Ultimate Authority

[MoreCoffee]

In Catholic teaching the ultimate authority for all teaching is God.
That needs to be unpacked a little I think.
How does God communicate?

1. through Jesus Christ first and foremost
2. through the apostles who received their teaching from Christ
3. through the bishops who succeeded the apostles through the centuries
4. through the sacred scriptures which were produced variously by apostles, bishops, and others in the early centuries of the Christian Church and also
5. through the prophets and Moses in the old testament.
6. through the early church Fathers and councils of the Catholic Church.
7. And last through the Holy See and the pope.

I imagine that others will also point to God as ultimate authority and will likely want to unpack what that means.

 

[Josiah]

The RCC points to 3 things:

1) Scripture. But this is the unique canon of it itself alone and as interpreted by it itself alone. The words on the page aren't the authority but rather the MEANING of those words as the RCC itself alone determines.

2) Tradition. But this is NOT Christian Tradition, of the church catholic, but of it itself alone. The historic teachings of the unique RCC alone are the Authority for the teachings of the RCC.

3) Magisterium. The Leadership of the RCC alone is the Authority for the RCC. What the Leadership of the RCC itself along currently teaches is the Authority for the RCC itself.

These 3 things work in complete concert and are how God leads. The RCC's own unique interpretation of its own unique canon.... the historic views of it itself... the leadership of it itself. These must be seen together... and are God. Self looking in the mirror at self.



.

 

[Josiah]

Who/What is the Authority? A Lutheran perspective....


“Epistemology” is the issue of how we know. While we can know something about God from Creation and introspection and even reason (something of the “image of God” remains after the Fall) it’s not much! Fortunately, God has kept in touch! In ancient times, He would literally speak to leaders (such as Abraham or Moses) or through Prophets (such as Isaiah or Micah) but He also has spoken to all of us in enduring ways via writing – the first example of Scripture being the Ten Commandments written (directly, literally) by God on two tablets of stone, which immediately became the Rule (“straight edge”) or Canon (“measuring stick”) for morality. This is how we know about God – right from God, whom we affirm as the Author of Scripture. Lutherans hold that GOD is the Authority and we read His very written words in the pages of His very Scriptures to us.

The Roman Catholic Church argued that we know via “the three-legged-stool” which it declared as 1) The Roman Catholic Church's current understanding of “Tradition” of it itself, plus equally 2) The words of the Bible as it is currently and authoritatively interpreted by it itself, plus equally 3) The official, current views and rulings of the leadership of it itself. These three are inseparable and form one, united “stream” of Authority so that each “part” compliments and adds to the others to form the one united and inseparable truth. For example, since #3 is true – so #1 and #2 must therefore agree with #3 if only by implication and not actually stated.


What is the Bible?


The Reformers believed that the written word of Scripture is God’s very words to us (1 Thessalonians 2:13, 1 Corinthians 2:13, 2 Peter 1:21). God used various penmen as His instruments (some known, most not) – and seemed to have often used their personalities and such in the process - but the final result is His. The Reformers thus believed that Scripture is reliable and dependable in its purpose, embracing it as indeed “inerrant” (John 17:17, John 10:35). God knows more about the things of God than we do (or any individual denomination). We use the Bible to learn about God, His promises and counsel, and to provide a “rule” for Christian teachings and claims. We look to the Bible for Law and Gospel. And we believe that God’s Scripture is “authoritative” because of its Author, whom we believe is God.


Sola Scriptura or “The Rule of Scripture in Norming”

The words mean “Scripture Alone” and it affirms that God’s written word is the final “Rule” (straight edge) or “Canon” (measuring stick) for the evaluation of Christian teachings (especially disputed doctrines among us). It affirms that God’s words are above our words, that our teachings are accountable to God’s teachings (and not the other way around). The practice goes all the way back to the first Scriptures as Moses directed the people’s attention to the supreme authority of the Ten Commandments of God. Jesus used the Rule of Scripture (Sola Scriptura) some 50 times during His ministry, as just recorded in the Bible (no doubt there where MANY examples not so recorded),

Lutherans reject that a teacher or denomination may claim to be unaccountable or that his/her/its teachings are equal to or above Scripture.

Lutherans hold that the written, objective, words of God on the pages of Scripture are the ultimate and final authority (alone) since the words of God simply "trump" the words of men.


What about Tradition?

Of course, God’s written words in Scripture usually need to be interpreted and applied. There may be honest disagreements about that. Lutherans would STRESS that the actual words of the text must be supreme and the norm, and usually that resolves much. We’d also stress the context of the verse – both immediate (the chapter, for example) and greater (the whole of Scripture). This concept of embracing context is sometimes referred to as “Scripture interpreting Scripture” (“clarifying” might be a more accurate verb there). But again, valid differences of interpretation might be possible.

But UNDER the actual printed words of Scripture is what we refer to as “Tradition” (big “T”). This refers to the historic, ecumenical, universal consensus of God’s people, especially in terms of interpretation of Scripture. In nearly all the important areas, Christians struggled with the difficult verses and issues – intensely and prayerfully looking at the Scriptures, debating and discussing and praying and studying, often for centuries – and eventually, a consensus developed that was textual (“fits” perfectly the words of Scripture) and ecumenical. Lutherans take this very seriously. Lutherans see no reason to “reinvent the wheel” in every generation as if no one has thought or studied about these things before (the Bible is 3400-2000 years old!) or as if the Holy Spirit only leads me. We respectfully embrace the “wisdom of the past.” We call this Tradition.

But it’s important to remember that Lutherans consider such “Tradition” as under Scripture and not equal to or above it. And the “Tradition” we speak of is ecumenical not denominational. Catholics consider the Tradition of the specific Catholic Church to be equal in Authority and normative function with God’s Scripture, but Lutherans place ecumenical consensus below that. This consensus or Tradition – however wise – is OUR “stuff” and not equal to God’s Scripture any more than we are equal to God. Our interpretation and application is not equal with the text itself, we believe. Lutherans tend to embrace Tradition more than other Protestants but less than Catholics. Lutherans study the Church Fathers and Christian history, we look to the true Ecumenical Councils and we regard highly the “Church Fathers” and “Church Councils” of our past – we just don’t consider them as equal to or above God and God’s writings.

Luther is credited with saying, “We must be bold where God’s Scripture is bold and silent where God’s Scripture is silent.” The second is just as important as the first. Lutherans approach Scripture with firm embrace but with awe and great humility. We are comfortable with tensions and balances and admitting that we just don’t have all the answers. Lutherans (along with Christians in the early church) call this “mystery” and note that we are called to be “stewards of the mysteries of God.” While The Catholic Church is more eager to apply its own Tradition and human philosophy, and whereas some other Protestants are more eager to apply human logic or reason, Lutherans are more comfortable with just embracing the mystery and leaving it as Scripture leaves it. “Letting God have the last word.”



Pax Christi


- Josiah

 

[Albion]

In Catholic teaching the ultimate authority for all teaching is God.
That needs to be unpacked a little I think.
How does God communicate?

1. through Jesus Christ first and foremost
2. through the apostles who received their teaching from Christ
3. through the bishops who succeeded the apostles through the centuries
4. through the sacred scriptures which were produced variously by apostles, bishops, and others in the early centuries of the Christian Church and also
5. through the prophets and Moses in the old testament.
6. through the early church Fathers and councils of the Catholic Church.
7. And last through the Holy See and the pope.

I imagine that others will also point to God as ultimate authority and will likely want to unpack what that means.

Yes, I'd think that it's safe to say that just about every Christian denomination teaches that the ultimate authority for teaching is God.

The reformed churches, of course, hold that divine revelation--God's word given to mankind--is the ultimate authority. God is the authority, and He has communicated his will to us through Scripture, as that Scripture itself asserts.

The various speculations of humans and the additions to the nature and functioning of the Church in the centuries that followed the founding of Christ's church are certainly fallible. That's not including the contributions of such as Moses or Paul whose words are themselves incorporated into Holy Scripture.

The idea that bishops, for example, can invent doctrine on their own, or something like that, is untenable, even though the clergy have been entrusted by God with a valid function in the Church. But it's administrative, not God-like.

 

[Messy]

1. And last through the Holy See and the pope.

Holy See?
And if the pope is wrong, some Dutch guy will correct him.

 

[Albion]

It will be interesting to see if the College of Cardinals next chooses for Pope a man who is a theologian rather than a politician. Many Catholics are predicting a return to normality, but we'll have to wait to see if that is the course that's taken.

 

[Faith]

Just yesterday on fb someone was insisting Catholics aren’t Christian. I never heard that untili was well into adulthood.

 

[Albion]

It's an unkind comment, all right, but nothing that isn't heard fairly often.

Usually, the reason for people to make that claim is the position of the Roman Catholic Church concerning true doctrine. Unlike Protestant churches which base their doctrines on "Scripture Alone," the Catholic Church also accepts the supposed authority of "Holy Tradition," even when the "traditions" are not verified by Scripture and cannot be shown to have always been believed in the church.

 

[Faith]

It's an unkind comment, all right, but nothing that isn't heard fairly often.

Usually, the reason for people to make that claim is the position of the Roman Catholic Church concerning true doctrine. Unlike Protestant churches which base their doctrines on "Scripture Alone," the Catholic Church also accepts the supposed authority of "Holy Tradition," even when the "traditions" are not verified by Scripture and cannot be shown to have always been believed in the church.

Catholics have all kinds of arguments. Most I’d never heard while growing up Catholic. I heard them after I returned to the RCC about 17 years ago or so.

 

[Albion]

Catholics have all kinds of arguments. Most I’d never heard while growing up Catholic. I heard them after I returned to the RCC about 17 years ago or so.

I do think that the "they're not Christian" charge mainly relates to one issue I referred you to.

Yet you're also correct that there are so many distinctive beliefs and practices of Roman Catholicism that it isn't possible to know what any particular person might have in mind when levelling that criticism against the Church.

 

[MoreCoffee]

"Scripture alone" hasn't resolved doctrinal and practise differences for those who claim to adhere to scripture alone.

 

[MoreCoffee]

there are so many distinctive beliefs and practices

Is this not so for Baptists, Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, and so on, do those groups not also differ on many matters including baptism, the Lord's supper, marriage & divorce, holy orders and so on? Some have bishops, some elders and pastors, and groups such as Brethren and Quakers have no clergy. There is a great deal of variety, and some of those groups adhere to "scripture alone". Perhaps it is human nature to have differences, make tribes, and adhere to "one's own" in distinction from "others".

 

[Albion]

"Scripture alone" hasn't resolved doctrinal and practise differences for those to claim to adhere to scripture alone.

Well, my post was not an attempt to promote Sola Scriptura. I didn't "take sides" with that reply. Rather, it was an explanation for why it is so often said (rightly or wrongly) that Catholicism isn't really Christian, and it was given in reaction to the comments of another member who wrote that hearing this claim came as something of a surprise at one point in her life.

But if you want a discussion of the merits of Sola Scriptura, yes, we could do that.

This authority--the Bible--is considered to be God's word, divine revelation, by just about all Christian churches, yours included. Therefore, to claim authority for the Bible is hardly a weird or sectarian notion!

You also raised an additional point by saying that there are differences in doctrine among the churches which do affirm Sola Scriptura. That's true, there are. Don't forget that there are also important doctrinal differences among the denominations that aren't Sola Scriptura churches but affirm other sources along with the Bible!

That would include the Roman Catholic church, the Eastern Orthodox churches, the Oriental Orthodox, the Old Catholic churches, and others, too. There isn't even doctrinal agreement between any two of these, yet all of them put traditions alongside God's word when determining doctrine.

 

[Josiah]

"Scripture alone" hasn't resolved doctrinal and practise differences for those who claim to adhere to scripture alone.

But, of course, @MoreCoffee , nor has "I (alone) can't be wrong so I (alone) am not wrong."


The embrace of Scripture (the objective words) as the norma normans (the Rule) - sometimes called "The Rule of Scripture" doesn't by itself resolve issues. In that agree.

@Albion
@Faith
@Messy


A refresher in Epistomology:

Resolving disputes requires THREE things...
1) ALL parties in dispute accepting they could be wrong
2) ALL parties embracing the same objective/knowable Rule outside of them.
3) ALL parties accepting the same arbitration process.

The Rule of Scripture ("Sola Scriptura") only addresses #2, the agreed upon objective/knowable/unchangeable Rule.

The RCC rejects all 3 parts of resolution.
It itself declares that it itself alone cannot be wrong (at least conditionally in some things - the very things in dispute!)
It itself declares that it itself alone only embraces the Rule of Itself (what it teaches IS the Rule; if it agrees with itself then it is correct)
It itself declares that it only accepts arbitration conducted by it itself alone.

Others often accept 2 of these necessary parts of resolutions... Self can be wrong and Scripture is the Rule (those objective, knowable, unchangable words on the page). BUT, there is no common authoritative arbitration in Christianity (including in Protestantism)... no ecumenical final authority (rather like a Supreme Court) that DECIDES and whoses decision is accepted by all. For some centuries, Christianity had something A BIT like this in the 7 Ecumenical Councils (and the EOC still technically embraces this) but in the West, this has been rejected and now impossible since the RCC rejects all 3 aspects of Resolution and Protestants don't accept any final arbitration (like an Ecumenical Council). This problem was OFTEN noted by Luther in the Reformation as he repeatedly stated he'd abide by an Ecumenical Council - but noted this simply was not possible with Catholicism rejecting all 3 aspects of resolution.

We're stuck in this situation.
The RCC rejects every aspect of resolution.
Protestants have only 2 of the 3 parts necessary.
The EOC is waiting for an Ecumenical Council (waiting some 1200 years) that can never happen.


- Josiah



.

 

[MoreCoffee]

The RCC rejects all 3 parts of resolution.

I disagree with your characterisation of Catholic teaching. What you post always looks like "I proclaim that Catholics believe X and therefore Catholics do in fact believe X because I say so", which is exactly what you accuse, in your posts, Catholics of thinking and saying.

 

[Albion]

"Scripture alone" hasn't resolved doctrinal and practise differences for those who claim to adhere to scripture alone.

All right, but neither has Scripture +"Holy Tradition" resolved those differences.

So where does that leave us--trusting God's word/divine revelation OR trusting instead a combination of His word and human innovations and theories?

That puts the main difference between the reformed churches and the unreformed churches into focus. I have to believe that the first of these two approaches (Scripture Alone) is obviously the more trustworthy one.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Scripture +"Holy Tradition"

What denomination uses the above as its method for resolving disputes?

 

[Albion]

What denomination uses the above as its method for resolving disputes?

That is the basis for determining doctrine in all the Catholic denominations. So if it's a formal dispute you are asking about, the church will make its stand on Scripture AND Tradition together, and the person who won't accept the decision would be deemed to be in the wrong.

 

[Josiah]

I disagree with your characterisation of Catholic teaching. .

It's very accurate. And undeniable. Indeed, this absolute rejection is what many Catholics LOVE about their church and often given as its best charateristic.

Resolving disputes requires THREE things...

1) ALL parties in dispute accepting they could be wrong

I don't need to give the verbatim quotes because you won't deny it: The RCC itself alone claims that it itself is "infallible" (conditionally)

2) ALL parties embracing the same objective/knowable Rule outside of them.

I don't need to give the verbatim quotes because you won't deny it: The RCC accepts 3 things
1. The unique Scripture of it itself as interpreted by it itself, the MEANING it itself says it has.
2. The Tradition that it itself alone declares to be such as it itself alone currently interprets it.
3. The Magisterium (Leadership) of it itself alone as it itself has chosen.

3) ALL parties accepting the same arbitration process.

As we all know, the RCC accepts only ONE arbiter: itself. The Councils (etc.) of it itself alone.



.