Posted on 08/20/2009 9:14:42 AM PDT by Mr Rogers
Of course, being Latin, Blessed Augustine was jurisdictionally subject to the Bishop of Rome (that is—the Patriarch of the West).
That's not how the undivided Church operated. Church doctrine was decided by the General (Ecumenical) Councils, or consensus patrum, as Mark said. Of course the Pope's approval was always critical.
But, as in the case of Canon XXVIII of the Council of Chalcedon, the Pope "vetoes" it, but the Council passed it, the Emperor approved and by the yimre a year was up even the Illyrian bishops, under +Pope Leo I 's jurisdiction accepted it.
The Catholic Church recognized Canon XXVIII at the (faux) re-unification Council in Florence, a thousand years later, yet the Latin Church recognized the Council of Chalcedon despite papal objections and refusal to sign Canon XXVIII.
In other words, there was no "Whatever the Pope says, I believe..." stuff. The Church was conciliar, not dictatorial, even though +Leo I was credited for being the father of imperial papacy..
I agree - with the undivided church. I was referring to this comment about the modern Catholic Church:
“The Protestant view of the Church normally does not understand the consensus patrem. In this type of operation, there are many opinions that may be wide ranging, but there are those that are selected to become Church doctrine and belief.”
It could be I was mixing consensuses between modern and ancient...Protestants also have a hard time setting aside our current understanding when reading about the past.
When I read the Papal proclamation on a feast day for Mary’s Assumption, I was shocked by the ‘this saint said this, this saint said that, my beloved sainted predecessor said this, and painting show that...’ approach to doctrine. It was so far out of my background that I went to the Vatican website to see if I was being spoofed.
Granting that we don't, -- so?
Because the Catohlic Church canonized the book.
and how do you know "we" know the original intent of that his choice?
We don't always know, but when there is a danger of misinterpretation, the Church helps. How does she know? The Holy Spirit dictates her what to decide.
none of the authors was there to see or hear what transpired
That is quite miraculous, isn't it?
throughout the rest of the Bible [...] God's Spirit (power) is likened to the wind (powerful breath) that moves people and things
In Luke 12, for example, Jesus says "the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what you must say". That is closer to dictation than to moving people. Likewise in John 16, "when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak". An in John 14, "the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you". All these passages refer to actual speach of the Holy Ghost, and not to mere suggestons and encouragements.
The basic governing principle of authority vested in the Church has not changed since Blessed Augustine's writings. What changed is where that authority lies, at least in the Latin Church.
The Church claimed magisterial authority pretty much by the end of the first century, based on what +Ignatius wrote c. AD 105 when he says "where there is a bishop, there is the catholic Church."
And the New Testament speaks of "leaders" and "elders" of the Church in Paul's Epistles, which means the hierarchical authority existed in the late 40's or early 50's of the 1st century.
And +Paul specifically states that God appoints some to be apostles, some presbyters, teachers, etc., suggesting that not even God wanted everyone to be the "royal priesthood." Only some are called to specific duties in the Church. The NT also tells us that Jesus revealed his secrets to the apostles privately, and to no one else (Mar 4:34).*
*Here, of course the issue of translational bias becomes apparent. Protestant versions (KJV, NIV, etc) tend to ignore the private aspect of the message, but the word idios can mean only one thing – to one's own, and no one else.
Also, the elders in the Church during Paul's lifetime took it upon themselves (as their "right" or authority) to commission (ordain) in the name of God by laying of the hands. No one apparently waited for God to appoint anyone as he did with allegedly with +Paul or the prophets of the Old Testament. The choosing now became part of the "authority" vested in the primitive Church in the earliest days of the Church.
So, there is no doubt that the Church hierarchy and authority vested in some individuals existed from the beginning so to say, and that they passed on that authority on those they elected and laid their hands on, in the name and in place of God. The church was a caste-system from the beginning by all accounts.
As the apostolic age drew to a close, the bishops (presbyters) were seen as apostolic successors (office-wise, not inspiration-wise), whose authority has been passed on to them via election of the elders. And it was up to the bishop to oversee doctrine and faith. Naturally, just as the apostles did not lord over each other, neither did the bishops.
They were all of equal dignity, i.e. Peter was not telling Paul what is doctrine, nor did Peter jurisdictionally oversee other apostles. Ecclesial divisions and ranking among bishops began later on, when the diocese grew in size and number of believers, and one bishop could not be a shepherd to all at the same time.
Eventually, the centers of power began to shift from early Churches (Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria) to the seat of imperial power and dignity of the Senate of Rome, which was an immensely important symbolic factor of Roman authority (remember that the official title of the Roman State was the Senate and People of Rome, or Senatus Populusque Romanus, otherwise known as the acronym SPQR).
As the Senate moved together with the imperial throne to Constantinople (New Rome) that city (and the bishop';s seat in that city) took on the dignity equal to (the old) Rome, and only second in honor (Canon XXVIII, Council of Chalcedon), eclipsing older, biblical centers of Christianity mentioned earlier).
The evolution of the magisterial power in the Latin Church shifted to the pope, first with +Leo I in the early 5th century, by insisting on the biblical primacy of the successor of Peter, and then, due to historical developments, the western Church de facto began to separate itself from the East liturgically, linguistically and theologically and jurisdictionally by the 6th century.
By then, hardly anyone spoke Greek in the West creating a de facto schism, the filioque was added illegitimately to the Creed, the Traditional Latin Mass was in its final remaining steps of completion, and the popes were seeking alternate sponsors among Frankish kings while still officially being subjects, and owing allegiance (on paper) to the Emperor in Constantinople.
In fact, the "undivided" Church spent decades in actual schism with the East over theological and other issues between the 5th and the 11th century. After the Great Schism in 1054, the imperial papacy became the norm, but it was not until the Vatican I (end of 19th century) that the papal "ex-cathedra infallibility" took on the authority of a dogma.
As the "Viccar of Christ" on earth, the pope is under no obligation to consult with, or receive approval from the College of Cardinals—and can proclaim dogma or doctrine by fiat (i.e. the dogma of Immaculate Conception, c. middle of the 19th century).
While this may seem repulsive to more conciliar-minded Christian communities such as yours of the Eastern Orthodox Church, the truth is that the authority to interpret and to determine doctrine has only been shifted from many bishops to one.
Thus, the authority of the Church as the source of magisterium has not changed from the beginning (and in the beginning it was not based on scripture because the NT has not been written yet); what has changed is only in the number of individuals claiming that absolute authority.
If you are going to question the authority of the Church, you are questioning something that not even the apostles questioned. If you are going to insist that the authority comes from the scripture, scriptures themselves prove you wrong. By accepting the scirputres you accept the hierarchichal authoirty of the Church.
The belief that Mary was assumed into heaven body and soul is as quite old, going back to the early Church. In the East, it was celebrated as the Feast of the Dormition of Theotokos (not exactly sure of the date of this custom).
Although it was never acquired in the West, the Church as a whole believed it by all accounts. So, the Pope wasn't really just pulling rabbits out of a hat. It is a traditional belief in the Church, held by early Christians and apparently approved tacitly or openly by the hierarchy, even if it was not dogmatized until later.
In fact, in the Eastern Orthodox Church, it has never been dogmatized, yet the Feast of the Dormition of the Theotokos has been celebrated without interruption ever since it began.
That is not a fact; that is a belief. Just because you believe something doesn't make it true, Alex. You can claim it as a belief but not as a fact.
[Kosta: and how do you know "we" know the original intent of that his choice?] Alex: The Holy Spirit dictates her what to decide.
How do you know that? Again, you are presenting your beliefs as facts. if they are facts I want factual proof.
In Luke 12, for example, Jesus says "the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what you must say".
No, the verse reads "what is necessary (dei) to say."The choice is still yours. Is this like the one "don't worry what you will eat...?" How many have starved doing that?
The oldest Luke copies date to the third century (P45 and P75). We don't know if those words are a latter-day interpolation or not. We know how the Old Testament speaks of the Spirit of God, and it doesn't match Luke or John. The word for spirit simply means "breath" in Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek. Also, you can be taught without speaking in words or dictating.
That is closer to dictation than to moving people
Obviously not, Alex. A hot stove "taught" me what was necessary not to do. A knife "taught" me what wabsolutely necessary not to cut myself.
Likewise in John 16, "when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak [and he will shew you things to come.]"
That sentence makes no sense. The Spirit will serve as your "fly on the wall!?" This Spirit, whom Christians believe is God Himself, has to "hear" things in order to let you know?! This is like that Old Testament passage where God has to come "down" to see what's going on in order to know! LOL!
An in John 14, "the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you". All these passages refer to actual speach of the Holy Ghost, and not to mere suggestons and encouragements
No, they don't, Alex. What they show is a state of doctrinal confusion and development of doctrine in the early Church as to who or what the Holy Spirit is and what He really does. Obviously John's concept of an all-seeing and all-knowing Holy Spirit is deficient because He has to "hear" things in order to tell you.
Or, in another exmaple, all known surviving copies of John call Jesus God, yet in John 15:15 Jesus says "For all things that I have heard [sic] from my Father I have made known to you"! You don't see serious Chrisotlogical and Penumatic issues in these passages?
Another problem is: If Jesus told his disicples everything he heard from the Father that means the Father hasn't told the Son everything if the Spirit has to teach us the rest.
Of course, +John wrote at the end of the century. His Gospel is like night and day compared to the other three. A lot has happened between 33 AD and 99 AD. Christianity was no longer a Jewish sect.
In fact, John depicts Jesus referring to the Jews as if he were not one of them — "your law" or "of the Jews" (John 5:1; 7:2; 11:55). A whole new religion was in the making...
Not really, Alex. Think about it: If God himself has to come "down" and "see" and "hear" what's going on, it seems silly to say that the disciples saw and heard without being there!
***As written when and by whom? By the author of Hebrews? By the author of 2 Peter? Who were Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? Who wrote Revelation? We don’t know
Granting that we don’t, — so?***
So we defer to the Church as to its interpretation. It doesn’t matter that the translation from Greek to Greek to Greek to Latin to Latin to English to English is less than pure. It only matters that the interpretation is.
It sound, Kosta, that you have your own interpretation of the passages in view which competes with the Catholic interpretation. If the Catholic interpretation has not become clear to you till this point, let us focus on what your remaining questions are.
As to your own ideas, I might have a comment if you present them in some systematic way.
Yes, I agree.
But I think Mr. Rogers was asking (and rightfully so) what is that interpretation based on, and what makes it authoritative in an absolute sense if not on faith alone? That's hardly a proof.
The Catholic interpretation is perfectly clear to me. I just don't agree with it because it's telling me the Emperor has clothes when I can see clearly he doesn't.
As to your own ideas, I might have a comment if you present them in some systematic way
How about if you just explain why does the Holy Spirit have to "hear" things in order to tell you? One would think he would know already without having to hear it.
And this secret knowldge that is being passed on is precisely why John was so popualr with Gnostics.
Alex, I fully understand your indignation. My reaction to discoveries of this sort scadalized me as well until it became apparent that things were not exaclty as we learned in Sunday school.
What is there to explain? The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are persons. That’s what persons do, they talk and they hear. They don’t teach that in Sunday School?
***It doesn’t matter that the translation from Greek to Greek to Greek to Latin to Latin to English to English is less than pure. It only matters that the interpretation is
But I think Mr. Rogers was asking (and rightfully so) what is that interpretation based on, and what makes it authoritative in an absolute sense if not on faith alone? That’s hardly a proof.***
No, it isn’t. We have the current Scripture and we have the other documentation that the Church possesses that indicates its authority to translate, interpret and teach. Does that constitute absolute proof? Of course not. But the documents held by the Church, and Scripture itself, point to the authority of the Church and refutes the authority of any individual. Again, it is not proof.
It does come down to faith. We have many indications that the faith is justified, yet in the end, it is faith. Kosta and I have been part of many conversations in the last couple of years that illustrated the differences between faith and proof, or faith and knowledge. I suspect that we will continue in the future as well.
If we have no Magisterium, we have the development of anyone with whatever version of the Bible coming up with whatever they happen to come up. The JWs and the Pentecostals come to mind.
Of course. What makes you think I would disagree?
You seem to have some argument with me, judging by the several recent posts, but I do not know what that argument is. If - I am venturing a guess — you think that because of the multiplicity of codices, the need for magisterium, and the error of private interpretation, the scripture is not inerrant (despite the magisterial teaching in the Providentissimus Deus encyclical), then I do not see how it follows.
***You seem to have some argument with me***
Not really. Mostly agreeing with your posts up to the point of the claim of inerrant Scripture. Scripture is not; the Church’s interpretation is.
Particular codices and translations are not. The original -- whether we have it or not -- is inerrant, per the very Magisterial teaching, which is as you admit inerrant.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.