for Cath apologist they use it and when it backs them in the corner the dismiss it with LG.

Again in Engish, please? What is “U.S” (I thought that stood for “United States”?) and what is LG? (Lumen Gentium?)

 

[tomarin]

No, what I really mean is they don’t know their history.

If we grant your premise that Protestants view the Catholic Church as “just another denomination”, we cannot simultaneously hold to the notion that they know their history, particularly of the Reformation.

it seems to me that those ecumenical ones have a different attitude than their forebears not necessarily because of lack of knowledge of history (although it’s been proven many times that theological literacy among all religious groups is at an all time low in the US these days) but rather because the catholic church did reform those objectionable aspects of itself. as it has many times in the past.

In the eyes of the historically-literate, the Catholic Church must either be what she claims to be, or a nest of the most abominable liars. Nothing else explains the Reformation itself.

well surely the rise of centralized nation-states with strong-willed and powerful leaders in northern europe had something to do with it, as well as the increasing economic and political autonomy of this region as a whole vis-a-vis southern europe?

As a Catholic, and as a student of history, I recognize the Reformation as The Western Heresy Which Stuck.

well yes, you’re right. even many (uninformed) catholics today seem to think their own personal feelings have a greater authority than church teachings. i’m not defending the reformation so much as trying to work out why arguments that seem self-evidently true to us don’t seem to force many protestants to rush to the nearest catholic church to convert.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

As promised, previously, regarding Clement’s Epistle to the Church in Corinth, here’s some information I gathered from Steve Ray’s book, “Upon this Rock”.

First Clements speaks for the Church of Rome. And Clements shows that Jesus built One Church. In this letter it is the same “Church of God”, the only difference is one is in Corinth and one is in Rome.
Then Clement apologizes for not attending to Rome earlier…. Evidently the Roman persecutions were trying to cut off the head of this Church of God. Notice, there is no evidence that the Church of Corinth asked Rome for help.
Then Clement speaks of Apostolic Succession. Notice, he does NOT think that priests and elders should just choose themselves to lead. The Church chose who were the leaders. And notice when vacancies arose, the replacements had to be approved.

(One more note, even the Gnostics at this time recognized the need to have Apostolic Authority and tried to claim that they, too, had it. Ptolemaeus writes in his “Letter to Flora” of this Apostolic Authority, knowing that it was necessary to have in order to convert the faithful)
Continued

Then Clement shows that he has the authority given to him from God. There is a binding and loosing authority exerted here.
Clement requires obedience to his letter.
And finally, the Church of Corinth, who already enjoyed the two Epistles from St. Paul, treated Clements Epistle as Scripture. In a letter he wrote around 170AD to Soter, the Bishop of Rome, Bishop Dionysus of Corinth writes:
Notice, “on your behalf” which could only mean, “on behalf of the Church of Rome”. And indeed, many in the early Church held St. Clement’s letter as New Testament Scriptures well into the 3rd century.

Lotsa stuff in there brother, fact is NONE of it establishing the passing of authority of the entire church from Peter to the bishops at Rome.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Again in Engish, please? What is “U.S” (I thought that stood for “United States”?) and what is LG? (Lumen Gentium?)

Unam sanctum and yes Lumen Gentium.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Another point on clement though the Council of Trent criticized those who say that church leaders are to be appointed only with the approval of the whole church, Clement of Rome, himself a Roman bishop, disagreed:
“Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect foreknowledge of this, they appointed those ministers already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole Church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry.”
1st Clement, 44

 

[jmcrae]

Another point on clement though the Council of Trent criticized those who say that church leaders are to be appointed only with the approval of the whole church, Clement of Rome, himself a Roman bishop, disagreed:
“Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect foreknowledge of this, they appointed those ministers already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole Church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry.”
1st Clement, 44

I see your citation from Clement. Where is your citation from the Council of Trent?

 

[Teflon93]

it seems to me that those ecumenical ones have a different attitude than their forebears not necessarily because of lack of knowledge of history (although it’s been proven many times that theological literacy among all religious groups is at an all time low in the US these days) but rather because the catholic church did reform those objectionable aspects of itself. as it has many times in the past.

There was reform, but you’ll notice we still have indulgences. We also still have Protestants.

well surely the rise of centralized nation-states with strong-willed and powerful leaders in northern europe had something to do with it, as well as the increasing economic and political autonomy of this region as a whole vis-a-vis southern europe?

You’re confusing cause with effect, I think. The Reformation led to unprecedented state power—the former came first. The economic and political autonomy came along with the increased state power, partially aided by the weakened Church. Human nature abhors a power vacuum.

well yes, you’re right. even many (uninformed) catholics today seem to think their own personal feelings have a greater authority than church teachings. i’m not defending the reformation so much as trying to work out why arguments that seem self-evidently true to us don’t seem to force many protestants to rush to the nearest catholic church to convert.

The issue is authority. Protestants recognize none beyond their pastor. They gravitate toward pastors they like and away from those they do not. Ultimately, it’s all about The Atomic Church of Me.

It is a very similar issue with the Orthodox. If the issue of the Filioque were resolved in their favor tomorrow, they would simply move the goalposts and make another demand.

Papal authority is the sole reason why so many Christians are outside the Church Christ founded. This is why we have had no satisfactory explanation of when the Church went off the rails—it didn’t.

Passengers just jumped off the train and blamed the engineer.

 

[pneuma07]

Pneuma – thanks again. But your latest message confuses me a bit in its new focus on the question of authority. I certainly meant nothing in any of my earlier posts to question in any way the legitimate authority of the Church and its properly instituted officials

 

[NotWorthy]

Lotsa stuff in there brother, fact is NONE of it establishing the passing of authority of the entire church from Peter to the bishops at Rome.

Other than the fact that Clement claims authority over Corinth, maybe? Claims that bishops and elders have to be chosen by the Church, and not just the local Church, as is evidenced in Corinth, perhaps?