Why ask "By what authority"?

[CutlerB]

Actually, I’m just looking for clarification on this question.

Sooner or later, when Catholics talk to Protestants about religion, the Catholic will probably ask “By what authority can you XYZ?”, XYZ being e.g. interpretation of a Bible verse, assertion of Dogma, etc.

Now the part which I’d like clarified/confirmed: Am I correct in saying the following?

" ‘By what authority can you do XYZ?’ by itself is not a valid question. It only becomes important because the Bible indicates that Christ set up an authority, and we must therefore ask who that authority is."

I ask this, because I anticipate people will say “Why do I need authority?” when I ask them the question in question. (pun! ) In that case I would answer the person by “Well, the Bible indicates there is an authority to teach and govern.”

In any case, is the compilation of the Canon of Scripture of any importance here? For example, the author of a book has the authority to tell others what it means, no matter how scholarly some may argue for a certain interpretation. The question then would be, can the Catholic Church be compared to that Author (though He is actually God through human writers)?

 

[ericc]

I ask this, because I anticipate people will say “Why do I need authority?” when I ask them the question in question. (pun! ) In that case I would answer the person by “Well, the Bible indicates there is an authority to teach and govern.”

Probably they will tell you that they prayed very hard and they were filled with the Holy Spirit who then lead to that interpretation. Probably came with certain signs as well eg burning of the bosum etc.

In any case, is the compilation of the Canon of Scripture of any importance here? For example, the author of a book has the authority to tell others what it means, no matter how scholarly some may argue for a certain interpretation. The question then would be, can the Catholic Church be compared to that Author (though He is actually God through human writers)?

The Catholic Church spent centuries to sift out those that are divinely inspired and those that were not. They used it for over a thousand years after that. Then someone, took this compilation, proclaimed 6 books unfit and excised it out of that compilation, Then turn around and ask the Catholic Church, why did you add those 6 books? Probably the question of by what authority should be asked when they took out the 6 books. Reasons have been given but I haven’t come across anyone claiming authority to do that.

Seriously I doubt you will get a decent answer for the “By what authority” question. You probably get God as the standard answer.

 

[fhansen]

Actually, I’m just looking for clarification on this question.

Sooner or later, when Catholics talk to Protestants about religion, the Catholic will probably ask “By what authority can you XYZ?”, XYZ being e.g. interpretation of a Bible verse, assertion of Dogma, etc.

Now the part which I’d like clarified/confirmed: Am I correct in saying the following?

" ‘By what authority can you do XYZ?’ by itself is not a valid question. It only becomes important because the Bible indicates that Christ set up an authority, and we must therefore ask who that authority is."

I ask this, because I anticipate people will say “Why do I need authority?” when I ask them the question in question. (pun! ) In that case I would answer the person by “Well, the Bible indicates there is an authority to teach and govern.”

In any case, is the compilation of the Canon of Scripture of any importance here? For example, the author of a book has the authority to tell others what it means, no matter how scholarly some may argue for a certain interpretation. The question then would be, can the Catholic Church be compared to that Author (though He is actually God through human writers)?

The Catholic Church was given the role of authority in terms of understanding her Tradition and Scripture, both of which are part of her own lived history-anything outside that is private interpretation. And this is how she understands 1 Tim 3:15:
"if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth."

The Church uniquely understands the gospel and teaches it correctly-which is why she was given the gift of infallibility on matters of faith and morals. The Holy Spirit leads the Church.

 

[SecretaryMonday]

Who has the authority to tell me that the Bible is my authority? It seems to me that the Protestant commentators I’m familiar with (not that I’m familiar with much) stand in an inferior position, pointing upward to the Bible as a greater authority; how can they compel me to accept something that outranks them? It seems that they would only be able to suggest the greater authority of the Bible, as something that they personally have discovered to be true but is not necessarily binding on me, especially as it was compiled by flawed human beings who erred a little bit with the canon.

 

[Carlan]

The Church has an authority made up of what is called The Magisterium and are the Bishops of the Church, descendants of Christ’s 12 Apostles,whom he commissioned to hand down His complete revelation to his Church. Peace, Carlan

 

[JRKH]

Actually, I’m just looking for clarification on this question.

Sooner or later, when Catholics talk to Protestants about religion, the Catholic will probably ask “By what authority can you XYZ?”, XYZ being e.g. interpretation of a Bible verse, assertion of Dogma, etc.

Now the part which I’d like clarified/confirmed: Am I correct in saying the following?

" ‘By what authority can you do XYZ?’ by itself is not a valid question. It only becomes important because the Bible indicates that Christ set up an authority, and we must therefore ask who that authority is."

You ask if you are correct in saying the above…and I would say no you are not correct.
The reason I say this is because any question is a valid question if asked in the proper context of a conversation.
The more important thing to consider is whether the question is useful…What are the benefits of asking the question at a given point in a discussion?

Personally I have not found the question (as presented) to be terribly useful. Most protestants that I have talked with will not be thrown by the question. They will have an answer - sometimes even an answer that makes good logical sense - certainly within their perspective.

I ask this, because I anticipate people will say “Why do I need authority?” when I ask them the question in question. (pun! )

Yes some will give this answer…others will point to the bible as authority in itself. They will say that the authority lies in how the bible is self supporting. That if there is a question or concern they look to other places in the Bible for clarification etc…

In that case I would answer the person by “Well, the Bible indicates there is an authority to teach and govern.”

Indeed. This is my approach as well. I will even agree (for the sake of argument) to take the RC structure (ECF’s and Tradition) out of the equation and look strictly at what Scripture says on the matter and having presented the argument FOR an authoritative universal Church model…I will challenge them to provide an equally compelling argument for their view (generally the “locally independent” church model).
These have been some very interesting conversations.

In any case, is the compilation of the Canon of Scripture of any importance here? For example, the author of a book has the authority to tell others what it means, no matter how scholarly some may argue for a certain interpretation. The question then would be, can the Catholic Church be compared to that Author (though He is actually God through human writers)?

I don’t think that this line of argument will be very productive.
Many Protestants do not see ANY visible Church body as entirely free from error. Nor will they even claim to be without error themselves. They will assert that they are continually learning.
They see the Bible as inerrant and authoritative. They see the Holy Spirit as the Guide and (depending on the particular sect/denomination/group) they see their pastor, local body, or communion as a forum for “testing the spirits”. But they will not place their entire faith in or on the judgement of any given pastor/sect/denomination/group.

The most useful, beneficial and uplifting conversations that I have had with protestants on such matters has been to use “Sola Scriptura” itself to undermine some of their basic assumptions. Not by trying to prove the RC right, or “Sola Scriptura” wrong…but demonstrating that some of their assumptions in regards to church structure and ekklesial authority are simply not supported in Scripture
For example - the argument that the bible is internally consistent is useful in exploring the idea of Church structure and authority…whether local communities were independent or united. As I said earlier…I’ve found much that points to unity and authority…but nothing that points to local independence or private interpretation.
I’ve challenged many to show me the internally consistent teaching for locally independent churches - one where it is acceptable to teach contradictory doctrines
None have been able to rise to the challenge in any internally consistent way.

Thus - while I may not have convinced them that the RC is the right and true church…I have perhaps caused them to reconsider and question their current view - and that will hopefully lead to a greater openness to unity.

Sorry to ramble on so…

Peace
James

 

[Ad_Orientem]

Am I correct in saying the following?

" ‘By what authority can you do XYZ?’ by itself is not a valid question. It only becomes important because the Bible indicates that Christ set up an authority, and we must therefore ask who that authority is."

No, that’s incorrect.

We know of the Church’s hierarchical constitution from a number of things including the Church’s existence, her testimony (maybe partisan, but still part of the evidence), and historical evidence–including Scriptural accounts, but not from those alone (there are, for example, records of apostolic succession).

It also stands to reason that a visible authority is necessary for any organization involving human beings, and particularly for one making truth claims about God and his actions in human history. If all Christians believed and worshipped the same way, one might make an argument that a hierarchy is unnecessary; but unfortunately, we don’t.

Theoretically, I suppose God could have set up a Church without a hierarchy (say, with each person being immaculately conceived and having infused knowledge or something), so in that sense you could say the question is not, strictly speaking, “valid by itself”; but given the world we live in and the above, such a point is moot.

 

[CutlerB]

You ask if you are correct in saying the above…and I would say no you are not correct.
The reason I say this is because any question is a valid question if asked in the proper context of a conversation.
The more important thing to consider is whether the question is useful…What are the benefits of asking the question at a given point in a discussion?

Let me give you an example of what I had in mind when I wrote that post.

I have a JW friend, who I post a lot about on CAF. If I were to engage in debate with him on which of our religions was founded by Jesus Christ Himself, and he keeps (mis)quoting Scripture to support a particular JW belief. To cut short the debate, rather than go through every single verse he’d jump to, I’d much rather like to go the bottom of the issue by asking “By what authority do you interpret that verse?”

What I mean by “not a valid question in itself” is this: If the Bible did not prescribe an authoritative Church or any authority, that question is irrelevant.

Does that make things clearer?

 

[JRKH]

Let me give you an example of what I had in mind when I wrote that post.

I have a JW friend, who I post a lot about on CAF. If I were to engage in debate with him on which of our religions was founded by Jesus Christ Himself, and he keeps (mis)quoting Scripture to support a particular JW belief. To cut short the debate, rather than go through every single verse he’d jump to, I’d much rather like to go the bottom of the issue by asking “By what authority do you interpret that verse?”

What I mean by “not a valid question in itself” is this: If the Bible did not prescribe an authoritative Church or any authority, that question is irrelevant.

Does that make things clearer?

Not sure if it’s clearer or not…but let me play devils advocate for a minute…
suppose you ask him this question and he replies with "By what authority do you accept the Catholic Church’s authority? How do you reply???

Another possible response from him might be “by the authority of the Holy Spirit residing in me”…How do you respond to that???

I’m not trying to be difficult…but I am trying to suggest that one be careful when and how they phrase this type of question.

I have found it more useful to suggest that here we have two sincere Christians who honestly believe they are guided by the Holy Spirit in their specific beliefs…yet these beliefs are irreconcilable. What does Scripture say we should do in such a case.
(Hint: Mt 18:15-18 gives instruction to deal with conflicts within the Church and Acts 15 gives an example of these instructions being carried out).

The problem in discussing this with a JW is that they have a very strong “church” affiliation. In other words, your friend submits his views to his church just as we submit our personal views to the Magisterium.

So - I’ll be honest - I don’t think that the “By what authority” question is going to yield any profit in the discussion. In short, I think you are most likely left with needing to address the various verses that he brings up (in context etc)…and only after some lengthy discussion on these, (where you use scripture extensively to show how his interpretation isn’t the only possible one) - - - - Only then might you broach the biblical idea of "tell it to the Church (Mt 18:17) as the proper solution to the matter…
Then this might lead to other discussions about unity or lack there-of and how biblical or unbiblical is the concept of unity…

Peace
James

 

[CutlerB]

Not sure if it’s clearer or not…but let me play devils advocate for a minute…
suppose you ask him this question and he replies with "By what authority do you accept the Catholic Church’s authority? How do you reply???

First, I’d probably insist that since I asked the question first, I get the answer before I answer him.

If that doesn’t work, I’ll go to the Canon of Scripture and the ECFs.

Another possible response from him might be “by the authority of the Holy Spirit residing in me”…How do you respond to that???

I’ll ask him to prove where it says that and claim the same for myself and remind him that the JWs believe that their “holy spirit” can’t reside within persons.

I’m not trying to be difficult…but I am trying to suggest that one be careful when and how they phrase this type of question.

I have found it more useful to suggest that here we have two sincere Christians who honestly believe they are guided by the Holy Spirit in their specific beliefs…yet these beliefs are irreconcilable. What does Scripture say we should do in such a case.
(Hint: Mt 18:15-18 gives instruction to deal with conflicts within the Church and Acts 15 gives an example of these instructions being carried out).

The problem in discussing this with a JW is that they have a very strong “church” affiliation. In other words, your friend submits his views to his church just as we submit our personal views to the Magisterium.

So - I’ll be honest - I don’t think that the “By what authority” question is going to yield any profit in the discussion. In short, I think you are most likely left with needing to address the various verses that he brings up (in context etc)…and only after some lengthy discussion on these, (where you use scripture extensively to show how his interpretation isn’t the only possible one) - - - - Only then might you broach the biblical idea of "tell it to the Church (Mt 18:17) as the proper solution to the matter…
Then this might lead to other discussions about unity or lack there-of and how biblical or unbiblical is the concept of unity…

Peace
James

Well, I think the Mt 18:15-18 thing can work quite well, especially in conjunction with history. (Where was the Watchtower in the 13th century?)

 

[JRKH]

First, I’d probably insist that since I asked the question first, I get the answer before I answer him.

If that doesn’t work, I’ll go to the Canon of Scripture and the ECFs.

Understood…

I’ll ask him to prove where it says that and claim the same for myself and remind him that the JWs believe that their “holy spirit” can’t reside within persons.

1. I did not know about that belief of the JW’s…but then I don’t know much about them in general…
2. I agree that making the same claim of being Spirit guided is a good approach. This would lead into the idea of “testing the spirits” and how one goes about that.

Well, I think the Mt 18:15-18 thing can work quite well, especially in conjunction with history. (Where was the Watchtower in the 13th century?)

Agreed. I find Mt 18:15-18 along with Acts 15 to be a wonderful tandem. The first is instructions from Jesus Himself and the second is the practical application of those instructions to resolve a doctrinal issue between two geographically separated church communities.
Also - the question regarding "where was watchtower in the 13th century is a good one.

He’ll likely have comebacks for these things…but keep planting those seeds.

Peace
James

 

[pablope]

Let me give you an example of what I had in mind when I wrote that post.

To cut short the debate, rather than go through every single verse he’d jump to, I’d much rather like to go the bottom of the issue by asking “By what authority do you interpret that verse?”

What I mean by “not a valid question in itself” is this: If the Bible did not prescribe an authoritative Church or any authority, that question is irrelevant.

Does that make things clearer?

This is what I had done in such instances:

When I asked by what authority a protestant believes his interpretation to be correct…they would sometime shoot back…how is it in the CC?

This been the way I responded:

I cite this passage:

from 1John 4… Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world……………6 We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit[a] of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

And cite the example of St. Paul:

Galatians 2:2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain.

The 1john4 passage says to know the truth…listen to an apostle, not read the Bible.

And Paul had a revelation directly from Christ, yet he receives instructions, via revelation again…to go the apostles…to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain.

A private revelation would not contradict what has been handed down, especially the example of St. Paul.

Then I would ask…so show me how you come to your interpretation and if you follow the example of St. Paul?

This would then lead to apostolic succession and the authority of the church to teach…not the individual to determine what is truth and not…this is the left to the purview of the Church…as 1john4 says.

Hope this helps a bit.

 

[NHInsider]

Let me give you an example of what I had in mind when I wrote that post.

I have a JW friend, who I post a lot about on CAF. If I were to engage in debate with him on which of our religions was founded by Jesus Christ Himself, and he keeps (mis)quoting Scripture to support a particular JW belief. To cut short the debate, rather than go through every single verse he’d jump to, I’d much rather like to go the bottom of the issue by asking “By what authority do you interpret that verse?”

What I mean by “not a valid question in itself” is this: If the Bible did not prescribe an authoritative Church or any authority, that question is irrelevant.

Does that make things clearer?

Um, this is very problematic. You are essentially conceding the weakest argument that non-catholics make.

The Bible is authoritative BECAUSE the Church promulgated it. It is the Church to which Jesus delegated His authority. Non-catholic (Protestant) Christians claim that the Bible is the final authority. But the Bible at Pentecost was just the Old Testament (and its canon had not be set, it certainly included the deuterocanon). For those first critical decades, and indeed centuries, of the Church, the Bible as we know it did not exist. It came into being at the hands and under the authority of the Church.

Now the fact is, as I’m sure you know, that the Bible DOES point to the authority of the Church (1 Tim 3:15, Mt. 18:17).

The final authority of the Bible falls apart because without the Church you can not know what books are authoritative Scripture.

Sally

 

[CutlerB]

1. I did not know about that belief of the JW’s…but then I don’t know much about them in general…

Well, it’s not exactly a doctrine. But they do believe He is “God’s active force” and not a person. They say in some of their publications “How can one be filled by a Person?”. So, in that instance, they are claiming God is directly revealing something to them. However, they most definitely teach that private interpretation is wrong.

So the question then becomes: “What authority does the Watchtower have?” And they will go to some absurd interpretation of prophecies.

Um, this is very problematic. You are essentially conceding the weakest argument that non-catholics make.

The Bible is authoritative BECAUSE the Church promulgated it. It is the Church to which Jesus delegated His authority. Non-catholic (Protestant) Christians claim that the Bible is the final authority. But the Bible at Pentecost was just the Old Testament (and its canon had not be set, it certainly included the deuterocanon). For those first critical decades, and indeed centuries, of the Church, the Bible as we know it did not exist. It came into being at the hands and under the authority of the Church.

Now the fact is, as I’m sure you know, that the Bible DOES point to the authority of the Church (1 Tim 3:15, Mt. 18:17).

The final authority of the Bible falls apart because without the Church you can not know what books are authoritative Scripture.

Sally

Was I conceding that? I thought I had written that I would go to the Canon of Scripture to argue for the Church’s authority?