Church Authority

[Pavlos Maros]

I just had a conversation with someone who happened to be Catholic. They told me that I wasn't allowed to read the Bible because I don’t have the authority to claim that scriptures are contradictory or just plain wrong.

Given that there is no real evidence for Jesus' existence and that the Bible is just a book, the Church has no legitimate authority beyond what people are willing to give it. Any claim to exclusive authority is based purely on faith, tradition, and institutional power, not objective proof.

Christians believe Jesus is God, and as such, he would be responsible for the actions of the Old Testament deity. This means he would be accountable for mass killings.

Some try to justify this as divine justice, while others argue it's metaphorical or misinterpreted. But ultimately, one person's interpretation of scripture is no more valid than another’s, unless you already accept the Church's authority, which has no real foundation outside of belief.

What do you think about the Church claiming authority over scripture? Do you agree that it has such authority? If so, how would you justify it? Or do you disagree, and for what reasons? I’d love to hear your thoughts."

 

[Mendalla]

It has no authority over who reads scripture or how they read it.

It has authority over how scripture is officially interpreted for and by its clergy and how it influences church doctrine. However, the degree to which various denominations claim and exert that authority varies pretty widely. The RCs tend to be pretty centralized, some Protestant denominations pretty much leave it up to the local clergy and members, and there's plenty of space in between where other churches fall. Anglicans and Orthodox are more towards the RC end, with bishops and patriachs packing a fair bit of authority in the scriptural realm, while mainstream Protestant churches often fall kind of in the middle, with official interpretations existing but with the clergy (sometimes even members) contributing to or voting on those interpretations rather than them being handed down from on high.

Most importantly, no matter what some Christians may think, the church has no authority over people who are not members of it.

 

[Jaebius]

I just had a conversation with someone who happened to be Catholic. They told me that I wasn't allowed to read the Bible because I don’t have the authority to claim that scriptures are contradictory or just plain wrong.

Given that there is no real evidence for Jesus' existence and that the Bible is just a book, the Church has no legitimate authority beyond what people are willing to give it. Any claim to exclusive authority is based purely on faith, tradition, and institutional power, not objective proof.

Christians believe Jesus is God, and as such, he would be responsible for the actions of the Old Testament deity. This means he would be accountable for mass killings.

Some try to justify this as divine justice, while others argue it's metaphorical or misinterpreted. But ultimately, one person's interpretation of scripture is no more valid than another’s, unless you already accept the Church's authority, which has no real foundation outside of belief.

What do you think about the Church claiming authority over scripture? Do you agree that it has such authority? If so, how would you justify it? Or do you disagree, and for what reasons? I’d love to hear your thoughts."

Everyone must have the chance to read the Bible. Scripture's a living text, meant to be read. It's through this engagement that faith grows.

Regarding the Church's authority, different Christian traditions have different views on this matter. As a Presbyterian, I appreciate both the value of tradition and the importance of personal discernment guided by the Holy Spirit.

Faith's a personal journey, and our understanding of scripture's shaped by our experiences, culture, and community

 

[Mendalla]

We UUs have no set scripture, just "sources of our living tradition" which covers various religious traditions but also philosophy, literature, and anything else that influences our spiritual outlook. So very individual with no real "authority" over anything. That comes out of our fourth principle, "a free and responsible search for truth and meaning." I once preached a sermon (actually, I preached it twice, once in my own church and once as a guest preacher at another, nearby one) suggesting that ultimately means each UU has their own "scripture" comprised of the sources they have embraced and chosen to follow.

 

[Jaebius]

We UUs have no set scripture, just "sources of our living tradition" which covers various religious traditions but also philosophy, literature, and anything else that influences our spiritual outlook. So very individual with no real "authority" over anything. That comes out of our fourth principle, "a free and responsible search for truth and meaning." I once preached a sermon (actually, I preached it twice, once in my own church and once as a guest preacher at another, nearby one) suggesting that ultimately means each UU has their own "scripture" comprised of the sources they have embraced and chosen to follow.

It's inspiring to see the UU commitment to a "free and responsible search for truth and meaning." I love the idea of embracing a diverse range of sources for spiritual growth. It’s beautiful how UUs honor individuality.

We Presbyterians do recognize that God's revelation isn't confined to a single source. We can learn and grow from various traditions, philosophies, and experiences. This enriches our faith and broadens our understanding of God's love

 

[Luce NDs]

If someone controls a suppressive force over scripture and other media ... what does this do to freedoms as in:

1. Freedom of speech
2. Freedom of press
3. Freedom of belief
4. Freedom of movement

Especially the last as it works with the constitution ... and whoa ... that was blown! Heavy matter comes down like the very dirt of the earth and only the essences escape ... stinking thoughts take on a 'ole different nature of composition ... compost?

Imagine the complications of the so called rot of thought ...

 

[Luce NDs]

It's inspiring to see the UU commitment to a "free and responsible search for truth and meaning." I love the idea of embracing a diverse range of sources for spiritual growth. It’s beautiful how UUs honor individuality.

We Presbyterians do recognize that God's revelation isn't confined to a single source. We can learn and grow from various traditions, philosophies, and experiences. This enriches our faith and broadens our understanding of God's love

Truth is not to be found in the material world ... only in the insubstantial sphere that rests below the horizon you find normal ... virtue is deep .. often hidden the the myth and hard-shells for safekeeping and they just don't know what's in there ... rather innate!

Isd At ewe Molly? Unsinkable cause of where chez already at ... code 'd?

Could've been that time in the desert ... there' ballads about ide that may erupt as Ire ... tread cautiously and carry a stick crossways so you won't fall completely in there ... caldrons? Gross holes ...

However; folk speak of spirituality but don't really believe in the essence of truth, etc. So it hangs as a lyre ... harp ease? Angel dust ...

 

[Waterfall]

It's inspiring to see the UU commitment to a "free and responsible search for truth and meaning." I love the idea of embracing a diverse range of sources for spiritual growth. It’s beautiful how UUs honor individuality.

We Presbyterians do recognize that God's revelation isn't confined to a single source. We can learn and grow from various traditions, philosophies, and experiences. This enriches our faith and broadens our understanding of God's love

Or does it change God's message by incorporating our own experiences by adding our own thoughts to a message we find too hard to follow?

 

[Mendalla]

Or does it change God's message by incorporating our own experiences by adding our own thoughts to a message we find too hard to follow?

Which is the argument that some would give for the kind of authority that started this discussion. After all, if the church is the ultimate authority for scripture, then those annoying little inner thoughts can just be dismissed as "sin" or "Satan" or something.

However, that's the perspective that assumes God is an external force with some kind of authoritarian nature.

For some, God is the inner voice that is guiding us so those thoughts can be informed by or be part of the message. A "lure" does not require an authority to be in control.

Of course, for UUs it is meaningless since belief in God and the nature of God are entirely up to the individual, but I think you're referring to Jae's later remarks, not the UU part.

 

[Jaebius]

Or does it change God's message by incorporating our own experiences by adding our own thoughts to a message we find too hard to follow?

The UU approach, it seems to me Waterfall, is a beautiful expression of the freedom we have to explore and grow.

My Presbyterian understanding of God's message is that it will deepen as we journey through life. Even our struggles bring new insights to the Bible's timeless truths.

Incorporating our own experiences and thoughts helps us connect with it personally. God's Word stays the same, but our application of it will grow richer as we engage with it in the context of our lives

 

[Jaebius]

Which is the argument that some would give for the kind of authority that started this discussion. After all, if the church is the ultimate authority for scripture, then those annoying little inner thoughts can just be dismissed as "sin" or "Satan" or something.

However, that's the perspective that assumes God is an external force with some kind of authoritarian nature.

For some, God is the inner voice that is guiding us so those thoughts can be informed by or be part of the message. A "lure" does not require an authority to be in control.

Of course, for UUs it is meaningless since belief in God and the nature of God are entirely up to the individual, but I think you're referring to Jae's later remarks, not the UU part.

Different traditions approach the authority of Scripture and God's nature differently. We Presbyterians believe that Scripture's the inspired Word of God, given to guide people. God, we think, is the ultimate authority.

He is both beyond us and within us. The Holy Spirit dwells in us, guiding us. We believe we must exercise discernment when it comes to our thoughts.

God's authority, I believe, is rooted in love. He's a loving Father who invites us into a relationship with him

 

[Mendalla]

God's authority, I believe, is rooted in love. He's a loving Father who invites us into a relationship with him

Which is another whole point: Why would we accept the Church's authority? Isn't God's authority what matters here? Do we need a hierarchy of bishops to tell us what scripture says or can we just listen carefully for God's own voice? Jesus himself challenged and rejected the authority of the temple leaders and to my eye, there's little difference between them and a lot of church leaders today.

 

[Luce NDs]

The UU approach, it seems to me Waterfall, is a beautiful expression of the freedom we have to explore and grow.

My Presbyterian understanding of God's message is that it will deepen as we journey through life. Even our struggles bring new insights to the Bible's timeless truths.

Incorporating our own experiences and thoughts helps us connect with it personally. God's Word stays the same, but our application of it will grow richer as we engage with it in the context of our lives

If there are freedoms they should be censored for the benefit of the corrupt powers!

They know best about taking advantage without consequence ... lie well ... the stupid do not require complex lies ... they are blind to a great art of the deal ...

 

[Mrs.Anteater]

Historically, the Catholic church had the authority over reading, preaching and interpreting the bible as it was only copied by monks in handwriting and worship was in latin. Until M. Luther translated it around 1620 and Gutenberg invented the printing press around that time, making it possible to spread the book in a faster and more affordable way. At that point, the church couldn’t tell people anymore what they had to believe without being questioned .
Since any type of church can make a doctrine that their members have to believe and interpret anything a certain way, it lies in the willingness of the members to believe in authority. However, since Luther, it is now open to be read by anybody.
I remember our hospital chaplain telling me about her problem of getting lots of donations of bibles, sometimes just left in the chapel. She said she can’t throw them out, so she had to bury them.
I wouldn’t have any problem putting a bible into paper recycling…

 

[Pavlos Maros]

I agree with your post.
However, my main issue isn’t just historical access but the Church’s continued claim that only its authority can interpret scripture correctly.
"Even though anyone can now read the Bible, Catholic doctrine still teaches that interpretation belongs to the Magisterium. But this authority is based on faith and tradition, not objective proof. If someone doesn’t already accept the Church’s legitimacy, its claim has no more weight than any other religious institution’s."
"As for disposing of Bibles, the reverence for the physical book is tied to belief, just like the Church’s authority is. If you don’t see it as sacred, recycling it makes sense.

 

[Jaebius]

Which is another whole point: Why would we accept the Church's authority? Isn't God's authority what matters here? Do we need a hierarchy of bishops to tell us what scripture says or can we just listen carefully for God's own voice? Jesus himself challenged and rejected the authority of the temple leaders and to my eye, there's little difference between them and a lot of church leaders today.

Jesus challenged the authority of the temple leaders and stressed the importance of a personal connection with God. It's not about church hierarchy, but about community and mutual support. I believe that everyone can seek and understand spiritual truths in their own lives.

While we church leaders can offer guidance, the real journey's about individuals exploring and discovering their relationship with God, in their own unique way

 

[Mrs.Anteater]

People will do and say all kind of things in the name of religion. I think there are much more humans who need the safety of given rules to live their lives than the uncertainty of “ make up your own mind”. You can see that in the MAGA politics as well. It wouldn’t be that popular if people would think for themselves.

 

[Mrs.Anteater]

Actually, that is a pretty good comparison- there are “ believers” and theology that are autocratic and there are some that are “ democratic”. Democracy always involves the uncertainty of “ working it out” holding it until a solution is found that works for all. The tendency today in society , possibly influenced by our years of consumerism, is to want solutions now and for all and not to bear with the process, the conflicts, which are seen as weakness.

 

[Luce NDs]

People will do and say all kind of things in the name of religion. I think there are much more humans who need the safety of given rules to live their lives than the uncertainty of “ make up your own mind”. You can see that in the MAGA politics as well. It wouldn’t be that popular if people would think for themselves.

Imagine common people making-up a mind in a constructive way without Magi-Steria ... something driven by steroids? These run interference with the reptilian brain mass ... a mysterious thing as mystic can be ... very little know there ... because why? Its alien ... maybe unknown in another tongue ... and thus uncertain and doesn't know it ... non-WOKE? The way the deniers like people ... thus intelligence is folly ... to ONE way thinking ... be feral or ire on HeH?

HeH? Its a spatial symbol ... in Hebrew used for punctuation, etc. It is lost in archaic tongues and the use thereof ... why the old scripts become incomprehensible to a group that denies them ... so the entire skill goes downhill ... it is rote ... wrote! Maybe a roues ... in a cold heart? Bloody shade that cab be seen in the oyes of Canon ... AH oye there ... without ... them beyond! The story of escapees from 'elle are numerous ... like Water Millen Whine ... a feat for the vegetating ...

 

[Jaebius]

I agree with your post.
However, my main issue isn’t just historical access but the Church’s continued claim that only its authority can interpret scripture correctly.
"Even though anyone can now read the Bible, Catholic doctrine still teaches that interpretation belongs to the Magisterium. But this authority is based on faith and tradition, not objective proof. If someone doesn’t already accept the Church’s legitimacy, its claim has no more weight than any other religious institution’s."
"As for disposing of Bibles, the reverence for the physical book is tied to belief, just like the Church’s authority is. If you don’t see it as sacred, recycling it makes sense.

Believe that personal discernment guided by the Holy Spirit is as important as tradition and communal wisdom in understanding Scripture. As a Pastor, I encourage people to engage with the Bible directly and to seek God's guidance in their interpretation.

The authority of the Church should just serve as a guide. It's about creating a community where diverse insights enrich the collective faith journey.

As for disposing of Bibles, reverence for the physical book varies based on personal belief. It's a matter of respecting those who see it as sacred while also acknowledging the practical considerations for those who don't