Beginning with luther?

[Bookcat]

If Christ ordained the petrine dynasty it would have been universally known as a dogma from the get-go

The office of Peter existed from the time that Christ established it.

Was it exercised the same way as it is now? No of course not.

Has some aspects seen various developments in understanding etc? Sure. As is true with other aspects of the Faith.

 

[Eufrosnia]

But do you not think it is “scary” (to say the least) that the early church fathers were unaware of this unique Petrine foundation?

Actually, this is not part of the steps. You see, on your quest to giving assent to the church, this matter is not of much relevance.

All that matters is that you admit a hierarchy and primacy of Rome. Both of which are abundantly attested in history and can be accessed through writings of early Christians (including the fathers) and Canons of councils.

So I fear that you are still falling in to the trap of theological analysis when your analysis before assent should be primarily one of reason.

 

[Eufrosnia]

If Christ ordained the petrine dynasty it would have been universally known as a dogma from the get-go

One would argue that it was known from the get-go. Portrayal of Peter resolving the circumcision debate by taking the floor is considered as a good example for many. Also, the mention of giving the “KEYS TO THE KINGDOM” is considered a passage that settles the deal.

(The “Keys to the Kingdom” were given in the kingdom of Judah to the prime-minister by the King. So Christ the king, Peter would then have the office of the prime minister)

Since an office does not end with the death of those who hold the office. The succession seems intuitive.

In any case, what you are debating here is theology. You can debate these issues ad infinitum and still be as uncertain and in doubt. Your analysis, therefore, needs to be historical. Then you must simply give assent because it is the only reasonable cause of action available if you are to be a Christian. All the others are without foundation and require arbitrary assent to things like Scripture or Church fathers and ones own interpretations.

 

[Bookcat]

Yes

Do not forget --today is your window to call Jimmy Akin on the show -to get his insight into some of your various questions on your threads–second hour (7 ET). catholic.com/radio

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

What window of time is available?

Esfrosnia

You realize that in the gospel of Mark, Peter’s confession is not marked with the statement that Peter is the rock upon which the church is built. If it was so important, why omit this?

Moreover, this is not as important as the fact that Matthew in fact does insert it and it must be given a meaning. For starters, let’s just recognize that this scripture was not known as a support verse for a perpetual petrine dynasty with the mode of succession even by some of the highest theologians and doctors of the day such as Augustine and St. Chrysostom.

Yes, you will point out there theology on the authority of the Catholic Church, but this is acceptible considering the Church at this point was not filled with many weird and suspicious doctrines. But that being said, Chrysostom, a doctor of the Catholic Church, does not understand the confession of peter to inuagurate a petrine succession of universal authority.

At the very least, this is disturbing. You would not have a prophet such as Isaiah who is unaware of the davidic messianic dynasty from 2 Samuel 7. Such ignorance would put this man out of the league of prophets.

Augustine as well is totally unaware of this petrine succession based off the confession of Peter. In fact, we can deduce from Augustine’s well adherence to the authority of the Catholic Church that this understanding of “rock” was not in any public usage otherwise Augustine would have used it and known of it in his commentaries on Matthew 16.

Since Augustine was so well submissive to the Church, he would have known reasons for being submissive to the Church, and Peter being the rock of the Church is simply just not one of the reasons. As a historian, this creates a huge question as to whether this verse was even read in order to support a Papacy in the earliest years of the Church.

 

[Eufrosnia]

What window of time is available?

Esfrosnia

You realize that in the gospel of Mark, Peter’s confession is not marked with the statement that Peter is the rock upon which the church is built. If it was so important, why omit this?

Moreover, this is not as important as the fact that Matthew in fact does insert it and it must be given a meaning. For starters, let’s just recognize that this scripture was not known as a support verse for a perpetual petrine dynasty with the mode of succession even by some of the highest theologians and doctors of the day such as Augustine and St. Chrysostom.

Yes, you will point out there theology on the authority of the Catholic Church, but this is acceptible considering the Church at this point was not filled with many weird and suspicious doctrines. But that being said, Chrysostom, a doctor of the Catholic Church, does not understand the confession of peter to inuagurate a petrine succession of universal authority.

At the very least, this is disturbing. You would not have a prophet such as Isaiah who is unaware of the davidic messianic dynasty from 2 Samuel 7. Such ignorance would put this man out of the league of prophets.

Augustine as well is totally unaware of this petrine succession based off the confession of Peter. In fact, we can deduce from Augustine’s well adherence to the authority of the Catholic Church that this understanding of “rock” was not in any public usage otherwise Augustine would have used it and known of it in his commentaries on Matthew 16.

Since Augustine was so well submissive to the Church, he would have known reasons for being submissive to the Church, and Peter being the rock of the Church is simply just not one of the reasons. As a historian, this creates a huge question as to whether this verse was even read in order to support a Papacy in the earliest years of the Church.

You are arguing theology here Erick. If I give you 100% satisfactory explanations, you do realize that it is no reason for you to adopt the Catholic Church or Christianity either, right?

I also noticed that you have not answered the fundamental error of your position i.e. how did you go from Christ to the Bible?

(also, it is irrelevant whether the early church recognized passage x,y,z as support for Papacy (or any other concept). all that matters is the primacy of Rome and Apostolic Succession. Why? Because if you accept that, then you give assent to the Church. You will then accept the Dogma of the Papacy on faith, not because it makes sense to you or what you know.)

So the core problem here is that you have already arbitrarily accepted certain truths and have decided to interpret teaching from it yourself. Now you look upon things that would have been your foundation to accept the truths to begin with, with suspicion.

Therefore, you have to step back a bit. Start from scratch. Otherwise, you could just continue in an infinite loop.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

The bible, at the very least, contains documents which speak the truth concerning our faith in Jesus Christ, the gospel of God. It is abbreviated, yes we must admit. We do not have the resources to understand everything 100% as the original authors and recipients, but as historians, we can do our very best.

Christ did not commission of set script of literature for the authority of the Church just before ascending into heaven. However, you will notice that when the disciples met the risen Jesus, he was quite insistent that the events which had occurred were foretold in the Law of Moses and the Prophets. In fact, when the disciples doubted, instead of settling with the evidence of his physical body being alive again, dived right into the authoritative word of the Old Testament to bring to light the validity of such events.

Not only did Jesus say that his death, burial, and resurrection were already foretold in the infallible word of God in the Old Testament, but also his own words throughout his teaching ministry were foretold. And not only did the Old Testament foretell the coming suffering of the Messiah and the exalting glories that would follow, but that the actual dispensation of grace (Church-New Israel) of “preaching repentance for the remission of sins in His name” (Luke 24) was foretold. Therefore, you already have a worked base of looking into the Scriptures for not only the events of Jesus’ redemptive death and resurrection, but the ages that would follow in the form of “preaching the remission of sins”.

Moreover, the apostles were insistent, just as the Lord Jesus, that their doctrine is not from men, but from God, and it was not simply a Petrine dynastic structure that was enforced and assumed submission, no, no, no, the apostles themselves were equipped with miraculous signs and wonders, in conjunction with the evidence of the empty tomb, in conjunction with the Scriptures themselves. Why do we wonder that the first sermon of the Apostle Peter is not a claim to enthronment or some steward role under Christ the king, but that the Scripture has foretold the events that were happening.

Therefore, right from the very inception of the Church, you have many protestant elements going on. The Scriptures are prominent in the apostolic theology and doctrine (Acts 2). Hereafter, we read the Apostle Phillip and Paul, barnabas, and Silas, not excluding Apollos, defending their doctrine from the Law of Moses and the Prophets.

Therefore, the apostles themselves lived under the authority of the Law of Moses and the Prophets.

Yes, people needed someone to explain the old testament (see the Eunech in Acts 8), but others (Bereans) were themselves happy to find it themselves. This shows that it is not simply left to one man or group to be the final arbiters on what verses mean, but that in conjunction with this is the free available intellect of the human being to engage in the literature of the Old Testament to validate the apostolic claims. Surely, how can someone argue against this very principle?

Right through and through until the end of Luke’s account, Paul is holding up the Law of Moses and the Prophets to testify of Jesus and the Kingdom of God.

Therefore, it is theoretically possible for us to have the right doctrine of our era of grace from simply the Old Testament. This is something Paul was aware of, having told Timothy that the Old Testament was useful in everything pertaining to life and salvation. Such statements are extremely weakening to the additions which were to come some 1000 years later concerning the divine doctrines of Mary, the Lord’s mother, which no one was concerned with in Jerusalem at the Church’s inception.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

Now, you asked how we get from Christ to the Bible?

To put it bluntly, Christ himself works off the Bible in his own mission and even after his resurrection. This is what I am saying, from the very moment of the incarnation, throughout the earthly ministry of Jesus, and even after his resurrection, Jesus puts himself under the mission and authority of the word of His Father written in the Old Testament Law, Prophets, and Writings.

What comes first? Christ or the bible? In this sense, the Bible comes first in this sense. But eternally begotten always is first in another sense.

When Jesus ascended into heaven, he believed he equipped the apostles with enough learning in the Old Testament to proclaim Him to the nations. Jesus did not adorn Peter with a royal dynastic position which would follows an impeding succession of a universal bishopric over the entire world of Christendom. Goodness gracious, Jesus was sitting at the right hand of the Father after just telling them the Old Testament was the source of the Messianic mission to Israel and to the world-wide nations.

The apostles were nevertheless adorned with authority that was on par with Christ and their ministry was just as Valid as the sending of the Son from the Father. We have some of their writings, not nearly all, and we have other writings of those who were close to them. And these were written off the foundation that the Old Testament was behind the mission of Christ and the Church from the very get-go, precisely because it was the plan of God the Father from the beginning.

 

[Eufrosnia]

The bible, at the very least, contains documents which speak the truth concerning our faith in Jesus Christ, the gospel of God. It is abbreviated, yes we must admit. We do not have the resources to understand everything 100% as the original authors and recipients, but as historians, we can do our very best…

Actually you are missing the point here. My question to you is how do you reason from your experience of Christ to anything else.

This also includes your belief in the OT/ NT/ Bible. Not just the NT.

Do you have any actual reasons? Or did you simply give assent to the Bible?

 

[Bookcat]

scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a2.htm

scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a3.htm

 

[Eufrosnia]

Now, you asked how we get from Christ to the Bible?

To put it bluntly, Christ himself works off the Bible in his own mission and even after his resurrection. This is what I am saying, from the very moment of the incarnation, throughout the earthly ministry of Jesus, and even after his resurrection, Jesus puts himself under the mission and authority of the word of His Father written in the Old Testament Law, Prophets, and Writings.

I am sorry, but the above underlined part is very problematic. How did you even come to know this? How can Christ use that which did not even exist at the time (especially prior to his ascension)?

Also the final part above is simply what you know FROM the Bible. Outside of the Bible, the only thing you know from a personal experience of Christ is that he exists. ***You actually cannot even claim if he is God or not. ***

What comes first? Christ or the bible? In this sense, the Bible comes first in this sense. But eternally begotten always is first in another sense.

The Bible doesn’t come first. This is historically inaccurate to begin with. It also reduces your faith to some arbitrary assent not much different from Islam.

I am also not speaking chronologically. I am speaking logically. The Bible can never come first in a logical sequence of steps before Christ.

When Jesus ascended into heaven, he believed he equipped the apostles with enough learning in the Old Testament to proclaim Him to the nations. Jesus did not adorn Peter with a royal dynastic position which would follows an impeding succession of a universal bishopric over the entire world of Christendom. Goodness gracious, Jesus was sitting at the right hand of the Father after just telling them the Old Testament was the source of the Messianic mission to Israel and to the world-wide nations.

The apostles were nevertheless adorned with authority that was on par with Christ and their ministry was just as Valid as the sending of the Son from the Father. We have some of their writings, not nearly all, and we have other writings of those who were close to them. And these were written off the foundation that the Old Testament was behind the mission of Christ and the Church from the very get-go, precisely because it was the plan of God the Father from the beginning.

All the final part of your reply is theology which you discovered FROM reading the Bible. So needless to say, you cannot justify the Bible using what is written in the Bible.

I can write a book and say it is the word of God. It doesn’t make it so. Right?

So we are back to the essential yet simple question you must answer. What is your line of reasoning to arrive at the Bible after Christ? IF you simply chose the Bible first, you have bigger issues. You probably want to retrace your steps back to the Resurrection of Christ.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

You know, you could have drilled a 17 year old Jewish boy with the same threatening question and he would have simply have responded “it was written. I must now go on with my Father’s business”.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

Jesus understood that the eternal plan of God was breathed into the pen of the prophets.

This is the foundation that he works off of in his own ministry, does he not? How would Jesus have answered your questions?

 

[Eufrosnia]

You know, you could have drilled a 17 year old Jewish boy with the same threatening question and he would have simply have responded “it was written. I must now go on with my Father’s business”.

Actually you would be incorrect.

The Jewish people believe in their writings by Moses because of their tight experience of God. In a way, God verified that he spoke through Moses by continuous punishment and miracles in their journey from Egypt. This experience has been passed down from parent to son/daughter. However, this is not true for all of us who were never Jewish.

So you are really making a fundamental mistake here. You are adopting to live in uncertainty by giving arbitrary assent to a book when there is a more logical way available. Don’t you think that is weird?

 

[Eufrosnia]

Jesus understood that the eternal plan of God was breathed into the pen of the prophets.

This is the foundation that he works off of in his own ministry, does he not? How would Jesus have answered your questions?

Jesus does not need to answer this question. YOU need to answer this question. i.e. How do I learn about Jesus?

The only logical way for you to do it is to go through Apostles, and whoever they passed down their authority to. For this, you have to turn to history.

Instead, you have magically decided to give assent to a book. This is not reasonable.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

Are you going to tell me that the present “Petrine dynasty”, having been established many years after the inception of the Church, ruling the Roman Catholic Church is the source of all assurance and certainty?

What was the source of certainty for the churches that were planted in 89AD in north eastern Europe who had no contact with the apostle John? Was their assurance based off of the Papacy? Or even that it stands on a dynastic structure of shepherding coming from the successor of Peter?

If we are open for the later development of the Church in terms of elements that no Christian was aware of in the first 30 years of the Church, that even the apostles were not aware of, we are opening ourselves up to something that does not rest on apostolic authority.

If not, you can explain what is more logical…

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

Jesus does not need to answer this question. YOU need to answer this question. i.e. How do I learn about Jesus?

The only logical way for you to do it is to go through Apostles, and whoever they passed down their authority to. For this, you have to turn to history.

Instead, you have magically decided to give assent to a book. This is not reasonable.

Well, I am giving assent to the very Scriptures which Jesus himself gave assent, indeed a book which he lived under and finished his mission in accordance with. I am giving assent to the doctrines of the early church, and I do give assent to the stream of history from the beginning to our present day.

I think many Church historians, who have studied for 70 years on this issue, living all over the world, can see developments in the Christian church throughout the centuries that have reasonably led to the tripartite division of Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant realms of the Christian Church.

You have historians, even Catholic, who are willing to accept the absense of a papacy

 

[Eufrosnia]

Are you going to tell me that the present “Petrine dynasty”, having been established many years after the inception of the Church, ruling the Roman Catholic Church is the source of all assurance and certainty?

As I have repeated countless times Erick, Petrine Dynasty is NOT your source of certainty. The Church is and that is all you need to establish. You are still stuck in theology.

What was the source of certainty for the churches that were planted in 89AD in north eastern Europe who had no contact with the apostle John? Was their assurance based off of the Papacy? Or even that it stands on a dynastic structure of shepherding coming from the successor of Peter?

It was based on the respective authority of the person who brought the message to them i.e. Apostolic Successor or instituted deacon etc.

If we are open for the later development of the Church in terms of elements that no Christian was aware of in the first 30 years of the Church, that even the apostles were not aware of, we are opening ourselves up to something that does not rest on apostolic authority.

If not, you can explain what is more logical…

No you are not. The fundamental belief for ALL TIME is Apostolic Authority. The Apostolic Authority can define things more precisely with time. But it doesn’t change the underlying principle.

You are confusing yourself here by going theological. You are forgetting that you cannot do theology when you have no theological axioms to begin with.

 

[Bookcat]

What window of time is available? .

Do not forget --today is your window to call Jimmy Akin on the show -to get his insight into some of your various questions on your threads–second hour (7 ET). catholic.com/radio

see link – depends on where our on our fine globe.

But one wants to call right at 7pm Eastern Time-or just prior- to get in line for him --make sure you tell the screener it is for him…

 

[Bookcat]

To be read in order:

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20060315_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20060322_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20060329_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20060405_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20060510_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20060517_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20060524_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20060607_en.html