Catholic but not Roman Catholic

[BobCatholic]

JasonTE:

BobCatholic,

Let me ask you again, if I refer to all Americans, without distinguishing between Republicans and Democrats, does that prove that I’m singling out Republicans?

But your series is not talking about “all americans” or “all of Christendom”

It is called “Catholic but not Roman Catholic” because you’re attacking one church, and one church only.

Using your example, if you’re writing a series titled “Founding Fathers but not Democrat” - so that’s not attacking Democrats?

You said that I “only attack one church”. First, I would ask you whether you consider your criticisms of groups you disagree with to be “attacks”.

I know the difference between criticism and Catholophobia.

If Karl Keating writes a book against fundamentalism, but doesn’t write a book against Buddhism or Satanism, do you criticize him for only “attacking” one group?

The book was written in response to common fundamentalist attacks. No attacks? No book. Self-defense.

Is it your belief that people should not write more about subjects they’re more familiar with, but instead should write equally about all subjects? Must every book published on Catholicism be accompanied by books on Mormonism, gardening, football, the history of China, etc.?]

So you claim 100% familiarity about Catholicism, and the Early Church, and managed to come to the conclusion that you have determined 100% correctly what the Early Church REALLY taught.

The fact is, you and I are not 2,000 years old, and were not around when Christ and the Apostles walked on this planet, nor were we around when the Early Church was around. I don’t claim to read the mind of the Early Church, nor do I claim to know 100% infallibly what they taught. So how to determine correctly?

Oh yeah, our fallible and feeble human understanding I’d rather “lean not on our understanding…” but listen to the Pillar of Truth.

 

[PhilVaz]

JasonTE << Inside the cover of one of my older Bibles that I had when I was younger, I have a copy of the Apostles’ Creed that we were given in a Sunday school class I attended in an Evangelical Free church. >>

Interesting, thanks for the personal note. I’ll let others respond. I know some evangelical churches recite the Nicene creed as written, others change it to just “Christian church” instead of holy catholic church.

Anyway, you always liven things up, and most Catholics can’t keep up with you. Trying to be friendly, even if I called your CBNRC series “stupid.”

Phil P

 

[JasonTE]

BobCatholic:

So basically, what you’re saying is that there is no standard of truth, only what we as “fallible human beings” believe.

No, I didn’t say that there isn’t any truth. What I said is that we’re all fallible in our apprehension of the truth, which does exist. Keep in mind that fallibility is the ability to err, not the certainty of erring. You can be fallible, yet be confident in your conclusions.

As far as apostolic succession is concerned, see the relevant segments in my series on the church fathers. Not all of the fathers discussed the subject, but the ones who did defined the concept in a variety of ways, including ways that contradict the Roman Catholic view. I agree with The Didache, Cyprian, Dionysius of Alexandria, and other patristic sources regarding the fallibility of post-apostolic church leaders and the need to go back to the original revelation given by God. Church leaders are legitimate and to be followed only so far as they meet doctrinal and moral standards. The bishops of Roman Catholicism, including many Roman bishops, have often failed to meet those standards. There are many groups that claim some sort of succession from the apostles (Anglicans, Copts, Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans, etc.). The fact that they disagree with each other so much is clear evidence that having a lineage of bishops going back to early church history does not assure doctrinal correctness.

“My child, remember night and day him who speaks the word of God to you, and honor him as you do the Lord. For wherever the lordly rule is uttered, there is the Lord…Whosoever, therefore, comes and teaches you all these things that have been said before, receive him. But if the teacher himself turns and teaches another doctrine to the destruction of this, hear him not. But if he teaches so as to increase righteousness and the knowledge of the Lord, receive him as the Lord…Appoint, therefore, for yourselves, bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men meek, and not lovers of money, and truthful and proved; for they also render to you the service of prophets and teachers.” (The Didache, 4, 11, 15)

Jason Engwer
members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
ntrmin.org

 

[JasonTE]

BobCatholic,

You began by calling me a “scumbag”, and you don’t seem to have made much of an effort to reasonably interact with what I’ve said. I’m going to let you have the last word on some of these things we’ve been discussing, and I probably won’t be responding to much more of what you write. I think your posts have become largely self-refuting. I would ask the readers to compare Bob’s quotes of what I’ve said to what he says in response. There isn’t much correlation between the two.

Jason Engwer
members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
ntrmin.org

 

[BobCatholic]

JasonTE:

No, I didn’t say that there isn’t any truth. What I said is that we’re all fallible in our apprehension of the truth, which does exist. Keep in mind that fallibility is the ability to err, not the certainty of erring. You can be fallible, yet be confident in your conclusions.

Confident, yes, correct, no. There’s lots of mirror worshippers that are confident in their conclusions. A good example are those pro-abortion hypocrites who claim to be Christian.

Church leaders are legitimate and to be followed only so far as they meet doctrinal and moral standards.

Such as agreeing with your personal interpretation of scripture and God’s revelation.

The bishops of Roman Catholicism, including many Roman bishops, have often failed to meet those standards.

So, if a church has bishops that make mistakes, dump it, rail against it, instead of just rebuking the ones doing the error, throw away the baby with the bathwater?

There are many groups that claim some sort of succession from the apostles (Anglicans, Copts, Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans, etc.). The fact that they disagree with each other so much is clear evidence that having a lineage of bishops going back to early church history does not assure doctrinal correctness.

Infallibility of individual bishops, or that apostolic succession guarantees doctrinal correctness is not a Catholic belief. The fact you didn’t answer my questions about your church’s bishops and their succession is very telling!

"My child, remember night and day him who speaks the word of God to you, and honor him as you do the Lord.

“except if he dares to disagree with your interpretation of Scripture, then hang the sonofagun from the highest tree and repudiate the church he is a member of”

 

[BobCatholic]

JasonTE:

BobCatholic,

You began by calling me a “scumbag”, and you don’t seem to have made much of an effort to reasonably interact with what I’ve said.

Actually I have. I’ve answered your questions, and when I ask questions, I get runaround and non-answers.

Your choice

 

[PhilVaz]

JasonTE << in my series is about as reasonable as complaining that Karl Keating didn’t include a chapter on Satanists in his book against fundamentalism. >>

I chuckled at this, I see a sense of humor here

Anyway, it was my fault for mentioning JasonTE by name (the first post didn’t) and BobCatholic’s fault for calling him a scumbag. And also my fault for not finishing my debate with him 2 years ago (and yeah I was late, and went over, and lost interest, etc). He’s tough. Good luck, I’ll watch from the sidelines…

Phil P

 

[JasonTE]

BobCatholic,

I’m going to respond to a couple of comments you made, since I think other people may be concerned about these things or may misunderstand what Evangelicals believe.

You asked whether I think that “if a church has bishops that make mistakes, dump it, rail against it, instead of just rebuking the ones doing the error, throw away the baby with the bathwater”. No, that’s not what I said. If something can be corrected by means of “rebuking the ones doing the error”, then we should correct the problem in that manner. But, as we should expect and as history has shown us, rebuking the people who are in error doesn’t always resolve the issue. There are times when error has been widely accepted, even by an entire generation of people or by churches and church leaders who refuse to be corrected (2 Kings 22:8-13, Nehemiah 8:13-17, the Arian lapse of the fourth century, multiple people claiming the papacy at once, etc.).

This issue isn’t as black-and-white as you suggest. Following the Roman Catholic system of authority or something similar to it isn’t the only alternative to “if a church has bishops that make mistakes, dump it, rail against it, instead of just rebuking the ones doing the error, throw away the baby with the bathwater”. There’s a large gray area between the two options you’re presenting. I quoted some passages in The Didache that reflect the sort of balance I was referring to. In response, you only quoted one portion of The Didache, a portion about honoring those who teach the word of God to us. I don’t think it’s difficult to figure out why you didn’t quote the rest. You just assume that the leaders in question are Roman Catholic, and you only quote what The Didache says about honoring church leaders, not what it says about judging them and separating from them when their errors warrant such a response.

You keep suggesting that using personal interpretation is a negative thing. I would ask, again, how do you know that the RCC has the authority it claims to have? How do you arrive at that conclusion without using personal interpretation?

Jason Engwer
members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
ntrmin.org

 

[srkbdk]

JasonTE:

He wasn’t a Pope, and the other apostles didn’t view him as a Pope. But he did have some leadership roles. He was often, though not always, a leader or spokesman among the disciples during Jesus’ earthly ministry. He was an apostle (1 Peter 1:1, 2 Peter 1:1), an eyewitness of Jesus’ earthly life (1 Peter 5:1, 2 Peter 1:16), an elder (1 Peter 5:1), and an evangelist who served a unique historical purpose (Acts 15:7). He was a rock upon whom the church was built. He was among the greatest of the apostles. I would place him second, after Paul, who I consider to be “the founder, after Jesus, of the Churches that are in Christ” (Origen, Against Celsus, 1:63).

I am gald that you feel that he should be second after Paul, can you please use scripture to show that? Was it not Paul who after spending time with our Lord went to confer with Peter spending 15 days with him. Also look at Acts 2:15-26 prior to the decent of the Holy Spirit Peter in front of 120 people says there must be a successor for Judas. Notice here someone did not just stand up and say I think it should be me, or I should be a preacher. The person had to be appointed, by the Holy Spirit though MEN. Then go right to Acts 2 the spirit decends and everyone starts to speak in different tongues, but it did not make sence instead the people hearing them thought they were all drunk, Then Peter stands up raises his voice and clairity comes, there was order and authority. The spirit was speaking through them all, and it made sence to some but it was not until Peter spoke that it was understood by all.

Another thing to consider when you are looking for the verses that say that Paul was first, and Peter was second, is when did God say to Paul you are Kepha and upon this Kepha I will build my Church. I as you love Paul and relate very well to him, he is my favorite apostle, however I could never really appreacite him if I did not first learn how he submited to the God based authority in Peter.

I also like how you pick a part of what Origen has to say here is something else he had to say:

Origen

“Look at [Peter], the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church [Matt. 16:18]. And what does our Lord say to him? ‘Oh you of little faith,’ he says, ‘why do you doubt?’ [Matt. 14:31]” (*Homilies on Exodus *5:4 [A.D. 248]).

Please put these two statements in harmony I can because I will use all of what Origen has to say. If you just take one peice of what someone has written you can make them say anything, the fun part (and honest ) is to repesent what they say with the intent they had, you will not do this by using one liners.

God Bless

 

[srkbdk]

JasonTE:

I don’t deny that there are authorities in the world. Scripture has authority. Church leaders have authority. Parents have authority. Government officials have authority. But the latter three are fallible subordinate authorities, whereas scripture isn’t. I agree with The Didache, Dionysius of Alexandria, Cyprian, and other patristic sources when they say that church leaders are to be followed only as far as they’re faithful to the original revelation given by God through the apostles. Past generations weren’t necessarily correct in everything they believed, and even the highest of religious leaders can sometimes err. We have to keep going back to the original revelation given by God, much as we see in 2 Kings 22:8-13 and Nehemiah 8:13-17.

Then you best throw away the new Testament cannon that you have in your Bible, because if it is as you say then scripture was put togther by fallible men so it can not be an infallible collection. What is even more fun is show me any group that has a higher regard for Scripture than the Holy Catholic Church. She does not let it change, as she knows it is the Word of God.

How many books are in your Bible and how do you know they are the right ones, or even from God?

You are right all men can be in error but God can not and he promised to protect his Church, and does at all times when it comes to matters of Faith and Morals.

I also like how you take what you will from the fathers with out seeing what they said in fullness, it is not right to pick and choose and therby misrepensent what they stood for. I would hope no one does that to you and please have the respect for the fathers of our faith to understand what they stood for by reading all they wrote. Here is a snap shot of what Cyprian had to say on unity.

Cyprian of Carthage

“[T]he Church is one, and as she is one, cannot be both within and without. For if she is with Novatian, she was not with [Pope] Cornelius. But if she was with Cornelius, who succeeded the bishop Fabian by lawful ordination, and whom, beside the honor of the priesthood the Lord glorified also with martyrdom, Novatian is not in the Church; nor can he be reckoned as a bishop, who, succeeding to no one, and despising the evangelical and apostolic tradition, sprang from himself. For he who has not been ordained in the Church can neither have nor hold to the Church in any way” (*Letters *75:3 [A.D. 253]).

May the Lord always guide you to the fullness of Truth

 

[srkbdk]

JasonTE:

The concept of Peter’s chair has been defined in different ways over the centuries. Some church fathers refer to all bishops as successors of Peter or refer to a chair of Peter being in Antioch or some other place in addition to Rome. And the New Testament and the earliest church fathers say nothing of a chair of Peter at all. The church of Rome and the bishop of Rome were often prominent, sometimes even the most prominent church and bishop in the world, but not always and not necessarily in a papal sense. There’s a consensus among modern scholars, including Roman Catholic scholars, that the earliest Christians did not believe in the universal jurisdiction of Peter or the bishops of Rome. The church of Rome was prominent, but the bishop of Rome wasn’t a Pope. The earliest sources to comment on the significance of the Roman church give non-papal reasons for the church’s significance. If there had been a papacy at the time, they surely would not only have mentioned it as a reason for the Roman church’s significance, but even as the primary reason. But they don’t mention it at all.

Can you please provide the sources that you are using to make these claims, as I think what has happened is that you have been mislead, and only read part of the documents without getting the whole meaning.

As far as the “chair of Peter” goes it is where the Pope is when he is in the USA it is here, when he goes to the moon it will be there, not because of the man but because of the promise of Jesus Christ, and the gift of the holy spirit.

One other question why for the first 200 years of Christianity was every Pope but one martyred. Seems to me satan was sure who was the head of the Church, and was motivating Romans and anyone else to kill them. I would still like to see your sources, and my big question here is if the Papacy was not important, and everyone back then knew it was not, then why KILL all the Popes except one???

Looking forward to your reply and may Saint Michael defend you.

 

[JPrejean]

Hi, Mr. Engwer.

I agree that the arguments over the use of the term Roman Catholic (particularly the notion of identifying the Church with a single rite) are a bit pedantic in the present time. I will note, however, that the historical objection was not to either the term Roman or the term Catholic, but to using the two together as a single term, as it seems to either qualify the catholicity of the Church or to distinguish the Church from the early church labelled as the Catholic Church by the Fathers. But this far removed from the Reformation, I wouldn’t consider the use of “Roman Catholic” objectional regardless (unlike, e.g., “Romish”).

I don’t think any of that lets you off the hook with respect to your failure to address other churches claiming to have the “catholic faith” in your “Catholic but not Roman Catholic” series. Certainly, there is nothing wrong with attempting to demonstrate that the early Christian Church is not the modern Catholic Church. But in order to claim that something is NOT Catholic, one also must propose a standard for what IS Catholic, and that is where I think your argument becomes difficult to follow. It is also where I think people are rightly taking you to task for the omission.

In essence, we don’t have a thorough understanding of your patristics methodology because we haven’t seen how you justify your own faith, and we haven’t seen how you answer objections from other students of the “catholic faith” of the Early Fathers, like the Orthodox or even other Protestants (particularly Anglicans and Lutherans). You have made a claim to endorse the creeds, but you haven’t made a convincing demonstration that you are even qualified to understand how the Early Church Fathers interpreted the creeds, much less determine who is and isn’t in alignment with them. In fact, your interpretive techniques vis-a-vis the Church Fathers seem to be at odds with massive amounts of scholarship by not only Catholics but also Orthodox and Protestant patristics scholars, all of which are presumably also directed at making the most accurate possible determination of what the Fathers believed. The real point is that by addressing this one specific issue (whether modern Catholics share “the catholic faith” of the Fathers), you are implicitly adopting a methodology that takes on the overwhelming weight of scholarship against you, but you aren’t engaging any of those scholars. Although I agree that our frail, fallible reason can only confirm faith (fallibly, I might add) and not create it, it sure seems to me that it would be utterly unreasonable to accept someone’s novel patristics methodology without any reasonable basis for determining that methodology’s accuracy.

 

[Shibboleth]

srkbdk:

Then you best throw away the new Testament cannon that you have in your Bible, because if it is as you say then scripture was put togther by fallible men so it can not be an infallible collection. What is even more fun is show me any group that has a higher regard for Scripture than the Holy Catholic Church. She does not let it change, as she knows it is the Word of God.

If you were to judge a religion on how little their original text has changed in their holy book, you would have to give that title to the Muslims. The fact that it has not changed does not make it necessarily correct.

 

[PhilVaz]

srkbdk << I would still like to see your sources, and my big question here is if the Papacy was not important, and everyone back then knew it was not >>

Naw, you don’t want to see his sources. We’ve seen his sources for 5 years. They are Philip Schaff (the Presbyterian church history scholar, somewhat anti-Catholic), George Salmon (the Anglican author of The Infallibility of the Church: A Refutation), and the occasional quotes from the Popes, the Fathers, Fr. Klaus Schatz (Catholic author of a book on the papacy), Robert Eno (papacy book), and maybe a JND Kelly quote here and there just to be fair. And what he’s learned from Svendsen and Bill Webster’s books. Plus he got his own awesome arguments

We’ve seen them. But if you insist, I’m sure he’ll bring them all up again, and overwhelm you

You and BobCatholic can’t handle him, give JPrejean a shot now

Phil P

 

[srkbdk]

PhilVaz:

You and BobCatholic can’t handle him, give JPrejean a shot now

Phil P

Sounds Like a good idea I was looking forward to his response on JPrejean last post. As well as a few of my other questions.

 

[PhilVaz]

<< As well as a few of my other questions. >>

What you posted was well done, I didn’t want to sound rude. See a private message from this board I sent you.

Phil P

 

[JPrejean]

I just wanted to take the rhetoric down a peg. There were some personal attacks on Mr. Engwer that were distracting from the core subject matter of the discussion.

 

[PhilVaz]

<< I just wanted to take the rhetoric down a peg. >>

Yeah good job. We’ll just watch you and JasonTE go at it, assuming he wants to stick around. When everyone contributes, it gets a bit crowded.

Not that I’m a moderator or anything, but I’ll gladly volunteer to be one.

Phil P

 

[JasonTE]

srkbdk:

can you please use scripture to show that? Was it not Paul who after spending time with our Lord went to confer with Peter spending 15 days with him.

As my quote of Origen suggests, Paul did more than Peter in the work of establishing churches. Paul was more involved in the Gentile world, and so he had broader influence in that sense. He also wrote more of the New Testament, and has thereby had more of an influence on the development of soteriology, morality, etc. His writings were highly influential in the conversions of many significant figures in church history (Augustine, Martin Luther, Thomas Bilney, John Wesley, etc.). I could go on.

I’m not referring to a Biblical doctrine when I refer to my view of who the greatest apostle was. The Bible doesn’t tell us who we should consider the greatest apostle. I’m referring to my own view, with which other Christians may disagree. And I’m not referring to jurisdiction when I refer to greatness. None of the apostles had jurisdictional authority over the others.

Paul did go to visit Peter, as described in Galatians 1. But not until after he had been a Christian for a number of years. He visited James as well. Paul goes on to name Peter second, after James, when discussing reputed pillars of the church (Galatians 2:9). It’s unlikely that Paul would have named Peter second, with two other people, as a reputed pillar of the church if he viewed Peter as a Pope. Paul repeatedly asserts his equality with and independence from the other apostles. Peter is significant. He often had leadership roles, as did other Biblical figures, including other apostles, at times. Peter can be significant enough to warrant a visit from Paul, or even be respected by Paul more than he respected any of the other apostles, without Peter being a Pope.

srkbdk:

says there must be a successor for Judas…Then go right to Acts 2

You’re raising a number of issues. First, with regard to Acts 1, keep in mind that the passage is about a unique fulfillment of prophecy (Acts 1:16). It was a curse to Judas, not a blessing, to have another man take his office (Acts 1:20). And when a replacement for Judas is chosen, that replacement had to meet requirements that no person living since the time of the apostles could possibly fulfill (Acts 1:21-22). Also note that it was one man who replaced Judas, not thousands of church leaders around the world all claiming to be the successor of one man. And what happens with the replacement of Judas is never repeated in the New Testament. The apostle James dies in Acts 12, but the events surrounding the replacement of Judas are not repeated with regard to James. When Paul and Peter speak of their upcoming death (Acts 20:25-35, 2 Peter 1:13-15), they say nothing of any successor, but instead tell people to remember what they had taught. What happened in Acts 1 with the replacing of Judas was a unique fulfillment of prophecy that was a curse, not a blessing, to the person being replaced. To make the passage some sort of justification for a normative church practice of apostolic succession, as Roman Catholics often do, is to take the passage badly out of context.

With regard to Peter’s role at Pentecost, nobody denies that he had a significant role in those events, but that role doesn’t logically lead to the doctrine of the papacy. Other people, including other apostles, also had unique roles, unique things said about them, etc. You may want to read an article I wrote about Biblical evidence for a Pauline papacy:

members.aol.com/jasonte3/paul51.htm

srkbdk:

when did God say to Paul you are Kepha and upon this Kepha I will build my Church.

You may want to read the following article at my web site, in which I discuss Matthew 16 in some depth:

members.aol.com/jasonte3/paul513.htm

Basically, what’s said of Peter in Matthew 16 isn’t unique to him, and, even if it was, it wouldn’t logically lead to the conclusion that he was a Pope or that Roman bishops are Popes.

srkbdk:

I will use all of what Origen has to say

I didn’t deny that Origen refers to Peter as the rock of Matthew 16. To the contrary, I quote him saying so in my series on the church fathers. How does his saying that Peter is the rock refute my use of Origen in my previous post? It doesn’t. Origen believed that all Christians are a rock when they confess Christ as Peter did. He had no concept of a papacy. As the Roman Catholic historian Robert Eno wrote, “a plain recognition of Roman primacy or of a connection between Peter and the contemporary bishop of Rome seems remote from Origen’s thoughts” (The Rise of the Papacy [Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, 1990], p. 43).

Jason Engwer
members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
ntrmin.org

 

[BobCatholic]

JPrejean:

I don’t think any of that lets you off the hook with respect to your failure to address other churches claiming to have the “catholic faith” in your “Catholic but not Roman Catholic” series. Certainly, there is nothing wrong with attempting to demonstrate that the early Christian Church is not the modern Catholic Church. But in order to claim that something is NOT Catholic, one also must propose a standard for what IS Catholic, and that is where I think your argument becomes difficult to follow. It is also where I think people are rightly taking you to task for the omission.

THANK YOU, JPrejean, you said it better than I could have

In essence, we don’t have a thorough understanding of your patristics methodology because we haven’t seen how you justify your own faith, and we haven’t seen how you answer objections from other students of the “catholic faith” of the Early Fathers, like the Orthodox or even other Protestants (particularly Anglicans and Lutherans). You have made a claim to endorse the creeds, but you haven’t made a convincing demonstration that you are even qualified to understand how the Early Church Fathers interpreted the creeds, much less determine who is and isn’t in alignment with them. In fact, your interpretive techniques vis-a-vis the Church Fathers seem to be at odds with massive amounts of scholarship by not only Catholics but also Orthodox and Protestant patristics scholars, all of which are presumably also directed at making the most accurate possible determination of what the Fathers believed. The real point is that by addressing this one specific issue (whether modern Catholics share “the catholic faith” of the Fathers), you are implicitly adopting a methodology that takes on the overwhelming weight of scholarship against you, but you aren’t engaging any of those scholars. Although I agree that our frail, fallible reason can only confirm faith (fallibly, I might add) and not create it, it sure seems to me that it would be utterly unreasonable to accept someone’s novel patristics methodology without any reasonable basis for determining that methodology’s accuracy.

You’ve made my point much better than I did