Historical evidence for self-authenticating scripture?

[mcq72]

For clarification, please explain

Well, you said obey Jesus in doing that, eating Him, as in Last Supper, and I infer CC teaching of such as transubstantiation.

If wrong, please explain what you mean by doing “that” , as in john 6 and last supper.

Said differently, No council has ever nullified a doctrine.

Right. Now we just dont have full representative, universal, catholic councils.

Are you referring to the pope addressing Luther’s errors?

No. Referring to invalidating reformers by pointing to their fruits or negative fruits/ sins, such as division .

 

[Ammi]

steve-b:

Isn’t that a distinction without a difference?

No. It isn’t.

If one isn’t in communion with the pope, (to be clear, the successor to St Peter in Rome) then they are NOT in the universal / Catholic Church in the first place.

And you know that I consider that false, even triumphalistic.

The Eastern patriarchal system we see in the East is an Eastern invention. NOT established by Jesus who made Peter chief (therefore, his successors) , over the entire Church Jesus established.

Those words appear neither in scripture nor in the early councils. Universal jurisdiction is a latter innovation. It is also off the topic.

It’s not just Lutherans who reject those 7 books. All of Protestantism no matter the stripe reject them also

I honestly don’t care what they do. The fact is that, prior to Trent, there were Catholics who disputed them, too, and they were permitted to do so.
I’ve spoken about my view of them often, and I will not get into it again with you.

Off topic as it may be. I’d just like to share, for your consideration, the possibility that Peter had universal jurisdiction.

Acts 9

So the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samar′ia had peace and was built up; and walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit it was multiplied. Now as Peter went here and there among them all, he came down also to the saints that lived at Lydda.

 

[Ammi]

steve-b:

JonNC:

leaving me few options.

interesting

Word and sacrament, Steve. Limited choices regardless of where you live. Where I live, even fewer.

Who determines a valid Eucharist Sacrament?

The Catholic Church refers to communities who rightly Baptize, yet without the Sacrament, as separated brethren.

I chose to strive to receive in a worthy manner the Eucharist delivered by the hands of the Catholic Church.

And therefore I accept the 73 book Scriptures.

Nevertheless, my struggle to discern what this Catholic Church Teaches is seemingly just as great a struggle in an age when even her leaders are so divided in practice and interpretation.

The Holy Spirit must give Catholics personal guidance in a Church so riddled with confusion.

 

[JonNC]

Now as Peter went here and there among them all , he came down also to the saints that lived at Lydda.

Thanks.
That’s sounds more like a description of his travels.

 

[JonNC]

Nevertheless, my struggle to discern what this Catholic Church Teaches is seemingly just as great a struggle in an age when even her leaders are so divided in practice and interpretation.

The Holy Spirit must give Catholics personal guidance in a Church so riddled with confusion.

I pray for you and the Catholic Church.

 

[Ammi]

Ammi:

Now as Peter went here and there among them all , he came down also to the saints that lived at Lydda.

Thanks.
That’s sounds more like a description of his travels.

Or a job description. (“Feed my sheep”)

 

[mcq72]

Off topic as it may be. I’d just like to share, for your consideration, the possibility that Peter had universal jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction to rule over or to serve?

No one denies he was a leader, first amongst equals. Chrysostom beautifully details his “firstness” amongst apostles, but also cites,

“but where all is calm, there they act all in common, and he demands no greater honor (than the others)”.

You may cite that Peter was just being humble, and yes he was, but I dare say it was also because he did not see himself as a pope, or above the other apostles.

Calvin also refutes the papal assertion from this text.

By such logic was Paul also a pope, for covering more ground and starting more churches and shepherding them by person and by writ, even "jurisdictionally " ?

 

[Ammi]

Both

1 Timothy 5

“Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching.”

 

[mcq72]

Yes both but do you make more of it than is needed or implied? Does honor mean we must then make an office of jurisdiction, of rule moreso than of service?

 

[Ammi]

I dont think Peter saw himself above the other Apostles either.

 

[Ammi]

We didnt make the office. Jesus did. (The keys)

 

[mcq72]

I dont think Peter saw himself above the other Apostles either.

Nothing to think about in that He writes as so.( not being above or having special “office” or as the world operates as Jesus noted).

Revelation has special honor for the chief cornerstone Jesus and then the twelve apostles equally. It is not a management chart having Jesus on top, then Peter below him, then eleven apostles below him etc…

 

[mcq72]

We didnt make the office. Jesus did. (The keys)

No, you made having the keys an office.

 

[Ammi]

So did the Church fathers.

Such as Jerome.

 

[mcq72]

And Tertullian, or Polycarp on occassion?

But yes, by Jeromes time the office established the beginning of its development.

 

[Ammi]

By Jerome’s time, legal persecution of Christian’s was lifted. A Church being openly persecuted isnt going to benefit from expounding on who their most prominent ruler is. That would make him a target.

 

[Ammi]

@mcq72

Trust me, I do think abuses have run rampant through history of the Bishops of Rome. And Jesus warns about this.

 

[mcq72]

“Like the commander of an army, he went about, inspecting the ranks, what part was compact, what in good order, what needed his presence. See how on all occasions he goes about, foremost. When an Apostle was to be chosen, he was the foremost: when the Jews were to be told, that these were “not drunken,” when the lame man was to be healed, when harangues to be made, he is before the rest: when the rulers were to be spoken to, he was the man; when Ananias, he (ch. i. 15; ii. 15; iii. 4-12; iv. 8; v. 3-15.): when healings were wrought by the shadow, still it was he. And look: where there was danger, he was the man, and where good [503] management (was needed); but where all is calm, there they act all in common, and he demands no greater honor (than the others)”

Chrysostum

I like his depiction, even Calvin I think posed or would admire a bishop of Rome to be and do in like manner, yet the office is unfortunately too much more now.

 

[mcq72]

By Jerome’s time, legal persecution of Christian’s was lifted. A Church being openly persecuted isnt going to benefit from expounding on who their most prominent ruler is. That would make him a target.

I beg to differ, as if many bishops of Rome and other cities were not executed anyways, some willingly.

Interesting that when the emperor wanted to stop church division he called the council. He did not bring in the pope and say command your “troops” to get in order. He gathered all bishops/ leaders of the church from around the empire to convene in council.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

Ammi:

Now as Peter went here and there among them all , he came down also to the saints that lived at Lydda.

Thanks.
That’s sounds more like a description of his travels.

Or a job description. (“Feed my sheep”)

It is an enormous stretch to use infer that into universal jurisdiction. And it wasn’t viewed that way in the early Church.