Do Anglicans believe that Christ founded the Church on Peter?

[VARC]

I disagree with this statement and support GurneyHalleck1 assertion that Matthew 16 does provide the extensional support of the Petrine ministry. Without rehashing the old theological arguments, however, I would like to use a bit of reasoning here to address VARC’s point. Let us suppose that Catholics made up the Petrine ministry out of the blues, and it really did and does not exist then may I ask who should lead “the church catholic”? That is the Universal church? It is a given fact that every organization secular or religious needs a head or a leader, so should the ArchBishop of Canterbury lead the world universal church, or is your assertion that we can all find our way merrily through history and each denomination have his or her own leader?

This question presupposes a need for a single monarchial leader to rule the church

Do you honesty believe that Jesus would leave us floundering in Biblical ether to try and figure things out by ourselves?

I think that the division amog Christians makes that the obvious answer. I believe Christ wanted the Holy Spirit to guide our reason into the truth rather than electing a king to stand in for him.
BHTech;5596896:

This is patently false. Read Clement of Rome, Ignatius and many others. Just because a few may have disagreed in the course of history does not mean that is the view of the entire church. In a medium size company of 500 employees you can be guaranteed to find those who will disagree that X, Y or Z should be their bosses.

I have read Clement and Ignatius and they don’t say the foundation of the church is Peter. Something that is so monumentaly important for the faith of Christianity shouldn’t be so controversal, which papal supremacy is. It is the single doctrine that divides RCs from every other Christian in the world. One would hope that it would have a firmer foundation than Mat 16, which was understood by most Fathers as refering to Christ.

 

[Spengler47]

We all seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit, but I don’t think that guidance precludes having an administrative structure for the church, with a visible head. All manner of religious enthusiasts have claimed the guidance of the Holy Spirit, indeed the exclusive guidance, of the Holy Spirit. Think of Thomas Muenzer, Girolamo Savanarola, John Brown, etc.

 

[BHTech]

This question presupposes a need for a single monarchial leader to rule the church

With all due respect you still have not answered the questions. You have brushed aside my questions by essentially saying they don’t apply here, yet they are relevant because I am applying your own logic and reasoning and you have not answered them. Its like me asking you if the sky is blue and you say its a sunny day.

I think that the division amog Christians makes that the obvious answer. I believe Christ wanted the Holy Spirit to guide our reason into the truth rather than electing a king to stand in for him.

Jesus Christ in your opinion wanted us to flounder and have 35,000+ divisions teaching and believing different things is what you are saying to me. That is tragically incorrect. You are in essence saying truth is relative by virtue of your personal observation. You are making a truth statement about relative truth, that all truths are relative. By your very own reason you could start your own church of cucumbers and not be Anglican and you will still be saved. Why stick with the Anglicans since by your reasoning you know better than them or anybody for that fact. Friend, we as human beings can reason our selves into stupidity because our will sadly informs the intellect and not the other way around. Reason alone cannot take us to the truth. Don’t believe me, think back to your younger days and ask yourself if you have ever done anything stupid and you will probably answer yes to yourself. That said, how come the Holy Spirit who as you say guides our reason into the truth has after 2000 years still not gotten it right???Please answer my question.

I have read Clement and Ignatius and they don’t say the foundation of the church is Peter. Something that is so monumentaly important for the faith of Christianity shouldn’t be so controversal, which papal supremacy is. It is the single doctrine that divides RCs from every other Christian in the world. One would hope that it would have a firmer foundation than Mat 16, which was understood by most Fathers as refering to Christ.

Perhaps you should investigate the church fathers further by looking at catholic.com/library/church_papacy.asp .

A sample is shown below… “Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father” (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).

Blessings

BHTech

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

GurneyHalleck1 asks why, despite my aversion to postmodernism, moral relativism, secularism, etc., and my being a pretty conservative person, I remain in the Episcopal Church, rather than becoming a Roman Catholic. That’s a good question. There have been times when I’ve contemplated leaving the Episcopal Church and joining one of the breakway Anglican churches, the Greek Orthodox or the Roman Catholic Church. So why am I still an Episcopalian?

For one thing, I agree with the Anglican tradition that Christian belief is grounded in scripture, tradition and reason and that personal judgement is important. Even though I view the rise of the papacy as a logical development in the history of the Christian Church, and have a very high regard for the current pontiff, Benedict XVI, it seems to me that the Roman system is very “top down” and allows little room for personal questioning of decisions made by the hierarchy. I simply can’t agree with the doctrine of papal infallibility.

Second, I view postmodernism, moral relativity, and secularism as part of the mental climate of the 1960’s. Even though I often disagree with the people who subscribe to those beliefs and values, I recognize that they are reacting to what they consider the deficiencies of previous beliefs and social arrangements. I think they are often wrong, but not all the time or on every issue. I opposed prayer book revision, but I view the ordination of women as priests as a long overdue reform. However, the postmodern, morally relativistic, secular way of looking at life represents one point in time. I believe it will change. Just as the people of the decade of the sixties reacted to what they saw as the deficiencies of the nineteen forties and fifties, a future generation will grow tired of the ideology of the sixties and seek a return to a more traditional faith.

I suppose, finally, it has a lot to do with my baptismal vows. I vowed (or my sponsors vowed in my name,and I later confirmed those vows) that I would “fight under Christ’s banner against the world, the flesh and devil and continue a faithful soldier and servant of Christ unto my life’s end.” In the larger army of the universal church militant, I was enrolled in a particular regiment, the Episcopal Church and that’s where my duty lies. Some of the officers may be barmy, but you don’t drop the regimental colors!

\

Hi Spengler,

Well I think some things you say here make plenty of sense. I completely and utterly disagree that women’s ordination is a long-overdue “reform.” We really part company there. Some people think that conservative Anglicans should stay in the Episcopal Church and be a good influence, some say bail. I personally say “bail” and like the Pink Floyd song on the “Wall” album, RUN LIKE HELL…I see little redeeming in the Episcopal Church and I think it has totally sold out to the sixties idealogues and anybody who has a bone to pick with orthodoxy and traditional Christian values. Caught up in this net of crazed excessively-secular innovations and lefties are also some well-meaning folks and some downright good people who, for whatever reason, decide to stand pat and not jump ship. Like I said, I’d jump out of the net and run like a bat out of hell but that’s just me.

May God bless you!

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

We all seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit, but I don’t think that guidance precludes having an administrative structure for the church, with a visible head. All manner of religious enthusiasts have claimed the guidance of the Holy Spirit, indeed the exclusive guidance, of the Holy Spirit. Think of Thomas Muenzer, Girolamo Savanarola, John Brown, etc.

The Church has always been visible. The notion that it is an invisible mystical and spread-out body of believers with no authority, no guidance, no shepherd, is just not evidenced by history. From the git-go, to invoke a colloquialism here, we see an organized ecclesiology and within the first century we see a monarchical episcopacy with the eventual sharing of the bishop’s burden with the presbyterate and deacons. If we disregard an administrative element and the guidance of an episcopacy, we’d have to diregard the councils of Nicea and Chalcedon, Ephesus, and so many other crucial moments where heresies were struck down and orthodoxy was proclaimed. History is replete with evidence of a very highly-visible Church. It wasn’t until the 1500’s that we see a notion that the Church is invisible and a non-entity. Likewise that “individual conscience” and, as the Fleetwood Mac song would say, “Go your own way” theology was an innovation of the 16th Century.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

****B]You are obviously most selective in your choice of quotes!
You use your own judgment in selecting those teachings of your Church which appeal to your own fancies. You eschew those teachings which contradict your fancy and do not agree with your whims!
I’m talking about the injunction of Trent where the Roman Church professed most clearly,
concerning scripture

“Nor will I ever understand it , except according to the unanimous consent of the Holy Fathers.”

I can quite understand why the orthodox refer to Romanists as Protestants!
" ****

******If you do not like the quote from Trent, nor the quote given earlier concerning Matthew 16, from the Fathers and collected by Mansi, a Roman Scholar , how about these scriptural quotes below?

Matthew 13:13
13:13 Therefore I speak to them in parables: because they seeing
see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand

Jeremiah 5:21
Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not:

Isaiah 6:9-10
And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear you indeed, but understand not; and see indeed, but perceive not.
Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.

---

This is absurd. I don’t quote things according to my own fancies. And if you followed me, you’d know that I don’t prejudice my thinking to promote an agenda. You might note that I just got through being insulted by a poster for saying I’m an Anglican in sheep’s clothing and not a real Catholic because I defended some of the tenets of Anglicanism and rejected some silly over-simplifications and broad-brush painting against Anglicans.

I didn’t really quote anything in my post save Matthew 16 which is the most-quoted passage in CAF as far as I know. I referenced it. What else did I quote and cherry-pick that rings your chimes?

Honestly your post didn’t make a great deal of sense to me and I’m not sure where you were going with it.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I don’t think that is a very good comparison either. The idea of the Trinity may not be explicitly stated in the Bible but it is alluded to in diverse parts of scrpture including John Matthew, Luke and the Acts. This contrasts with the Petrine foundation that hangs on a specific interpretation of a single passage in a single book.
Well obviously none of my comparisons are going to be good, only those of Senor VARC! lol…The trinity is not explicit, correct. And yet Peter is handed the keys to the kingdom in isolation in Matthew (later the other apostles are given the power to bind and loose of course) and his name is changed and the language as well as understanding of those times indicates he is being given authority. Keys to the kingdom, as I stated earlier, were a sign of authority being given in a king’s absence in the OT and contemporary NT readers understood that. Peter is seen as leader more often than not, he is the first to see the risen Lord in one of the gospels (though Mary Magdelen is in another), he is the obvious leader in Acts, he is told three times to feed the lambs of our Lord by Christ, and the councils all acknowledged Peter as having a primacy and superior origin. The Holy Spirit is indeed scriptural but I see just as many implied undercurrents or explicit moments where Peter is obviously in charge as the Holy Spirit being co-equal, three in one in the Bible. You make it sound like Matthew 16 isn’t good enough. Your thinking is that it needs to be repeated and reiterated in various parts of scripture or else it’s just plausible or a real stretch. I don’t see it that way at this point.

Also there is a mountain of support from early tradition (2nd century) about the Trinity. Petrine foundation is disputed by the ECF and that is 100s of years after Christ.
As I wrestled with this theology, and still do some wrestling, I see no mountain in this department, just some small hills.

I don’t think it is all that unbelievable. Politics always played a big role in eccleastical power.
People would indeed be naive to think politics played no role in Christianity or in the Chistianization of Europe or the Reformation as well. I agree. But doesn’t God use politics and circumstance to bring forth His will at times? I still say I find it extremely hard to believe that guys like Augustine of Hippo, Cyprian (until he didn’t get his way), Ambrose, and a seemingly-endless list of other greats of Christianity all just cooked up this papal idea late in the game in a vacuum out of nowhere. It had its roots in tradition and over time became better delineated and as the Church truly grew and spread it becomes more obviously not something spontaneously made-up.

I actually think that the fact that Cyprian flat out stood up to the bishop of Rome
and charged him with heresy is an argument against papal supremacy. Apparently, the idea that he was bound to listen to Rome was lost on him. Just imagine if a catholic bishop did that today. He would be cast out of the comunnion. Times have definitely changed.

And yet practically everyone except Firmilian and some of the other north african bishops who were pals of Cyprian agreed with Stephen, the pope. And to this day it is NOT Cyprian’s policy but rather Stephen’s policy that we hold true. Even in your Anglican church it is Stephen’s philosophy toward baptism that is held up, not Cyprian. Cyprian was dead wrong on this issue of the “lapsi.” Everyone knows that. And this only points further to the fact that the papacy came through in the end as correct. Cyprian’s ego was bruised. Read his previous statements on the papacy until Stephen ruffled his feathers. Cyprian was an avowed papist until he didn’t get his way. Pride is a brutal foe…

 

[luckyfredsdad]

And yet practically everyone except Firmilian and some of the other north african bishops who were pals of Cyprian agreed with Stephen, the pope. And to this day it is NOT Cyprian’s policy but rather Stephen’s policy that we hold true. Even in your Anglican church it is Stephen’s philosophy toward baptism that is held up, not Cyprian. Cyprian was dead wrong on this issue of the “lapsi.” Everyone knows that. And this only points further to the fact that the papacy came through in the end as correct. Cyprian’s ego was bruised. Read his previous statements on the papacy until Stephen ruffled his feathers. Cyprian was an avowed papist until he didn’t get his way. Pride is a brutal foe…

**It’s interesting to note Cyprian’s argument about who constitues the ,‘Church,’. He says quite firmly, that it,‘consists of the bishop and clergy and all who stand.’ [The laity.} Ep.
XL no.7.111.

This is before, as I understand it, the fraca with pope Stephen. In a letter to the Council of Bishops at Carthage, Cyprian gives his view of the relationship between the Bishops. ,“He gives to all the Apostles an equal power, … but the episcopate itself to be one and undivided …The episcopate is one, it is a whole in which each enjoys full possession”.[Ep,L1V . Doc. Ch.Hist.i.No 147.] To me even in the small portion I have read, Cyprian is telling the Bishops unity results from a common mind amongst the members. Not from an authoritive fellow bishop. As he was to say later, “For no one of us setteth himself up as a bishop of bishops, or by a tyrannical terror forces his colleagues to a necessity of obeying”. When Cyprian wrote to Stephen asking the latter to moderate his passions and conform to the custom that each bishop be answerable to God only and meanwhile live in peace and concorde with his bretheren who thought otherwise, Stephen met it with a threat of excommunication. It seems to me that Stephen was rather intemporate and something of a bully! If we look at the reaction of the bishops round about, S. Firmillion points out that there had been a disagreement, but no breaking of communion, till" Stephen broke the peace". Further Stephen was accused of parading his petrine authority with the result that, 'in thinking to excommunicate others, he has only succeeded in excommunicating himself!" Tough words from one bishop to another and even more extreme if it is to the God’s Viceregent on earth." Yet the man, the bishop . who uttered them is a well recognised saint of the One, Holy and Catholic and Apostolic Church!**

What Steven was doing was the job of a Diocesan Bishop, to regulate worship, belief and behaviour in his see. No one blames him for that. His folly was his arrogance in cutting communion with people who disagreed with him. He might have had the majority, at least in the west and some support, even, in the east! The question to be asked is does Papal Authority stand on the principle of one Roman Bishop doing his job, in a crude undigified way?

 

[Spengler47]

GurneyHalleck1 suggests RUN LIKE HELL.

Gurney, I appreciate your understanding my position, even if you don’t agree with it. I think the whole Christian world has been going through a very difficult time for the past forty years. The tide of secular humanism has risen very high, and there are many in the church who want to accomodate the secularists’ agenda. You’ve seen their influence in the Episcopal Church, but I’ve also encountered plenty of Roman Catholics with similar views.

However, there are also signs of hope. For some good insights into Christian growth and renewal around the world, the Catholic historian Philip Jenkins is very interesting. Despite the high tide of modernism in the Episcopal Church, there is also a strong traditional presence, represented by people like the Rev. Dr. John Polkinghorne, Bishop N.T. Wright, and the Rev. Fleming Rutledge, a female Episcopal priest who offers a strongly orothodox, evangelical theology.

The secular flood will eventually recede, the big bandwagon for postmodernism will run out of steam. Seemingly impregnable monoliths of power can collapse very quickly, when we least expect it. Look at what happend to the Berlin Wall and the USSR. Who would have predicted the end of communism until shortly before it happpend? We can trust in the promise of Jesus Christ, “These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.” (John 16:33).

 

[VARC]

That said, how come the Holy Spirit who as you say guides our reason into the truth has after 2000 years still not gotten it right???Please answer my question.

The Holy Spirit is gradually guiding the church into all truth. Case in point, the church now condemns slavery, disowns violence in the name of God, and has repented of anti-semitism. You seem like you want to Holy Spirit to answer to your own time table.

You are making an appeal to papal supremacy/infallibility based not on scripture or tradition but on pragmatism. There is no doubt that a divinely appointed infallible leader ruling the church like a king would be a much more effiecent way to run the church but that fact doesn’t make it true.

Arriving at the truth through prayer, study and reflection is a much harder way to come to the truth. Will we be wrong sometimes? Nobody is always right. Will we be divided? Yes, that’s unavoidable but hopefully we can work out our differences in charity. This is reality and it is the truth. Manufacturing an idea of a supreme infallible religious leader doesn’t solve these problems and doesn’t change reality. It only creates the illusion of certainty.

If you want to argue for the truth papal supemacy’infallibility by appealing to scrpture or tradition then I’m listening. But pragmatism doesn’t argue for truth.

A sample is shown below… “Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father” (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).

Blessings

BHTech

Ignatius is not saying that Christ founded the Church on the papacy. “Presidency in Love” does not equate to the Vatican one formula of supremacy and infalliblity. That is a non-sequitor. Besides, such an idea would contadict the words and behavior of many ECFs and Councils Fathers whose actions suggest their understnading of Roman Primacy was different from the modern RC understanding.

 

[VARC]

And yet practically everyone except Firmilian and some of the other north african bishops who were pals of Cyprian agreed with Stephen, the pope. And to this day it is NOT Cyprian’s policy but rather Stephen’s policy that we hold true. Even in your Anglican church it is Stephen’s philosophy toward baptism that is held up, not Cyprian. Cyprian was dead wrong on this issue of the “lapsi.” Everyone knows that. And this only points further to the fact that the papacy came through in the end as correct. Cyprian’s ego was bruised. Read his previous statements on the papacy until Stephen ruffled his feathers. Cyprian was an avowed papist until he didn’t get his way. Pride is a brutal foe…

But regardless of whether Stephen or Cyprain was right, the entire episode proves that the ECFs view of the papacy was entirely different from the modern RC view. No bishop today would dare tell Benedict that he was teaching heresy. But Cyprian had no qualms with doing just that. If anything, it proves that the concept of papal supremacy evolved over time. It wasn’t a part of the faith was delivered to the saints.

And BTW, many of the Eastern Orthodox uphold Cyprain’s view on baptism. The ROCOR still baptise RC converts.

 

[BHTech]

The Holy Spirit is gradually guiding the church into all truth.

True but is the holy Spirit guiding TEC into the truth or the Church of England for that matter? I think not!

Case in point, the church now condemns slavery, disowns violence in the name of God, and has repented of anti-semitism. You seem like you want to Holy Spirit to answer to your own time table.

Friend, slavery existed before the Catholic church and throughout the church’s history was condemned by several Popes. Slavery was never part of the church’s doctrine and it has disowned violence in the name of God throughout its history. Members have misbehaved but it has never been church policy. If 35,000+ protestant denominations is your idea of getting to the truth, then non-christians have no hope.

You are making an appeal to papal supremacy/infallibility based not on scripture or tradition but on pragmatism. There is no doubt that a divinely appointed infallible leader ruling the church like a king would be a much more effiecent way to run the church but that fact doesn’t make it true.

I opted to avoid scripture and to a lesser extent tradition because the arguments have been hashed many times. For goodness sake we are at Catholic answers. However, I could always go that route if you wish. On the other hand you and I live in a world that is observable and pragmatic. You and I have bosses (unless you own your own business) for better or worse to lead us. I was hoping to appeal to your intelligence this way. By the way the Pope is not a King. You have used the term several times and it comes across that you despise Kings and by extension Popes.

Manufacturing an idea of a supreme infallible religious leader doesn’t solve these problems and doesn’t change reality. It only creates the illusion of certainty.

Who appointed you to decide that the church manufactured this? Were you present when the first 12 leaders of the early church were chosen after Peter’s death? Why were leaders necessary if all that is “necessary” is prayer, study and reflection according to you? Your statement is IMHO a strawman argument and no better than the result an Indaba session. By the way make sure you understand Papal infallibility first before attempting bashing it.

If you want to argue for the truth papal supemacy’infallibility by appealing to scrpture or tradition then I’m listening. But pragmatism doesn’t argue for truth.

Oh really? What is truth? TEC liberals argued from scripture that blessing same sex unions is not contrary to scripture and tradition. Hey ECLA did it this week and the Presbyterians have in the past. Scripture tells us that there will be those who listen to teachers to tickle their ears. Aren’t they not arguing from scripture? Heck even in the Catholic Church there are those who have misled their flock numerous times. Church heresies started in the East and many by Catholic Priest and Bishops. In short I’m saying there is a time and place to argue from scripture and tradition, but I’m appealing to you from commonsense.

Ignatius is not saying that Christ founded the Church on the papacy. “Presidency in Love” does not equate to the Vatican one formula of supremacy and infalliblity. That is a non-sequitor. Besides, such an idea would contadict the words and behavior of many ECFs and Councils Fathers whose actions suggest their understnading of Roman Primacy was different from the modern RC understanding.

I disagree. Ignatius writing is very clear to all who wish to understand. You are in denial friend and please note he certainly isn’t praising the Anglican Church for starters. Which council fathers and EFC are you referring too? Obviously some like the Greek fathers and the Orthodox will disagree as you say but others will agree. Truth is absolute and so one group must be right. Either Christ wanted his church to be guided by leader or he could not care less. Let there be a free for all! Scripture (Isaiah 22:20-24) seems to say otherwise.

God Bless

BHtech

 

[VARC]

True but is the holy Spirit guiding TEC into the truth or the Church of England for that matter? I think not!

That’s your opinion and your welcome to it.

Friend, slavery existed before the Catholic church and throughout the church’s history was condemned by several Popes. Slavery was never part of the church’s doctrine and it has disowned violence in the name of God throughout its history. Members have misbehaved but it has never been church policy. If 35,000+ protestant denominations is your idea of getting to the truth, then non-christians have no hope.

It doesn’t matter whether or not salvery existed before the CC. The point is that the CC used to teach that slavery wasn’t immoral and now it teaches that it is. The C of E was the first to condemn the institution of slavery and the RCC followed suit.

“Slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature, is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law, and there can be several just titles of slavery and these are referred to by approved theologians and commentators of the sacred canons… It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given”.
–Pius IX (Instruction 20 June 1866 AD). (1)

By the way the Pope is not a King. You have used the term several times and it comes across that you despise Kings and by extension Popes.

No I don’t “despise” monarchs or monarchy. But being an American, I certainly do have a preference for democracy.

The pope is most certainly an absolute monarch, even if elected. The triple crown on the Vatican flag should give that away.

Who appointed you to decide that the church manufactured this? Were you present when the first 12 leaders of the early church were chosen after Peter’s death?

Papal infallibility didn’t begin “when the first 12 leaders of the early church were chosen after Peter’s death”. It began in the Middle Ages and was finalized at the Vatican in 1870 after much arm twisting by a powerful pope. If you believe that your understanding of the papacy was present in the apostolic times then I suggest you study history and the ECFs without bias. Anybody can see that papal supremacy/infallibilty was an idea that evolved over time. If you don’t see that you probably don’t want to see it.

Why were leaders necessary if all that is “necessary” is prayer, study and reflection according to you? Your statement is IMHO a strawman argument and no better than the result an Indaba session.

Now you’re just being silly. Prayer, study, and reflection doesn’t exculde leadership. That is how all churches arrive at what they believe is the truth. But in the RCC, it is only necessary for one man to do so for the church to do so. Everybody else need only follow him. Like I said, the RCC get an A for efficiency but that doesn’t make it true.

By the way make sure you understand Papal infallibility first before attempting bashing it.

I apologize if you perceive me to be “bashing” papal infallibility. I know that it is one of the primary articles of faith that Roman Catholics. I am merely attempting to critique it.

I would like to better understand papal infallibility but it seems like every catholic I ask has I different concept of what it means and when it applies. I suspect that Pius IX made his formula purposefully ambiguous to keep his subjects on their toes.

Oh really? What is truth? TEC liberals argued from scripture that blessing same sex unions is not contrary to scripture and tradition. Hey ECLA did it this week and the Presbyterians have in the past. Scripture tells us that there will be those who listen to teachers to tickle their ears. Aren’t they not arguing from scripture?

Yes, they are. Perhaps they are right and perhaps they are wrong. One can argue that catholics who believe in papal infallibility are “those who listen to teachers to tickle their ears”. No offence.

Heck even in the Catholic Church there are those who have misled their flock numerous times. Church heresies started in the East and many by Catholic Priest and Bishops. In short I’m saying there is a time and place to argue from scripture and tradition, but I’m appealing to you from commonsense.

I don’t mind an appeal to reason but I think you are commiting the fallacy of a false dichotomy in demanding God give us an infallible leader.

I disagree. Ignatius writing is very clear to all who wish to understand. You are in denial friend and please note he certainly isn’t praising the Anglican Church for starters. Which council fathers and EFC are you referring too? Obviously some like the Greek fathers and the Orthodox will disagree as you say but others will agree.

Well, I’ll just refer you to the Orthodox for proof that your understanding of the papacy evolved over time and was not the ECFs view of the Roman bishop. Something tells me you have a lot more respect them. Don’t really blame you. When I was and RC I wouldn’t take an Anglican’s word for it either. It was the orthodox members at CAF who very aptly proved that my papal views were erroneous.

Truth is absolute and so one group must be right. Either Christ wanted his church to be guided by leader or he could not care less. Let there be a free for all! Scripture (Isaiah 22:20-24) seems to say otherwise.

God Bless

BHtech

That’s the fallacious reasoning I referred to earlier . Even if truth is absolute it does not follow that one group has to be right, by which you mean infallible. It is perfectly reasonable to conclude that all groups get it wrong from time to time. And it is a false dichotomy to assert Christ doesn’t care about us if he doesn’t make one of us infallible.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

But regardless of whether Stephen or Cyprain was right, the entire episode proves that the ECFs view of the papacy was entirely different from the modern RC view. No bishop today would dare tell Benedict that he was teaching heresy. But Cyprian had no qualms with doing just that. If anything, it proves that the concept of papal supremacy evolved over time. It wasn’t a part of the faith was delivered to the saints.

And BTW, many of the Eastern Orthodox uphold Cyprain’s view on baptism. The ROCOR still baptise RC converts.

Hi VARC,

I totally disagree with your assessment. Just by seeing the fact that Stephen had opposition does NOT prove that the papacy was viewed as just another typical bishopric or not possessing a primacy. Every leader I can think of in all of history has always had opposition from Lincoln to Alexander the Great to Julius Caesar to the popes of the Middle Ages to the modern age of. Whether good or evil, there is always going to be opposition and descent. It’s the nature of the human beast. I disagree with you about the Holy Father not having opposition today. Haven’t you ever heard of Hans Kung or that nut Williamson and the other SSPXers who ended up splintering because they didn’t get their way with Vatican II? There are bishops all the time who disagree with the papacy, unfortunately. I think seeing Georgetown and Notre Dame and other Catholic institutions sliding down the slope of sin and secular morality shows there is a vast host of disloyalty to the values of the Holy See and basic common sense.

Also, there were many bishops who disagreed with the pope when Humanae Vitae was issued. There were descenting votes from bishops and priests in the commission who voiced their objections toward the Vatican’s view on birth control. There have always been disagreements.

I want to also poke a hole in your final statement. You laud the Orthodox for not upholding the baptisms by outsider Christians as legitimate when your own Anglican denomination DOES!?? You are trying to argue against the papacy when your own denomination to this day follows Stephen’s lead? If I as a Roman Catholic want to become an Anglican (I know this routine ), all I have to do is be received, not re-baptized. Only Mormons for the most part are re-baptized in the Anglican faith. So you shouldn’t care what the Orthodox procedure is but rather laud Stephen’s position as an Anglican.

I would also encourage you to take a hard look at how many bishops backed-up Cyprian (mostly Firmillian and his cronies) and how many in overwhelming numbers backed Stephen. And in the end, whose opinion won out?

And this Stephen incident is one of the most obvious moments when the pope had a strong, prominent bishop disagreeing with him. In my analysis of the early days of Christianity, it is always the Bishop of Rome coming down on the side of holiness and the right ecclesiology or theology for the day.

Disagreement with the pope doesn’t point to any fact, as you deduce, that the papacy wasn’t part of the deposit of faith. Montanists disagreed with the Church as well, but would you use a Montanist like Tertullian as a proof against the papacy? Tertullian parted company with the papacy and drifted into error but that doesn’t convince me the pope’s office isn’t part of the deposit.

 

[VARC]

Hi VARC,

I totally disagree with your assessment. Just by seeing the fact that Stephen had opposition does NOT prove that the papacy was viewed as just another typical bishopric or not possessing a primacy.

You are arguing a straw man. I never said that that the pope did not possess “a primacy” or that he was simply " just another typical bishopric". I said that the ECF view of the papacy was not the same as the modern RC view.

I disagree with you about the Holy Father not having opposition today. Haven’t you ever heard of Hans Kung or that nut Williamson and the other SSPXers who ended up splintering because they didn’t get their way with Vatican II? There are bishops all the time who disagree with the papacy, unfortunately. I think seeing Georgetown and Notre Dame and other Catholic institutions sliding down the slope of sin and secular morality shows there is a vast host of disloyalty to the values of the Holy See and basic common sense. Also, there were many bishops who disagreed with the pope when Humanae Vitae was issued. There were descenting votes from bishops and priests in the commission who voiced their objections toward the Vatican’s view on birth control. There have always been disagreements

Yes but I doubt that Hans Kung or Marcel Lefebvre are on the list of candidates to be canonized. In other words they are deemed to be “bad” Christians for standing up to the pope. Contrast that to Cyprian and Augustine who felt it necessary to oppose the pope on doctrine and they were still considered saints by the early church. Disagree with the pope back then didn’t automatically land one in a category of “dissenter” because the pope did not wield the authority of the whole church back then.

.

I want to also poke a hole in your final statement. You laud the Orthodox for not upholding the baptisms by outsider Christians as legitimate when your own Anglican denomination DOES!?? You are trying to argue against the papacy when your own denomination to this day follows Stephen’s lead? If I as a Roman Catholic want to become an Anglican (I know this routine ), all I have to do is be received, not re-baptized. Only Mormons for the most part are re-baptized in the Anglican faith. So you shouldn’t care what the Orthodox procedure is but rather laud Stephen’s position as an Anglican.

When did I “laud” (praise) Cyprian’s view on baptism. You asserted that Cyprian was wrong and “everyone knows that” and you used that as proof to support PI. I simply pointed out that that orthodox actually agree with Cyprian.

I would also encourage you to take a hard look at how many bishops backed-up Cyprian (mostly Firmillian and his cronies) and how many in overwhelming numbers backed Stephen. And in the end, whose opinion won out?

And this Stephen incident is one of the most obvious moments when the pope had a strong, prominent bishop disagreeing with him. In my analysis of the early days of Christianity, it is always the Bishop of Rome coming down on the side of holiness and the right ecclesiology or theology for the day.

I think you are confused on this issue. In the West, we Catholics and Anglicans side with the more liberal views of Stephen. But the Orthodox agree with the principle of Cyprian. The principle is that there is no grace outside the sacraments outside of the Orthodox Church. I am not sure that you are aware of this but the Orthodox don’t believe that your baptism imparted you with the Holy Spirit. Nor do they believe that the Eucharist you receive is the Body of Christ.

They have an idea called “economia” that they use to “bend the rules” if you will. If an RC wants to convert most Orthodox will not baptize him but simply anoint (confirm) him. But don’t be fooled. The Orthodox view baptism, confirmation, and communion as one act of becoming a member of the Church. They do all three at once to infants. By using the principle of economia they forgo dipping you in water. They rather complete the baptism that was begun years earlier by confirming you with a “real” bishop and giving you “real” communion. In the East. you are not considered a baptized member of Christ until you have done all these things.

Sorry to get side tracked but Cyprian view won the day in the other half of the Church and us liberal westerners stick with Stephen.

Disagreement with the pope doesn’t point to any fact, as you deduce, that the papacy wasn’t part of the deposit of faith. Montanists disagreed with the Church as well, but would you use a Montanist like Tertullian as a proof against the papacy? Tertullian parted company with the papacy and drifted into error but that doesn’t convince me the pope’s office isn’t part of the deposit.

I maintain that modern views of the papacy have evolved. I think an objective view of the Fathers demonstrates this. Even Cardinal Newman would admit as much.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

You are arguing a straw man. I never said that that the pope did not possess “a primacy” or that he was simply " just another typical bishopric". I said that the ECF view of the papacy was not the same as the modern RC view.

Yes but I doubt that Hans Kung or Marcel Lefebvre are on the list of candidates to be canonized. In other words they are deemed to be “bad” Christians for standing up to the pope. Contrast that to Cyprian and Augustine who felt it necessary to oppose the pope on doctrine and they were still considered saints by the early church. Disagree with the pope back then didn’t automatically land one in a category of “dissenter” because the pope did not wield the authority of the whole church back then.
You’re correct. But your statement wasn’t about folks being canonized, it stated that nobody nowdays dare stand up to the pope. No mention of sainthood. I answered your statement with examples of how that’s not true. People have stood up to the pope and continue to do so. And when it comes to guys like Cyprian, he was a martyr for one thing. And martyrs in the very very early days of the church were considered saints. He was also a titan in his time. He did great things for Christianity and left an indelible mark on the faith. And had he been excommunicated by Stephen I guarantee you his legacy would’ve been different. And if you look at Augustine, he was a supporter of the pope and made several statements on numerous occasions that point to the notion that it’s impossible to be a part of the Church if you are not in league with Rome. So Augustine is, as you would say, a "bad example."
.
When did I “laud” (praise) Cyprian’s view on baptism. You asserted that Cyprian was wrong and “everyone knows that” and you used that as proof to support PI. I simply pointed out that that orthodox actually agree with Cyprian.
If you read the post, I didn’t use it to support infallibility. That is your inference. I merely sought to show you his primacy, as I stated. And at the time the vast majority of the Church, including the Orthodox, followed Stephen’s lead on this. As Catholicism and Orthodoxy split, the Cyprian view became the Orthodox view. As far as my statement using the term “laud,” I concede your point. Poor choice of words indeed.

I think you are confused on this issue. In the West, we Catholics and Anglicans side with the more liberal views of Stephen. But the Orthodox agree with the principle of Cyprian. The principle is that there is no grace outside the sacraments outside of the Orthodox Church. I am not sure that you are aware of this but the Orthodox don’t believe that your baptism imparted you with the Holy Spirit. Nor do they believe that the Eucharist you receive is the Body of Christ.
Give me a little credit, VARC. I never underestimate a bright and learned person such as yourself. I ask you not to do the same with me. I know full well the Orthodox view on baptisms and consecrations outside their church. And, with respect, I really don’t care what Orthodox think about my baptism. Nor do I care what their view is as to the legitimacy of my Eucharist on Sunday. I know full well the legitimacy of both. I never mentioned the Orthodox in my post because neither you nor I are Orthodox. You are Anglican, myself Catholic. We both have a Church that follows the legacy of Stephen’s determination so, for us, to look at Cyprian’s stubborn interlude with Stephen as being legit would contradict our own faith tradition.

They have an idea called “economia” that they use to “bend the rules” if you will. If an RC wants to convert most Orthodox will not baptize him but simply anoint (confirm) him. But don’t be fooled. The Orthodox view baptism, confirmation, and communion as one act of becoming a member of the Church. They do all three at once to infants. By using the principle of economia they forgo dipping you in water. They rather complete the baptism that was begun years earlier by confirming you with a “real” bishop and giving you “real” communion. In the East. you are not considered a baptized member of Christ until you have done all these things.

Sorry to get side tracked but Cyprian view won the day in the other half of the Church and us liberal westerners stick with Stephen.
You sound like your should be Orthodox if you think you got “stuck” with the philosophy of not re-baptizing folks. And the idea of “liberal” would hardly hold water with most people who see the Roman Catholic Church as anti birth control, anti premarital sex, anti abortion, anti gay, anti divorce, full of obligation masses, mandatory auricular confession, and demanding allegiance to the papacy. Most would hardly view that as liberal! Some in CAF view it as a burdensome overkill and too conservative? Different strokes as they say…

I maintain that modern views of the papacy have evolved. I think an objective view of the Fathers demonstrates this. Even Cardinal Newman would admit as much.

 

[BHTech]

That’s your opinion and your welcome to it.

Too bad TEC is a dying organization and no its not my opinion. Check the Stats.

It doesn’t matter whether or not slavery existed before the CC. The point is that the CC used to teach that slavery wasn’t immoral and now it teaches that it is. The C of E was the first to condemn the institution of slavery and the RCC followed suit.

It is true that some Popes implicitly approved that non Christians could be slaves. These are facts conditioned by their times for sure. However, there is a longer and far stronger tradition of Popes condemning slavery friend starting with John VIII(872-882) declaring slavery to be a sin. Other examples include Eugene IV, Pius II, Paul III, Urban VIII(1639), Benedict XIV(1741), Gregory XVI (1839) and Leo XIII(1888) to name a few. In Thomas Aquinas time slavery was considered a definite sin. For you to claim that the CofE lead the way to abolish slavery (my ancestors were slaves by the same British you cling to) is “Weak as water” and I suggest you get a good history book and read it.

Papal infallibility didn’t begin “when the first 12 leaders of the early church were chosen after Peter’s death”. It began in the Middle Ages and was finalized at the Vatican in 1870 after much arm twisting by a powerful pope. If you believe that your understanding of the papacy was present in the apostolic times then I suggest you study history and the ECFs without bias. Anybody can see that papal supremacy/infallibilty was an idea that evolved over time. If you don’t see that you probably don’t want to see it.

And the Bible was not canonized until the councils of Hippo and Carthage some 400 years after Christ. Big deal! So what if papal infallibility came out of Vatican I? I don’t deny that, but its history can be traced to the middle ages and all the way back to apostolic times. You probably don’t want to see that. Do you honestly believe that God gave us everything in one fall swoop? If that is the case then TEC waited until 2000 years to suddenly decide that is ok to bless same sex marriages and ordain gay Bishops and priests. Wait… did TEC exist shortly after Pentecost? Perhaps you should remember the words of our Lord in John 16:12-13, 12 “I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.” Note** things that are to come**!

Now you’re just being silly. Prayer, study, and reflection doesn’t exculde leadership. That is how all churches arrive at what they believe is the truth. But in the RCC, it is only necessary for one man to do so for the church to do so. Everybody else need only follow him. Like I said, the RCC get an A for efficiency but that doesn’t make it true.

Note your statement, "what they believe is the truth". For you truth is relative, this is why you see nothing wrong with 35,000+ denominations post 1517AD. To each his own.

On papal Infallibility may I suggest you read “Lumen Gentium” out of Vatican II to better understand it and bear in mind its only teaching on matters of faith and morals in Ex-Cathedra. They is also magisterial infallibility that you may wish to read up on.

Yes, they are. Perhaps they are right and perhaps they are wrong. One can argue that catholics who believe in papal infallibility are “those who listen to teachers to tickle their ears”. No offence.

None taken, but bear in mind that either Protestants are right or Catholics are right. Both cannot be right and both cannot be wrong otherwise you make Jesus Christ a liar and violate the law of non-contradiction. I’ll put my money on the successors of Peter over your 35,000+ protestant denominations believing different things. Oh and by the way the “Catholics” gave the world the Bible under the guidance of the Holy spirit, not the Protestants.

I don’t mind an appeal to reason but I think you are commiting the fallacy of a false dichotomy in demanding God give us an infallible leader.

Friend, I’m not demanding that God give us a leader. I’m saying its commonsense that there be a leader of the universal church, as there are leader or bosses in secular society. Such a leader should not laud over his fellow Bishops. The Pope is the servant of servants. You may even lead a group at your workplace, I don’t know. The point is the church you belong too has a leader after all otherwise there is confusion and even Satan commands/leads his Angels! Its not him alone doing bad things. Go figure!

Well, I’ll just refer you to the Orthodox for proof that your understanding of the papacy evolved over time and was not the ECFs view of the Roman bishop. Something tells me you have a lot more respect them. Don’t really blame you. When I was and RC I wouldn’t take an Anglican’s word for it either. It was the orthodox members at CAF who very aptly proved that my papal views were erroneous.

I highly respect the Orthodox and have read some of their arguments against the Papacy. I don’t find them convincing enough as they themselves are not united. May I suggest you read, *“Jesus, Peter and the Keys”, by Butler, Dalgreen and Hess *to learn Protestants, ECF and some Orthodox support of the Papacy. Sorry to hear that you were once Catholic. Please consider coming home. TEC or ACNA or GAFCON or none of the splinter groups will not last long. I came from the Anglican Church and while I left an Orthodox Anglican church, the Anglican church as a whole was not founded by Jesus.

God Bless

BHTech

 

[BHTech]

Continued…

That’s the fallacious reasoning I referred to earlier . Even if truth is absolute it does not follow that one group has to be right, by which you mean infallible. It is perfectly reasonable to conclude that all groups get it wrong from time to time. And it is a false dichotomy to assert Christ doesn’t care about us if he doesn’t make one of us infallible.

Friend, perhaps logic or meta-physics is not your strong point, but the law of non-contradiction cannot be violated. Let me make it simple for you through an example and lets forget infallibility for the moment. Either Jesus is God or he is not God. Jesus cannot be God and not God simultaneously. Likewise its not possible for both groups Catholics and Protestants to get it wrong from time to time otherwise Jesus is a liar and scripture lies to us. One group must be right and the other wrong. Both cannot be right and hold opposing views. On Christ caring about his church I was making the point that either he wanted the universal church to have a leader or he did not want the church to have a leader. Its one OR the other. No other choices or possibilities exist.

God Bless

BHTech

 

[VARC]

We will have to agree to disagree about the papacy I believe we have both made about as much progress as we are going to make in this discussion.

Continued…

Friend, perhaps logic or meta-physics is not your strong point, but the law of non-contradiction cannot be violated. Let me make it simple for you through an example and lets forget infallibility for the moment. Either Jesus is God or he is not God. Jesus cannot be God and not God simultaneously. Likewise its not possible for both groups Catholics and Protestants to get it wrong from time to time otherwise Jesus is a liar and scripture lies to us.
BHTech;5606803:

Friend it is you that has a deficient ability to use logic. You are creating a false dichotomy. You only present two possible outcomes…

1. Either the CC is right about everything
2. Or that Protestants are right about everything

There is a third option

1. Neither the CC nor Protestantism is right about everything

You are fallaciously begging the question that Jesus or scripture taught that a single bishop would always be right. You cannot use that opinion as proof in order to rule out the third possibility . That is a logical fallacy.

Continued…

On Christ caring about his church I was making the point that either he wanted the universal church to have a leader or he did not want the church to have a leader. Its one OR the other. No other choices or possibilities exist.

While I certainly believe that Christ put leaders in charge of the church, I don’t believe he appointed a single leader to rule the church. On that basis, it is not unreasonable to conclude that individual leaders can err from time to time, including the Roman bishop.

 

[VARC]

Too bad TEC is a dying organization and no its not my opinion. Check the Stats.

It is true that some Popes implicitly approved that non Christians could be slaves. These are facts conditioned by their times for sure. However, there is a longer and far stronger tradition of Popes condemning slavery friend starting with John VIII(872-882) declaring slavery to be a sin. Other examples include Eugene IV, Pius II, Paul III, Urban VIII(1639), Benedict XIV(1741), Gregory XVI (1839) and Leo XIII(1888) to name a few. In Thomas Aquinas time slavery was considered a definite sin. For you to claim that the CofE lead the way to abolish slavery (my ancestors were slaves by the same British you cling to) is “Weak as water” and I suggest you get a good history book and read it.

Forgot to respond to this.

This a whitewashing of history. Popes didn’t give “implicit” approval of slavery. They were very explicit in their approval of the institution at times.

“Slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature, is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law, and there can be several just titles of slavery and these are referred to by approved theologians and commentators of the sacred canons… It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given”.
Pius IX (Instruction 20 June 1866 AD).

“ “We grant you [Kings of Spain and Portugal] by these present documents, with our Apostolic Authority, full and free permission to invade, search out, capture, and subjugate the Saracens and pagans and any other unbelievers and enemies of Christ wherever they may be, as well as their kingdoms, duchies, counties, principalities, and other property …] and to reduce their persons into perpetual slavery.”**1452 **by Pope Nicholas V

This proves that papal attitudes towards slavery have been a lot more than “implicit approval” and that fact doesn’t bode well for the Pope’s infallibility in teaching morality.