Why is it necessary to have the Supreme Court have the final interpretation of the Constitution, whether we like their decisions or not, but unnecessary to have the Church have the final say on the Book, whose content it determined and whose monks copied and preserved before the printing press?
The CATHOLIC doctrine of the Faithful and Discreet Slave??? Yes!!
by Terry 24 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
greendawn
There is a diference between the two since with the JWs they believe that only a very small number of people the GB members (though in theory they say that all 8 000 or so anointed participate) have that right whereas with the Catholics it is anyone in a religious capacity or function that can work on doctrine and its interpretation and present his ideas for approval or rejection. The JWs have indeed borrowed much from the authoritarian and oppressive nature of the Medieval Catholic Church, they got into it just as the Catholics were abandoning that mentality.
-
GoingGoingGone
The Catholic Church predates the Bible which you hold in your hand and read.
True - but that doesn't make them right.
Catholicism sprang from Judiasm at the time of Christ. The Jews had a male-dominate culture, and the Catholic tradition reflects that. No female priests, for example.
The following I have on pretty good authority, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong: Catholics cannot divorce for ANY reason, and remarriage is only approved with the death of one's mate. However, since the 'purpose' of sex and marriage, according to Catholic tradition, is to bring forth children, women past childbearing age and men no longer able to have sex (because of impotence, for example), cannot marry even then. (Healthy men can continue to have sex and produce children well into their 70s, while women cannot normally bear children past their mid-40s or so. So a 40-something year old woman who loses her husband is expected to remain unmarried for the rest of her life, because she is no longer a baby-maker.) The Catholic church also teaches that contreception in any form is wrong.
Why is it necessary to have the Supreme Court have the final interpretation of the Constitution, whether we like their decisions or not, but unnecessary to have the Church have the final say on the Book, whose content it determined and whose monks copied and preserved before the printing press?
This would be a good analogy if the Catholic church actually wrote the bible. However, the bible is supposedly inspired by God (or, written by God). Therefore, it was not truly the Catholic church who chose the NT content, but God. The Catholic church's claim of ownership of the bible, as well as sole interpreter of God's will, I find presumptuous. GGG
-
Terry
Why is it necessary to have the Supreme Court have the final interpretation of the Constitution, whether we like their decisions or not, but unnecessary to have the Church have the final say on the Book, whose content it determined and whose monks copied and preserved before the printing press?
The Law of the land is designed to be adjudicated, first, locally, then; at advancing higher levels on purpose. The Law of the land is written specifically to accomplish a stated purpose. Comparing this to either scripture, theology or the mind of God just doesn't wash.
Your statement (above) ASSUMES the existence of a specific Judeo-Christian God who has a policy toward mankind and who works through sinful, imperfect human agency. That is a huge presupposition!
Protestantism would not have become the rampage against Catholicism in its success were it not for the despoiling of its (Catholicism's) trust throughout history thus revealing it to be quite the opposite of the repository of either God's grace or the justice of the Divine mind.
God dealt with humanity one on one long enough (if you accept the Old testament) to establish a precedent. The advantage in a voting quorum is puzzling.
-
codeblue
Excellent thread Terry
-
Kenneson
GGG,
Inspiration of the Bible doesn't suggest that God himself wrote it and that somehow it fell down out of heaven and was found by someone.
-
GoingGoingGone
Inspiration of the Bible doesn't suggest that God himself wrote it and that somehow it fell down out of heaven and was found by someone.
The bible didn't fall down out of heaven in book form with Jesus' words in red, I agree. But Catholics believe that all the bible's words are inspired of God. The NT canon was chosen from among hundreds (thousands?) of letters and other writings that had been circulating in the early congregations for years. The Catholic church decided which to call 'inspired' and include in the Holy Bible. Someone had to do it, right?
However, that does not mean that the bible is inspired by the Catholic church. It wasn't written by the Catholic church. The Catholic church was (presumably) used by God to choose his inspired words and include them in the bible. The church goes one step further, though, in proclaiming itself the interpreter of those words. The JWs claim to be the interpreter, too.
GGG
-
Narkissos
that does not mean that the bible is inspired by the Catholic church. It wasn't written by the Catholic church. The Catholic church was (presumably) used by God to choose his inspired words and include them in the bible. The church goes one step further, though, in proclaiming itself the interpreter of those words. The JWs claim to be the interpreter, too.
Absolutely. Were the Christian Bible the product of the 4th-century Catholic church it would be VERY different. Were the Jewish Bible the product of 2nd-century rabbinical Judaism it would be very different too. The process of canonisation works on already stabilised texts and even its power to choose them from a larger corpus is far from absolute. Texts which are highly respected in any significant section of the church simply cannot be left out, no matter how problematic they are to the canonisers. Canonisation, iow, only sanctions the balance of power and influence of the different constitutive parts of the religion.
The sola scriptura principle of Protestantism is problematic, not only because its foundation ("Scripture") was validated as such by the institution it is separated from and opposed to, but even more because it leaves the problem of interpretation unsolved. Luther tried to get around this by affirming the essential "clarity" of Scripture. But practically that meant shifting the magisterium of interpretation from church hierarchy and tradition to autonomous scholarship (originally under the form of the "historico-grammatical" approach of Humanism). The hundreds of Protestant sects which resulted in the next few centuries are an ironical testimony to the value of Luther's assumption. It failed the objective of a "reformed church" but significantly contributed to the autonomy of science, and democracy.
-
Pahpa
I disagree with the statement that the Catholic church predates the Bible. One could only accept that hypothesis if one accepts the church's doctrine of "apostolic succession." And most historians date the start of the church at a much later time when the "popes" began to assert their primacy. We should not confuse the church in Rome during the apostles' time with what later became a grab at supremacy over the other Christian churches. We should not forget that the various books of the Christian Scriptures were well circulated and accepted as authentic by many Christian churches well before a council was formed to decide which ones were to be included in the collection we now call the New Testament. It was this fact that helped in making the decision of the authenticity of the various books by the members of the council.
-
gumb
In "Tertullian Against Marcion", book 4, chapter 29, the church father Tertullian addresses the matter of the "faithful and discreet slave" (Luke 12:41-46) thus:
"When, therefore, Peter asked whether He had spoken the parable 'unto them, or even to all,' He sets forth for them, and for all who should bear rule in the churches, the similitude of stewards. That steward who should treat his fellow-servants well in his lord's absence, would on his return be set as ruler over all his property; but he who should act otherwise should be severed and have his portion with the unbelievers, when his lord should return on the day when he looked not for him, at the hour when he was not aware - even that Son of man, the Creator's Christ, not a thief, but a Judge."
1 Corinthians 12:28 tells us that "God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers;" The idea of one man being appointed as overall leader of all Christians is foreign to the New Testament. Although Peter had a special role in being given "the keys to the kingdom", he did not set himself up as chief apostle, as can be seen from what is said in Acts 8:14 where the "apostles at Jerusalem" sent Peter and John on an assignment. Also, when a dispute arose concerning the question of circumcision, "the apostles and the elders met to consider this matter" (Acts 15:6). Once they had decided on the matter "then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders with the entire church" to send chosen men from among themselves to Antioch with a letter containing their collective decision (Acts 15:22-29). It was certainly a more democratic system than having one or a tiny number in charge. The attitude too of the apostles, in consulting with the elders, was in line with Jesus' instructions that they should not be like "the rulers of the gentiles who lord it over them and the great ones who exercise authority over them" (Matthew 20:25-27).
In my opinion neither the Pope nor the WTS's Governing Body is representative of the early Christian community. Claims to represent God are just that, claims and nothing else. Having destroyed countless documents, as well as hounding and persecuting any dissenting voices, the Catholic Church is in no way deserving of trust when it comes to accepting their claims to authoritative links with the original Christians. Likewise, the Governing Body, by its attempts to cover up its past has lost any credibility. In fact the WTS is just another deceptive voice that declares Christ has returned and "is in the desert" (Matthew 24:26 - read unseen/invisible 'presence') which lures people into a false hope. Based on their respective track records, I don't see how either the Catholic Church or the WTS has been "faithful", "wise", or even a "slave" humbly and kindly serving the needs of the faithful for that matter.
AikiChristian, I'd just like to add my personal view on the scriptures you cited.
Luke 10:16: "The one listening to you listens to me, and the one rejecting you rejects me" is very interesting in that it is speaking about "seventy others" (not apostles, but 'ordinary' disciples) - see verse 1.
Romans 13:1-2: This is talking about the Roman government to whom the people would be paying taxes (see verse 6). It is not talking about Christian 'authority'. The writer is dealing specifically with agents of the state.
Matthew 28:18-20: Here Jesus says that "all authority" was given to him. His disciples were merely to teach others all the things he had commanded them, rather than wielding authority over them.
Ephesians 2:19-20: The "cornerstone" is Jesus and the foundation is the "apostles and prophets". The apostles were those who were directly appointed by Jesus, the only exception being Judas' replacement. The foundational teaching that they laid down should therefore have remained unchanged. There is no scriptural proof that I am aware of that more apostles were appointed at later dates, thus carrying on some special authority that would ultimately result in a single 'supreme' representative of Jesus on earth.
Deuteronomy 17:8-12: This scripture relates specifically, of course, to the nation of Israel with a special system of worship and way of life. If one wishes to use this as a principle for Christian 'authority' then one is free to do so, but such is simply a personal interpretation and cannot be tagged on as an addition to New Testament teaching.