Sanhedrin And The Catholic Magisterium

[hluke]

Hello I watched this video recently and I wanted to get the opinions of Roman Catholics.

This video focusses on the remarkable similarities between the claims made by religious Jewish leaders at the time of Christ and the Roman Catholic church. There is a sense in which history is repeating itself: Roman Catholic religious establishments may just be a direct picture of what Jesus rebuked in his ministry.

Both the Pharisees and the Roman Catholics claimed to have obtained a form of succession. The Pharisees claimed the seat of Moses, while the Pope claims the seat of St Peter. Further, the Jewish religious leaders claimed dominance and supremacy over Jews. Likewise, the Pope holds dominance and power over Catholics.

What is most important to me is the immense accountability and responsibility the Pope, (like the Pharisees with Moses) has to portray a consistent and clear representation of their predecessor. So, if it is true that Pope Francis holds the modern-day seat of St Peter, then he ought to do everything according to the gospel of Christ and offer, as much as possible, a direct imitation of St Peter.

And Francis and many other Popes have surely made some very questionable decisions, such as advocating for universalism (nobody is perfect)

There are many other interesting points presented in the video.

I invite Roman Catholics to watch the video and offer an opinion.

What historical evidence is there for Roman Catholic claims of apostolic succession?
When did Rome receive authority to interpret the bible, and create extra-biblical doctrines such as feast days or other venerated things? (excuse my ignorance here)

Last time I posted about Roman Catholicism, I admittedly went on a tangent, other members included.
This time let's keep the conversation respectful!

Edit: If you are unable to watch it all, there is a brief summary of the content in the description of the video.

 

[Dansiph]

Hello I watched this video recently and I wanted to get the opinions of Catholics.

This video focusses on the remarkable similarities between the claims made by religious Jewish leaders at the time of Christ and the Roman Catholic church. There is a sense in which history is repeating itself: Catholic religious establishments may just be a direct picture of what Jesus rebuked in his ministry.

Both the Pharisees and the Catholics claimed to have obtained a form of succession. The Pharisees claimed the seat of Moses, while the Pope claims the seat of St Peter. Further, the Jewish religious leaders claimed dominance and supremacy over Jews. Likewise, the Pope holds dominance and power over Catholics.

What is most important to me is the immense accountability and responsibility the Pope, (like the Sanhedrin with Moses) has to portray a consistent and clear representation of their predecessor. So, if it is true that Pope Francis holds the modern-day seat of St Peter, then he ought to do everything according to the gospel of Christ and offer, as much as possible, a direct imitation of St Peter.

And Francis and many other Popes have surely made some very questionable decisions, such as advocating for universalism (nobody is perfect)

There are many other interesting points presented in the video.

I invite Catholics to watch the video and offer an opinion.

What historical evidence is there for Catholic claims of apostolic succession?
When did Rome receive authority to interpret the bible, and create extra-biblical doctrines such as feast days or other venerated things? (excuse my ignorance here)

Last time I posted about Catholicism, I admittedly went on a tangent, other members included.
This time let's keep the conversation respectful!

I don't have time to watch the video but I will try and watch it later. I'm looking to become Catholic and I had an immediate thought on this. The big difference between Jewish leaders at the time of Christ and the Roman Catholic church is that Catholics believe in the divinity of Jesus and his authority.

 

[thecolorsblend]

I will respond to the YouTube description. Because an hour is a lot to give to anybody. Besides, it springs from a fairly common Protestant viewpoint (with everything that implies). I might even say an evangelical viewpoint. But in any case, the description touches upon issues that I don't see talked about too much on CF.

It seems eerie to me how similar the claims that Roman Catholicism makes are to the claims that the Pharisees and Sanhedrin were making in the time of Christ.

The Sanhedrin was an ongoing council or court. The Sanhedrin that most people probably imagine upon hearing the word can be somewhat compared to the United States Supreme Court. Considering the lack of distinction between civil law and religious law in ancient Israel, it's a little tricky to come up with a perfect analogy. Still, I think SCOTUS is a decent enough comparison for the Americans among us.

To continue with metaphors that Americans might be accustomed to, the Pharisees could almost be compared to a political party. They had certain ideas and beliefs that distinguished them from other groups, such as the Sadducees.

This is an important point because very often people will point to the Pharisees as tho they were everything wrong with religious belief in Our Lord's time. And while the Pharisees certainly had their share of problems, it's not like they had a monopoly on bad behavior. Using them as a catch-all term for all religious belief and practice in first century Palestine is just plain wrongheaded.

All this and we're only one sentence into this guy's point. Yikes!

The Pharisees claimed to have and oral tradition that wasn't written down but was handed down through an elder-succession from Sinai to Jesus' time (which was simply not historically true).

This is inaccurate and misleading. And that's if I'm being charitable.

Ancient Judaism was manifestly not a sola scriptura religion. The ancient Israelites never claimed such a thing and a lot of today's Jews would not claim it either. The Oral Torah has its own Wikipedia page for crying out loud.

Relating the oral tradition to the Pharisees instantly prejudices the reader. Our Lord had no shortage of criticisms of the Pharisees. One criticism was that they had added so much to God's religious law and invented so much of their own religious law that compliance was virtually impossible.

Those are serious charges. However, conflating oral tradition (which history supports) with the modish innovations introduced by the Pharisees (which Our Lord strongly condemned) leads one to some very wrong conclusions about history. It's just sloppy scholarship to phrase things the way Winger has.

I shall skip ahead here as this post is already going long. Suffice it to say, Winger is off to a horrible start.

Well, all of these points are alive and present in the claims of the Roman Catholic Magisterium.

The Pharisees claimed to occupy the chair of Moses. Tellingly, Our Lord affirmed their authority. He instructed His followers to obey the Pharisees and submit to their authority. He added that His followers should not follow the example of the Pharisees. But they should follow the instructions of the Pharisees.

To put it another way, Our Lord never said that the teaching authority the Pharisees claimed to wield was a fiction or that the Pharisees were wrong to claim such authority.

What the Catholic Church teaches is that she wields that teaching authority today. Obviously, the precedent exists for an institution made up of men to wield such authority. It's not exactly inventing doctrine out of whole cloth to claim that such authority exists.

They claim to have an oral tradition that wasn't written down but is equal in authority to the New Testament (which is simply not historically true).

The problem with referring to what the Catholic Church would call "Sacred Tradition" as "oral tradition" is that it implies that these teachings were never committed to writing.

They often were.

It's been 2,000 years since the founding of the Church. During that time, empires have risen and fallen, cities have been built and subsequently been burned to the ground, the center of world politics has been a virtual ping-pong ball bouncing all over the place, wars have been fought, people have lived and died, and history took shape. And I haven't even mentioned natural disasters yet!

The idea that every single writing upon which the Church bases her doctrines could survive all of those cataclysmic events beggars belief. The fact that a given doctrine may not have survived in written form (although it very well may have in many cases) tells us only that history has been a rollercoaster ride. A fact, we can safely assume, that any fifth grade student has already learned from his own history classes.

As to the question of authority itself, Winger is starting off with the viewpoint that the Bible is the sole authority and that anything else which is claimed to possess authority is somehow "equal" to Sacred Scripture.

This is simply not how the Catholic Church has understood the matter. Rather, while the following graphic might be a bit crude and simplistic, it nevertheless serves as a decent visual depiction of the Catholic view of this matter.

Doubtless, some Protestant will object to that. Such is their right. Nevertheless, what Protestants think or are capable of understanding is beside the point. The point is that the Church views the question of authority in essentially this way. People have the right to believe whatever they want. But they don't have the right to tell me what I believe. I know what I believe.

They claim to have special right to interpret the Bible.

The practical necessity for interpretation speaks for itself. Because private interpretation sure hasn't helped the Protestants foster unity.

They claim to have special authority over God's people

Our Lord (i.e., God The Son) founded a Church. He did not compile or inspire others to compile a collection of religious texts. The Church which Our Lord founded has an invisible head (i.e., Our Lord Himself) and a visible head (i.e., St. Peter and his successors). The visible head and the Church herself wield a teaching authority such that what she binds on Earth is bound in Heaven and what she looses on Earth is loosened in Heaven. If anybody objects to that, take it up with Our Lord. He said it, not me.

due to a claim that they have apostolic succession in their leadership roles.

This is more than just a "claim". Whether you see the value in apostolic succession or not, the fact remains that our bishop's today can be traced in an unbroken line stretching back 2,000 years to Our Lord.

Jesus simply dismisses the Sanhedrin and the Pharisees in the New Testament.

The absolute state of modern Protestant scholarship.

In other words, we have a sample of how Jesus might respond to modern Roman Catholicism in the way that He responded to the 1st century Sanhedrin. And I think we should respond the same way.

I sinceriously can't even right now.

 

[hluke]

I don't have time to watch the video but I will try and watch it later. I'm looking to become Catholic and I had an immediate thought on this. The big difference between Jewish leaders at the time of Christ and the Roman Catholic church is that Catholics believe in the divinity of Jesus and his authority.

Yes that's true. But the Jewish religious leaders also believed in God as their authority, obviously not the Messiah. The issue here is the additional religious aspects. For example, both Catholics and the Jewish leaders prioritising traditions over scripture.

 

[hluke]

First I appreciate you taking time to write such a sophisticated and insightful response. To dishearten you a bit, the video gives answers to most of your questions.

Using them as a catch-all term for all religious belief and practice in first century Palestine is just plain wrongheaded.

The Pharisees and the Sanhedren are undoubtedly the main example of Jewish religious failures in the bible. So, I was referring to the authority of scripture: what Jesus says about religion contained in the bible.

This is inaccurate and misleading. And that's if I'm being charitable.

Ancient Judaism was manifestly not a sola scriptura religion. The ancient Israelites never claimed such a thing and a lot of today's Jews would not claim it either. The Oral Torah has its own Wikipedia page for crying out loud.

How so? I don't think there is any credible historical evidence which support Moses past on an oral law. The bible doesn't remotely support this anywhere. From everything I've read (former Judaists) the Jewish oral law was a Jewish fabrication. And even if there was such a thing, the Jewish people were not dependent on the teachings of the Torah, but preffered adding their own traditions and practices. To this day, the (Oral Law) is nothing more than a way for rabbis to manipulate the Jewish people into rejecting Jesus as the Messiah. The rabbinical tradition (Oral Law) is filled with many lies, and blasphemies. For example, they mock by referring to Jesus as Yeshu which, in their tradition, means 'may his name and memory be blotted out forever'. Another lie in the Talmud is that whoever doesn't follow the Rabbis’ laws is punished with boiling hot excrement in hell for all eternity...
And having a Wiki page does little to support a claim.

conflating oral tradition (which history supports) with the modish innovations introduced by the Pharisees (which Our Lord strongly condemned) leads one to some very wrong conclusions about history. It's just sloppy scholarship to phrase things the way Winger has.

How so?

As to the question of authority itself, Winger is starting off with the viewpoint that the Bible is the sole authority and that anything else which is claimed to possess authority is somehow "equal" to Sacred Scripture.

Yes. The bible is the word of God.

The practical necessity for interpretation speaks for itself. Because private interpretation sure hasn't helped the Protestants foster unity.

No it hasn't helped foster unity. But unlike Catholics, not many Protestants create extra-biblical teachings, aside from the damnable cults and prosperity teachers.

The Church which Our Lord founded has an invisible head (i.e., Our Lord Himself) and a visible head (i.e., St. Peter and his successors).

From a scriptural perspective, Christ is the head of the church. There's no two heads referenced in the bible. Can you provide historical evidence that St. Peter established a succession?

can be traced in an unbroken line stretching back 2,000 years to Our Lord.

Where is the evidence for this? It seems like Rome oppressed and slaughtered Christians for a while before it becoming the main religion of the Empire (Persecution of Nero). They probably crucified Peter also.

Doubtless, some Protestant will object to that.

If the scripture was the main source of authority then what's up with all the additional teachings and practices?

People have the right to believe whatever they want. But they don't have the right to tell me what I believe. I know what I believe.

Indeed, I believe in Jesus alone.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Likewise, the Pope holds dominance and power over Catholics.

Over ROMAN Catholics...He does NOT hold dominance and power over the Eastern Orthodox Catholics

 

[hluke]

Over ROMAN Catholics...He does NOT hold dominance and power over the Eastern Orthodox Catholics

Oh excuse my insolence! I'll edit that now

 

[Amittai]

I don't have time to watch the video but I will try and watch it later. I'm looking to become Catholic and I had an immediate thought on this. The big difference between Jewish leaders at the time of Christ and the Roman Catholic church is that Catholics believe in the divinity of Jesus and his authority.

Apostolic succession is no problem as it wasn't for Jesus around Sanhedrin members either (only their attitude). Also secondary doctrines are just that - secondary. And we should all be interpreting the Bible so it's no surprise individuals of "Pope" rank join in trying that.

RCC is not a religion of works but enforces passivity because it doesn't believe in Holy Spirit fuel to bear fruits of our gifts by strengthening our brothers (it denies all relationship). (Most protestant churches are sadly identical in this.) (This is the significance of the divinity of Jesus.)

You should gain what insights you want from where you can. Don't package deal. Show what add-ons you won't opt into. Bear in mind you will be under no obligation to take part in sacraments. Catholic pews are good places to hear lots of Scripture if it doesn't get gabbled.

 

[Lost4words]

Its amazing how many people truly dont know Catholicism.

 

[Amittai]

... the Jewish religious leaders claimed dominance and supremacy over Jews. Likewise, the Pope holds dominance and power over Catholics. 1

What is most important to me is the immense accountability and responsibility the Pope (like the Pharisees with Moses) has to portray a consistent and clear representation of their predecessor ... 2

What historical evidence is there for Roman Catholic claims of apostolic succession?
When did Rome receive authority to interpret the bible, and create extra-biblical doctrines such as feast days or other venerated things? (excuse my ignorance here) 3

...

Edit: If you are unable to watch it all, there is a brief summary of the content in the description of the video. 4

1 - Scripture says no one is to lord it which also means we are not to let anyone lord it. In my earlier time and place - which were unusual - no one expected us to kow tow exactly to popes even while much of their teaching was good. But recently the RCC has clamped down exceedingly heavily everywhere, just as it has less real teaching than ever.

2 - Correct

3 - Nothing wrong with actual succession if you happen to have it. Jesus said it was their attitude that was wrong. Everybody got some sort or form of belief or faith from someone anyway.

If Winger is saying their attitude is what is wrong, he is then not strengthening his point by trying to undermine actual succession in its simple terms; so what is he trying to do then? (He has got to argue either the first way - which convinces me - or the second - which is dated and shallowly superstitious. Trying both creates a mixed message.)

Given that we should all be interpreting the Bible it's not surprising they at Pope level would join in; and we can go and check out for ourselves what spin they - like anyone else - put on it (which sometimes used to be good anyway).

Secondary doctrines are just that - secondary. All traditions are both written and oral, nothing sensational in that.

God usually makes things work better than they "should" - the present is a time when we've got to sharpen up, that's all. But we've got to sharpen up about the right things and not make things twice as worse by finagling over what doesn't need finagling over.

It always was the case, morally, that you should show which add-ons (including some sacraments) you weren't opting into, and should not package deal.

4 - please can you give a precise link to this. I am not going to have my brain dismantled for an hour. I take a text in fully and fairly in moments. Winger should learn to be fair to us.

 

[Amittai]

...
When did he say this? If anything, Jesus denounced the instruction of the Pharisees: he severely rebuked the Pharisees. (Seven woes), and the Pharisees instigated the crucifixion... where did you find this claim?

...

He says we do well to tithe our dill, cumin and mint (oops I forgot) like they do. It's only their attitude to our fellows He doesn't want me to copy.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Oh excuse my insolence! I'll edit that now

So edit it...

 

[Amittai]

Its amazing how many people truly dont know Catholicism.

I agree and I would stress it is far better to opt into those Catholic things that are genuine, at discretion, than to steer clear of them.

 

[hluke]

If Winger is saying their attitude is what is wrong, he is then not strengthening his point by trying to undermine actual succession in its simple terms; so what is he trying to do then?

From what I understood in the video, Winger acknowledges that there's nothing necessarily wrong with succession, but with both the wrong attitudes and additional religious instructions, its clearly not something that Jesus would advocate. This is very clear in Matthew 23.
In addition, Winger rightly argues that outside tradition, both the Roman Catholics and the Pharisees have little evidence to suggest that the they hold their role of their predecessors. When Jesus acknowledges the Pharisees 'holding Moses' seat' he recognises the responsibility they have to make sure their teachings are in order, which they weren't. For example, he says I think in John that Moses becomes their accuser because they denied him as the Christ.

Secondary doctrines are just that - secondary. All traditions are both written and oral, nothing sensational in that.

Not really. They are additions to what God teaches in the bible. For example, the Jewish people today rely on their rabbis to interpret the bible: this prohibits them from studying it for themselves and realising the true meaning of scripture. And stops them from finding Christ in the prophecies. Likewise, the word of God teaches us to avoid self-made religion, but the Catholics do this. Col 2:23

4 - please can you give a precise link to this.

Its in the video description like I mentioned. It would be impossible to get the full message without watching the whole video. I can assure that you won't get your brain dismantled: this person is very logical with his claims. I advise if you do watch it to clear away any preconceptions, emotions or prejudices beforehand.

 

[hluke]

Its amazing how many people truly dont know Catholicism.

Have you watched the video?

This person seems quite well educated and is very reasonable and respectful in the way he addresses the topic.

While I don't agree with Roman Catholicism, I have watched some very insightful and astounding material from Biship Robert Barron for instance.

I think Winger would know much more about Roman Catholicism than the average church-goer, yourself included.

 

[hluke]

It's only their attitude to our fellows He doesn't want me to copy.

No, its much more than the attitude. Jesus denounces most of their tradition as indicated in Matthew 23: this is why additional man-made teachings may be dangerous. For example, Jesus rebukes them by saying 'call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father who is heaven.' He also says in the following verse. 'Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ.'

 

[Lost4words]

Have you watched the video?

This person seems quite well educated and is very reasonable and respectful in the way he addresses the topic.

While I don't agree with Roman Catholicism, I have watched some very insightful and astounding material from Biship Robert Barron for instance.

I think Winger would know much more about Roman Catholicism than the average church-goer, yourself included.

I call it twisted knowledge. Thats what he knows

 

[Dansiph]

Yes that's true. But the Jewish religious leaders also believed in God as their authority, obviously not the Messiah. The issue here is the additional religious aspects. For example, both Catholics and the Jewish leaders prioritising traditions over scripture.

I'd argue they didn't even recognise God as their authority.

 

[Amittai]

... they denied him as the Christ ...

You get to the point in seconds. To deny that Jesus is the Christ, like denying that Christ has come in the body, and blaspheming the Holy Spirit, means to quash and distrust the gifts in the ordinary Christians, to eat the sheep like wolves and not shepherds (sadly most Protestant churches I've known are just the same, and furthermore, some Catholics avoid these problems by selective belief anyway).

Otherwise, any add-ons don't matter. Winger is probably good on some points, but I cannot spend any time on arguments that don't strengthen his own case.

 

[Dansiph]

I'd argue they didn't even recognise God as their authority.

It's also very important to add that Jesus is God.