Catholic Authority

[Acumen]

Why do Roman Catholics presume to have the authority in regards to biblical interpretation when they used biblical text and interpretation to establish their authority?

[Acumen]

Actually, that's exactly the way I wanted to say it.

[Acumen]

Is that better?   

[johnnyjoe]

Why do Roman Catholics presume to have the authority in regards to biblical interpretation when they used biblical text and interpretation to establish their authority?

Well, I would have to say that it looks like the bible is used as a proof text for the authority of the Church, but that appearance arrives from the Church preceeding the text, codifying the text, and preserving it as revelation from God.

Without the Catholic Church there would be no bible, so from that fact - and it is historical fact - it would seem to fall that the "presumption" comes from being the initial editor and publisher of the bible.

[Acumen]

John,

Welcome to the forum; I trust you will enjoy your stay.

Well, I would have to say that it looks like the bible is used as a proof text for the authority of the Church, but that appearance arrives from the Church preceeding the text, codifying the text, and preserving it as revelation from God.

I remember having a discussion similar to this on Bnet with some Catholic posters.  I learned that the focus of the discussion really centered around the meaning of authority.  I believe, and this is my opinion, that most of those Catholic posters were confusing the two common definitions of authority during their argument.

The first definition of authority pertains to expertise.  For instance, Newton was considered an authority on physics.

The second definition of authority pertains to perrogative.  For instance, Moses was an authority of the Israelite people.

I highlighted the above words because I believe it helps make a grammatical distinction in how the words are intended.  Yes, I believe that the Roman Catholic Church is an authority on Christian doctrine due to expertise, but not due to a divine right that supercedes the right of other Christian groups.

Yes, the church preceded the NT, but pre-existence doesn't grant authority.  Yes, the church codified the bible, but again collecting what already was in circulation doesn't grant authority.  And yes, the church preserved the bible, but preservation doesn't grant authority.

Without the Catholic Church there would be no bible, so from that fact - and it is historical fact - it would seem to fall that the "presumption" comes from being the initial editor and publisher of the bible.

And that is a presumption I'm not willing to grant in this discussion.  First, the Roman Catholic Church is a late structural tag retroactively applied to the early churches that basically operated as small, scattered, and relatively autonomous entities.  This was a time before the terms "pope" or "papacy" were invented in reference to a single preeminent church; and a time before the term "infallible" was applied to a mere human leader.  By the time the Roman Catholic Church started to take any real organizational and heirarchial form was around the time of Constantine.

And second, if the bible is truly the infallible word of God, then God is the reason we have the bible.  In the very least, the church was fortunate to receive God's guidance to select those pauline books that had already been popular among the early churches and were in common circulation.

Thanks for your time

-Acuman

[Burnman]

Why do Roman Catholics presume to have the authority in regards to biblical interpretation when they used biblical text and interpretation to establish their authority?

Well, to be accurate, it is the Catholic Church that has the authority. Calling it the Roman Catholic Church is a 17th century perjuative started by Anglicans who for some strange reason still think they are _"catholic" as well.
And since it was the Catholic Church that under thew guidance of the Holy Spirit put together the 73 books of Canon Scripture, it seems that they have a much better claim to authorative interpretation than, say, any other Protestant interpretation, ecspecially since they have opted out for the Reader's Digest Condensed Version of the Bible.

[Acumen]

Burnman,

Welcome to BeliefCorner!  We hope your stay here is satisfying.

[Acumen]

Alright, down to business!

Well, to be accurate, it is the Catholic Church that has the authority. Calling it the Roman Catholic Church is a 17th century perjuative started by Anglicans who for some strange reason still think they are "catholic" as well.

When I use the term, I don't mean it to be pejorative.  I like to distinguish between the Roman Catholics and the Greek Orthodox.  By Roman Catholic, I refer to a church based in and centered around the city of Rome.  Certainly, early on in Christian history, the church of Rome, being established in the capital of the Roman Empire, grew quite large in comparison to the neighboring churches.  It was in the church of Rome that the bishop first attempted to extend his authority in dealing with disputes that had evolved in the other churches.

And since it was the Catholic Church that under thew guidance of the Holy Spirit put together the 73 books of Canon Scripture, it seems that they have a much better claim to authorative interpretation than, say, any other Protestant interpretation, ecspecially since they have opted out for the Reader's Digest Condensed Version of the Bible.

I don't follow the reasoning.  Let's face it, many of Paul's epistles were widely circulated around to the churches for centuries prior to their cannonization.  These churches already had a fairly good idea which books were authentic and which books were just popular.  It wasn't until heretics like Marcion began disregarding certain NT books when teaching his false doctrines that the churches decided it was time for an official recognition of authenticity.  Do I believe that God guided the process of selection?  Yes, I do.  Am I compelled to?  No, I'm not.  I believe that back then, it was fairly evident which books were inspired and which ones weren't.  I don't think this necessarily contributes to a more authoritative interpretation of scripture, unless of course, you could show us some particular examples of why?

-Acumen 

[Burnman]

Acumen,

Thanks for the greeting.

[Thorolf]

Considering how active the Mary thread is with respect to this authority issue, you'd think there would be some more lively discussion here. 

[johnnyjoe]

Generally, "Authority" is only an issue with regard to certain teachings one has an issue with.  The general issue is a bit broad to thread easily.

[gracebyfaith]

I'm not an "authority" on history, but based on the debate I'm reading
it sounds like the presumed Catholic authority is pretty convenient for
the Catholic church to claim.

I question the motive behind any organization that claims sole authority -
ESPECIALLY those who would place their traditions on the same level
of GOD'S inspired Word.  I have no problem with the Spiritual gifts given
to the church for the edification of the body - like apostles, prophets,
evangelists, pastors, etc... we submit ourselves to "one another"
according to Scripture. 

To put one organization as sole authority is a bit controlling for many
people who were given a mind and the responsibility to discern and to
study the Scriptures for themselves.  Yes, I believe we do work out our
own salvation with fear and trembling, and it is my responsibility to study
the Scripture to give an answer for the hope I have.  I don't mind asking
a priest or any other authority for their interpretation, but ultimately God
will hold me accountable for what I do - not a priest.

Then to hear that some Catholic doctrines are also presumed infallible - wow. 
We are told to test the spirits, that would include even a Catholic leader's
(pope).
 
This debate has inspired me to start reading my church history books.

[Acumen]

Congratulations on becoming a Junior member, El.  When you become a full-member, then you will know how I feel.   

[Acumen]

El,

GBF:  I question the motive behind any organization that claims sole authority -
ESPECIALLY those who would place their traditions on the same level
of GOD'S inspired Word.

El:  Well, since they did cannonize "God's inspired Word" by their authority, it doesn't sound like a huge strech to me .

Canonizing epistles and elevating one's ongoing traditions to the same level as God's word are entirely two different things.  The former is merely stating acceptance and the latter is arrogant.

GBF:  To put one organization as sole authority is a bit controlling for many
people who were given a mind and the responsibility to discern and to
study the Scriptures for themselves.

El:  Really, what if you can't read?  Better yet what if you were illiterate around 200 AD (no "scriptures" available), were you still responsible to "study the scriptures for yourself? 

Does that really matter given the fact that the Catholic church forbade its laypeople to read the bible when its publication was widely circulated?  Using the whole "what if you can't read argument" doesn't hold much weight when the literate masses were prohibited from reading it for themselves.  THAT is mind control.

Just keeping it real.

-Acumen

[Acumen]

LOL.

Don't you dare say that again!

[Thorolf]

El,

You said that the so-called "Catholic Church" (if they could truly be called that in the same sense as the name is used today back when the books of the NT were canonized) canonized the books by their authority.

Man holds no authority except those powers, abilities, and privileges delegated to him by God. The only possible argument there could be is that they canonized the books by God's authority and by His direction. Not their own.

The claim of authority is an oft-misunderstood one. Even the Catholic Church would note that they receive their commission from God, and not by their own virtue or power.

[Acumen]

El,

Are you serious or are you just playing devil's advocate?  Because we were both at that meeting and we both know the answer to that one.

I am serious.  GBF's point is that God gave us a mind to figure things out, not have it dictated by some organization that claims all of its doctrines are perfect.  Your response was "what if you can't read?" 

Now, I presume you said that because illiterate people would have to depend upon those who could read for biblical insight.  I think this is a mistake for two reasons.  First, people may be illiterate, but that doesn't mean that someone can't read it to them.  And second, the Catholic church didn't prohibit its members from reading the bible for themselves because they couldn't read, they prohibited reading the bible because they didn't want their members to question the Church's infallibility, and therefore absolute authority in all things spiritual. 

I'm not playing the devil's advocate here.  There is a danger to that sort of control.  The best thing that could have ever happened is when people began to read their own bibles.  The more people that read their bibles, the more people will come to Christ.  No institution should try to inhibit the work of God.  And when people read the bible for themselves, God works through them.


-Acumen

[Acumen]

El,

LOL! Yeah right.  The Church still believes today as it always has, that the Bible is not for private interpretation and if people are encouraged to read the Bible they must do so in the light of Tradition or they may lead themselves into heresy.

I been looking all over the place, perhaps you could help me?  I'm still missing that biblical passage commanding us to read the bible only with the guidance of the ongoing and changing tradition developed by 1900 years of catholic counsils of the holy Roman Catholic church.

El:  Let's look at a Biblical example of this:

Acts 8:30-32

30 So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading the prophet Isaiah, and said, "Do you understand what you are reading?"

31 And he said, "How can I, unless someone guides me?" And he asked Philip to come up and sit with him. 32 The place in the Scripture which he read was this:

I'm not exactly sure what this example is designed to prove?  First, the man appeared to be reading, and therefore interpreting the scriptures for himself, but found himself at a puzzling passage in which he needed some assistance.  There is nothing here that indicates that we need someone's guidance continuously.  And second, I think it's probably not a good idea to base one's point of view on the opinion of some Ethiopian eunuch confronted by a stranger.     


Acumen:  The more people that read their bibles, the more people will come to Christ.  No institution should try to inhibit the work of God.  And when people read the bible for themselves, God works through them.

El:  The fact is.... that no other "organization" has brought more people to Christ than the Holy Roman Church.

What's your point?  Are you saying that the unsaved pagan shouldn't read the bible on their own because, by golly, she might not agree with all the doctrines of the Catholic church, even if that reading leads to her Christ?

-Acumen

[Some Darn Xian]

That's obvious, just like the country is better off since womens sufferage....lol

El,

I want to carefully approach this one. I hope that this was a vain attempt at frivolity. If it truly is your opinion that women's sufferage was bad, then you are truly a troubled and closed minded person.

[Some Darn Xian]

The fact that the RCC has been in many places doesn't mean that it was always right.

The basis for the argument for papal authority is partially based on the misconstrued belief the Roman church was the oldest and most established of all the NT churches.

I want to call your attention to a group that most people have forgotten--The Coptics. They have been around since 50 AD. That would make them the oldest surviving Xian group. the RCC hasn't been in that situation. I believe they are still a 100 years or so short of being able to claim longevity. And, if you really want to draw the point, they really didn't come into their own authority until Constantine made Xianity the official religion of Rome. That didn't occur until the 4th century.

As for the red herring of Peter being the rock on which the church was built, this is the oldest and most widely held incorrect translations of the Greek NT.

The thing that most people refuse to do when translating this particular section is understand the genders of the words. In this passage, Peter is referred to in the masculine, as Simon. "Rock" was written as "petra," which is a feminine declension. The only other word in that sentence that could be suitable and correctly paired with "petra" is the greek for church, which is also a feminine declension, and the further pronoun that is used is also in the feminine.

Ask yourself how a church that would last through the ages be built upon a main? Would it not be more correct to acknowledge that what Jesus was referring to was his statement of faith? Isn't that what we all routinely state throughout our various services? Isn't the concept of a unified faith the better argument versus a man?

The choice of Peter for the emblematic display isn't a mere irony either. He is a man  that is prone to act before he thinks. He doesn't always take the higher path. He isn't always as brave as he would like to think he is. He doesn't always have the correct answer. He is indeed the most common person out of all of the apostles. He possess the greatness and the weakness that is common in all of us. The "petra" that is mentioned is not the man Peter, but his statement of faith. The pure faith that is stated in the Beatitudes as blessed. If faith isn't the foundation of the church, then why would Christ state that those who believe will be blessed?

Work through the argument. And, any reply the simply quotes the status quo of the RCC will not be considered an answer. It will be considered a regurritated response.