• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Authority of the Church

Status
Not open for further replies.
I used to be a pretty run of the mill spiritually liberal Christian Protestant: I thought the Catholic Church was corrupt and its teachings strayed from the Bible--the TRUE source of the Christian religion (although I admit, I didn't believe it was all literally true word for word). Protestants (I thought) had the right idea by going straight to the source and not listening to some Big Bad Church! :149:

However, after going to a Catholic school for three years, my view has changed (well, a lot of views have changed, but let's not go there ;)). The fact of the matter is, the Christian religion started out as an oral tradition for a number of decades, and many writings came along much later. There were many different beliefs and takes on Jesus, his actions, his message, and theology. The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were only a few of many early Christian writings....so which one were Christians going to beleive in, and more importantly, who was going to decide which scriptures to believe in? The answer: the Church. In other words, Christians--yes, even Protestants--have to have faith that the Church had divine guidance when choosing which scriptures to adopt as Canon....the true "source" of the Christian religion lies in the idea that the Christian Church is guided in its decisions by the Divine.

That is why I think Catholics have stronger arguments when it comes to Church/Biblical Authority. :jam:

This oughta be good.... :D
 

Solly

Fides Quærens Intellectum
Indeed. But that is not an argument for the RCC, since it didn't exist in the early days. Conversely, the Reformed churches accept a similar view, as seen in the way they put forward their confessions of true doctrine, including the list of accepted scriptures. In the early days of that, the Reformed churches acted no different from the RCC - which they had initially sought to reform, not overthrow. Heresy hunts are still the blood sport of choice in some quarters of the Reformed world.
The creation of the canon of scripture is not a simple fact of that one day some one said: these are the acceptable books. Acceptability grew out of the common use of the church, with some variations, such as those for the Shepherd of Hermas, and those against John's Revelation. But it wasn't until there were challenges to the scriptures by the likes of Marcion, that thought was put to establishing THE canon of scripture, meaning that which was commonly accepted by Christians.
Equally, the idea that there was a wide selection of scriptures to choose from is not quite as clear cut as that. Many of the rejected texts are blatantly fabulous in their subject matter, and obvious forgeries.
Finally: what is meant by 'authority'? The trouble the Protestants have with the RCC conception of authority, is that one man (or one synod) lays down the law, and you just accept it - which is surely what Christians are criticised for doing anyway LOL. Most protestants have actually bought into the Enlightenment project that our unaided reason can determine the right course of action, somehting John Henry Newman, in an anachronistic hissy-fit, rejected.
 

Green Gaia

Veteran Member
1 Catholic church vs 900+ Protestant Christian denominations... as far as keeping everyone united and under one line of thought, I think the Catholics were on to something when it came to authority over matters of faith and scriptures.
 

Solly

Fides Quærens Intellectum
Maize said:
1 Catholic church vs 900+ Protestant Christian denominations... as far as keeping everyone united and under one line of thought, I think the Catholics were on to something when it came to authority over matters of faith and scriptures.

It may look that way, but the appearances can be deceptive. For a start, most of the protestant denominations adhere to pretty much the same doctrinal view, are generally on goo dterms with each other, and often work together. OTOH, the RCC kept different denominations within its pale, ie fransicans, dominicans, thomists, jesuits, etc, all swearing allegiance to one man. You can have as much variety within the RCC, generally, as you can within the protestants, although the RCC did commit itself to Thomism after the Reformation, thereby reducing its own internal variety. And of course, don't mention the RCC as the standard with an Eastern Orthodox or Uniate church member around...
 

Green Gaia

Veteran Member
True about the variety in RC, but they are still united, whereas, by and large, Protestantism, is not. I consider the EOC to be separate altogether, although to an outsider they look a lot like RC. This whole matter of authority changes everything.
 
Maize said:
True about the variety in RC, but they are still united, whereas, by and large, Protestantism, is not.
I'm not sure that's a fair criticism Maize. One could just as easily say that the Catholic Church is not united, because so many large groups have gone off and formed their own churches. Unlike the Catholic Church, there was never a universal "Protestant Church" off of which all the modern Protestant churches sprung.
 

chuck010342

Active Member
The Catholics source of divination fails because they are false prophets. They failed what I call the fruit test.
 

Scott1

Well-Known Member
solly said:
For a start, most of the protestant denominations adhere to pretty much the same doctrinal view, are generally on goo dterms with each other, and often work together.
Well......... others might disagree. This forum is a fine example of how that statment is false.
OTOH, the RCC kept different denominations within its pale, ie fransicans, dominicans, thomists, jesuits, etc, all swearing allegiance to one man.
These are not denominations.... they are religious orders..... approved and authorized by the Holy See. They do swear allegiance to one.... Christ. They are very much as Catholic as the Red Sox are an individual team, but under the authority of Major League Baseball.:)

Peace,
Scott
 

dan

Well-Known Member
The Catholic Bible was canonized more or less around 198 A.D.(with the exception of Rev., which wasn't added until the Reformation was in full swing). It wasn't really the "Catholic" church back then, but it's a moot point. There were hundreds of lists of canon published by hundreds of different institutions before the Catholic church was ever a flicker in Constantine's eye. The differences are minute. The Shepherd of Hermes and a few others are the only significant omitions made by the Catholics. The Bible as we have it today is indeed a Catholic production, but it is not nor has ever been a comprehensive collection of inspired scripture. There are other sources.
 

chuck010342

Active Member
I got a warning because of my previous post. there is a point to my post but before I was asked what I meant I got a warning as being inflamatory. what I mean by the fruit test is that The Catholic Church has produced bad fruit and therefore it is not correct
 

Hope

Princesinha
Dadball said:
I belive in the congressional authority of the church(Acts 2). I believe that we as followers, (RCC, Protestant, Orthodox)are the body of Christ. http://www.bible-truth.org/Ekklesia.html
Couldn't have said it better.....

And the divisions in the body of Christ are simply from fallen humans not being able to agree and get along when it comes to the finer points of their faith. Which is a shame...:(
 

No*s

Captain Obvious
I'm not a RC, and those in my faith often consider the RCC and Protestantism flip sides of the same coin. Still, at least Roman Catholicism has some basis in history. Protestantism has none until the start of the Reformation. Here's a list of Catholic "heresies" and some dates for when we first find them. Just facts. If I'm in error, anybody on here is welcome to correct me.

1). The structure of bishops, priests, and deacons -- Our first indisputable referance is in the year 107 from St. Ignatius, a student of the Apostle John.

2). First reference to the "Catholic Church" -- In the self-same Ignatius (and it is a reference to one particular church, not "universal." That claim is a Protestant anachronism).

3). First reference to the prayer for/to the dead -- II Maccabbees (2nd century BC), the Apostle Paul's reference to "baptism on behalf of the dead." For the earliest post-NT reference, St. Ignatius appears to his friends after his death and prays for them.

4). Apostolic Succession -- The book of I Clement (70 AD). Clement claims that Christ taught it to the Apostles. Even if we take the later date for I Clement, we still place it before the death of the last Apostle.

5). "Canned prayers" -- The Didache (1st Century). It lists several prayers that it indicates the believers are supposed to pray. The indiation is on many of them, verbatim.

6). The Eucharist -- Didache, but blatantly in St. Ignatius

7). The Veneration of Relics -- The Martyrdom of Polycarp (first century)

8). Episcopal Authority -- I Clement deals with that as the major point of the letter, because the Corinthians expelled their bishop (70). Ignatius makes a major point of it (107). It is St. Irenaeus' primary weapon against Gnostics (c. 150).

I think that will suffice. All these are facts. The documents are available for download and reading. Go ahead and knock yourselves out:
http://www.philthompson.net/index2.html
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/

As an aside, all these documents predate the formation of the New Testament. The modern form of the NT was first mention in St. Athanasius' Festal Letter in 367. If the Christian Church went astray in the first century, which is what you must believe in order to say these Catholic teachings are corrupt, then a). You can't trust the canon of Scripture, and b). You may as well give up on Christianity. Islam or something like that would be a better alternative. The last thing a sane person would want to do is try to show these Catholic teachings are wrong with a Catholic book.

As a second challenge, no Protestantism is not united in belief. Is God a Trinity? Protestants disagree on this. What did Jesus do on the cross? Protestants disagree on this. Does God predestine His elect? Again, there is considerable disagreement. Is man totally depraved? There is no unity. The only way to maintain the illusion that Protestants all believe the same things on the "essentials" is to exclude those you don't like and decide what the essentials are. Thus, that claim is hollow.
 

Solly

Fides Quærens Intellectum
SOGFPP said:
Well......... others might disagree. This forum is a fine example of how that statment is false.

The main difference is that anyone who ventures to disagree in the RCC gets ceremoniously booted out: Donatists, Jansenists, Martin Boos and others of the Swiss/German 18th cent revival, Hans Küng, Liberation Theologians. A central authority is not always a good thing.

These are not denominations.... they are religious orders..... approved and authorized by the Holy See. They do swear allegiance to one.... Christ. They are very much as Catholic as the Red Sox are an individual team, but under the authority of Major League Baseball.:)

Peace,
Scott

Orders Schmorders. They had differing theologies, from the pelagian Jesuits to the Thomist Dominicans, and argued like siblings, indeed, like Protestants. Most Protestant denominations are not battling it out either. Sure there are the Arminian/Calvinist debates, but you had those with Jansen and Loyola. If you go to the Catholic churches in my town, you can find the Highs and the Lows, the traditionalists, and the charismatic, and often ne'r the twain shall meet for all their allegiance to the Pope and Christ. In Liverpool one church has gone back to the Tridentine liturgy, while others hardly have one.
If push came to shove, most nonLiberal Protestant denoms would sign up to the three great creeds, other than unitarians of course. And you have Liberals too.
 

Scott1

Well-Known Member
solly said:
The main difference is that anyone who ventures to disagree in the RCC gets ceremoniously booted out: Donatists, Jansenists, Martin Boos and others of the Swiss/German 18th cent revival, Hans Küng, Liberation Theologians. A central authority is not always a good thing.
And I am sure that if a large portion of you church started to preach something contrary to your faith and trying to convert your members..... you would throw them a party.:areyoucra

Let's get back on topic.... this thread is about:
Mr Spinkles said:
That is why I think Catholics have stronger arguments when it comes to Church/Biblical Authority
Scott
 

Scuba Pete

Le plongeur avec attitude...
I am simply Christian. I am niether Catholic, Protestant or Jew.

The Bible has all I need to see how the New Testament Church was conducted. The scriptures have the authority.

Not all who attend church are written in the Book of Life. The way is narrow and FEW find it. There is no corporate salvation taught in the New Testament. Each one should work out their salvation with fear and trembling.
 

Scott1

Well-Known Member
NetDoc,

While your opinion about faith is welcome... it's not really on topic:
Mr Spinkles said:
The fact of the matter is, the Christian religion started out as an oral tradition for a number of decades, and many writings came along much later. There were many different beliefs and takes on Jesus, his actions, his message, and theology. The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were only a few of many early Christian writings....so which one were Christians going to beleive in, and more importantly, who was going to decide which scriptures to believe in? The answer: the Church.
....
That is why I think Catholics have stronger arguments when it comes to Church/Biblical Authority
You're reply has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Scott
 

Solly

Fides Quærens Intellectum
SOGFPP said:
And I am sure that if a large portion of you church started to preach something contrary to your faith and trying to convert your members..... you would throw them a party.:areyoucra

Let's get back on topic.... this thread is about:

Scott

But that is on topic to an extent. The RCC at times acts like the WeSaySo Corporation, while at others it turns a blind eye. It's all very well saying that they have a better claim to authority in these matters, but the fact is they have also lived with a broad church as far as interpretations of Biblical teaching are concerned. I have books by the likes of Dermot Cox, and Brother John of Taize, and you would never guess they were Catholic books, since they are as Biblically based as any Protestant book. You can read other writers, like F W Faber, and its wierdosville, in which he takes descriptions of Christ from the Bible and applies them to Mary.
One of my opening questions regarded the matter of what is authority in these things? the authority to tell us which books are valid? the authority to tell us what they mean, including footnotes? the authority to enforce that meaning?
Another point is the fact of the continuity between the writers of the documents, and later maniffestations of the church. Just because the RCC claims a continuity historically does not mean it has the continuity spiritually. If the Holy Spirit is Christ's Vicar, and he is, not the Pope, then it is up to him to ensure continuity, in the face of fallible and sinful humanity's diversions along the way. For most Protestants, that means coming back to the Bible, and does involve questioning the canon from time to time, just to make sure we have got it right.
 

Scott1

Well-Known Member
Solly said:
But that is on topic to an extent.
I disagree.
The RCC at times acts like the WeSaySo Corporation, while at others it turns a blind eye.
Mr. Spinkles started a thread about the origin of Christian thinking as it related to authority. This is not a historical study about what the RCC does "at times"
solly said:
If the Holy Spirit is Christ's Vicar, and he is, not the Pope, then it is up to him to ensure continuity, in the face of fallible and sinful humanity's diversions along the way. For most Protestants, that means coming back to the Bible, and does involve questioning the canon from time to time, just to make sure we have got it right.
Again you are missing the point of the thread.... you get your "information" about the Holy Spirit from the Bible.... and the thread is about the authority of the RCC to establish the Canon of Scripture.... how the Bible came to be.... and Mr Spinkles belief that the RCC has a more valid argument for Church/Biblical Authority.
 

Gunga_ann

Member
chuck010342 said:
I got a warning because of my previous post. there is a point to my post but before I was asked what I meant I got a warning as being inflamatory. what I mean by the fruit test is that The Catholic Church has produced bad fruit and therefore it is not correct

Bad fruit? What do you mean by bad fruit? Do you mean bad people? No matter what their denomination, faith or creed is, there is always bad people. I don't know how the Catholic church has mad bad "fruit". Bad people make bad fruit, not faiths. Explain please.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top