The ROOT of our differences is the AUTHORITY we claim.....

[papist1]

Most debates in these types of forums are secondary topics.

The actual topic we should be discussing is AUTHORITY.

Let me give you an example.

I went to over 18 different denoms and non denoms of protestant bible believing churches.   I asked each of these pastors, who claimed the Bible Alone as their authority, what baptism was, if it was necessary, how to perform it(immersion, pouring, sprinkling of water, no water at all), and if it removed the stain of original sin from ones soul or was it just symbolic in nature?

I received several different and contradictory answers from each pastor.

Which one of these pastors was correct in their interpretation of scripture as it pertains to the utmost important doctrine of Baptism?  How do we know which one is correct? Is the definition of doctrine relative, and it does not matter what is true and what is not?

Each of these pastors would never back down from his/her own interpretation, and each would claim they are correct. This is the BIG question. Who is correct, and how do we know who is correct, and by what authority vested in the person interpreted gives them the ability and authority to make such claim as to what is deemed "true" and what is deemed "erroneous"?   

This situation is almost always turned back on scripture, for when I ask them by what authority they believe this, they inevitably answer that they are being led by the Holy Spirit in their interpretation of scripture. So is the Holy Spirit a relativist? Does the Holy Spirit teach contradicting things from one church to another and each contradictory point of teaching is correct? In other words, when one church teaches that scripture says Baptism is not necessary, they are correct, and then when another teaches it is necessary, they are also correct?  This would be ridiculous. God is of ORDER and UNITY, not Chaos and Division. God does not contradict Himself, for He is TRUTH, and Truth does not change.

BTW, the first person to part from everyone else in their understanding of baptism was John Calvin. Does that mean that everyone else, including the original "reformers" were wrong for the first 1600 years of Christianity? By what measuring stick can one prove this? The Bible? of course :)

Is there a church authority that has the authority of God on doctrinal matters? It seems the apostles decided doctrinal matters IN scripture, why would God all of a sudden change His mind and let the individual start deciding these matters for themselves?  Who then can claim what heresy is, if everyone is right all of the time? There would be no heresy if this were so.

The circular argument used by most sola scripturists dos not wash, it only begs the question, again and again, "who/what is the authority on matters of doctrine and interpretation of scripture"?

In my reading of scripture, I have not found any proof text for sola scriptura. @ tim 3:15-17 is far from this, as it pertains to the OT scriptures(that timothy knew from infancy) and at the end it is "useful" for "every good work" and since good works don't save us, it must not be "necessary" as most claim. I mean the apostles didn't have a new testament, nor did they have the canon of the OT which was not decided until 382ad along with the new.

So what is your authority, and if it is scripture alone, where in scripture does God teach that scripture alone is the authority. and how can one prove his authority in interpreteing scripture?

peace, papist

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

And this is not the same as when one pope reinterprets what a previous pope says?

Pot.  Kettle.
Kettle. Pot.
Get acquainted.

[papist1]

And this is not the same as when one pope reinterprets what a previous pope says?

Pot.  Kettle.
Kettle. Pot.
Get acquainted.

Just because a pope says something, does not make it doctrine, in any way shape or form.  I am not aware of any pope counteracting his predecessor in the chair of peter. Maybe you can give me an example?

Then maybe you can tell me how one can prove their authority for their interpretation of scripture. :)

peace, papist

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

And this is not the same as when one pope reinterprets what a previous pope says?

Pot.  Kettle.
Kettle. Pot.
Get acquainted.

Just because a pope says something, does not make it doctrine, in any way shape or form.  I am not aware of any pope counteracting his predecessor in the chair of peter. Maybe you can give me an example?

Then maybe you can tell me how one can prove their authority for their interpretation of scripture. :)

peace, papist

Not doctrine?

You put authority up as your argument, so by criticizing that authority, in its tendency to redefine what it meant in the past, I've drawn a parallel with the Protestant tendency to redefine what their authority (Sola Scriptura) has said in the past.

The argument is still valid.  The analogy still holds.  Are you really going to argue against the authority that you are putting forward?  What I hear is that this is legitimate authority, but only kind-of, sometimes, and when it's convenient to the argument.

As to examples of popes contradicting prior popes...well, I thought you wanted to keep discussions of 15th century papal indiscretion out of this argument.

Off the top of my head and without actually looking it up...I believe that THE CHURCH, in council, at the behest of the pope and with his approval, anathematized not only Luther but all German Protestants as well as anyone "aiding and betting."  JP @ Vatican (2? 3?) welcomes Protestants as true Christians.

Technically, that's a Pope & Council contradicting a Council which the Pope only tacitly endorsed, but the argument is the same:

Your authority redefines what its predecessors said, too.

[papist1]

And this is not the same as when one pope reinterprets what a previous pope says?

Pot.  Kettle.
Kettle. Pot.
Get acquainted.

Just because a pope says something, does not make it doctrine, in any way shape or form.  I am not aware of any pope counteracting his predecessor in the chair of peter. Maybe you can give me an example?

Then maybe you can tell me how one can prove their authority for their interpretation of scripture. :)

peace, papist

Not doctrine?

You put authority up as your argument, so by criticizing that authority, in its tendency to redefine what it meant in the past, I've drawn a parallel with the Protestant tendency to redefine what their authority (Sola Scriptura) has said in the past.

The argument is still valid.  The analogy still holds.  Are you really going to argue against the authority that you are putting forward?  What I hear is that this is legitimate authority, but only kind-of, sometimes, and when it's convenient to the argument.

As to examples of popes contradicting prior popes...well, I thought you wanted to keep discussions of 15th century papal indiscretion out of this argument.

Off the top of my head and without actually looking it up...I believe that THE CHURCH, in council, at the behest of the pope and with his approval, anathematized not only Luther but all German Protestants as well as anyone "aiding and betting."  JP @ Vatican (2? 3?) welcomes Protestants as true Christians.

Technically, that's a Pope & Council contradicting a Council which the Pope only tacitly endorsed, but the argument is the same:

Your authority redefines what its predecessors said, too.

How does something become official doctrine in the Catholic Church? Do you know?
peace, papist

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

The topic is not official doctrines of the Catholic church, papist, it's authority.

Remember back in the opening post when you framed that?

[papist1]

And this is not the same as when one pope reinterprets what a previous pope says?

Pot.  Kettle.
Kettle. Pot.
Get acquainted.

Just because a pope says something, does not make it doctrine, in any way shape or form.  I am not aware of any pope counteracting his predecessor in the chair of peter. Maybe you can give me an example?

Then maybe you can tell me how one can prove their authority for their interpretation of scripture. :)

peace, papist

Not doctrine?

You put authority up as your argument, so by criticizing that authority, in its tendency to redefine what it meant in the past, I've drawn a parallel with the Protestant tendency to redefine what their authority (Sola Scriptura) has said in the past.

The argument is still valid.  The analogy still holds.  Are you really going to argue against the authority that you are putting forward?  What I hear is that this is legitimate authority, but only kind-of, sometimes, and when it's convenient to the argument.

As to examples of popes contradicting prior popes...well, I thought you wanted to keep discussions of 15th century papal indiscretion out of this argument.

Off the top of my head and without actually looking it up...I believe that THE CHURCH, in council, at the behest of the pope and with his approval, anathematized not only Luther but all German Protestants as well as anyone "aiding and betting."  JP @ Vatican (2? 3?) welcomes Protestants as true Christians.

Technically, that's a Pope & Council contradicting a Council which the Pope only tacitly endorsed, but the argument is the same:

Your authority redefines what its predecessors said, too.

Not true.

A Catholic, who knows and believes what the church teaches, who later commits heresy unrepentantly, is excommunicated. All of the reformers are most likely not in heaven. thats just my take. They caused terrible division, and they were Christian heretics.

True, Christians in other denominations, who have never known the fullness of truth, nor purposefully left it or taught against it after once knowing it, still have the opportunity at salvation.

So your theory is false, and consistent Catholic teaching confirms this point.

Once again, a misunderstanding of Catholic teaching.


Bishop sheen once write that there are not 100 people who hate the Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they believe the Catholic Church to teach.

You fit into that category. unfortunately.

peace, papist

[mclees8]

And this is not the same as when one pope reinterprets what a previous pope says?

Pot.  Kettle.
Kettle. Pot.
Get acquainted.

Just because a pope says something, does not make it doctrine, in any way shape or form.  I am not aware of any pope counteracting his predecessor in the chair of peter. Maybe you can give me an example?

Then maybe you can tell me how one can prove their authority for their interpretation of scripture. :)

peace, papist

Not doctrine?

You put authority up as your argument, so by criticizing that authority, in its tendency to redefine what it meant in the past, I've drawn a parallel with the Protestant tendency to redefine what their authority (Sola Scriptura) has said in the past.

The argument is still valid.  The analogy still holds.  Are you really going to argue against the authority that you are putting forward?  What I hear is that this is legitimate authority, but only kind-of, sometimes, and when it's convenient to the argument.

As to examples of popes contradicting prior popes...well, I thought you wanted to keep discussions of 15th century papal indiscretion out of this argument.

Off the top of my head and without actually looking it up...I believe that THE CHURCH, in council, at the behest of the pope and with his approval, anathematized not only Luther but all German Protestants as well as anyone "aiding and betting."  JP @ Vatican (2? 3?) welcomes Protestants as true Christians.

Technically, that's a Pope & Council contradicting a Council which the Pope only tacitly endorsed, but the argument is the same:

Your authority redefines what its predecessors said, too.

Not true.

A Catholic, who knows and believes what the church teaches, who later commits heresy unrepentantly, is excommunicated. All of the reformers are most likely not in heaven. thats just my take. They caused terrible division, and they were Christian heretics.

True, Christians in other denominations, who have never known the fullness of truth, nor purposefully left it or taught against it after once knowing it, still have the opportunity at salvation.

So your theory is false, and consistent Catholic teaching confirms this point.

Once again, a misunderstanding of Catholic teaching.


Bishop sheen once write that there are not 100 people who hate the Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they believe the Catholic Church to teach.

You fit into that category. unfortunately.

peace, papist

True, Christians in other denominations, who have never known the fullness of truth, nor purposefully left it or taught against it after once knowing it, still have the opportunity at salvation.

Why does this sound so arrogant and condesending? Who is the fullness ot truth and who is it  that has this fullness. When the church was born on the day of pentecost and 120 believers were filled with the Holy spirit did they not have the fullness of truth or did they have to wait another three or four hundred years and be of the RCC to have the fullness. I guess they just had to settle for part of it. Darn the luck! It took over three hundred years untill the glass got full. 

[mclees8]

Just think when you RC's get to heaven and you are standing on some higher cloud you can look down at the poor Protestants that never got the fullness. Its just a darn shame.  Good thing they still made to heaven thought. 

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

Not doctrine?

You put authority up as your argument, so by criticizing that authority, in its tendency to redefine what it meant in the past, I've drawn a parallel with the Protestant tendency to redefine what their authority (Sola Scriptura) has said in the past.

The argument is still valid.  The analogy still holds.  Are you really going to argue against the authority that you are putting forward?  What I hear is that this is legitimate authority, but only kind-of, sometimes, and when it's convenient to the argument.

As to examples of popes contradicting prior popes...well, I thought you wanted to keep discussions of 15th century papal indiscretion out of this argument.

Off the top of my head and without actually looking it up...I believe that THE CHURCH, in council, at the behest of the pope and with his approval, anathematized not only Luther but all German Protestants as well as anyone "aiding and betting."  JP @ Vatican (2? 3?) welcomes Protestants as true Christians.

Technically, that's a Pope & Council contradicting a Council which the Pope only tacitly endorsed, but the argument is the same:

Your authority redefines what its predecessors said, too.

Not true.

A Catholic, who knows and believes what the church teaches, who later commits heresy unrepentantly, is excommunicated. All of the reformers are most likely not in heaven. thats just my take. They caused terrible division, and they were Christian heretics.

True, Christians in other denominations, who have never known the fullness of truth, nor purposefully left it or taught against it after once knowing it, still have the opportunity at salvation.

So your theory is false, and consistent Catholic teaching confirms this point.

You know, citations from the documents have actually been provided in an old thread...shall I dig it up?

We'll go with what you said...it was just a clarification.  That clarification was needed because everyone seemed to think the church's official stand was otherwise.  Probably the centuries of demonstrating it through their actions, but I digress...

Shall we discuss Limbo?  Since you wanted examples.

Oh I know, I know, not ex cathedra, yadda yadda yadda...still a well-documented flip-flop from your authority.  I suddenly feel the compulsion to remind you that the topic is not "official doctrines of the Catholic church" but rather AUTHORITY.

Once again, a misunderstanding of Catholic teaching.

Once again, a willful disregard of history, as is necessary to sustain the belief that the Catholic church has been consistent in its doctrines over the last 2K or so.

Bishop sheen once write that there are not 100 people who hate the Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they believe the Catholic Church to teach.

You fit into that category. unfortunately.

You seem to know so much more about me than I myself do...lol.

I don't hate the Catholic church at all.  Nor do I hate what the Catholic church teaches, for the most part.  Actually, my beliefs on justification are far more Catholic than Protestant, for which I am occasionally raked over the coals here.

I don't believe that there should be a single authority acting on Christ's behalf as vicar/steward/head/king/WHATEVER over the church, and I have a distrinct dislike of edifices of any sort, therefore, I have not chosen to become a Catholic (or a Lutheran - Catholic Lite). 

I actually explored the possibility of joining the Orthodox church, but I dislike their emphatic belief in mystery...that is to say, of holding a position to be true despite being unable to explain it in everyday parlance.

All I really want out of my theology is a position consistent with everyday experience which doesn't create other logical impossibilities.  Your church doesn't have it, but neither do any of the others.   

[trifecta]

Hi all!

Papist is right, IMHO, in his initial post.   Jarrod is right, too.   Historically, the RCC has  some problems with changing doctrine.    So, you both are right (sort of) .

I don't hate the Catholic church at all.  Nor do I hate what the Catholic church teaches, for the most part.  Actually, my beliefs on justification are far more Catholic than Protestant, for which I am occasionally raked over the coals here.

I don't believe that there should be a single authority acting on Christ's behalf as vicar/steward/head/king/WHATEVER over the church, and I have a distrinct dislike of edifices of any sort, therefore, I have not chosen to become a Catholic (or a Lutheran - Catholic Lite). 

Good thinking.  The original church had no absolute rulers as the Pope has today.  Peter was the head of the church, but he could be argued with--see Galatians 1, for example.

Back to the authority question.  The answer is neither the Scriptures nor the Pope.  The answer is the Church.  The church is the pillar and foundation of the truth (1 Tim 3:15).  Who gave the Scriptures authority?  The answer is clearly the Church, but most Protestants prefer to read their scriptures in the way they want to interpret it instead of in the context of the church.

So, what is the church?  Is it you and me and other believers?  No, the Church wouldn't be the pillar and foundation of the truth if it were.  The church was established by Jesus Christ in Matthew 16:18 and passed down to us. The church is perhaps the most beautiful thing created by God.  There are four of these churches that I know of today.  Then, it's time to look at doctrine to see which is the one to be in.

I actually explored the possibility of joining the Orthodox church, but I dislike their emphatic belief in mystery...that is to say, of holding a position to be true despite being unable to explain it in everyday parlance.

Don't pass us by!  I don't want to highjack this thread, so see the Orthodox thread for more detail.

All I really want out of my theology is a position consistent with everyday experience which doesn't create other logical impossibilities.

I'm not sure what you mean here, so I could be wrong in my next sentence.  It sounds like you want to have all your questions answered.  No church will do that, because "The wisdom of man is less than the folly of God." (1 Cor 1:25 - my paraphrase).  Human language itself is not rich enough to explain God. 

 
 Your church doesn't have it, but neither do any of the others.   

Papist is right here.  If God is not the author of confusion, why would he make all these churches, none of which has the truth?  Fortunately, the church is the pillar and foundation of the church.  Papist just has the wrong church (but for 1000 years they were the western part of that true church).

Thanks for reading, especially if you disagree.

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

So, what is the church?  Is it you and me and other believers?  No, the Church wouldn't be the pillar and foundation of the truth if it were.

So...what is the church?  You didn't answer your question to my satisfaction.

If it isn't the people (congregationalism), and it isn't a hierarchy that comes to a point at the top (popery), then it must be somewhere in between (aristocracy).

All I really want out of my theology is a position consistent with everyday experience which doesn't create other logical impossibilities.

I'm not sure what you mean here, so I could be wrong in my next sentence.  It sounds like you want to have all your questions answered.  No church will do that, because "The wisdom of man is less than the folly of God." (1 Cor 1:25 - my paraphrase).  Human language itself is not rich enough to explain God.

I suppose I just think that if you're going to teach something (& especially to dogmatically insist on it), then you ought to have some idea what it means.  After all, if there is no application, no profit to what is said or believed, then what's the point?

And, of course, what you say it means shouldn't contradict observation, or simple logic.

Papist is right here.  If God is not the author of confusion, why would he make all these churches, none of which has the truth?  Fortunately, the church is the pillar and foundation of the church.  Papist just has the wrong church (but for 1000 years they were the western part of that true church).

Common sense suggests that God did not make all these churches, which I believe is your point anyway.

But perhaps it's not a question of him making them so much as preserving them.  Perhaps He DOES keep making new churches because entropy, dogmatism, doctrinal corruption, and churchsploitation keep claiming the old ones.  That certainly seems to fit common sense, and observation.  And also the parable of the vine and its branches, what with all that trimming off the dead so the new can sprout and grow.

Someone said the tree of liberty must needs occasionally be refreshed by the blood of patriots and tyrants.  Perhaps the True Vine must needs be refreshed occasionally by a mulch of reformers, and popes.

But really, to answer your earlier question, I think the church IS composed of people, as determined by how well they're listening, by their response to what they hear.  If it isn't so, then why the "body of Christ" or the "temple of lively stones?"  If not, why do the apostles refer to "the saved," "the church" and "those-who-are-believing" interchangeably?

Jarrod

PS.  Churchsploitation...I just made that up.

[desertknight]

The "Body of Christ" is the faithful, but it is not exclusively the faithful.  It is also Christ.  The NT is explicit in it's call for unity and orthodoxy.  It is explicit in it's call for correct doctrine. 

Titus 1:9  "Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers."

Mark 1:27  "And they were all amazed, insomuch that they questioned among themselves, saying, What thing is this? what new doctrine is this? for with authority commandeth he even the unclean spirits, and they do obey him. "

Acts 2:42  "And they continued steadfast in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers."

Romans 16:17  "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them."

Now the question from the OP is where do we derive authority to decide what is "orthodoxy"?  The NT is very clear on this.  There are numerous examples of that authority, including at least one passage that I quoted, as being from the ministers of Christ's Holy Church.  So then we ask, "who can be a minister?"  Well, again, the NT is very clear.  Why did St. Paul, appointed by our Lord, Himself, go to Jerusalem and be "ordained" by the laying on of hands?  Throughout the NT letters, numerous examples are given as to the offices of the Church and the only proper way in which those offices are given.  Our Lord did not become incarnate to write anything.  He did, as the first act of His ministry after His baptism, appoint 12 rather ordinary men to lead His Church.  The NT is quite clear as to the fact that this same authority was to be passed down in continual succession by the "laying on of hands" at ordination.    That is the model.

How do Protestant's justify theirs?  Where can they trace their authority back to?  If their answer is that their authority derives from the authority of the Bible alone, or the authority was given them by the Holy Spirit alone, than my answer is to examine St. Paul.  He too, was given such authority, but understood that our Lord had established a real, visible, Church, in which that authority had to be properly confirmed at ordination, by those who were already properly ordained themselves.

So again;  Where do Protestants get theirs?

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

As opposed to your unbroken succession of popes...?

It only took me 2 searches on Google to dispose of that silly notion:

In its list of the popes, the Holy See's annual directory, Annuario Pontificio, attaches to the name of Pope Leo VIII (963–965) the following note:

At this point, as again in the mid-eleventh century, we come across elections in which problems of harmonising historical criteria and those of theology and canon law make it impossible to decide clearly which side possessed the legitimacy whose factual existence guarantees the unbroken lawful succession of the successors of Saint Peter. The uncertainty that in some cases results has made it advisable to abandon the assignation of successive numbers in the list of the popes.

[desertknight]

The fact that you did not answer the very question I, and the OP referred to, is telling.  You specifically posed the "unbroken line of Popes" as your argument., but that line is only a part of the total Apostolic Succession.  Of course we Catholics understand that the Bishop of Rome had developed the responsibilities of what exactly that office entailed over time, but that has always been in concordance with what the mission of Our Lord has been, and in what He anointed St. Peter to fulfill.  Your argument falls flat with the understanding that the Catholic Church accepts with complete authority the Holy Orders of, and the Holy Sacraments administered by, the Eastern Orthodox Churches.  How does one explain that?   It is that unshakable NT model that you question.  However, the question remains.

Where do Protestants derive their authority?