Catholic Authority

[Some Darn Xian]

Thank you for the clarification.

The issue of women pushing a prochoice agenda doesn't really relate to the gay rights agenda. While they may both appear on the "liberal" agenda, they are two very distinct ideas.

And the number being 45 million is a tad overstated. By some estimates, its 20 to 30 percent too high.

Anyway. There are additional issues that need to be addressed prior to the legislative changes that could take place.

[gracebyfaith]

El,
Wow!  Amazing.  Women voters?  If that wasn't male chauvinism!  There
are plenty of us women who are pro-life and NOT gay!  I see a lot more
men in those gay pride parades than women.  MANY women going into
abortion clinics are there because of men who are not taking their
responsibilities of fatherhood seriously.  Maybe men shouldn't vote, since
it's so easy for them to shrug off their obligations by persuading their
girlfriends to have abortions. 

Maybe we should also look at how few women are actually law makers, and
remove of some of these men in powerful positions - That are as wicked as
the men back in Sodom and Gomorrah.  Don't place the burden of this evil
society on women - be a man!  God put it on the shoulders of men to lead,
that doesn't translate dominate women and control.

I am really sad that you would represent this kind of thinking on a Christian
board.  How disheartening.  This is the kind of attitude that causes women
to rebel and resist the role of a man's leadership.  Learn from Christ's example
and the Scriptures teaching on how to treat women.  They are given no less
free will and respect than a man, we're just in different "roles."

Yuk!

[Amicus]

Being new to the forums and admittedly poking my head in the conversation without maybe understanding where everyone is at in the "debate" on authority, I'll stick my neck out there and offer this...

Being a non-Catholic, I would tend to view this subject on authority as Catholics saying that "they" are right and "they" have the sole-truth and answers.  I read statements from gracebyfaith "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." 

I fully understand her line of thinking, although I don't support it.

Being a Catholic, I don't view authority in this way.  I believe, as we are taught in Matthew that Christ did establish a church (call it what you want) and that he without any doubt set up an authority here on earth.  If you follow sola-scriptura or bible alone as your preferred way to follow Christ, you can't argue this fact, as it is deeply based in scripture.  So now what?  You have to follow the apostles and the "early church fathers" to look for clues as to how this "living" church evolved. 

You can argue the Catholic church is not the church set up by Christ himself, but you can't argue "a" church wasn't established.  The Protestant argument is that the Catholic church follows men, well, I'm fine with that as a Catholic.  Let me qualify that statement.  If Christ says to men, I give you power to forgive or retain the sins of men, and blows on them the Holy Spirit to facilitate that power and these men write me letters to my early church ancestors and tell me to do this or that to obtain salvation, then yes, I'm guilty of following men.  Or am I?  Am I following men or the direction of my Lord and Savior?  I believe THATS the difference, if Jesus Christ came down to you and sat down on your couch tonight and said, "hey, anything Tom Cruise tells you do, do it."  Are you following Tom Cruise or God (God's directions)?  (Now to be fair, if he tells us to follow Tom Cruise then God may just be an alien! lol)The theory of bible alone is not even logical due to the historical nature and undisputable proof of when (and arguably) how the canon evolved.  Key word...evolved.  This would lend us to believe that for a few hundred years early Christians didn't have the tools of salvation at their disposal...arguably I think they were better off than us.

The argument to support that the Holy Spirit will guide all who pray and try to understand scripture is not well based either.  We would have to assume the Holy Ghost is scitzofrantic in nature based on 20,000 plus denominations all deciphering scripture differently.  When we leave man to interpret under the false umbrella the Holy Ghost is guiding him, we are left with utter confusion...who is right?  Everyone?

I don't believe Christ wanted it to be this difficult for us, he wanted unity.  He prayed and bled tears when dissension among Christians was going on in his day.

What's my point in all of this?  It's not a matter if "a" is right or "b" is right, it's a matter of what Christ wanted for us, and I believe he wants a lot for us, which I also believe can be found in it's greatest sense within the teachings of Christ's church.

Peace be with you.

[metis]

How about the option that God gives his children a foundation of truth through His physical Church here on earth to help us "figure things out"? 

By chance do you remember our conversation in another thread dealing with the following of one's personal conscience in a case whereas they are familiar with the Church's teaching but they feel in all honesty that they must go in somewhat of a different way?  As I was looking for my books on cosmology, lo and behold I ran across my "Catechism of the Catholic Church", which I had thought I donated to our public library.  Let me quote some sections for your entertainment:

"It is important for every person to be sufficiently present to himself in order to hear and follow the voice of his conscience.  This REQUIREMENT of interiority is all the more necessary as life often distracts us from any reflection, self-examination, or introspection: Return to your conscience, question it... 'Turn inward, brethren, and in everything you do, see God as your witness'.* ...

Conscience enables one to assume RESPONSIBILITY for the acts performed... Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions.  HE MUST NOT BE FORCED TO ACT CONTRARY TO HIS CONSCIENCE.  NOR MUST HE BE PREVENTED FROM ACTING ACCORDINGLY TO HIS CONSCIENCE, ESPECIALLY IN RELIGIOUS MATTERS...

Man is sometimes confronted by situations that make moral judgements less assured and decision difficult.  But he must always seriously seek what is right and good and discern the will of God expressed in the divine law. 

To this purpose, man strives to interpret the data of experience and the signs assisted by the virtues of prudence, by the advice of competent people, and by the help of the Holy Spirit and his gifts" (items 1779, 1782, 1787, & 1788 as found on pages 439-440; caps are mine; * signifies a quotation from Augustine).

Shalom,
Vern   

[metis]

Your theory would allow someone who claims to be Catholic to act on his feelings for the same sex because of his conscience regardless of the Church's teachings against it.  For that matter, how about Adultry and Fornication?  Is this what the Catechism is teaching?  And yes, birth control is that bad.

The Church has a responsibility for its teachings, but the individual has responsibilities to study the teachings and act in an appropriate matter determined by his/her informed conscience.  That's why I put "responsibility" in the one paragraph in caps.  What you have done with your statement above is to take what I said to an opposite extreme,, which I am not by any means advocating.  I never have advocated adultery, fornication, or homosexual activity, or implied that the Church teaches that somehow they're OK.  What I am saying is that the ultimate "responsibility" for your actions is you-- not the Church.  And this shows up in the Catechism, which I believe you realize is the official Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Let me give two examples.  Is abortion a sin?  Is killing another human life a sin?  Under most circumstances, the Church would say yes.  But the Church allows abortion if the potential mother's life is at stake.  It allows for killing in cases of self-defense and war in some circumstances.  This is where the "law of the lesser evils" comes in.  Abortion is wrong.  Killing another human is wrong.  But under certain limited circumstances, it may be allowed.

We have seen this play out in the area of birth control in Africa whereas some bishops have publicly stated that the use of condoms is allowed because of the horrific problem with aids.  There also has been the allowance of the use of birth control pills in the States in order to regulate some women's periods who suffer from problems in that area.  Is birth control wrong according to Church teachings.  Yes.  However, in order to prevent what could be a greater problem, it has been allowed in some limited cases.

Shalom,
Vern     

[Some Darn Xian]

Well, where to begin.

First, El, the insistence on tradition as a means to further expand upon the Scriptures is somewhat of a wide road.

Let's take a person like David Koresh. He was a person that decided his tradition was the one to be interpreted. His twisting and turning to get to a message that left him in complete control of his followers seems to fall right in line with what the papacy has been in the business of doing for centuries.

Marriage of priests--Didn't occur until sometime after Augustine.

Papal supremacy--didn't occur until Constantine converted, and only after he made the assessment that the majority of his subjects were Xian, which was after he had won the decisive victories to consolidate his power.

Holy Roman Empire--Again, Constantine

Fish on Fridays--Didn't occur until sometime in the mid 20th century when the fishing industry in Italy was tanking due to declining sales

Vatican II--John Roncolli, when elected pope, was only supposed to be a "fill-in" in terms of papal rule and change. His decision to call a Vatican council was a surprise to just about everyone in the RCC hierarchy.

Veneration of Mary--Didn't officially become doctrine in Rome until after the Nicene councils of the 4th century.

The Flat earth theory--I don't believe this needs explanation

The cause of the plagues and pestilences of Europe--The RCC officially decried any of the scientific claims as to the causes of these disasters until late in the 19th century. Granted, the official papal declarations had significantly subsided, but they, the RCC didn't issue retractions of other statements of correction. Admit your wrong too soon, and the generational die-off doesn't have its affect.

Admission to the Holocaust--This didn't occur until the 1960's. The RCC officially remained neutral, despite the evidence that it did occur, and only under JPII did the papacy acknowledge the culpability of the RCC in Europe in the deaths of the early Holocaust victims.

The rights of RCC members to read the Bible--Even after the first translation of the Bible into German and subsequent other languages, it was almost 300 years before the RCC acknowledged the laity had a right to read the Bible.

The Knights Templar--A monastic order that was sanctioned by the papacy, served as the lead coordinating agency in the Crusades ordered by the papacy, enriched the papacy as a result of their efforts, only to be destroy by Phillip II of France when his debt exceeded his national treasury.

The Spanish Inquisition--Innocent people tortured to death because they didn't drink the Kool-aid and walk in step with the papacy. Queen Elizabeth was between a rock and hard place-support the pope or loose your crown.


I could go on, but I think I have made somewhat of a point on the issue of traditions and how they change with the times and with the political realities of the world.

[gracebyfaith]

The following Scriptures reminded me of what Vern was saying, and I agree.

Acts 24:16
16 Therefore I always exercise and discipline myself [mortifying my body, deadening my carnal affections, bodily appetites, and worldly desires, endeavoring in all respects] to have a clear (unshaken, blameless) conscience, void of offense toward God and toward men.

1 John 3:21
21 And, beloved, if our consciences (our hearts) do not accuse us [if they do not make us feel guilty and condemn us], we have confidence (complete assurance and boldness) before God,

I think the Body of Christ is magnificent in its capabilities and is sufficient to BE
the CHURCH.  God placed gifts in the body (different parts) in order to function
as a living body.  Every gift came directly from God, and again is sufficient.  HE
is the head, WE are His body - NOT an organization that claims to be THE CHURCH
and that is acting like the head.

Someone said that God established authority in the Church, I agree.  We're
arguing whether one organization (mainly the Catholic church) has the right
to claim that they are "sole authority."

" The argument to support that the Holy Spirit will guide all who pray and try to understand scripture is not well based either.  We would have to assume the Holy Ghost is scitzofrantic in nature based on 20,000 plus denominations all deciphering scripture differently."

I don't need to argue, Jesus said He would send His Holy Spirit to lead us into all
truth.  I'm honestly sorry that you feel you can't be led by the Holy Spirit, without
the traditions of the Catholic church, sadly that is your loss (and it's a big one).
You've been taught and convinced your relationship with God isn't enough to lead
you alone.

Again, the Catholic church likes to use the argument that Protestants are divided.  However, according to their own standards of measurement, their own church is
also divided.  There is a thread on that somewhere.  

God has commanded us to work out our own salvation.  That's what most of
us are trying to do according to His Word.

In response to
Could you bring some historical and biblical evidence that the Roman Catholic Church does not have the authority that it claims to have?

Shouldn't you be the one to prove its claim is true.  The Catholic Church can claim
anything they choose to their own benefit, that doesn't make it fact or even believable.



Sincerely,
Grace by Faith

[gracebyfaith]

I don't compare Moses to the Catholic Church.  God called Moses
to be a deliverer of His people.  They were being set free to worship
God according to God's commands, not a tradition.  By contrast
the Catholic church is trying to keep its members prisoners to their
traditions.  I think God would say to the Catholic Church, "Let my
people go!"  Is that dramatic enough?  I'm sorry, I'm feeling light
hearted.  Must be because I'm stuck home in this snow storm.

Regarding the "alone," I meant without the Catholic traditions that
are a must in your faith, rather than having confidence in the Holy
Spirit's ability to lead HIS people, like HE SAID HE WOULD DO.  I also
don't have ANY difficulty receiving teaching from men/women of
God.  The problem I have is when the Catholic church claims only
their priests or leaders are qualified to fit this role of teacher.  God
gave many teachers to the body.  Some claim to be teachers, but
are false.  That's exactly why we were instructed to test the spirits,
and again that's are personal RESPONSIBILITY.

About the private interpretations,
That Scripture "when taken in context" is speaking of the prophecies
given to Holy men of God NOT being of their own origin/human impulse
or because some man willed it to be prophesied.  They were moved and
impelled by the Holy Spirit as they wrote or spoke these prophecies. 
HOW does this have anything to do with the Catholic Church asserting
its role to interpret all Scriptures for the church?  No connection!

Here's something else I found interesting

 2 Peter 1:20
this passage cannot be adduced by the Papists to prove that the people at large should not have free access to the word of God, and should not be allowed to interpret it for themselves. It makes no affirmation on that point, and does not even contain any "principle" of which such a use can be made; for:

(1) Whatever it means, it is confined to "prophecy;" it does not embrace the whole Bible.

(2) Whatever it means, it merely states a FACT; it does not enjoin a DUTY. It states, as a fact, that there was SOMETHING about the prophecies which was not of private solution, but it does not state that it is the duty of the church to PREVENT any private explanation or opinion even of the prophecies.

(3) It says nothing about "the church" as empowered to give a public or authorized interpretation of the prophecies. There is not a hint, or an intimation of any kind, that the church is intrusted with any such power whatever. There never was any greater perversion of a passage of Scripture than to suppose that this teaches that any class of people is not to have free access to the Bible. The effect of the passage, properly interpreted, should be to lead us to study the Bible with profound reverence, as having a higher than any human origin, not to turn away from it as if it were unintelligible, nor to lead us to suppose that it can be interpreted only by one class of men. The fact that it discloses truths which the human mind could not of itself have originated, is a good reason for studying it with diligence and with prayer-not for supposing that it is unlawful for us to attempt to understand it; a good reason for reverence and veneration for it-not for sanctified neglect.
(from Barnes' Notes, Electronic Database Copyright © 1997, 2003 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)

[Acumen]

Ahh yes Barnes, because he has all authority to proclaim what that scripture means.  That's almost as bad as when Pastor Frank tried to show me that the Catholic Church was in error by quoting a Lutheran pamphlet.

Nice logical fallacy.  Focus your attention on the content, not their supposed authority.

[Acumen]

It's called an "appeal to authority" -- you could always look it up.

[Some Darn Xian]

El--

You accused me of making no point in my post. Why do you believe that?

The point that I am making is very much related to what Accumen was asking you when you questioned the authority of Barnes.

You respond that I make no point regarding tradition and argue that whether or not it has been approved or canonized by a group of men it still has a theological weight.

Again, you are appealing to authority for the sake of authority.

My pointing out of David Goresh--did you read that one? Did you see the point that was made regarding man developing his own tradition outside of and separate from Scripture?

Surely you can understand that point, as you claim that you are smarter than I am, right?

As for the red herrings, where is the point in your case that you make some reference to Scripture for the establishment of the Roman pontificate as the only source and sole authority, beyond Xrist and Peter on the shores of Galilee? I have stated that there is a serious violation of linguistic rules on the part of the translation referring to Peter and his statement of faith based on the declension and nominative cases present in the Greek text. And this is not on my own opinion of authority. This is from talking to many Greek scholars--a couple of whom managed to write a computer program for translation back in the late 80s.

And yes, that restriction is valid, because it has been asked before, and there still is not an answer to that question. You hold the position of defense for the pontifical authority of the roman church. You are the one that must than present the evidence that is independent of the "It is because it says it is" defense. (PSST, if this worked, there wouldn't be so many people in prison  )

[fidei in nuce]

Good Evening Gentleman

I don’t want to jump in on a conversation, but I was reading back through this last page of posts and cannot determine what authority Eluminati is appealing to correctly or incorrectly.  So, if someone can clear that up for me, it would be appreciated!

But, I would like to add that my understanding of ‘arguments from authority’ is that they are perfectly valid epistemological claims, providing the authority is competent in the field.  Don’t we all rely on the experts?

Take care

Fidei in nuce 

[Acumen]

Fidei,

But, I would like to add that my understanding of ‘arguments from authority’ is that they are perfectly valid epistemological claims, providing the authority is competent in the field.  Don’t we all rely on the experts?

It depends how the appeal to authority is used.  If one uses an appeal to authority to bolster the claims of the argument, then I see no logical problems with it inasmuch as the experitise is relevant to the topic being discussed.  But that didn't happen here.  Instead, a particular viewpoint was discarded on the basis that the person had no spiritual authority.  Barns is considered in expert in the field of exegesis.  The validity of his viewpoint should be considered on the basis of what he says, and not whether his position aligns with the Roman Catholic church.  When the content of an argument is discarded on the basis of alleged authority, then THAT is a logical fallacy.

-Acumen

[Acumen]

El,

Actually what had happen, on my behalf, was that Barnes was used as an authority in opposition to Catholic authority and I pointed out that he had no more authority on exegesis than the Catholic Church does.

I won't let you off the hook that easily.  First, Gracebyfaith posted the commentary of Barnes because she thought it was "interesting."  She didn't specify anything about who had due authority, whether it belongs to the Roman Catholic church or to Barnes'.  She thought the "commentary" was interesting, not the fact that Barnes had stated it.  Nobody is arguing that Barnes has equal authority to the Catholic church.

Second, ultimately, any challenge to Catholic exegesis can be taken as a direct challenge to Catholic authority on the basis of what Catholics claim concerning apostolic succession.  So dismissing an alternate interpretation on the grounds that such an interpretation lacks sufficient authority, or because you thought someone was implying equal authority to the Catholic church is "appealing to authority" rather than addressing the content.

-Acumen   

[enfuego]

Flame on!

El,

I almost feel sorry for you.  It seems that you have no friends on this thread.  Just when I was getting to that point of feeling sad for you...I remembered you're a Cowboy fan!  You stink.  And so does Jerry Jones.

Flame off.

[Acumen]

Feel sorry for those who won't let go of a flailing movement, that was never rooted in truth and obedience, but in ego and judgement.

Wait, I'm confused here, are you talking about the Roman Catholic church?

[Thorolf]

EVERY theological disagreement with the Catholic Church's position is an argument against its authority.

If the Catholic Church gets any theological issue wrong, it no longer has a legitimate claim to authority.

And there are PLENTY of theological disagreements with the positions taken by the Catholic Church.

[Thorolf]

You have been reading this forum.... pick one. Any will do.

Mary.

Celibacy (or, rather, the requirement for such for higher orders, not to mention the inconsistent application of said law)

Tradition over or even equal to scripture

Purgatory.

The list could go on, and on, and on. And if even a single ONE is an accurate objection, the Church's claim to legitimate authority falls apart.

[metis]

EVERY theological disagreement with the Catholic Church's position is an argument against its authority.  If the Catholic Church gets any theological issue wrong, it no longer has a legitimate claim to authority.

Not really.  The church does not claim that the authority is omniscient or infallible, although the latter is felt to be the case with decisions made by official counsels and when the Pope speaks ex cathedra.  And even though encyclicals may be binding, they are not considered infallible.   

The church's position largely comes from the statement in the N.T. that the church would be guided until the end of time, and also that Jesus and the apostles "taught with authority".  There's also Paul's insistence to follow the decisions made by the church leaders.  We also see it being repeated in Ignatius' letter to Clement written sometime early in the 2nd century, if my memory is correct, whereas he states the necessity of there being certain important decisions that should be coordinated and accepted by various communities. 

At no point do I see a loosey-goosey approach to encouraging churches to do whatever, and the importance of written scripture that eventually formed the N.T. was only gradually being phased in, with the church ultimately deciding which books were to be canonized.

Shalom,
Vern 

[Acumen]

Vern,

Not really.  The church does not claim that the authority is omniscient or infallible, although the latter is felt to be the case with decisions made by official counsels and when the Pope speaks ex cathedra.  And even though encyclicals may be binding, they are not considered infallible.

Thorolf is right.  Roman Catholic church's doctrine concerning faith and morals, when approved by the Pope and the Magesterium, is considered infallible -- that is immunity of liability to error or failure.  And therefore, Thorolf is also right that every disagreement with such doctrinal positions is in fact a direct challenge to their claim of infallibility, and thereby legitimate claim to authority.

-Acumen