S
steido01
Guest
You deny these are/were the teachings of your communion? Don’t take my word for it, read the Papal Bull Unam Sanctam.
- Status
N
Nicea325
Guest
Nope! Bad example. Precisely why we have history with scores of writings by many men prior to the big divorce. A lot more evidence supporting the CC on the papacy then the Orthodox claiming “first among equals” argument.
N
Nicea325
Guest
Denial? Who mentioned anything abot denials?
You are the one making the argument, and yet you want me to do your research? Sorry,but that is not how it is done in the world of debates. You take the first punch, then you better back it up with a legit reason. Sucker punches is done by cowards.
So the Papal Bull Unam Sanctam is the only source required? You mean to tell me no other CC document backs up your argument?
P
Per_Crucem
Guest
That isn’t the point, though, Nicea, as I don’t have any vested interest in the CC/Orthodox debate on that. My point is, you don’t judge the validity of a belief based on those who differ from the belief. If the CC is right and the Orthodox disagreed and now practice a different form of ecclesiology, it no more disproves the CC position than Baptists changing SS from the Lutheran understanding to the Baptist one disproves the Lutheran position.
S
St_Francis
Guest
I have read it. I suggest you read it
P
Per_Crucem
Guest
Because we hold that it is the catholic position.
S
steido01
Guest
Um… Let’s recap.
- I simply noted, respectfully, that Lutheranism and Roman Catholicism disagree with each other in regards to what constitutes Scriptural tradition.
- The above seems rather obvious, so I’m not sure why you objected, but I obliged you when you asked for an example.
- I gave three.
- You deemed my source biased, without addressing any of the three points. This action seemed to imply that the Lutheran Reformers responsible for the text either knowingly lied about the Roman position or did not understand it, or that you have another reason for finding the source unsuitable. Whatever the case, it ignored the original point that Roman Catholics and Lutherans come to differing conclusions. Your intention was unclear, so…
- I asked for clarification AND provided a Roman Catholic source (a papal bull, no less!) that claims the powers I mentioned before (unless, of course, it no longer makes such claims - doctrinal “development” [read:change] and whatnot).
- Now you accuse me of “sucker punches” and cowardice for answering your questions on your terms?
N
Nicea325
Guest
Precisely why I look at the larger point on SS. It is a novel belief no where taught in the early church,regardless who has the “correct” interpretation or principle. That is the whole point of SS. Christianity is NOT restricted only to what God said within His written Words. No where is it even remotely said by Jesus, the 12 or the early church.
Christianity is not a religion of the book,but of the person Christ. The whole notion of SS has derailed Christianity.
S
steido01
Guest
Here, we agree.
N
Nicea325
Guest
I meant no offense to you. I find it odd you are the one making an argument,yet appears you want me to do the work? However, your point is loud and clear. My apologies
N
Nicea325
Guest
:console::grouphug:Here, we agree.
Amen…amen brother.
Look, I am not trying to disrespect your Lutheran community or question your faith-no way! I know you are a loyal and faithful servant of God. I may go overboard, but I mean no harm or bad sentiments towards you or others. But I understand the Lutheran explanation and understanding of SS. God bless brother!
S
St_Francis
Guest
Why do you believe it is correct, and why do you call the correct position “catholic”?
P
Per_Crucem
Guest
I don’t expect you to agree with us, Nicea. Nor to disagree with the position of the CC. I would rather you clearly articulate the areas we disagree upon then try to be loosy goosy with it. I can’t abide relativistic ecumenism. I can respect ecumenism where there is genuine agreement. Call me sentimental, but I miss the good old days when Benedict XVI was Pope and we knew he was Catholic.
Be that as it may, I don’t hold any ill will toward any of the debaters in the conversation so far. You’re all still heterodox and need to accept the truth, though
S
St_Francis
Guest
Why do you believe it is correct, and why do you call the correct position “catholic”?
P
Per_Crucem
Guest
Because I believe it to be the position most clearly held in the early post-apostolic church up until politics, time, societal changes, etc. shifted the locus of authority in the western church to the papacy and to the magisterium. It would be too long of a historical examination. I would refer you to what I think is the best treatment of the subject, which would be the Shape of Sola Scriptura by Keith Mathison, or the Church From Age to Age by Englebrecht.
S
steido01
Guest
No offense was taken, friend. It’s the Internet.
I’m just trying to understand why/how we had entered a debate on a point that seemed, to me, to be obvious. When it comes to the legwork of a discussion, I can supply the sources but I can’t read them for you.
Glad to have reached some understanding regarding the Lutheran definition of SS. We’d both disagree with the popular American Evangelical definition - perhaps we could count on our Roman Catholic friends to explain to them that they aren’t even doing SS correctly!
S
St_Francis
Guest
There is not only evidence of Papal Primacy in Scripture, but evidence for it from the earliest times of the Church.OK. Here’s three:
The Roman Pontiff claims for himself [in the first place] that by divine right he is [supreme] above all bishops and pastors [in all Christendom].
Secondly, he adds also that by divine right he has both swords, i.e., the authority also of bestowing kingdoms [enthroning and deposing kings, regulating secular dominions etc.].
And thirdly, he says that to believe this is necessary for salvation. And for these reasons the Roman bishop calls himself [and boasts that he is] the vicar of Christ on earth.
These three articles we hold to be false, godless, tyrannical, and [quite] pernicious to the Church.
- Supremacy from Scripture? Hardly. Primacy, probably.
This is why I suggested you read the document itself. It does not say this.
Yes, those who reject the Catholic Church put their souls in jeapordy.
You need to remember that at the time this was written (1302), there were no Protestants. Thise who were Christian were Catholic. There were those who started their own groups, such as the Albigensians, but they were either non-Christian or heretics.
Now, what do Lutherans say? Do they say that one can believe whatever they please and still enter Heaven? Do they believe that a member who starts preaching reincarnation and that Christ was human alone is still a good Lutheran on his way to Heaven?
M
marywarfield
Guest
But then again if Sola Scriptura was correct according to
JUST how Lutherans use it why doesn’t Scripture mention it?
And if Sola Scriptura is correct why does Scripture seem
to disagree?
And why are there no statements on the importance
or need of Sola Scriptura in your early post Apostolic
teachings?
Shouldn’t somewhere Scripture itself insist on it?
S
steido01
Guest
And I agree; evidence for primacy I can understand - and even support. Evidence for supremacy, however, seems a stretch. The East was never under Papal supremacy as it is currently understood, for example.
Not in so many words, but what else can be made of it when Boniface VIII claims that the state must be subservient to the Church in all matters?
" Both, therefore, are in the power of the Church, that is to say, the spiritual and the material sword…"
“…it belongs to spiritual power to establish the terrestrial power…”
“Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
Change the capitalization and I agree.
But Unam Sanctam speaks to submission and subjection to the Roman Pontiff as “absolutely necessary” for salvation. What, then, of the Orthodox?Are we forgetting the Orthodox? We must also remember that at the time this was written, the pope was pulling out all the stops, including excommunication, to force a French king to do his earthly bidding.
Now, I know that modern day Roman Catholics claim that doctrine has “developed” since the original claims of Boniface and that Unam Sanctam no longer means what it once did - but I don’t see how an honest historian can deny what it was intended to mean at the time.
Of course not. Just as we object to those who claim to use SS, but in practice use Private Interpretation.
M
marywarfield
Guest
Nothing has changed much. It is still put forth there isAnd I agree; evidence for primacy I can understand - and even support. Evidence for supremacy, however, seems a stretch. The East was never under Papal supremacy as it is currently understood, for example.
Not in so many words, but what else can be made of it when Boniface VIII claims that the state must be subservient to the Church in all matters?
" Both, therefore, are in the power of the Church, that is to say, the spiritual and the material sword…"
“…it belongs to spiritual power to establish the terrestrial power…”
“Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
Change the capitalization and I agree.
Are we forgetting the Orthodox? We must also remember that at the time this was written, the pope was pulling out all the stops, including excommunication, to force a French king to do his earthly bidding.
Now, I know that modern day Roman Catholics claim that doctrine has “developed” since the original claims of Boniface and that Unam Sanctam no longer means what it once did - but I don’t see how an honest historian can deny what it was intended to mean at the time.
Of course not. Just as we object to those who claim to use SS, but in practice use Private Interpretation.
no salvation outside the intercession of the Holy Mother
Catholic Church.
It would still be prudent for world political leaders
to submit themselves to the teaching and authority of
Christ and Holy Mother Church.
And among all the other references to Papal authority
we also have Luke 22: 31-35 in which we clearly see Peter
put forth as the support system for his fellow apostles
with incidentally an acknowledgement and acceptance
of Peter’s fallibility.
Clearly Christ expected the other apostles to look to
Peter while acknowledging Peter was fallible.
Now as to whether Peter became infallible upon Pentecost?
Maybe we can excuse Peter’s denial as pre dating Christ
sending the Paraclete?
- Status