Skip to comments.
Was The Papacy Established By Christ? (Part 2)
triablogue ^
| June 24, 2006
| Jason Engwer
Posted on 06/19/2015 6:54:04 PM PDT by RnMomof7
Was The Papacy Established By Christ? (Part 2)
Because neither the apostolic nor the earliest post-apostolic Christians refer to a jurisdictional primacy of the bishop of Rome, Catholics often cite references to
any type of primacy of the Roman
church. But a non-jurisdictional primacy of the Roman church doesn't prove a jurisdictional primacy of the Roman bishop.
Even Peter himself isn't referred to as having papal authority among the early post-apostolic sources. Terence Smith explains:
"there is an astonishing lack of reference to Peter among ecclesiastical authors of the first half of the second century. He is barely mentioned in the Apostolic Fathers, nor by Justin and the other Apologists" (cited in Robert Eno, The Rise of the Papacy [Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, 1990], p. 15)
Concepts of Petrine supremacy (as well as a primacy of Paul or James in some places, for example) did develop over time. Cyprian, for example, a bishop who lived in the third century, believed in a primacy of Peter, but it was a non-jurisdictional primacy (On the Unity of the Church, 4), and Cyprian repeatedly denied, in multiple contexts, that the bishop of Rome or any other bishop has universal jurisdiction (Letter 51:21, Letter 54:14, Letter 67:5, Letter 71:3, Letter 72:26). The Roman Catholic scholar Robert Eno wrote:
"it is clear that he [Cyprian] did not see the bishop of Rome as his superior, except by way of honor...it is clear that in Cyprian's mind, one theological conclusion he does not draw is that the bishop of Rome has authority which is superior to that of the African bishops" (The Rise of the Papacy [Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, 1990], pp. 59-60)
Roman Catholic scholar William La Due:
"In the context of his life and his convictions reflected in his actions and his writings, Cyprian's position can be paraphrased as follows: Peter received the power of the keys, the power to bind and loose, before the other apostles received the same powers. This priority - in time - symbolizes the unity of episcopal power which is held by all in the same way. The only difference is that Peter was granted the power a short time before the others. It must be said that the impact of Cyprian's symbolism is not entirely clear. He was not a speculative theologian but a preacher, trained more as a lawyer than as a rhetorician. His meaning, from the context of his conduct as a bishop, seems quite unambiguous. And those who see in The Unity of the Catholic Church, in the light of his entire episcopal life, an articulation of the Roman primacy - as we have come to know it, or even as it has evolved especially from the latter fourth century on - are reading a meaning into Cyprian which is not there." (The Chair of Saint Peter [Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1999], p. 39)
Catholic scholar Klaus Schatz:
"He [Cyprian] does not rely on any specific responsibility of Stephen [bishop of Rome] as primate....Cyprian regarded every bishop as the successor of Peter, holder of the keys to the kingdom of heaven and possessor of the power to bind and loose. For him, Peter embodied the original unity of the Church and the episcopal office, but in principle these were also present in every bishop. For Cyprian, responsibility for the whole Church and the solidarity of all bishops could also, if necessary, be turned against Rome." (Papal Primacy [Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1996], p. 20)
Even the conservative Roman Catholic theologian Ludwig Ott acknowledged:
"St. Cyprian of Carthage attests the pre-eminence of the Roman Church...However, his attitude in the controversy regarding the re-baptism of heretics shows that he had not yet achieved a clear conception of the scope of the Primacy." (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma [Rockford, Illinois: Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., 1974], p. 284)
Eastern Orthodox scholar Veselin Kesich:
"In his controversy with Bishop Stephen (254-257), Cyprian expressed the view that any bishop, whether in Rome or elsewhere, was included in Jesus' message to Peter. Like Tertullian, Cyprian is unwilling to accept the claim of exclusive authority for the Bishop of Rome on the basis of
Mt 16:18-19....Peter is not superior in power to the other apostles, for according to Cyprian all of them are equal." (The Primacy of Peter, John Meyendorff, editor [Crestwood, New York: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1992], p. 63)
Anglican scholar J.N.D. Kelly:
"Cyprian made plain, that each bishop is entitled to hold his own views and to administer his own diocese accordingly...[In Cyprian's view] There is no suggestion that he [Peter] possessed any superiority to, much less jurisdiction over, the other apostles...While he [Cyprian] is prepared, in a well-known passage, to speak of Rome as 'the leading church', the primacy he has in mind seems to be one of honour." (Early Christian Doctrines [San Francisco, California: HarperCollins Publishers, 1978], pp. 205-206)
In Cyprian we see an example of a father who thinks highly of Peter and the bishops of Rome without believing in a papacy. In fact, he
contradicted the concept. With Cyprian in mind as an example of how Catholics often misrepresent the fathers to make them appear to have supported the papacy when they actually
didnt, lets consider the earliest evidence cited by Catholic apologists.
Clement of Rome, the earliest church father and a Roman bishop, sent a letter to the Corinthian church to counsel them about a dispute involving the leadership of their church. Such letters were common in early Christianity (Ignatius' letter to Polycarp, Polycarp's letter to the Philippian church, etc.), and no jurisdictional superiority, much less papal authority, is implied by the sending of such a letter. To the contrary, the letter is written in the name of the church of Rome, not the bishop of Rome, and the letter makes many appeals to various authorities (scripture, Jesus, the apostles, the Holy Spirit, etc.), but never to any papal authority. Thomas Halton comments:
"Some scholars anachronistically saw in the epistle an assertion of Roman primacy, but nowadays a hermeneutic of collegiality is more widely accepted." (Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, Everett Ferguson, editor [New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1999], p. 253)
Other early sources, such as Ignatius and Dionysius of Corinth, commend the Roman church for virtues such as love and generosity, but say nothing of any jurisdictional primacy of the Roman bishop. Irenaeus speaks highly of the Roman church, but gives non-papal reasons for doing so. Roman Catholic scholar William La Due comments:
"It is indeed understandable how this passage [in Irenaeus] has baffled scholars for centuries! Those who were wont to find in it a verification of the Roman primacy were able to interpret it in that fashion. However, there is so much ambiguity here that one has to be careful of over-reading the evidence....Karl Baus' interpretation [that Irenaeus was not referring to a papacy] seems to be the one that is more faithful to the text and does not presume to read into it a meaning which might not be there. Hence, it neither overstates nor understates Irenaeus' position. For him [Irenaeus], it is those churches of apostolic foundation that have the greater claim to authentic teaching and doctrine. Among those, Rome, with its two apostolic founders, certainly holds an important place. However, all of the apostolic churches enjoy what he terms 'preeminent authority' in doctrinal matters." (The Chair of Saint Peter [Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1999], p. 28)
Similarly, Tertullian gives non-papal reasons for the importance of the Roman church (The Prescription Against Heretics, 36). Regarding Origen, the Catholic scholar Robert Eno explains that "a plain recognition of Roman primacy or of a connection between Peter and the contemporary bishop of Rome seems remote from Origens thoughts" (The Rise of the Papacy [Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, 1990], p. 43).
The first reference to a papacy or something similar to it is found in the Roman bishop Stephen, acting in his own interests, around the middle of the third century. Peter had been dead for nearly two centuries before the doctrine first appears. When Stephen asserted it, he was opposed by bishops in the West and East, such as Cyprian and Firmilian. Thus, the papacy was absent, including in contexts where we would expect it to be mentioned, for about the first two centuries of church history, then arose in Rome and gradually became more widely accepted in the West and sometimes to some extent in the East. But even in the West, the papacy was accepted only gradually and inconsistently. Some of the earliest ecumenical councils would either imply or explicitly state a rejection of the doctrine. The Catholic scholar Klaus Schatz summarizes:
"Rome did not succeed in maintaining its position against the contrary opinion and praxis of a significant portion of the Church. The two most important controversies of this type were the disputes over the feast of Easter [in the second century] and heretical baptism [in the third century]. Each marks a stage in Rome's sense of authority and at the same time reveals the initial resistance of other churches to the Roman claim." (Papal Primacy [Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1996], p. 11)
Its important to recognize that the early sources had many opportunities to mention a papacy if they believed in such a concept. When men like Clement of Rome and Tertullian comment on issues of authority and the status of the Roman church without mentioning a papacy, the absence of the concept is significant. When men like Ignatius and Irenaeus write at length on issues of authority and Christian unity, without even once mentioning a papacy, that absence is significant. They explicitly and frequently mention offices such as bishop and deacon. They explicitly and frequently make appeals to Jesus, the Holy Spirit, the apostles, prominent churches, and other authorities. They explicitly and frequently discuss the Messiahship of Jesus, the virgin birth, the resurrection, the unique authority of the apostles, and other basic Christian doctrines, so it cant be argued that they didnt mention a papacy only because it was already known to and assumed by everybody. The fact that
other concepts were known and assumed didnt keep the early sources from explicitly and frequently mentioning
those concepts. Why didnt they mention a papacy?
They did sometimes mention a prominence of the Roman church. And, thus, Catholic apologists have attempted to transform the prominence of the Roman church into a jurisdictional primacy of the Roman bishop. But if the papacy is an oak tree, the prominence of the early Roman church is more like an apple seed than an acorn. It has to be manipulated if we want to transform it into an oak tree. If the seed is being
manipulated so as to arrive at a desired
unnatural conclusion, then its not comparable to an acorn
naturally growing into an oak.
The early prominence of the Roman church doesnt logically lead to a papacy. The churches in Jerusalem, Rome, Alexandria, and other cities have been prominent at different times in church history for different reasons, and none of them can claim an apostolic jurisdictional primacy for their bishop as a result. It would be sort of like arguing that since the city of Philadelphia was prominent during the time of the founders of America, then the founders must have intended whatever authority claims the mayor of Philadelphia makes hundreds of years after the founders have died. If Ignatius thinks highly of the virtues of the Roman church or Tertullian commends the Roman church because some of the apostles labored and suffered in Rome, it doesnt logically follow that these church fathers would agree with a later claim of universal jurisdiction by the bishop of Rome.
TOPICS: Catholic; Charismatic Christian; Evangelical Christian; Other non-Christian; Skeptics/Seekers
KEYWORDS: catholicism; history; papacy; theology
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81 next last
To: Steelfish
“Id ignore this rot from shallow Bible Christians”
Hi Steelfish! I hope your vacation was refreshing.
Have you found the list of Official Traditions of Paul you claim is valid today?
If not, then your posts are a case of “shallow tradition christians.”
Show us the list please, and support your claim.
41
posted on
06/20/2015 7:25:51 AM PDT
by
aMorePerfectUnion
( "Forward lies the crown, and onward is the goal.")
To: yosephdaviyd
“Absolutely the understanding of the role of the successor of Peter became better understood over time, just as many other doctrines and Traditions were (Trinity, the Sacraments, the Canon and etc.), but that doesnt take away from the fact that they were always believed.”
I don’t believe “they were always believed.” However, even if true, that would in no way prove anything. The Bible tells us the spirit of antichrist was already at work in the apostles day. From the outset Satan worked to hijack authentic Christian belief. In Paul’s epistles he repeatedly warned against the rise of false teachers. He told us it would happen. In fact he specifically named a number of false teachers working in his own day. The fact that someone believed something 2000 years ago may not mean what you think it means.
The Bible teaches that it is Scripture that is to be used as measuring stick to determine truth from error. In Galatians 1:8-9, Paul states that it is not WHO teaches but WHAT is being taught that is to be used to determine truth from error. While the Roman Catholic Church continues to pronounce a curse to hell, or anathema, upon those who would reject the authority of the pope, Scripture reserves that curse for those who would teach a different gospel (Galatians 1:8-9).
To: Wyrd bið ful aræd
And yet your Catholicism keeps insisting that adherents drink the literal blood of Jesus. Your Catholicism keeps insisting the priests of Catholicism can take a cup of wine and it is magically transubstantiated into the literal blood of Jesus Christ! And then these same priests insist the congregants drink this literal blood, in absolute contradiction to what God declared in Leviticus 3:17 that fro all their generations the Jews shall not eat the blood. The Life is in the Blood. The life Jesus sacrificed on the Cross Justifies theose who believe in Him. His blood sanctifies by the sprinkling upon the Mercy Seat OVER the law of sin and death, thus releasing the believers from the law of sin and death. This is not accomplished in the bellies of catholics, for Jesus told His disciples that what goes in the mouth comes out in the drought. Jesus broke the bread and passed the cup that Passover night as teaching His disciples to practice a REMEMBRANCE of His coming sacrifice for them. Just as they were eating unleavened bread as a remembrance of the exodus from Egypt so long ago. He established a remembrance not a cannibalistic gastronomic ritual that would contradict the commandment of God given in Leviticus. Your catholic religion keeps repeating that blasphemy so often that it is now accepted as truth. well, to Catholicism it may be truth, but it is an absolute contradiction of God’s own commandments tot he Israelites, and I’m certain those Jewish men in attendance on that Passover night were Israelites.
43
posted on
06/20/2015 8:08:39 AM PDT
by
MHGinTN
(Is it really all relative, Mister Einstein?)
To: .45 Long Colt
In and of ourselves, I dont think any of us can make a dent. The Lord has to open their eyes. Rome cleverly offers a system of religion that is satisfying to men. You're close. I can fix it:
In and of ourselves, I dont think any of us can make a dent. The Lord has to open their eyes. Satan cleverly offers a system of religion that is satisfying to men.
44
posted on
06/20/2015 8:32:04 AM PDT
by
kinsman redeemer
(The real enemy seeks to devour what is good.)
To: RnMomof7
Sola Scriptura
As Presented by Jason Engwer
Jason Engwer presents a challenge to those who reject the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura. Mr. Engwer presents this challenge on his website. Since this is a public challenge, primarily directed toward Catholics, I will answer that webpage section by section.
Mr. Engwer begins with a quote from St. Peter, our first Pope:
“This is now, beloved, the second epistle that I write unto you; and in both of them I stir up your sincere mind by putting you in remembrance; that ye should remember the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and the commandments of the Lord and Saviour through your apostles” - 2 Peter 3:1-2
Shall we then remember the words of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, who said to the same Peter, “Thou art Peter (Rock), and upon this Rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.” (Matt. 16:18-19) Here, a man, not a book, is given ALL authority over the Church. Jesus doesn’t grant Peter authority over just certain things, but over “whatsoever” he binds and “whatsoever” he looses.
Shall we also remember that similar authority is given to the rest of the Apostles by our Lord when he said to them: “Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.” (Matt. 18:18) Again, granting to the college of Apostles (our first bishops) a similar authority He earlier gave to St. Peter alone. Similar, but not identical, for there is no mention of “the keys” when He grants the Apostles the authority to bind and loose. “The keys” is something specially given to St. Peter.
Sola scriptura, as popularly defined by Protestants, including Mr. Engwer, is that the Bible alone is the sole infallible rule of faith for Christians. They claim there is no other infallible source, ONLY the Bible is to be our infallible guide. But nowhere in the Bible do we find this teaching! If this were such a foundational teaching for Christians, we would expect this to be a teaching boldly presented by Jesus and/or the Gospel and/or Epistle writers. On the contrary, as I have already documented above, Jesus has given infallible authority to first Peter alone, and then a bit later to the college of the Apostles (our first bishops). This authority is infallible because not only is “whatsoever” they bind bound on earth, but it is also bound in heaven. Error cannot be bound in heaven, therefore whatsoever they bind is infallibly bound.
Further, the Apostles hold an “office” and one that must be filled upon their passing, it is noted from Acts 1:20, 25-26: “For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let their habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein. And his bishopric let another take... To take the place of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas hath by transgression fallen, that he might go to his own place. And they gave them lot, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.” So this was a “ministry” and a “bishopric” (some translate “bishopric” to “office”) an office which, according to the Psalms, had to be filled.
The office of “Apostle” or “bishop” is not limited to just those twelve, for later Saul, renamed to St. Paul, is ordained to the same office and counted as an Apostle:
Rom 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle,
Rom 11:13 For I say to you, Gentiles: As long indeed as I am the apostle of the Gentiles,
1Co 1:1 Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God,
1Co 9:1 Am I not I free? Am not I an apostle?
1Co 9:2 And if unto others I be not an apostle, but yet to you I am. For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.
1Co 15:9 For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
2Co 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God,
Gal 1:1 Paul, an apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead:
Eph 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ, by the will of God,
Col 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ, by the will of God,
1Ti 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ,
1Ti 2:7 Whereunto I am appointed a preacher and an apostle
2Ti 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ, by the will of God,
2Ti 1:11 Wherein I am appointed a preacher and an apostle and teacher of the Gentiles.
Tit 1:1 Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ
Others called Apostle:
Act 14:14 (14:13) Which, when the apostles Barnabas and Paul had heard...
Phi 2:25 But I have thought it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus, my brother and fellow labourer and fellow soldier, but your apostle: and he that hath ministered to my wants.
Timothy’s authority is equated to Paul’s by St. Paul himself:
1Co 4:17 For this cause have I sent to you Timothy, who is my dearest son and faithful in the Lord. Who will put you in mind of my ways, which are in Christ Jesus: as I teach every where in every church.
1Co 16:10 Now if Timothy come, see that he be with you without fear: for he worketh the work of the Lord, as I also do.
And Sylvanus is mentioned equally with Timothy and “us:”
2Co 1:19 For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by us, by me and Sylvanus and Timothy, was not: It is and It is not. But, It is, was in him.
1Th 1:1 Paul and Sylvanus and Timothy to the church of the Thessalonians: in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ.
2Th 1:1 Paul and Sylvanus and Timothy, to the church of the Thessalonians.
Phi 1:1 Paul and Timothy, the servants of Jesus Christ: to all the saints in Christ Jesus who are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons.
1Th 3:2 And we sent Timothy, our brother and the minister of God in the gospel of Christ,
The “Office” Continues:
Rom 12:4 For as in one body we have many members, but all the members have not the same office:
2Co 9:12 Because the administration of this office doth not only supply the want of the saints, but aboundeth also by many thanksgivings in the Lord.
1Ti 3:1 A faithful saying: If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth good work.
So, it is established that there is an office of bishop, and that office originally held by the Apostles themselves continues in the Christian Church. It is likewise established that along with the office of the bishop comes authority of infallibility, either in the successor of St. Peter alone, or in the unity of the college of bishops. Nowhere in Scripture do we find that this authority is ended with the death of the first Apostles (as some Protestants contend). Timothy and Syvanus taught with the same authority as St. Paul, the Apostle. Epaphroditus is called an apostle. The true Christian Church is one that is in valid succession from and in valid unity with the Apostolic succession - and the one that claims and adheres to this other infallible rule of faith which is clearly established within the confines of the Scriptures themselves.
There’s an argument that’s often used by Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and other groups that deny sola scriptura. It’s an argument that can and should be refuted, but it usually isn’t. What I’m referring to is this, that those who adhere to sola scriptura are criticized for the disagreements that exist among them. Supposedly, the fact that adherents of sola scriptura disagree with one another on some issues is evidence that scripture must be insufficient as a rule of faith. Opponents of sola scriptura often mention the existence of thousands of different organizations that all claim to be following sola scriptura, yet disagree with one another about what the Bible teaches. Many of those who reject sola scriptura say that this disunity is unacceptable. We need an infallible interpreter of scripture to tell us what the Bible actually means, they say.
While I would agree it is a bit unfair to compare differing groups of Protestants which claim adherence to sola scriptura, but define not only different parts of scripture differently, but also differ on the very definition of sola scriptura itself. However, it is a valid point that IF sola scriptura was enough to rule and guide the Christian Church, then the Scriptures - “interpretting themselves” (as some adherents contend) should present us with one, clear, undeniable truth - yet there are undeniable differences among Christians and even among those who claim adherence to sola scriptura. Whereas it is not real fair to paint with such a broad brush, it is a valid point to be raised and considered.
To make this a more fair comparison, let me ask Mr. Engwer this, since we obviously disagree on the interpretation of Matthew 16:18, what makes his interpretation more valid than mine? On what authority does Mr. Engwer base his interpretation? Mine is based in the Scripture itself and nearly 2000 years of Catholic sacred tradition. But, if we rely on “Scripture Alone” then, when the Scripture says that men can bind or loose things on earth and the same things are bound or loosed in heaven - since it is totally unfathomable for error to be bound in heaven, the Scripture itself is defining an infallible authority in men. This does not denegrate the infallibility of Scripture itself - but to deny the infallibility of the Apostles and the office they held and passed down is to deny the Scriptures. If the “Scriptures Alone” are to be our sole infallible rule of faith, then we have to deny the Apostles could and their successors can “bind or loose whatsoever,” which, again, is a denial of the Scriptures themselves. Clearly, Mr. Engwer’s position is destroyed on this point alone.
Often, this argument isn’t even responded to. A lot of people who accept sola scriptura don’t seem to be prepared to defend the concept. When advocates of sola scriptura do respond to the arguments raised against their rule of faith, however, they usually respond in a few ways.
First, they point out that the fact that some people misinterpret the Bible isn’t a problem with the Bible itself. It’s a problem with the fallible people who are interpreting the Bible.
Again, I assert, then WHO is authorized to interpret the Scriptures to provide us with infallible definitions? Certainly Mr. Engwer has a point that “fallible people interpretting the Bible” may misinterpret it - but if there is no other infallible authority then how can anyone be assured their “teachers” and “preachers” are providing them with an “infallible truth” - since by Mr. Engwer’s own admission, NONE of these men are infallible?
They also point out that the groups that oppose sola scriptura have disagreements among themselves as to how to interpret their rule of faith. Within groups such as Anglicanism, Roman Catholicism, and Eastern Orthodoxy, there are liberals and conservatives, as well as people in-between. If disagreements in interpreting a rule of faith prove that the rule of faith is insufficient, then there is no sufficient rule of faith. Every rule of faith that has been proposed can be, and has been, interpreted in different ways by different people. While it’s true that all Catholics, for example, have organizational unity, that’s because their rule of faith is inseparable from the organization they follow. Scripture, on the other hand, is not an organization. When opponents of sola scriptura point to the large number of separate organizations that advocate sola scriptura, then contrast that with the unity among the members of their organization, they’re making an invalid comparison. What they’re saying is, “Our organization has more organizational unity than your group of organizations has.” Of course it does. One organization always has, by definition, more organizational unity than a group of organizations has. It couldn’t be any other way. It doesn’t prove much to say that Catholics, for example, have organizational unity with one another, whereas evangelicals don’t. By definition, to be Catholic involves belonging to the Roman Catholic denomination. It would be impossible for Catholics not to have organizational unity with one another. Similarly, every member of a Baptist or Methodist denomination has organizational unity with every other member of that organization. But within any organization, including ones that reject sola scriptura, there can be all sorts of disagreements among liberals, moderates, and conservatives. It was spiritual rather than organizational unity that Jesus and the apostles commended (Luke 9:49-50, 1 Corinthians 11:18), and the organizations that deny sola scriptura have a lot of spiritual disunity within them, just as there’s spiritual disunity among those who practice sola scriptura.
Mr. Engwer has built up a strawman here. The problem with sola scriptura is not that Catholics are more united than those who adhere to sola scriptura. The problem is, if sola scriptura is truly the sole infallible rule of faith then by its very nature it should produce unity among those that adhere to it.
The fact of the matter is, there IS more unity among the groups Mr. Engwer mentions (Anglicans, Catholics and Eastern Orthodoxy) in our central teachings, the Sacraments. It is through the Sacraments that we receive Grace, and we are not in disagreement on what we consider sacramental. Mr. Engwer cannot claim any such unity among Protestant denominations, especially when discussing the Sacrament of Baptism. Some “communities” believe that baptism is absolutely necessary, while others do not. Some demand that baptism must be by immersion, and/or immersion in running water - others say sprinkling is enough. Some (Protestant communities) believe that baptism removes Original Sin, while others believe it is only a symbol. Some (Protestant communities) believe it is okay to baptize infants, others demand that baptism is only valid if done with full consent of the person being baptized and after they’ve reached the age of reason. All these differences over just ONE of the Sacraments, yet the groups that Mr. Engwer named are completely in unity over their beliefs in baptism.
Anglicans, Catholics and Orthodox are also united in belief in the Real Presence in the Eucharist. They all consider marriage the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony. They all participate in the Sacraments of Confession, Confirmation, Holy Orders and Extreme Unction. These are things which are central to our Faith, and we are not divided over them. So, even though Mr. Engwer tries to use this “they are as disunited as we are” argument, his argument is based in a false premise. Protestantism truly is disunited in not only these core beliefs of Christianity but also in what they consider to be essential beliefs of fellow Christians! As I pointed out earlier, even over the doctrine of sola scriptura there is not one definitive statement of what it is. Yes, if we only look at say “The Reformed Baptist” definition of sola scriptura, there is one definition.
Advocates of sola scriptura also point out that their opponents have to rely on their own fallible interpretations, even if they don’t want to. In order to reach the conclusion that an organization such as the Roman Catholic Church has the authority to infallibly interpret the Bible for us, we must interpret for ourselves the evidence that leads to that conclusion, including what the Bible teaches. Does a Catholic want to claim that Matthew 16 and the teachings of the church fathers prove that the papacy is a true doctrine? How does he make such an argument without using his own judgment to interpret Matthew 16 and to decide which church father teachings are accurate and which aren’t? Personal, fallible interpretation is impossible to avoid.
This part of Mr. Engwer’s argumentation is merely a red herring. Mr. Engwer asserts that somehow everyone must privately interpret, but he doesn’t give us any sort of concrete example. The fact is we need an infallible interpreter for any of the teachings we believe, even those from the Bible. We rely on such an interpreter, even if we do not realize it, even Mr. Engwer does. For example, we both believe that if we believe and are baptized, we shall be saved. That’s straight from the Bible - but is our “personal, fallible interpretation” anymore valid than that of an atheist or a pagan? We believe this because it is written in the Bible, but we believe the Bible because it is certified by the Church. The Bible did not compile itself, it was compiled by the Church. Even the canon of the Bible was in a state of flux for the first 400 years of the New Testament Church - even longer if we are to accept the Protestant canon. The fact of the matter here is, the Church convened councils that determined the Canon of Sacred Scripture, several of them, in fact, but most notably the Councils of Carthage and Hippo at the end of the 4th century. Since the time of these councils, every single Catholic Bible has had the identical Canon of Sacred Scripture. When the Protestants removed several books from the Old Testament Canon, the Church responded - during the Council of Trent, making the Catholic Canon a matter of dogma - to end all further discussion among faithful Christians. Only those unfaithful to the Church that Jesus Christ founded would continue to reject this canon. But, I digress... The point here is that we all rely on the Church, even for the most fundamental of “interpretations” of the Scriptures. Those who accept a “different gospel” than the one taught by Christ and continued in His Church are to be rejected - and we must include the doctrine of sola scriptura as a “different gospel,” since it is clearly not taught in Scripture itself nor is the terminology even heard of until about the time of the Protestant revolt.
While all of these arguments in defense of sola scriptura are valid, there’s another approach that can be taken, which doesn’t seem to be used much. It’s true that groups such as Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy have disagreements among themselves, just as there are disagreements among those who adhere to sola scriptura. In that sense, we’re all on equal footing.
“In that sense” we’re not on an equal footing. As has already been demonstrated, on fundamental issues Catholicism, Orthodoxy and Anglicanism are quite united - but on the same fundamental issues “Evangelicalism” cannot make the same claim.
But there’s another sense in which adherents of sola scriptura are actually at an advantage.
Evangelicals agree with one another about what their rule of faith is. They follow a 66-book canon of scripture. But what is the rule of faith among those who reject sola scriptura? Not only do they disagree in their interpretations of their rule of faith, as advocates of sola scriptura do, but they also disagree among themselves about what their rule of faith is to begin with. Catholics, for example, disagree among themselves about just which papal decrees, council rulings, etc. are infallible and which are not. A Catholic, an Eastern Orthodox, or an Anglican may refer to how he follows “the church” or “tradition”, but he’s unable to define just what that is. He can’t cite something comparable to the evangelical’s 66-book canon.
If this weren’t such a serious matter, I’d have to laugh at the way Mr. Engwer has turned this into a competition. It doesn’t matter, not one iota, if Mr. Engwer can make it appear that “Evangelicals” have an advantage. This is not a numbers game. What matters is what the Truth is. The Truth is the Bible is not the sole infallible rule of faith, for Jesus Himself gave the charism of infallibility to men, and these men held offices which were passed on to others.
Terms such as “the church” and “tradition” have been defined in all sorts of different ways by different people over the centuries. And the alleged authority of “the church” and “tradition” isn’t as verifiable as the authority of scripture.
It isn’t as verifiable? Hmmm, a bit of a Freudian slip here, perhaps?
With scripture, there’s specific, compelling evidence of infallibility (prophecy, scientific foreknowledge, historical evidence of apostolicity, etc.).
And without the Church, the Canon of Sacred Scripture is not debated on for nearly 400 years, nor ever decided upon, for it take someone or something to make such a decision, and to make it final.
There is no such evidence for the infallibility of “the church” or “tradition”, at least as those terms are often used by opponents of sola scriptura.
Oh, but there IS such evidence, and it has been provided in this article, for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear.
If they can’t even define what their rule of faith is, and there’s no specific, compelling evidence that their rule of faith is infallible, whatever it is, aren’t they in an even worse situation than the evangelicals they criticize?
Again, this is not a competition nor a matter of which side appears to be the underdog. And again, our rule of faith is clear - “whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven...” leaves no doubt that once one of these men bind something, then it is bound in heaven, and unless Mr. Engwer is willing to say error can be bound in heaven, then he can’t say there is no evidence.
(For anybody interested in an illustration of just how bad a situation these people are in, I recommend visiting the following web page: http://www.ntrmin.org/rcchallenge.htm.)
For anyone interested in how every single challenge raised by Svendsen is answered, please see: http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/svendsen/catholicchallenge.htm.
By the way, Eric, it’s been since August 31, 2002 and we’re still waiting for the check (but we’re not holding our breath!).
I pose this question, then, to opponents of sola scriptura. What is your rule of faith, and how can you verify it and interpret it without facing the same difficulties that you criticize in association with sola scriptura?
First off, I do not accept Mr. Engwer’s strawman argument. The chief criticism of sola scriptura is not the statements of unity, but the very fact that the doctrine of sola scriptura is not found within the Scriptures. You do not find a single passage of Scripture stating the Scriptures, alone, are the sole infallible rule of faith. The argument about unity is merely a distraction from the real issue at hand here.
Consider as well, the terminology of sola scriptura, which is Latin, is not even heard of until about the time of the Protestant revolution. Considering the fact that Latin was the primary language of nearly all the Early Church Fathers, especially those in the Western or Latin Rite of the Church, one would think the terminology of sola scriptura would not only be recorded by them, but would be prevailent in a majority the Early Church Father’s writings - yet the Fathers are silent.
If one looks objectively at the fallacy, no, the lie of sola scriptura that has worked its way into and so firmly rooted itself into doctrine - then one must seriously question any further acceptance of any who continue to preach this other gospel. An objective look at this “doctrine” will force anyone with an ounce of integrity to look elsewhere for the Truth, for those who have been preaching sola scriptura whether they realize it or not, have been preaching a lie.
45
posted on
06/20/2015 8:47:55 AM PDT
by
johngrace
( I am a 1 John 4! Christian- declared at every Sunday Mass , Divine Mercy and Rosary prayers!)
To: johngrace
46
posted on
06/20/2015 8:48:36 AM PDT
by
johngrace
( I am a 1 John 4! Christian- declared at every Sunday Mass , Divine Mercy and Rosary prayers!)
To: kinsman redeemer
To: .45 Long Colt
Sorry don’t understand. That;s a sound bite? The only “Bible” Our Blessed Lord knew was the Septuagint, although it is not a “Bible” per se. As for the Bible as most (but not all) non-Catholics know was put together in the last few hundred years, which seems fairly man-made to me, no? Specifically, Luther relegated Macabees etc to a lesser part of his “Bible” on his own initiative, based on the Council of Jamnia. Now, most non-Catholic Biles (except for many Anglican Bibles) don’t even include those books (as Calvin, Zwingli, Cranmer and Luther’s “Bible” did for years). Again, seems like a lot of man made decisions there.
To: .45 Long Colt
Yes, but who determines that one is teaching a different Gospel? Every non-Catholic denomination has it’s own interpretative guides. Who determines they are any good or not?
To: Burkianfrombrklyn; .45 Long Colt
Again, seems like a lot of man made decisions there. It would, from a Catholic point of view. Protestants take a deeper look at God's Word and feel He guided the process from beginning to end. We look to God through His Word and Catholics look to man to interpret (meaning whatever Rome wishes to bestow). God IS infallible and ALL MEN are fallible (including men wearing tall hats).
To: Burkianfrombrklyn
Who determines they are any good or not? God does. At Judgement Day He will destroy false Catholic doctrine for all eternity.
To: .45 Long Colt
If Christ Jesus did established one Church, and left that Church with a succession of leadership, the Catholic Church is the ONLY Church that can prove in every verifiable way that it is that Church. For example, clearly the 1st and 2nd Century Church believes that the Holy Eucharist is the Real Presence of Christ. There is only one Church teaching that today. Clearly, the Baptism of Regeneration is a 1st and 2nd Century belief. Only ONE Church teaching that today. Only one Church can document its existence for nearly 2,000 through a paper trail of people who have served as bishop in the Sees of Rome, Antioch and Egypt. It goes on and on.
The troubling error that is present in first article is that the Church doesn’t believe in Scripture alone. Even the Bible doesn’t teach Scripture alone. You can’t argue against Football using Baseball rules.
Then, again, the plain error in your second article is blatant cherry-picking and some agenda to prove your belief. I know this wasn’t a scholarly attempt, so I won’t press you hard here, but your effort was lacking.
To: GreyFriar; NYer
In 444 AD, the Emperor Valentinian III issued a decree called Novel 17 in which he assigned to the Bishop of Rome supremacy over the provincial churches. Thus, he made Bishop Leo of Rome the first Pope.
53
posted on
06/20/2015 10:01:08 AM PDT
by
zot
To: yosephdaviyd
"If Christ Jesus did established one Church, and left that Church with a succession of leadership" In this you do err. Jesus did not establish an institution, which is all that the catholic church is, an institution of rites, rules, and rituals. Jesus established His Church, the True Ekklesia, by dying on the Cross, being resurrected, and taking His perfect Blood to spread it upon the Mercy Seat in Heaven ONCE FOR ALL AND FOREVER. Jesus instituted the ritual of breaking bread and sipping the wine as a REMEBRANCE not a gastronomic process.
Ask yourself, was Jesus a brass snake on a pole, as He taught Nicodemus n John 3? That scene in Numbers 21 is nowhere explained in the Old Testament. it is not until ohn 3 where Jesus is teaching Nicodemus that we see Whom the brass serpent on the pole is to foreshadow. In the same typology, the unleavened bread broken and given tot he disciples and the cup of wine passed among the disciples is a foreshadowing of what Jesus is about to do for them. At Passover the night before His crucifixion Jesus was not contradicting a command given BY GOD through Moses in Leviticus 3:17, for Jesus was not drinking His own blood and giving it to His disciples to drink.
54
posted on
06/20/2015 10:20:36 AM PDT
by
MHGinTN
(Is it really all relative, Mister Einstein?)
To: .45 Long Colt
55
posted on
06/20/2015 10:51:52 AM PDT
by
Lucky9teen
(Justice will not be served until those who r unaffected r as outraged as those who r. B Franklin)
To: .45 Long Colt
You hit the nail on the head when you said, "...a system of religion that is satisfying to men."
It is our nature to expect that WE know better. Many times "God's economy" is just the opposite of what we would expect.
It is hard for us to get past our own expectations and rely, by faith alone, on what God tells us. Sometimes it seems too simple. We think "There's got to be more to it than THAT! Other times we say, "Here, let me help you with that." We're just trying to do our part... we think "I have to make an effort of some kind, otherwise it's not FAIR."
G-R-A-C-E.
Someone else already paid the price. Accept the gift FIRST. THEN we'll talk about your mission and purpose.
56
posted on
06/20/2015 10:54:39 AM PDT
by
kinsman redeemer
(The real enemy seeks to devour what is good.)
To: Glad2bnuts
Oh my....your post sounds like the same argument I have with my own husband. He is an early Orthodox Traditional St. Pius X Catholic and I’m a protestant.
He’s constantly calling me a heretic and criticizing me and my beliefs, because I’m not a “True” Christian, being one of those “protestants”.
I don’t remember Jesus being so inclusive, nor did I read anything in the Bible that talked about needing to be a specific religion in order to be saved or welcomed by Jesus. Or did I miss something?
I guess I’ve just never met such defensive people as Catholics, and I don’t get it. I’ve never met any protestants that are that defensive...or exclusive, either, for that matter.
57
posted on
06/20/2015 11:02:38 AM PDT
by
Lucky9teen
(Justice will not be served until those who r unaffected r as outraged as those who r. B Franklin)
To: .45 Long Colt
Just a question I’m curious about...do you see a difference between Catholics in Vatican I versus Vatican II?
My husband is a St. Pius X (Vatican I) Catholic and although it’s not as progressive as the church is now...to me, it seems the follow the same “rituals” and rules.
58
posted on
06/20/2015 11:05:23 AM PDT
by
Lucky9teen
(Justice will not be served until those who r unaffected r as outraged as those who r. B Franklin)
To: kinsman redeemer
59
posted on
06/20/2015 11:39:36 AM PDT
by
MHGinTN
(Is it really all relative, Mister Einstein?)
To: BipolarBob
Right. Ok, thanks for that. Never heard someone without an argument pull out his private line to God before. But my mistake thought this was a real conversation. Make sure to tell Fr. Capodanno what God said.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson