Arguments against the Papacy?

[SojournerOnEarth]

Does the practices of Christians for the first few centuries not play any factor in understanding the teaching of Scripture and the teaching of the Apostles? Also, where does Scripture state everything must be clearly defined in Scripture?

We do look at the ECFs and see how they interpreted Scripture and what their practices were, yes. But they were not infallible, and we measure what they did and said against Scripture as a standard.

Your second question would be best answered on its own thread, or series of threads. But briefly, we don’t say that everything must be clearly defined in Scripture. Clear, logical deductions from Scripture are, by definition, reasonable conclusions. Statements that have no Scriptural support or are contrary to Scripture or its reasonable deductions should be rejected. Scripture is silent on a lot of things, such as automobiles, but that does not mean we do not use cars.

 

[Vonsalza]

But briefly, we don’t say that everything must be clearly defined in Scripture. Clear, logical deductions from Scripture are, by definition, reasonable conclusions. Statements that have no Scriptural support or are contrary to Scripture or its reasonable deductions should be rejected. Scripture is silent on a lot of things, such as automobiles, but that does not mean we do not use cars.

Quite true. There are legions of religious things your average Evangelical does that are nowhere to be found in scripture; even as many Evangelicals claim to be of the “sola scriptura” stripe.

It’s only a problem, it seems, when other people do the same thing.

 

[Vonsalza]

Does the practices of Christians for the first few centuries not play any factor in understanding the teaching of Scripture and the teaching of the Apostles? Also, where does Scripture state everything must be clearly defined in Scripture?

No where, of course. For the first 1.5 millennia of Christ’s Church, the Bible was viewed as being a derivative of the Church, as opposed to the Church being a derivative of the Bible. This makes sense, obviously, as scripture’s canon wasn’t semi-sealed until 350 years had passed and was still somewhat debated as late as Florence/Trent, when council shut-down further discussion about the canonicity of the Antilegomena - basically the latter half of the New Testament.

Obviously modern Evangelicals, by and large, have no interest in these facts, even as they are representative of the “primitive, pristine church” most claim to “restore”…

#bubblegumchristianity

 

[PluniaZ]

The Pope defended the Church against every heresy in the first millennium:

https://forums.catholic-questions.org/t/rome-2000-years-of-consistent-orthodoxy/435704

The heretics always fell into schism with Rome.

You shall know them by their fruit. Matthew 7:16

 

[SojournerOnEarth]

The Pope defended the Church against every heresy in the first millennium:

https://forums.catholic-questions.org/t/rome-2000-years-of-consistent-orthodoxy/435704

The heretics always fell into schism with Rome.

You shall know them by their fruit. Matthew 7:16

As I said before, this is a very poor argument to use against anyone with knowledge of the Catholic Church.

Why do you continue to use disproven arguments?

 

[PluniaZ]

How is it a poor argument?

Where has it been disproven?

 

[SojournerOnEarth]

Within the last week, between you and me.

And on another thread you returned to making a point you had retreated from.

It makes it hard to want to discuss anything with you. I am disappointed because you seem like you are very knowledgeable and otherwise post in charity. But if you continue to repeat shown error, I can only shrug and walk away.

 

[PluniaZ]

I recall discussing the Quartodeciman controversy with you, and you accused me of lying about the church agreeing to Pope Victor I’s demands because the Eastern Orthodox today celebrate Easter on a different date from Roman Catholics. I explained that the difference in date today is due to the Roman Catholic adoption of the Gregorian calendar in the 16th century, whereas Eastern Orthodox continue to use the Julian calendar, which has nothing to do with what Pope Victor I was teaching in the second century (1400 years before the Gregorian calendar was invented). You never responded, but seem to follow me around on every thread, accusing me of repeating errors.

Anyway, I don’t like personal discussions about each other. Let’s just stick to substantive discussions.

Discuss the issue, not each other.

 

[eddietoo]

sojourner one earth,

do you consider your teachings to be infallible?

if they are not infallible, why should anyone accept them as having any authority or authenticity?

 

[Vonsalza]

sojourner one earth,

do you consider your teachings to be infallible?

if they are not infallible, why should anyone accept them as having any authority or authenticity?

Bingo.

If one is not Catholic or Orthodox of some stripe, then one’s claim to be a part of the continuous, ancient Church is utterly unsupportable from a historical perspective. Blind faith would be the only bulwark to the claim.

I think back to the silly games of historical whack-a-mole I used to play as a Baptist; trying to connect all these heretical groups across history that had absolutely no identifiable connection to each other (besides the fact they weren’t Catholic - my implied prime standard).

If the Church “failed” in some way and required restoration, then “Ye Gods”, which one of the thousands of claimants is it??? How on earth does one discern? They all claim the Spirit, they all claim scripture…

 

[SojournerOnEarth]

sojourner one earth,

do you consider your teachings to be infallible?

if they are not infallible, why should anyone accept them as having any authority or authenticity?

You refuse to do anything unless it is infallibly correct, I guess. Were you infallibly sure your breakfast did not contain poison, or dud you fast because of a lack of infallible proof?

We believe a lot of things because they are observable, reasonable, or because they are told to us by people we trust to be true. Otherwise we would be incredibly limited. A demand that everything be infallible before we believe it is simply way too high. Not everything the Catholic Church teaches, for that matter, is considered infallible, but you are still required to believe it. Not because it is infallible, but because the Church teaches it.

I try not to have anything that is “my teaching”. I try to have the truth as best I understand it.

 

[SojournerOnEarth]

I recall discussing the Quartodeciman controversy with you, and you accused me of lying about the church agreeing to Pope Victor I’s demands because the Eastern Orthodox today celebrate Easter on a different date from Roman Catholics. I explained that the difference in date today is due to the Roman Catholic adoption of the Gregorian calendar in the 16th century, whereas Eastern Orthodox continue to use the Julian calendar, which has nothing to do with what Pope Victor I was teaching in the second century (1400 years before the Gregorian calendar was invented). You never responded, but seem to follow me around on every thread, accusing me of repeating errors.

Anyway, I don’t like personal discussions about each other. Let’s just stick to substantive discussions.

Discuss the issue, not each other.

That wasn’t the issue, and that’s not how I see it. Ok, I’ll try to stick to the issues. Aside from this, I enjoy talking to you.

Anyone outside the Catholic Church has a pretty dim view of the fruit of the Catholic Church, which is why it is such as weak argument. Non-Catholics think of the numerous scandals, and the lives of the Catholics they know (typically, ah, non-exemplary), from the corruption of the Vatican bank to other repeated scandals. There are answers, good answers, to some of those issues, but if you just ask someone to look at the fruit of the Catholic Church it is probably going to blow up in your face.

 

[PluniaZ]

Just as non-Christians have a pretty dim view of the fruits of Christianity. That doesn’t mean examples of Christianity’s good fruit are a bad argument.

In the area of correct doctrine, Rome has produced nothing but good fruit. Rome rebutted every first millennium heresy. Every other ancient see fell into heresy and had to be brought back by Rome, or else like Alexandria have obstinately remained in heresy for 1500+ years.

Now in terms of personal sins, I don’t think any Christian sect is exempt from scandal. But Jesus Himself told us not to let this deter us in Matthew 13:

Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

Let us heed the warning of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and not try to separate the wheat from the weeds before the appointed time.

 

[eddietoo]

sojourner on earth,

from what i have read of your writings, you profess nothing but your own beliefs. however firmly and deeply you believe in your own intelligence, knowledge and understanding, surely you can understand why a thoughtful and intelligent person would want more than your self-assurances that you are very sincere.

 

[Entwhistler]

Anyone outside the Catholic Church has a pretty dim view of the fruit of the Catholic Church, which is why it is such as weak argument. Non-Catholics think of the numerous scandals, and the lives of the Catholics they know (typically, ah, non-exemplary), from the corruption of the Vatican bank to other repeated scandals. There are answers, good answers, to some of those issues, but if you just ask someone to look at the fruit of the Catholic Church it is probably going to blow up in your face.

To slightly misquote Yoda, “2000 years old you reach, look as good you will not.”
But, just the highlights: The university system, the salvation of Western Civilization after Rome fell, the Cathedrals of Europe (I’m trying to think if there are any Cathedrals built by Protestants. Not gloating but just stating a fact), Michelangelo, Mother Teresa, Francis of Assisi, Musical notation and the musical revolution of the Middle Ages brought about the symphony…

To say expounding the fruits of the Catholic Church will blow up in your face is slightly absurd. There have been problems I will grant you, but there will always be problems as long as human beings are around.

 

[AlNg]

In the area of correct doctrine, Rome has produced nothing but good fruit.

Yes, that is the Roman Catholic view. However, the Eastern Orthodox might object and say that a certain number of innovations have been introduced which from their POV present a serious barrier to reunion. And as well, some of the Protestant churches would not agree with your opinion.

 

[PluniaZ]

And the Eastern Orthodox are wrong. They are the ones who innovated with the essence-energies distinction in the 14th century, rejecting the historic teaching of the Filioque, and rejecting the historic primacy of Rome.

 

[SojournerOnEarth]

PluniaZ:

In the area of correct doctrine, Rome has produced nothing but good fruit.

Yes, that is the Roman Catholic view. However, the Eastern Orthodox might object and say that a certain number of innovations have been introduced which from their POV present a serious barrier to reunion. And as well, some of the Protestant churches would not agree with your opinion.

ALL Protestant churches would reject this claim. Otherwise they would be Catholic. There are some good things Catholics have come up with, but to Protestants there is enough poison to reject it.

 

[AlNg]

And the Eastern Orthodox are wrong. They are the ones who innovated with the essence-energies distinction in the 14th century, rejecting the historic teaching of the Filioque,

If the filioque is historic teaching, why was it not included in the creed given at the First council of Constantinople (381)?
Was the first council of Constantinople (381) wrong?

 

[SojournerOnEarth]

PluniaZ:

And the Eastern Orthodox are wrong. They are the ones who innovated with the essence-energies distinction in the 14th century, rejecting the historic teaching of the Filioque,

If the filioque is historic teaching, why was it not included in the creed given at the First council of Constantinople (381)?
Was the first council of Constantinople (381) wrong?

Setting the actual issue of the filioque aside as worthy of separate discussions, I would like to point out that Rome’s crude attempt to force it on the East “because he’s pope” was met with a “We never accepted the idea of such a pontiff. First among equals, yes, but not this.” from the East. The split was a clear sign of Roman overreach and that the East had NEVER accepted Rome’s idea of a pontiff. Rome regards it as rebellion, the East regards it as something closer to attempted rape.