28 March, 2012

Discussion with "PeaceByJesus" about Church authority

(PeaceByJesus) “What so-called powers do you believe “works against” conversion out of a contrite heart?”

(Cristoiglesia) I am still curious as to what you meant by the preceding statement.

(PeaceByJesus) “By briefly looking at your blog, it appears that like most RC apologists, you attempt to argue by assertion, and which is laden with presumptions based on extrapolations, including that the church of Rome is what is being referred to in 1Tim. 3:15, and that Rome today is the same church as that of the apostles, and that “pillar and foundation of the truth means the church is the supreme authority, versus Scripture.”

(Cristoiglesia) I have no idea as to what you think are assertions or extrapolations. If one of those is that the Church of Rome is being referred to in 1Tim 3:15 I would have to say that it was not just speaking of the congregation in Rome but to all of the apostolic Church. The Church of Rome, which I assume you are speaking of the congregation in Rome, certainly has apostolic origin. The Church as defined by St. Ignatius of Antioch are those who gather around the bishop’s. He said in Chapter 8 of his letter to the congregation of the Smyrnaeans :

“See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.”

(PeaceBy Jesus)That Rome has apostolic origin is not simply your assertion, but that is that Rome is the OTC (one true church), versus the EOs who also claim it on the same basis, while rejecting that St. Ignatius or other CFs substantiate Rome's assured papal infallibility and all its powers. And the extrapolation would be that Rome with its bishops is the same church at the 1st century on the basis of formal historical decent of office. Is that what you are arguing?

 (Cristoiglesia) The Catholic and Orthodox Church share the same apostolic authority from Christ so all congregations that share this authority of Christ are the true Church. Certainly the congregation in Rome shares apostolic succession with all Catholic congregations from the first century until today. I am not sure what papal infallibility has to do with the current discussion.
In absence of any evidence to the contrary from any source including historical, patristic or biblical it behooves one to understand that the Catholic Church is the only Church founded by Jesus and the disciples and that it is the self-same Church that the Bible refers to as the “pillar and foundation of the truth”.

(PeaceByJesus) Rather hasty i would say, since nothing has been offered, yet, but first i want to know if historical decent makes the magisterium of Rome supreme in any conflict, and or why her interpretation of historical, tradition and Scripture is assuredly true.

(Cristoiglesia) No, it is Christ’s promises that provides the veracity for the Church. Matt. 10:20; Luke 12:12; Matt. 16:18; Luke 10:16; John 14:16; John 16:13

The Church is the teaching authority for all Christians by the authority given to the Church by Christ. It was with this authority that the Church wrote the New Testament and canonized the Christian Bible in the late 4th and early 5th centuries at the Councils of Hippo and Carthage under the direction of St. Augustine and the apostolic authority of Pope Damasus and the Council of Florence.

(Peace By Jesus) Are you claiming that Rome provided an infallible, indisputable canon that early?
(Cristoiglesia) Certainly

(Cristoiglesia) So there is certainly no assertion of authority over Scripture as Scripture gets its authority from the Church that created it and that authority comes from Christ.

(PeaceByJesus) Sir, if the Scripture has no authority apart from Rome then it most certainly is claiming to alone be the supreme authority, thus “sola ecclesia.”

(Cristoiglesia) The Church is the teaching authority as an infallible book needs an infallible teacher. One cannot separate the Church from the written Word of God as you are attempting to do. It is not an either or situation but instead a divinely ordained and inspired relationship between the Church and God’s written Word.

The New Testament is the inspired Word of God and so is the Old Testament canonized by the Church thus there is no conflict of authority between the Bible and the Church.

(PeaceByJesus) However, most of Scripture was established as such before there ever was a church in Rome, and truth was preserved without an assuredly infallible magisterium such as Rome claims.

(Cristoiglesia) No, the New Testament books were written concurrently with the establishment of the congregation of the Church in Rome. The Bible would not be canonized for several centuries.

God bless!

In Christ
Fr. Joseph

3 comments:

  1. I have no idea as to what you think are assertions or extrapolations....the congregation in Rome, certainly has apostolic origin..The Church as defined by St. Ignatius of Antioch are those who gather around the bishop’s..

    That Rome has apostolic origin is not simply your assertion, but that is that Rome is the OTC (one true church), versus the EOs who also claim it on the same basis, while rejecting that St. Ignatius or other CFs substantiate Rome's assured papal infallibility and all its powers. And the extrapolation would be that Rome with its bishops is the same church at the 1st century on the basis of formal historical decent of office.

    Is that what you are arguing?

    In absence of any evidence to the contrary from any source including historical, patristic or biblical, it behooves one to understand that the Catholic Church is the only Church..

    Rather hasty i would say, since nothing has been offered, yet, but first i want to know if historical decent makes the magisterium of Rome supreme in any conflict, and or why her interpretation of historical, tradition and Scripture is assuredly true.

    It was with this authority that the Church wrote the New Testament and canonized the Christian Bible in the late 4th and early 5th centuries...

    Are you claiming that Rome provided an infallible, indisputable canon that early?

    So there is certainly no assertion of authority over Scripture as Scripture gets its authority from the Church.

    Sir, if the Scripture has no authority apart from Rome then it most certainly is claiming to alone be the supreme authority, thus “sola ecclesia.”

    However, most of Scripture was established as such before there ever was a church in Rome, and truth was preserved without an assuredly infallible magisterium such as Rome claims.

    More on that next time, God willing,

    ..and that authority comes from Christ...there is no conflict of authority between the Bible and the Church.

    That is an assertion, which you must agree in based upon Rome's own interpretation of tradition, history and Scripture, but again, how am i to have assurance that this is true?

    I have asked you twice before how, on what basis am i to ascertain that Rome is the OTC, and to reply to me at my email address, but instead you choose to ignore that fundamental question and switch to your blog.

    If you are going to edit my responses in my own posts here (not in your replies) and not respond to questions, then you can continue to search for someone to dialog with while you continue to reiterate your claims as if that makes them true. You chose.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Pt. 1 of 2

    I am still curious as to what you meant by the preceding statement. “works against” conversion out of a contrite heart?”

    Well, I am still curious as to what your basis is for assurance of truth, by what means (what sources and means do you appeal to), we can be sure of truth and that Rome is the OTC, and i am not getting a clear answer.

    In addition, rather than placing your latest response to my post below it, you are placing it above, which will end up making it harder to chronologically follow.

    As for “works against” conversion out of a contrite heart?” i am referring to institutionalized “Christian” religion, Catholic or Protestant, and which fosters confidence in the church and or own's own merit for salvation, and typically perfunctory professions and liberal views, which Catholics (such as Rome counts and buries as members) overall evidence. Note that what we believe and teach is not simply what we say, but what we effectually convey.

    The Catholic and Orthodox Church share the same apostolic authority from Christ so all congregations that share this authority of Christ are the true Church.

    We are looking for the One True Church in particular, and while Rome can include them as part of the “Church,” and even baptized Protestants in general as part of the body of Christ, yet both RCs and EOs claims to be the OTC in particular. And assured papal infallibility or lack thereof, among other things, is part of that uniqueness, with both claiming Tradition is on their side, and with both holding to sola ecclesia.

    Quotes:
    ► In the Nicene Creed of faith our Church is described as the "One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church": "One" because there can only be one true Church with one head Who is Christ... Each of these titles is limiting in some respects, since they define Christians belonging to particular historical or regional Churches of the Orthodox communion... After the seventh Ecumenical Council in AD 787, the basic unity of faith and ecclesiastical life between East and West began to disintegrate, due to a variety of theological, jurisdictional, cultural and political differences. This eventually led to the Great Schism between East and West of AD 1054. (http://www.goarch.org/archdiocese/)
    ► Then there are those who attempt to join together all Christian religions into one faith. They would be horrified at the idea of a service with Hindus and Christians celebrating together, yet they do not bat an eyelash at the idea of Orthodox celebrating with Roman Catholics, who with no authority broke off from the Church close to a thousand years ago. (http://www.orthodox.net/articles/against-ecumenism.html)
    ► "The Orthodox Church opposes the Roman doctrines of universal papal jurisdiction, papal infallibility, purgatory, and the Immaculate Conception precisely because they are untraditional." — Clark Carlton, THE WAY: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church, 1997, p 135>
    ►“Both purgatory and indulgences are inter-corrolated theories, unwitnessed in the Bible or in the Ancient Church, and when they were enforced and applied they brought about evil practices at the expense of the prevailing Truths of the Church. If Almighty God in His merciful loving-kindness changes the dreadful situation of the sinner, it is unknown to the Church of Christ. The Church lived for fifteen hundred years without such a theory.” — http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7076

    I am not sure what papal infallibility has to do with the current discussion.

    You are not sure what Rome's papal infallibility has to do with who the OTC is ??? RCs are defending Rome as the One True Church® in particular. Can Rome be this OTC without it?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Pt. 2

    (PBJ) i want to know if historical decent makes the magisterium of Rome supreme in any conflict

    No, it is Christ’s promises that provides the veracity for the Church. Matt. 10:20; Luke 12:12; Matt. 16:18; Luke 10:16; John 14:16; John 16:13

    Again, Church as in Rome. So despite your invoking tradition and history, it is Scripture that establishes the veracity for the Church? I did not know you were an evangelical. But that is an interpretation of Scripture, to which there are alternatives. What makes that one right, and as providing assurance ?

    And despite the competition on the basis of Tradition and history, would you say that having historical decent of magisterial office at least negates the authority of claims of those who lack it in any conflict?

    The Church is the teaching authority for all Christians by the authority given to the Church by Christ.

    By Church you mean the RCC. That is an often made claim, but repetition does not make it right.

    (Peace By Jesus) Are you claiming that Rome provided an infallible, indisputable canon that early?

    (Cristoiglesia) Certainly

    False. According to weightier sources than you, Trent was the first infallible proclamation of the canon, and thus there was dispute among Roman Catholic scholars through the centuries right into Trent (and there is yet dispute whether the canon it affirmed was exactly the same as that of Carthage and Hippo).

    The Church is the teaching authority as an infallible book needs an infallible teacher.

    Again you mean the RCC, and upon that premise, an assuredly infallible magisterium must have existed before Rome in order for people to rightly understand Scripture. Can you tell me what that was?

    Moreover, by that logic, the church must have an assured infallible interpreter of itself, as what it teaches often requires some interpretation. Can you definitely even tell me how many infallible pronouncements there are in all?

    The New Testament is the inspired Word of God and so is the Old Testament canonized by the Church thus there is no conflict of authority between the Bible and the Church.

    That is only an assertion. But what means are you assured it is right?

    (PeaceByJesus) However, most of Scripture was established as such before there ever was a church in Rome, and truth was preserved without an assuredly infallible magisterium such as Rome claims.

    (Cristoiglesia) No, the New Testament books were written concurrently with the establishment of the congregation of the Church in Rome. The Bible would not be canonized for several centuries.

    “No;” so “most of Scripture” consists of the New Testament, and before the Church of Rome salvific truth was not preserved (or assuredly known)?

    ReplyDelete