Catholic Authority

[metis]

Thorolf is right.  Roman Catholic church's doctrine concerning faith and morals, when approved by the Pope and the Magisterium, is considered infallible -- that is immunity of liability to error or failure. 

"The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of the faithful-- who confirms his brethren in the faith-- he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to the faith or morals... The infallibility promised to the church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium, above all in an Ecumenical Council" (Catechism of the Catholic church, p.235).

The first example deals with the ex cathedra pronouncements and the second example is the Church in official council with the Pope presiding and when it's on an issue(s) of faith.

Shalom,
Vern

[Thorolf]

The arguments have been made in several threads across the boards, most of which you have been involved with.

Perhaps, rather than attack the person (namely, me) with weak accusations of inappropriateness, you should focus on the arguments presented in those threads.

And don't you worry... there are many, MANY more where they came from. 

And all it really takes - is one.

[Thorolf]

Is anyone interested in posing a detailed argument (Theologically or Philosophically) on the subject of Catholic authority?

As I said, there are several currently in progress.

How about this philosophical/theological issue - if Marian doctrine is incorrect, or Trinity (or even if the understanding of God's nature is not actually a salvatory issue), or the claim of doctinal infallibility itself, or any other scriptural or Traditional position the Church has taken - then the Church's claim to authority is illegitimate.

[Acumen]

The only problem is there is no way of proving their doctrines false if they control the way the game is played.  Oftentimes, tradition is the significant basis for Catholic doctrines, and the only way to invalidate the content of tradition is to invalidate their claim to authority.  And unfortunately, the only way to invalidate the Catholic claim to authority is to demonstrate a scriptural discrepency or misinterpretation, which their tradition will show as false anyway.  There is an inherent circular nature in the entire argument.

[Acumen]

El,

Although I consider your response to be one of your better ones in conceptual clarity and ease of writing, I can't bring myself to accept your basic presuppositions concerning the sola scripturist.

If a sola scripturist would debate a buddhist or an atheist or any other non-christian religionist they would quickly be confronted, by the non-christian, with the fact that there is no "good reason" that the non-christian must consider the Bible a source for their faith and would argue that the sola scripturist was circular in their reasoning, since they basically point to the Scriptures to prove, for instance, that homosexuality is wrong.

Couldn't the buddhist say the same thing about Catholic Tradition?

Tradition is not the source of "circular reasoning" it is the source of our faith and certainly the source of our faith in the Scriptures.

I hardly believe the sola scripturist wouldn't appeal to human reason to determine that the bible is sufficient as the final authority in matters of doctrine.  The circular reasoning argument only holds if the sola scripturist uses a self-authenticating quote from the bible to point out that the bible is self-authenticating.  I am a sola scripturist, and I have no difficulties, in theory, appealing to human reason in order to mount an offensive argument for the self-sufficiency of the bible as the authoritative Word of God.  In effect, this is no different than the Roman Catholic church using their reasonings for their self-authentication.

-Acumen

[Some Darn Xian]

Back from my Xmas Vacation!

Now, Ell, you asked for some historical precedent to show that the RCC doesn't have the authority it claims.

This is the equivalent of a straw man. Let's be honest. You claim that through canonical council, whatever the RCC states as a truth or tradition or whatever the term you choose, there is authority.

Yet, at the same time as you say this, you are also rejecting any objective evidence that could be provided.

An interesting issue that I came across regarding the perceived sexual dictums of the RCC was the timing of a number of things.

The issue of celibacy wasn't introduced as a doctrinal stricture on the priesthood or even the papacy until after the 12th century.

The concept of "sodomy" in the modern sense didn't occur until an RCC scholar named Damian wrote about it in the 11th century.

The final descriptions of the "forbidden" acts didn't occur until your man, Thomas Aquinas decided to finish out the list in the 17th century.

The most disturbing thing about all of these events, backed by canonical councils is the establishment of "review boards" for all of the subjects of Rome.

One example: If a man in the 12th or 13th century could not produce children, his genitals were to be inspected by "knowledgible women" from the town to determine if there was any malformations or other "problems." If, in the opinion of these women, there was a confirmed problem, an anullment would be issued, freeing his wife to marry another.

I don't know about you, but this sounds like a divorce, and not one that was listed as a reason for divorce in the bible.

Oh, an one other interesting historical note, the RCC actually sanctioned prostitution in Europe until the mid 17th century. The only requirement was they pay a "tax" to the local bishop for support of the RCC.

But, this, as you stated above, I'm sure was approved by a canonical council, so it would be a correct and proper tradition, in direct violation of the biblical tenants of marriage.

[Some Darn Xian]

Here's a thought on the sola scripturist:

If the issue or concern is regarding Xrist or his teachings, the most appropriate and correct source for consultation would be the body of works contain the majority of attributable quotes, direct relation of his actions and movements, and the reactions of those present to witness or hear him.

Now, if the issue of faith and description of Xrist and his teachings is at the point of discussion, there would be little value in going beyond those writings of those with direct knowledge, namely those writing contained within the bible. (BTW, those writings were actually the work of a council of both the RCC and the other Eastern churches)

The expounding works of men like Aquinas and other scholars, while interesting from the standpoint of understanding others' takes on the bible, they serve little interest in those looking for a solid foundation for the formulation of a statement of beliefs, with any sort of in-depth backing.

Luther, while he seems to be maintaining his high mark as a perpetual thorn in the side of the papists, did quote from Augustine to cite certain points with which he agreed. But, in so doing, he did not depart from the Bible as the main source of material from which one can receive nurturing and strengthening. The illumination of scriptural points using the works of others is beneficial. Others can say things succinctly or more colorfully than some. But the goal is to not loose the Bible as the basis.

Or, as I have stated above, the David Koresh's of the world will be able to claim their own authority, just as the RCC has done.

[Acumen]

BTW, you never answered post 68.

[Acumen]

No, Catholics are not bound to "Scripture only" and or "Tradition only" but use all facets of knowledge to make points including philosophy.  Why Sola Scripturists cannot do this is because then they would have to rely on knowledge that is not explicitly stated in the Bible, which would be Tradition and or mere interpretation and would no longer be arguing sola scriptura.

I don't understand why you think the sola scripturist cannot refer to extra-biblical sources to make arguments for a position?  We can appeal to tradition also, but we just don't view it as the ultimate authority in Christian doctrine.

Acumen: 

I hardly believe the sola scripturist wouldn't appeal to human reason to determine that the bible is sufficient as the final authority in matters of doctrine.  The circular reasoning argument only holds if the sola scripturist uses a self-authenticating quote from the bible to point out that the bible is self-authenticating.  I am a sola scripturist, and I have no difficulties, in theory, appealing to human reason in order to mount an offensive argument for the self-sufficiency of the bible as the authoritative Word of God.  In effect, this is no different than the Roman Catholic church using their reasonings for their self-authentication.

El: 

Seriously?  Are you trying to say that an objective and rational person would consider a 32 year old individual and his appeal to human reason to interpret the scriptures over the 2000 year old Church that has had billions of members and millions of exegetes, not to mention the reason that the Scriptures are canonized?

Yes!!!  Why?  Because an objective and rational person won't be suckered by logical fallacies such as a question begging appeal to authority or bandwagon-type reasoning.  An objective, rational person won't make a decision solely on the basis that "everyone else is doing it," or because of the  self-authenticating circular reasoning that "we are the infallible church, and you should believe us because are the infallible church."   

[Thorolf]

El,

You're too fixated on labeling people "sola scripturists," and as a result you completely miss their arguments and gloss over their beliefs.

You also don't seem to understand what people you label "sola scripturists" actually believe. I'm frankly pretty frustrated that you seem to honestly believe that the people you label as such don't actually think... just because I reject what Catholics CALL "Tradition" doesn't mean I don't, won't, or can't use extra-Biblical sources - including my own intellect to analyze and interpret things.

I've mentioned it before, and it fell on deaf ears - but what we call the "New Testament" in what we call "scripture" is ACTUALLY the recorded Tradition of the Apostles. It is my opinion that what YOU call "Tradition" that departs from that found in the New Testament is the tradition of men, and we were warned by the Apostle Paul to stick to the traditions taught and practiced by the Apostles and avoid the traditions of men.

I believe that sticking to those traditions recorded in the New Testament *IS* tantamount to holding fast to the Apostolic Tradition.

So you can call me "sola scripturist" all you want, but you don't have a monopoly on tradition, logic, or thought. You just wrongly ascribe the NT as nothing but scripture, and make ridiculous assumptions about the rest.

[Thorolf]

OK cool.

 

[deacon777]

"It is my opinion that what YOU call "Tradition" that departs from that found in the New Testament is the tradition of men, and we were warned by the Apostle Paul to stick to the traditions taught and practiced by the Apostles and avoid the traditions of men.

I believe that sticking to those traditions recorded in the New Testament *IS* tantamount to holding fast to the Apostolic Tradition."

And you wonder why Catholics can never come to an understanding with many Protestants concerning SACRED Tradition. Everyone seems to agree we started out with an apsotolic model of "Church". What I find amusing (yes amusing), is the idea that you can fossilize "tradition" and bind it to the 1st century of the Church. It is as if after the Book of Acts is complete - everything is freeze-framed in time.

So the question becomes, did God stop speaking to his church after the close of the Book of ACTS? Did he say - "The bible is finished, you have everything you need. I'll see you at the second coming."  Or did he say, "I will be with you always, even until the end of the age".

This word "tradition" is not to be confused with "Sacred Tradition". Sacred Tradition is the history (written and lived) of the people of God grappling with scripture. Apostles taught and proclaimed the revealed word of God. The second, third, fourth generation bishops did the same.  As the council of Jerusalem shows, they made binding edicts like saying Gentiles were not bound by Mosiac law. MEN decided that, all inspired by the Holy Spirit.

MEN also formulated the apostles and Nicene creeds. Nobody knew in the 1st century church, that to be a Christian meant you believed in the Trinity. That took three hundred years to work out, at least formally as a de fide belief. Same with the idea of Jesus being fully human and fully divine simultaneously - the pre-existent Son of God. Does anybody here think those 1st apostles had worked all this out?

As Jesus himself said before he left his disciples, "I have many more things to tell you, but you cannot bear them now." 

One can take the NT and say, yes, this is God's fullest, complete, and final revelation of himself to man written down in words. One cannot add or subtract from that. However no human, church, or group can possibly fully understand God's complete revelation of himself to us - therefore our understanding of that complete revelation continues throughout time.

And that continuing process of understanding, put down in documents, books, encyclicals, councils, etc - is called "Sacred Tradition" - a process btw, that we inherited from the Jews. It is a process that has continued for 2000 years. For someone to come along 1500+ years into the process and pretend that the apostolic church had left this planet only to return with the appearance of Luther, Calvin, Anabaptist, etc...is a mite presumpuous don't you think?

The Catholic church has an historical timeline it can point to. It was the only christian church for a thousand years, and the only one in the west for over 1500 years. What was the Holy Spirit doing for those 1500+ years anyway while all these "traditions of men" were being formulated?

And if Catholic authority is suspect, then praytell whose isn't? Who else has a lineage going back to the apostles? And how do we explain all these varying authorities each claiming authenticity and listening to the same Holy Spirit - all the while proclaiming sometimes conflicting teachings and practices? The reformation is a smogasboard of theological approches and belief.

It seems to me if any Christian group has any kind of claim to apostolic tradition and authority, it is the Catholic Church.

[piglet]

fossilize "tradition" and bind it to the 1st century of the Church.

By "fossilize" does the gentleman mean that the apostles' church isn't the apostles' pattern and teaching ?
Or just that the apostles' teaching and pattern's nonbinding ?

It is as if after the Book of Acts is complete - everything is freeze-framed in time.

Scripture is "freeze-framed in time" in the sense that it's complete.
Much like the OT Scripture also was "freeze-framed in time."
In fact, what writing and history on earth isN'T "freeze-framed in time" ?

Or does Catholicism teach that the apostles' Scripture's incomplete ?

In any case, also contrary to the dear poster's statements: Scripture's prophetic and even living, as the Spirit's breath and God's word. And not "freeze-framed in time" so as to be dead, irrelevant, inapplicable, or unuseful

did God stop speaking to his church after the close of the Book of ACTS?

No. Is this Catholicism's way of saying that Catholicism's word = Scripture ?

Did God stop speaking through His apostles', or prophets', words and teachings after the close of the book of Revelation ? Of Acts ? Of Malachi ?  Of Genesis ?

Did he say - "The bible is finished, you have everything you need. I'll see you at the second coming."  Or did he say, "I will be with you always, even until the end of the age".

By his "or" does the dear poster mean to suggest that the completion of Scripture as a collection of authoritative writings, and Jesus Christ's omnipresence through His Spirit,
are incompatible ?
Mutually-exclusive ?

Is this one of Catholicism's new traditions ?
Old traditions ?
It's certainly no thought, much less any tradition, much less any writing, of Christ's apostles

Apostles taught and proclaimed the revealed word of God. The second, third, fourth generation bishops did the same.

Meaning Catholicism's effective Bible includes writings of the so-called "church fathers" ?
Or is that Catholicism's explicit Bible ?

Meaning to Catholicism second-fourth century "bishops" are de facto apostles ?

Even when and where they contradict both each other or the New Testament ?

As the council of Jerusalem shows, they made binding edicts like saying Gentiles were not bound by Mosiac law. MEN decided that, all inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Jesus Christ, who is man and God, and pneumatically incorporated into the Holy Spirit in resurrection (1 Cor 15:45; Jn 20:22; 2 Cor 3:17; Jn 7:37-39; Philip 1:19; Rom 8:10-11; Rev 4--5; etc), "abolished in His flesh the law of the commandments in ordinances" on His cross, as His apostle revealed, Long before the council of Jerusalem. As also Paul and Barnabas realized when they first heard of the Judaizing emanating from the church in Jerusalem when they returned to Antioch from their first gospel journey, and before they then went down to pursue and confront the source of the problem in Jerusalem.

Additionally, and sadly, in addition to the positive binding edict that Gentiles aren't required to be circumcised, James, in the Holy Spirit's indulgence, Did make (in reality) nonbinding Mosaic edicts that Gentiles shouldn't eat blood (which i would imagine Catholicism itself especially rejects, in view of its carnal and idolatrous interpretation of the Lord's Supper) nor things strangled, in the council in Jerusalem in Acts 15. And furthermore, even worse and more blindly, continued to understand and teach that Jewish Christians Should practice circumcision (Acts 21)

Nobody knew in the 1st century church, that to be a Christian meant you believed in the Trinity.

To the contrary: Jesus Christ spoke, and His apostles recorded, His words concerning His Father, Himself, and Their Spirit, in the Gospels in, and to, the first century church.
Eg Matthew 28:19; John 14--17; Revelation 1; Galatians; etc etc etc.
In other words: the entire New Testament

That took three hundred years to work out, at least formally as a de fide belief.

?
Whatever the above is supposed to mean, it certainly can neither contradict nor fault nor blame the apostles' record, teachings, and pattern in the New Testament.
Though, sadly, that sounds like the intent

Same with the idea of Jesus being fully human and fully divine simultaneously - the pre-existent Son of God. Does anybody here think those 1st apostles had worked all this out?

If you don't, would you like the relevant Scriptures of the apostles ?
Are you really acknowledging your ignorance of them ?
If so, you're to be commended for your honesty.

As Jesus himself said before he left his disciples, "I have many more things to tell you, but you cannot bear them now." 

Which is why the 4 Gospels aren't the totality of the New Testament.
Instead, the New Testament, including Paul's letters, to whom it was "given to complete the word of God" (Col 1:24-27), is the totality of the New Testament.
And the completion of Scripture

One can take the NT and say, yes, this is God's fullest, complete, and final revelation of himself to man written down in words. One cannot add or subtract from that. However no human, church, or group can possibly fully understand God's complete revelation of himself to us - therefore our understanding of that complete revelation continues throughout time.

To the church in Ephesus Paul wrote that they "see his understanding of the mystery hidden from the ages, to whom now God had revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in spirit."

To say one's or our understanding of the mystery continues throughout time, and then even through eternity, means to say that God, Christ, Their Spirit, and Scripture are comprehended throughout time. Not that they're created throughout time !

And that continuing process of understanding, put down in documents, books, encyclicals, councils, etc - is called "Sacred Tradition" - a process btw, that we inherited from the Jews. It is a process that has continued for 2000 years. For someone to come along 1500+ years into the process and pretend that the apostolic church had left this planet only to return with the appearance of Luther, Calvin, Anabaptist, etc...is a mite presumpuous don't you think?

A process repeated from the Jews' history, included in the history of Satan vs. God, is corruption then renewal. Fall then recovery.

What was grotesquely, sickeningly, and devilishly presumptuous was for a "church" to conduct itself like a State; utilize physical force against religious nonconformists--whether Christian or nonchristian; and teach that its heretical innovations, and perversions of Christ's apostles' teaching, were authoritative. No matter how long it did such (in Catholicism's case: about 1000 years, from its inception around AD 600 with Gregory the Great up until Martin Luther was protected from Catholicism's physical attack by German politics).

What a breath of fresh air to hear and proclaim the apostles' teaching that man is justified from death by faith into God's Son Christ Jesus alone, rather than by religious works; in contrast to the teaching that money payments could relieve punishment for sins experienced by those dead or eventually to be dead

The Catholic church has an historical timeline it can point to. It was the only christian church for a thousand years, and the only one in the west for over 1500 years. What was the Holy Spirit doing for those 1500+ years anyway while all these "traditions of men" were being formulated?

To the contrary of this mistake, Catholicism as we know it is Not the New Testament apostles' church, teaching, pattern, or record. (Except it's in some negative prophecies, as in Revelation 2 and 17 and Matthew 13.) Which is the entire point of this discussion:
that merely declaring that Catholicism is the apostles' New Testament church doesn't make it so.
Rather, as Martin Luther and John Hus and John Wycliffe and Peter Waldo and many others both before and since them have realized: what matters is the apostles' teaching and comparison to the apostles' teaching and pattern (Scripture)

Who else has a lineage going back to the apostles?

i, for instance, do.
For instance: i can read the apostles' actual words.
So too, for that matter, may you. And i encourage you to

how do we explain all these varying authorities each claiming authenticity and listening to the same Holy Spirit - all the while proclaiming sometimes conflicting teachings and practices?

It's called "sin." Or "Satan." Or "division." Take your pick.
Are you surprised that even Christians are often subject to darkness, deceit, mistake, pride, and our mutual sinful nature ?
John wasn't. Unlike an infallible Pope, he wrote that "if anyone says that he has no sin, he deceives himself" (1 John 1). And as part of His cure, Jesus said that "blessed are the poor in spirit. For theirs is the kingdom of the heavens" (Mt 5)

The reformation is a smogasboard of theological approches and belief.

Meaning, for instance, that everyone and anyone utilizing the word "Catholic" or calling themselves "Catholic" aren't ? Can't be ?

i get the impression too that Catholicism (as well as many others) often prefers to talk in generalities and about "smorgasbords" rather than deal with Scriptures

[Acumen]

What was grotesquely, sickeningly, and devilishly presumptuous was for a "church" to conduct itself like a State; utilize physical force against religious nonconformists--whether Christian or nonchristian; and teach that its heretical innovations, and perversions of Christ's apostles' teaching, were authoritative. No matter how long it did such (in Catholicism's case: about 1000 years, from its inception around AD 600 with Gregory the Great up until Martin Luther was protected from Catholicism's physical attack by German politics).

I couldn't agree more.  Here is where Catholicism went wrong.  The Church of God has no business involving itself with running a state.

[piglet]

Here is where Catholicism went wrong.  The Church of God has no business involving itself with running a state.

Even prior to Catholicism as we know it (a Roman, Papal, sect and hierarchy); those in the church who welcomed Constantine's and Constantine's successors' political and legal favor towards the churches, made the mistake of violating John 18:36.

Which thing the Lord foretold in Matthew 13.

Unbelievers, nominal Christians, State-Christians, and a state-promoted religion are not, never will be, and never have been the church. Although members of the church can be found even there

[Acumen]

Agreed.

[metis]

I couldn't agree more.  Here is where Catholicism went wrong.  The Church of God has no business involving itself with running a state.

But early Protestantism did much the same with Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli.  The approach of separation of church and state was pretty much started in the Netherlands and then further magnified when we became a nation.  However, do remember that in both cases a major reason for that approach was because both the Netherlands and America did not have one denomination that formed a clear majority. 

Even though America was overwhelmingly Protestant, they were well divided into numerous denominations with some significant differences between them.  Had one denomination formed a clear majority, I doubt that we would see the degree of separation that you see today.