Author Topic: By What Authority?  (Read 19309 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Tu Es Petrus

  • Guest
Re: By What Authority?
« Reply #70 on: Fri Jan 09, 2009 - 07:15:37 »
.....Catholic church doesn't exactly have gold stars for preserving morality. The cover up of child molesters 'fathers' comes to mind......

Three things on that:

1) The Jews killed all the prophets of old, built a golden calf while Moses was on Sinai, and generally screwed up on a regular basis. Did that stop them from being the authentic people of God? No.

2) No group is free of corruption regarding bad behavior. None. Wherever men are present, sin is present.

3) Last but certainly not least: Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Pointing out the splinter in your brothers' eyes while you have a plank in your own is a poor substitute for apologetics.

Tu Es Petrus

  • Guest
Re: By What Authority?
« Reply #71 on: Fri Jan 09, 2009 - 07:16:22 »
Here is a link to an mp3:
http://www.bringyou.to/ScottHahnCatholicObjectionsCOMPLETE.mp3

This is Dr. Scott Hahn giving a sort of seminar to a small group. Its a long mp3, about 6 hours, covering various subjects. The first hour & ten minutes is about the pope. Its a little slow to start off with: Dr. Hahn doesn't really get hot until about 25 minutes into it, but it shoud be heard from the beginning.

Please listen to it. Its well worth the time. Just kick back in your den, relax, and hear it out. I assure you, if you really listen to it with an open mind, you will at the very least find it very interesting.

Offline Jimbob

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 21536
  • Manna: 439
  • Gender: Male
  • Me fail English? That's unpossible.
Re: By What Authority?
« Reply #72 on: Fri Jan 09, 2009 - 07:32:30 »
.....Catholic church doesn't exactly have gold stars for preserving morality. The cover up of child molesters 'fathers' comes to mind......

Three things on that:

1) The Jews killed all the prophets of old, built a golden calf while Moses was on Sinai, and generally screwed up on a regular basis. Did that stop them from being the authentic people of God? No.

2) No group is free of corruption regarding bad behavior. None. Wherever men are present, sin is present.

3) Last but certainly not least: Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Pointing out the splinter in your brothers' eyes while you have a plank in your own is a poor substitute for apologetics.
Of course, none of these excuse what's happened, and this is a pretty sorry defense of the indefensible.

1.) Did it stop physical Israel from being Israel? No.  Did it send them into exile, cause millions to die outside of a faithful relationship with God, and put a horrible stain on their faith in the eyes of the world?  Uh-huh.

2.) The sins of others do not negate one's own.  What other groups have done in no way lessens the atrocities of the history of the Catholic church, and while you will find other groups with violence and sexual abuse in their histories, you'll be hard pressed to find them where it has been more widespread and institutional (and institutionally protected).  AND there are many Protestant groups who have never as an institution been involved in inquisitions, government corruption, sexual abuse cover-ups, conversions by the sword, etc., etc., etc.

3.) No one is claiming that their fellowship is perfect, but that they can't get past the acts that they see in the history of Catholicism.  If a husband abuses his wife and cheats on her and then puts her out with a divorce, the wife is not inspecting his speck with a log in her eye when she says, "He was unfaithful to me."  Likewise, the Catholic church was engaged in serious corruption and sin and Luther showed the pope the lipstick-stained shirt and said, "You were unfaithful."  The response? They shot the messenger.  That they now have made some of those changes is good, but it doesn't change their initial response.  It was what it was.

Jesus said we would know a tree by its fruit.  You can't then, blame people for examining the fruit before taking a bite and accuse them of logs and specks.  The fruit is what it is.

Offline CDHealy

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4397
  • Manna: 120
  • Gender: Male
Re: By What Authority?
« Reply #73 on: Fri Jan 09, 2009 - 08:01:13 »
Jesus said we would know a tree by its fruit.  You can't then, blame people for examining the fruit before taking a bite and accuse them of logs and specks.  The fruit is what it is.

We know about the horrible actions of the Roman Catholic Church--regarding the, largely though not exclusively, homosexual abuse of teenage boys by Catholic priests.  We know about them because they were blared over the media, and they were blared over the media because, in part, the Catholic Church in the U.S. is among the largest Christian bodies, and because it has an established institution (and any corruption in any institution is a favorite narrative for the media).

I do not in any way wish to diminish or defend the U. S. Catholic bishops who did what they did in aiding and abetting this sinful and horrible behavior.

But I would also like to point out that I know, personally, of similar instances of sexual abuse of the young by RM ministers.  In one case, a minister raped a member of the congregation, lied about it, was fired but everyone kept hush hush about it, and the minister went on to molest young boys.  Talk about coverup.  And it was institutional, in that the local institution (the local congregation) in its leadership decided as a group to keep it hush hush.  I would bet that if the members of these boards were anonymously surveyed, many more similar incidences could be uncovered.

There is not one iota of difference between these two sets of incidences.  This specious claim that Oh, it's Rome so it's institutional, but with us it's only here and there, doesn't fly, because the RM churches are congregational in their polity, so the institution isn't national it's local.  And because these cases are then viewed as "isolated" and "local" it appears that it ain't as bad as Rome.

But a cover up is a cover up is a cover up.  People have been deeply injured and scarred.  And it's institutional whenever the leadership of a body agree to it.  In the RM cases, the institution is much smaller.

Offline Jimbob

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 21536
  • Manna: 439
  • Gender: Male
  • Me fail English? That's unpossible.
Re: By What Authority?
« Reply #74 on: Fri Jan 09, 2009 - 08:18:25 »
I don't disagree.  My point is that one can't quote Matthew 7 as though it puts the subject off the table. As to your ex. of a local RM institution that handled it just as badly, I'd say they deserve the exact same scrutiny. 

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: By What Authority?
« Reply #74 on: Fri Jan 09, 2009 - 08:18:25 »



Tu Es Petrus

  • Guest
Re: By What Authority?
« Reply #75 on: Fri Jan 09, 2009 - 08:20:13 »
Of course, none of these excuse what's happened, and this is a pretty sorry defense of the indefensible......

I was not attempting to excuse the bad behavior of individuals. Each man will have to stand before God regarding their sins.

What I was saying is that the bad behavior of individuals is irrelevant as to whether or not the Catholc Church is or is not what it claims to be.

Sometime I wonder if I am speaking English or not. Do people actually read what I am saying, or what they want to think I am saying?

Offline Jimmy

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 14574
  • Manna: 294
Re: By What Authority?
« Reply #76 on: Fri Jan 09, 2009 - 08:44:57 »
Of course, none of these excuse what's happened, and this is a pretty sorry defense of the indefensible......

I was not attempting to excuse the bad behavior of individuals. Each man will have to stand before God regarding their sins.

What I was saying is that the bad behavior of individuals is irrelevant as to whether or not the Catholc Church is or is not what it claims to be.

Sometime I wonder if I am speaking English or not. Do people actually read what I am saying, or what they want to think I am saying?

Tu Es,

Why are you so perturbed at that?  Given that you seem to think that none of us here have the capaity to  understand the English sentences in the Bible, why would you think we could understand the English sentences that you write?

Tu Es Petrus

  • Guest
Re: By What Authority?
« Reply #77 on: Fri Jan 09, 2009 - 09:30:04 »
Tu Es,

Why are you so perturbed at that?  Given that you seem to think that none of us here have the capaity to  understand the English sentences in the Bible, why would you think we could understand the English sentences that you write?

LOL. Now THAT was a good one.

Oh, I'm sure everyone here has the "capacity" to understand the Bible and the sentences that I write. I don't believe anyone here is particularly stupid.

I do believe, though, that some of you read the Bible through the filters of your theology and only see what you want to see, and I believe some of my posts are read with those same filters.
« Last Edit: Fri Jan 09, 2009 - 09:50:46 by Tu Es Petrus »

Offline Jimmy

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 14574
  • Manna: 294
Re: By What Authority?
« Reply #78 on: Fri Jan 09, 2009 - 09:43:56 »
Tu Es,

Why are you so perturbed at that?  Given that you seem to think that none of us here have the capaity to  understand the English sentences in the Bible, why would you think we could understand the English sentences that you write?

LOL. Now THAT was a good one.

Oh, I'm sure evryoene here has the "capacity" to understand the Bible and the sentences that I write. I don't believe anyone here is particularly stupid.

I do believe, though, that some of you read the Bible through the filters of your theology and only see what you want to see, and I believe some of my posts are read with those same filters.

As if you didn't.  It is a truism that just about everyone reads the Bible through the filters of their own theology.  I would would say that was true of even the pope.  The difference I think is that some (perhaps even you) freely admit that they think it is the filters which bring out the "authoritative" truth.  It should be the goal of everyone to try to minimize the effect of those filters.

Tu Es Petrus

  • Guest
Re: By What Authority?
« Reply #79 on: Fri Jan 09, 2009 - 09:52:57 »
As if you didn't......

And NOW you see why I am always quoting the early Christians. I say that you read the scriptures through your filters. You say that I read them through my filters. So how do we get around this? We read what the first Christians thought and believed! Thats how.

Are you beginning to see the light yet?

Offline Jimmy

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 14574
  • Manna: 294
Re: By What Authority?
« Reply #80 on: Fri Jan 09, 2009 - 10:05:15 »
As if you didn't......

And NOW you see why I am always quoting the early Christians. I say that you read the scriptures through your filters. You say that I read them through my filters. So how do we get around this? We read what the first Christians thought and believed! Thats how.

Are you beginning to see the light yet?

Do you think that your early Christian writers were not hampered by the same or even stronger filters?  Recognize that much of the NT, and especially Paul's writings, were directed at expunging filters that had invaded many of even the very earliest congregations.  As I said earlier, all of those early Christian writings are of historical interst, but what they thought and believed carry no more "authority" than you or I.  In any given instance, they could be right and you or I could be wrong, but that doesn't go to authority.

Offline CDHealy

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4397
  • Manna: 120
  • Gender: Male
Re: By What Authority?
« Reply #81 on: Fri Jan 09, 2009 - 13:31:05 »
Do you think that your early Christian writers were not hampered by the same or even stronger filters?  Recognize that much of the NT, and especially Paul's writings, were directed at expunging filters that had invaded many of even the very earliest congregations.

Sure.  Fallen human nature hasn't changed much in 2000 years.

Here's the difference: they could check with the sources.  Any of the members of the various congregations could double check with the Apostles if need be.  In fact, what they needed to check was not St Paul's writings--since writings could be forged--but to remember what St. Paul had said in their midst.  Witness 2 Thessalonians:

2Th 2:1  Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers,
2Th 2:2  not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. . . .
2Th 2:15  So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter. . .
2Th 3:6  Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.

So we see that St Paul did not direct them solely to his previous written letters (such a forgery was apparently causing some trouble), but to both what "you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter."

Now, how 'bout us?  We no longer have the Apostles living among us, as did St. Clement and St. Ignatios as they began to lead their respective Churches.  We rely on the Tradition of the Church: the Scriptures primarily, the recorded lives and witnesses of those who knew the Apostles and other such manifestations of the life of Christ's Body the Church handed down to us.

As I said earlier, all of those early Christian writings are of historical interst, but what they thought and believed carry no more "authority" than you or I.  In any given instance, they could be right and you or I could be wrong, but that doesn't go to authority.

If they have so many erring filters to cut through, then how can it be of any interest, historical or whatever?  If it is all to be discounted, then it really isn't of any interest at all.

On the other hand, if it is not all to be discounted, which parts are legit and which aren't?  And how do you know?

Tantor

  • Guest
Re: By What Authority?
« Reply #82 on: Fri Jan 09, 2009 - 13:59:12 »
Quote
2Th 2:15  So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter. . .

You would have to prove what traditions existed at the time of the writing.

In my opinion 90% of Catholic traditions were made up after 300 AD... way after that was written.

Offline CDHealy

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4397
  • Manna: 120
  • Gender: Male
Re: By What Authority?
« Reply #83 on: Fri Jan 09, 2009 - 14:30:25 »
Quote
2Th 2:15  So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter. . .

You would have to prove what traditions existed at the time of the writing.

Sure.  How 'bout that the Lord's Supper is the real participation in the Body and Blood of Jesus (cf 1 Corinthians 10.16-17 and St. Ignatios' letter to the Smyrnans 7.1 and St Justin Martyr 1st Apology 66.2)

In my opinion 90% of Catholic traditions were made up after 300 AD... way after that was written.

Well, it ought to be easy to name some.

Tantor

  • Guest
Re: By What Authority?
« Reply #84 on: Fri Jan 09, 2009 - 14:55:00 »
Quote
16Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? 17Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.

Doesn't look anything like the eucharist your institution invented.

Offline Jimmy

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 14574
  • Manna: 294
Re: By What Authority?
« Reply #85 on: Fri Jan 09, 2009 - 16:21:08 »
Do you think that your early Christian writers were not hampered by the same or even stronger filters?  Recognize that much of the NT, and especially Paul's writings, were directed at expunging filters that had invaded many of even the very earliest congregations.

Sure.  Fallen human nature hasn't changed much in 2000 years.

Here's the difference: they could check with the sources.  Any of the members of the various congregations could double check with the Apostles if need be. 

Nah, the apostles probably would not have had the time for all of that.  They were too busy going through the region correcting all the mistakes that were being disseminated by some of those guys you think had all the answers.  Where else would those in Thessalonica, Corinth, Ephesus, Philippi, etc get all those weird ideas that Paul had to correct in his letters?  ::smile::

As I said earlier, all of those early Christian writings are of historical interst, but what they thought and believed carry no more "authority" than you or I.  In any given instance, they could be right and you or I could be wrong, but that doesn't go to authority.

If they have so many erring filters to cut through, then how can it be of any interest, historical or whatever?  If it is all to be discounted, then it really isn't of any interest at all.

On the other hand, if it is not all to be discounted, which parts are legit and which aren't?  And how do you know?

I would do as Luke noted in Acts 17 for the Bereans.  If you wish to know which of them are legit, you need to search the scriptures (in this case both OT and NT) to see which ring true.

Offline CDHealy

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4397
  • Manna: 120
  • Gender: Male
Re: By What Authority?
« Reply #86 on: Fri Jan 09, 2009 - 22:19:52 »
Quote
16Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? 17Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.

Doesn't look anything like the eucharist your institution invented.


Well, we teach that when one consumes the bread one is participating in Christ's Body--just like St. Paul says.  Do you?
We teach that when one consumes the wine one is participating in Christ's Blood--just like St Paul says.  Do you?

Gosh, looks like our Eucharist IS just like the one St Paul talks about.  What about yours?

Offline CDHealy

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4397
  • Manna: 120
  • Gender: Male
Re: By What Authority?
« Reply #87 on: Fri Jan 09, 2009 - 22:23:15 »
Here's the difference: they could check with the sources.  Any of the members of the various congregations could double check with the Apostles if need be. 

Nah, the apostles probably would not have had the time for all of that.  They were too busy going through the region correcting all the mistakes that were being disseminated by some of those guys you think had all the answers. 

Where else would those in Thessalonica, Corinth, Ephesus, Philippi, etc get all those weird ideas that Paul had to correct in his letters?

Which guys were those?  You know the ones that we apparently claim that had all the answers but that St Paul corrects?  Have any names or are you just tossing meaningless words out there because, well, ya got nuthin' here?  Huh?

I would do as Luke noted in Acts 17 for the Bereans.  If you wish to know which of them are legit, you need to search the scriptures (in this case both OT and NT) to see which ring true.

Ring true?  What pray tell does that mean?  What does it mean for something to "ring true"?  What are the characterstics, what are the tests one conducts, by what standard of measurements does one determine that something "rings true"?

Or, are you just wiffin' it here cause, again, ya got nuthin'?

Tantor

  • Guest
Re: By What Authority?
« Reply #88 on: Sat Jan 10, 2009 - 09:34:13 »
Quote
16Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? 17Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.

Doesn't look anything like the eucharist your institution invented.


Well, we teach that when one consumes the bread one is participating in Christ's Body--just like St. Paul says.  Do you?
We teach that when one consumes the wine one is participating in Christ's Blood--just like St Paul says.  Do you?

Gosh, looks like our Eucharist IS just like the one St Paul talks about.  What about yours?

When I have communion.. its usually on Sundays after the mid day meal (it's been tradition in our family to have our large sunday meal around 2pm or so).. with family or with christian friends.  I set aside some wine and some fresh baked bread (I love to bake).. and have a short time of rememberance after the meal. It's usually a time of sharing of what God has done for us since the last time we remembered and usually someone reads the bible passage that describes communion.

I don't need some priest to recite some magical incantation to make it into something it isn't (it's just wine and bread).

And since the Bible describes all Christian's as priests.. I see nothing wrong with it.. We are following Christ's example.

Having communion without having a meal before hand just seems plain wrong.. and does not follow the example Christ left for us.

Offline CDHealy

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4397
  • Manna: 120
  • Gender: Male
Re: By What Authority?
« Reply #89 on: Sat Jan 10, 2009 - 10:48:59 »
I don't need some priest to recite some magical incantation to make it into something it isn't (it's just wine and bread).

The priest does not make the wine and bread into the Body and Blood of Christ.  In both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches--if you would bother to do a little research and actually read the prayers prayed at the Lord's Supper you'd know that--it is the Holy Spirit who makes the wine and bread into the Body and Blood of Christ, and that he does so because that is what *all* of the people present are asking him to do.

Further, if, as St. Paul himself says in 1 Corinthians 10:16-17, that eating the bread is a participation (lit. "having with," metechein) in Christ's Body, and drinking the wine is a participation (lit. "having with," metechein) in Christ's Blood, then how can the bread be *just* bread and the wine *just* wine?

And since the Bible describes all Christian's as priests.. I see nothing wrong with it.. We are following Christ's example.

But it is Christ himself that says if you do not eat his flesh and drink his blood you have no life in you.  Christ himself said that the bread is his Body and the wine is his Blood.  How can you claim to be following Christ's example when you deny Christ's very words?

Having communion without having a meal before hand just seems plain wrong.. and does not follow the example Christ left for us.

I cannot speak to the liturgical practices of Roman Catholics, but in the Orthodox Churches there is a liturgical element called the distribution of the antidoron (blessed bread) which is a preservation of the New Testament agape meal.  In fact, in the Russian Orthodox Churches there is a tradition to distribute both antidoron and wine.

So, yes, in the Orthodox Churches, we preserve an observance of the agape meal, in obedience to the apostolic tradition.

Offline Jimmy

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 14574
  • Manna: 294
Re: By What Authority?
« Reply #90 on: Sat Jan 10, 2009 - 11:12:26 »
Here's the difference: they could check with the sources.  Any of the members of the various congregations could double check with the Apostles if need be. 

Nah, the apostles probably would not have had the time for all of that.  They were too busy going through the region correcting all the mistakes that were being disseminated by some of those guys you think had all the answers. 

Where else would those in Thessalonica, Corinth, Ephesus, Philippi, etc get all those weird ideas that Paul had to correct in his letters?

Which guys were those?  You know the ones that we apparently claim that had all the answers but that St Paul corrects?  Have any names or are you just tossing meaningless words out there because, well, ya got nuthin' here?  Huh?

I would do as Luke noted in Acts 17 for the Bereans.  If you wish to know which of them are legit, you need to search the scriptures (in this case both OT and NT) to see which ring true.

Ring true?  What pray tell does that mean?  What does it mean for something to "ring true"?  What are the characterstics, what are the tests one conducts, by what standard of measurements does one determine that something "rings true"?

Or, are you just wiffin' it here cause, again, ya got nuthin'?

CD,

You have things all twisted and turned around.  I don't need nuthin'.  You're the one that claims, wholly without any basis whatsoever, that your guys have some kind authority of succession to the apostles.

You are the one making claims of divine attributes;  and that with no justification for that at all.   I have the Bible and the indwelling Holy Spirit . I don't need what you're selling.   You're the one that needs somethin' but ain't got it.

Offline Bon Voyage

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16049
  • Manna: 408
  • Gender: Male
Re: By What Authority?
« Reply #91 on: Sat Jan 10, 2009 - 11:29:22 »
As if you didn't......

And NOW you see why I am always quoting the early Christians. I say that you read the scriptures through your filters. You say that I read them through my filters. So how do we get around this? We read what the first Christians thought and believed! Thats how.

Are you beginning to see the light yet?

You so do not "We read what the first Christians thought and believed" or the Catholic Church would not have separated from the Baptist Church at the time of Constantine due to paganism and corruption.

Tu Es Petrus

  • Guest
Re: By What Authority?
« Reply #92 on: Sat Jan 10, 2009 - 11:32:14 »
Quote
2Th 2:15  So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter. . .


You would have to prove what traditions existed at the time of the writing.

In my opinion 90% of Catholic traditions were made up after 300 AD... way after that was written.


Read this:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a2.htm

Offline CDHealy

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4397
  • Manna: 120
  • Gender: Male
Re: By What Authority?
« Reply #93 on: Sat Jan 10, 2009 - 12:03:52 »
You have things all twisted and turned around.  I don't need nuthin'.  You're the one that claims, wholly without any basis whatsoever, that your guys have some kind authority of succession to the apostles.

Sorry, you're avoiding my direct question to you: on what basis do you claim that something "rings true"?  Please answer the question.

Or is this your answer:

I have the Bible and the indwelling Holy Spirit .

So, you're claiming the infallible ability to accurately determine when something "rings true"?  Is it like the Mormom "burning in the bosom"?  What is it?

Offline extranos

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1586
  • Manna: 40
  • Gender: Male
  • Verbum Domini Manet in Aeternum
Re: By What Authority?
« Reply #94 on: Sat Jan 10, 2009 - 12:12:49 »
Quote
Protestantism is a system that fits naturally with universalism (as Servetus declared), for it instructs (through sola scriptura and sola fide) the believer to see himself as that authority, which leads either to endless wars to prove right through might or tolerance of all, even the most egregious errors, as the way to prevent the violence.

That is the fruit of Luther and his 'reformation:' a rejection of Christendom for a world of universalism in which all non-Christian religions are favored to a significant degree and endless paganisms are reborn or reinvigorated, while public immorality hits highs not known even in the worst of the pagan Roman Empire.
Old Jake, you are at least consistent.  You argument, it seems to me, is that the laity should follow the teachings of the Church NO MATTER WHAT.  We all know that Luther's efforts were directed towards reform of the Church, but the Church had (and HAS) a theology which says that she cannot be wrong.  Thus, it was no surprise that the Church had no desire nor reason to engage Luther (or Hus) in debate.  Any notion of a teaching that differed from the current practice was, by definition, paganism or willful rebellion, as you termed it.

One of Luther's major sins was to translate Scripture into German.  Why?  Because if the laypeople could read Scripture, they might fully realize how much apostasy was being passed off as true doctrine.  

Ole Jake, the Reformation was caused by Catholicism, not by Luther.  You prefer to blame Luther for the failings of your Church.  I will say this, it is entirely regrettable that the Reformation had to happen.  What Christian could be pleased that so much false doctrine was spewing forth from the Church founded by Christ that only a severing of ties could allow the light of Scripture to shine back in?

I also agree with you that it is tragic that Protestantism, of which the Lutherans do not consider themselves to be a part, has perverted true doctrines of the Church and proliferated into cults of personalities.  What I wouldn't give for there to be true unity in the Christian Church!

But let's be sensible.....the Catholic Church started the ball rolling by presuming to be perfect in all matters and refusing to engage in debate regarding clearly questionable teachings such as the sale of indulgences.  Really, the Roman Church got what it had coming to it with such an arrogant attitude.

There are a handful of doctrines which come to mind wherein even the Orthodox disagree with the Romans.  Would you support a new Christian Council where these doctrines are discussed and in which the Roman Church may have to admit error?
« Last Edit: Sat Jan 10, 2009 - 12:20:25 by extranos »

Offline ole Jake

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 241
  • Manna: 27
Re: By What Authority?
« Reply #95 on: Sun Jan 11, 2009 - 17:32:06 »
Quote
Protestantism is a system that fits naturally with universalism (as Servetus declared), for it instructs (through sola scriptura and sola fide) the believer to see himself as that authority, which leads either to endless wars to prove right through might or tolerance of all, even the most egregious errors, as the way to prevent the violence.

That is the fruit of Luther and his 'reformation:' a rejection of Christendom for a world of universalism in which all non-Christian religions are favored to a significant degree and endless paganisms are reborn or reinvigorated, while public immorality hits highs not known even in the worst of the pagan Roman Empire.
Old Jake, you are at least consistent.  You argument, it seems to me, is that the laity should follow the teachings of the Church NO MATTER WHAT.  We all know that Luther's efforts were directed towards reform of the Church, but the Church had (and HAS) a theology which says that she cannot be wrong.  Thus, it was no surprise that the Church had no desire nor reason to engage Luther (or Hus) in debate.  Any notion of a teaching that differed from the current practice was, by definition, paganism or willful rebellion, as you termed it.

One of Luther's major sins was to translate Scripture into German.  Why?  Because if the laypeople could read Scripture, they might fully realize how much apostasy was being passed off as true doctrine.  

Ole Jake, the Reformation was caused by Catholicism, not by Luther.  You prefer to blame Luther for the failings of your Church.  I will say this, it is entirely regrettable that the Reformation had to happen.  What Christian could be pleased that so much false doctrine was spewing forth from the Church founded by Christ that only a severing of ties could allow the light of Scripture to shine back in?

I also agree with you that it is tragic that Protestantism, of which the Lutherans do not consider themselves to be a part, has perverted true doctrines of the Church and proliferated into cults of personalities.  What I wouldn't give for there to be true unity in the Christian Church!

But let's be sensible.....the Catholic Church started the ball rolling by presuming to be perfect in all matters and refusing to engage in debate regarding clearly questionable teachings such as the sale of indulgences.  Really, the Roman Church got what it had coming to it with such an arrogant attitude.

There are a handful of doctrines which come to mind wherein even the Orthodox disagree with the Romans.  Would you support a new Christian Council where these doctrines are discussed and in which the Roman Church may have to admit error?

Luther's sola fide doctrine was given a hearing; it was declared heretical. Hus's ideas, which came from Czech applications of the ideas of John Wyclifffe (which had been given hearings and declared heretical), were given hearings and then declared heretical.

Contrary to one of the most absurd false myths of Protestantism, Luther's Bible was not close to the first in German. It is true that most translations into German that preceded his were not complete Bibles; they parts such as: Gospels and Psalms, Books of Moses, Pauline Epistles and Isaiah, New Testament, etc. But there were, depending how a particular scholar counts them, some 8-12 different Germna translations in existence before Luther concocted sola fide.

None of the pre-Luther German language translations were condemned. The reason that Luther's ws condemned is that Luther's translation was the world's first 'study Bible' with the self-anointed infallible interpreter of Scripture writing detailed introductions to Testaments and books instructing readers to find sola fide everywhere in it. Worse, Luther added the word 'only' to the word 'faith' in Romans (a juxtapositon that never occurs in the Bible - or any Church Father or any Council) to make his case for sola fide seem to be obvious. Almost as bad as that, Luther also made himself the infallible determiner of what constitutes the canon of inspired scripture. His 1st edition (and perhapps 2nd) actually placed James, Hebrews, and Revelation in an appendex of New Testament Apocrypha.

Before Luther, dozens of men had opposed indulgence sales. Erasmus had done so. A few Bishops had actually outlawed indulgence sales in their jurisdictions. Luther was not close to starting the movement to end them. Luther was not excomminicated for questioning indulgence sales; he was excomminicated for refusing to stop promulgating sola fide after that concoction was declared heretical.

The Protestant revolution came about because Luther refused to accept that his pet concoction sola fide could be anything less than the pure distilled essence of the gospel. Thus he kept pushing, even as chaos began breaking out around him.

As a friend of mine learned from his first detailed study into the matter, the Great Schism was almost totally about politics. The actual split in 1054 came from centuries of squabbles that had begun when the Western Roman Empire had begun weakening. Before it fell to the onslaughts of (primarily) Germainc pagan (often led by Roman educated Arians), the Western Empire had moved its capital to Milan. The tow combined led various Eastern/Byzantine Emperors to feel that the most important, powerful, prestigious Bishop should be in Constantinople, not Rome. That is the reason that the eastern/Byzantine Empire became a haven for various heretics: Emperors gave refuge to any heretic who taught nothing that might threaten his power because heretics protected by him could cause trouble for the West's leaders and the Bishop of Rome.

Without all the politics, without Byzantine Emperors playing hardball even with Church doctrines to make themselves more powerful (in that, what led to the Schism is similar to Henry VIII), there is no schism in 1054.

The problems with the Orthodox are nothing like those with Protestantism. It is possble that a Council can end the Schism, but not if the Orthodox assume that defined doctrines will be denied. For the unification to take place, the Orthodox must see that the Schism is the greatest example in history of unneccessary disunity because churchmen were played by men of politics. They must see how their vision (which is most pronounced among the Russians - often to easily buffooned levels) of the Christian East saving the West is valid, for today the Orthodox (and Eastern Rite Catholics in Eastern Europe) are far more culturally and morally conservative than Westerners.

The Catholic Church needs the shot in the arm of Eastern cultural and moral conservatism.


Tantor

  • Guest
Re: By What Authority?
« Reply #96 on: Sun Jan 11, 2009 - 19:15:46 »
Quote
2Th 2:15  So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter. . .


You would have to prove what traditions existed at the time of the writing.

In my opinion 90% of Catholic traditions were made up after 300 AD... way after that was written.


Read this:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a2.htm


Proof would have to come from outside the Catholic church...

Otherwise, isn't it like taking the criminals word when they say they aren't guilty?

Offline Jimmy

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 14574
  • Manna: 294
Re: By What Authority?
« Reply #97 on: Sun Jan 11, 2009 - 19:32:32 »
You have things all twisted and turned around.  I don't need nuthin'.  You're the one that claims, wholly without any basis whatsoever, that your guys have some kind authority of succession to the apostles.

Sorry, you're avoiding my direct question to you: on what basis do you claim that something "rings true"?  Please answer the question.

Or is this your answer:

I have the Bible and the indwelling Holy Spirit .

So, you're claiming the infallible ability to accurately determine when something "rings true"?  Is it like the Mormom "burning in the bosom"?  What is it?

Infallible ability? No of course not.  What would give you that idea.  I deny that for the popes or anyone else, I certainly wouldn't claim it for myself.  Do I have the ability to read and understand what is written?  Yes, perhaps not perfectly in every instance. But with diligence and study and with the helps that are available, I believe God has presented us with what He wants and expects us to learn and to know.

None of the NT was written to your infallible popes.  They were written to the common folk, the saints in the various churches or to individuals on two or three occasions. 

Offline CDHealy

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4397
  • Manna: 120
  • Gender: Male
Re: By What Authority?
« Reply #98 on: Sun Jan 11, 2009 - 20:17:15 »
Infallible ability? No of course not.  What would give you that idea.  I deny that for the popes or anyone else, I certainly wouldn't claim it for myself.  Do I have the ability to read and understand what is written?  Yes, perhaps not perfectly in every instance. But with diligence and study and with the helps that are available, I believe God has presented us with what He wants and expects us to learn and to know.

Once again: How can you tell something "rings true"?  What are its characteristics, so that you can determine what is true or what is false?  You keep avoiding my question.  If you're not infallible, then how is that you know your claims are true and the Pope's are false, for example?

None of the NT was written to your infallible popes.  They were written to the common folk, the saints in the various churches or to individuals on two or three occasions. 

*Sigh*  One more time, slowly so you'll get it: They're. Not. My. Popes.  And I don't believe in their infallibility.  I'm Orthodox not Catholic.  Please educate yourself a bit more.  Read my posts.

Offline Jimmy

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 14574
  • Manna: 294
Re: By What Authority?
« Reply #99 on: Mon Jan 12, 2009 - 07:30:52 »
Infallible ability? No of course not.  What would give you that idea.  I deny that for the popes or anyone else, I certainly wouldn't claim it for myself.  Do I have the ability to read and understand what is written?  Yes, perhaps not perfectly in every instance. But with diligence and study and with the helps that are available, I believe God has presented us with what He wants and expects us to learn and to know.

Once again: How can you tell something "rings true"?  What are its characteristics, so that you can determine what is true or what is false?  You keep avoiding my question.  If you're not infallible, then how is that you know your claims are true and the Pope's are false, for example?

None of the NT was written to your infallible popes.  They were written to the common folk, the saints in the various churches or to individuals on two or three occasions. 

*Sigh*  One more time, slowly so you'll get it: They're. Not. My. Popes.  And I don't believe in their infallibility.  I'm Orthodox not Catholic.  Please educate yourself a bit more.  Read my posts.

I will give your own question back to you.  Who then do you rely on as infallible?  How do you decide what is true and what is false?  Whose interpretation do you accept?

Offline CDHealy

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4397
  • Manna: 120
  • Gender: Male
Re: By What Authority?
« Reply #100 on: Mon Jan 12, 2009 - 11:27:56 »
Sorry, Jimmy, you first.  I asked you a direct question.  It's not very persuasive of you assertions for you to keep avoiding it, then throwing it on me.

But once you answer my question, with some followup questions if necessary, then I'll answer yours.

(In point of fact, I *have* answered that question on these boards, which a search on your part can turn up.  But you still have to answer my question.)

Online Wycliffes_Shillelagh

  • Down with pants! Up with kilts!
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 14050
  • Manna: 368
  • Gender: Male
Re: By What Authority?
« Reply #101 on: Mon Jan 12, 2009 - 12:45:09 »
You can tell you're getting the right interpretation of the Bible because of parallelism in the writing.  Parallelism is the defining literary device of Hebrew writing.

Basically, because ancient Hebrew (proto-Semitic) contained only about 8000 'words,' (and the Masoretes' vowel pointings didn't yet exist), virtually every statement contained SOME ambiguity.  The solution to the dilemma was simple - say everything twice, in two different ways.

This makes interpretation easy.  If statement #1 means the same as statement #2, then you've got it right.

Now, someone out there is probably thinking..."well that's great for the parts that were written in Hebrew, but the New Testament was written in Greek!"  True.  However, the writers were basically all Jewish, and they use parallelism anyway when the meaning isn't readily clear.

This is also the reason for the lament of the Bible student..."why are there 5 words for everything?!"

Jarrod

Offline CDHealy

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4397
  • Manna: 120
  • Gender: Male
Re: By What Authority?
« Reply #102 on: Mon Jan 12, 2009 - 13:01:17 »
You can tell you're getting the right interpretation of the Bible because of parallelism in the writing.  Parallelism is the defining literary device of Hebrew writing.

Basically, because ancient Hebrew (proto-Semitic) contained only about 8000 'words,' (and the Masoretes' vowel pointings didn't yet exist), virtually every statement contained SOME ambiguity.  The solution to the dilemma was simple - say everything twice, in two different ways.

Nice try.  But if you get the first one wrong, even if the second appears to affirm it, you're still wrong.

Try Psalm 51:5.  If you read the first line as David himself being sinful before he could commit sins, then you're going to read the second as an affirmation of that.  And you'd still be twice as wrong.  (And besides, the sins he speaks of were of his mother, not himself.)

Offline ole Jake

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 241
  • Manna: 27
Re: By What Authority?
« Reply #103 on: Mon Jan 12, 2009 - 16:52:04 »
You can tell you're getting the right interpretation of the Bible because of parallelism in the writing.  Parallelism is the defining literary device of Hebrew writing.

Basically, because ancient Hebrew (proto-Semitic) contained only about 8000 'words,' (and the Masoretes' vowel pointings didn't yet exist), virtually every statement contained SOME ambiguity.  The solution to the dilemma was simple - say everything twice, in two different ways.

This makes interpretation easy.  If statement #1 means the same as statement #2, then you've got it right.

Now, someone out there is probably thinking..."well that's great for the parts that were written in Hebrew, but the New Testament was written in Greek!"  True.  However, the writers were basically all Jewish, and they use parallelism anyway when the meaning isn't readily clear.

This is also the reason for the lament of the Bible student..."why are there 5 words for everything?!"

Jarrod

This is your way to assert the perspicuousness of scripture that Luther realized must be declared as dogma for sola scriptura to seem reasonable.

If your assertion were true, then we would not have seen Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli all declaring one another heretical because they all interpeted various passages of scripture differently. We also would not have the rise of Servetus and Socinus who declared that scripute is perspicuous in showing that Trinitarianism is not Christian, nor would we have seen the rise of Anabaptists on top of the 'great' Reformers.

Nor would we have had men proclaiming sola scriptura founding the Quakers, the Millerites, and the 'Restoration Movement.'

If scripture is perspicuous (for whatever reason, your faith in parallelism or something else making things absolutely clear), then how did we end up with 20,000 or so Protestant denominatins all based on some man's reading of the Bible?

Offline Snargles

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1777
  • Manna: 48
  • Gender: Male
Re: By What Authority?
« Reply #104 on: Mon Jan 12, 2009 - 17:24:14 »
After running through these posts I see why posting "Safe Houses" were created. Those of us who understand the scriptures need to have a place to get away from Tu, CD, Jake and the others who want to complicate simple first century Christianity. My wife doesn't understand why I get nervous whenever I walk into a catholic church. It's because they aren't like the rest of us. I don't agree with my brethren about whether or not elders have to be married or if IM is acceptable but at least we all use the same rule book and are trying to follow the example of the people who walked the earth when Jesus did. The church started to apostatize when Paul and John were writing their epistles and the church of Rome has been misleading people since the 2nd or 3rd century. CD has some valid points but he argues like a big city lawyer with fancy words and I was brought up by people who worked in a factory during the week and taught bible class on Sunday. They used a KJV bible (I use NIV now) and explained how Jesus died for my sins, how I symbolically touch Jesus' blood in baptism, and how the elders look out for my soul. No fancy words, just scripture that God and the holy spirit delivered to us. Why do so many people try to make this complicated?

This is my only response to this thread. It has been about as enlightening as discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.