i am presbyterian i want to convert ..

[humble_in_doubt]

My apologies humble_in_doubt. I started at the beginning and read to the end; that’s when I found the distinction you made between science and philosophy. I guess I commented out of tern and interrupted your discussion. Looks like this thread has wandered quite far away from the first question.

I see now that you are wrapped around the axel on the concept of Papal authority and apostolic succession. Josie L has his facts straight and has got you doing some reading.

Seriously, I am sorry that I distracted you. I appreciate the fact that you are searching. Josie L is kind enough to dig deeply into the details on your behalf. I have been there and have found that the details really don’t mater unless you have the ears to listen.

no problem buddy & the apology is more than accepted. On the papal authority stuff … I think Josie is on a trip for the next week, so I sort of dropped it. I guess for me … why worry about the authority of a church that premises its authority on a god who I believe doesn’t exist?

If I were able to believe god exists (as I did for most of my life) I’d most likely (at least theologically) be a Calvinist (or Augustinian). When I was into religion I loved Augustine & Calvin. The only other theologian with a different point of view who I think was intellectually credible is Karl Barth.

What I didn’t like about Catholicism is most Catholics view any protestant theologian as a sort of heretic (even though your own scholars have praised men like Karl Barth and even contemporary theologians like N.T. Wright). Of course the same sort of intellectual deafness exists in protestantism.

Catholicism (and Protestantism) is the religion of my family, culture, and society … so I still have a certain amount of loyalty to it (I just don’t believe it). If unstable men like John Hague had their way & we engaged Islam in a war of attrition, while I might be the lone voice of reason trying in probable futility to stop the whole mess, when it’s go time I’d be fighting on the side of the Christians, Jews, and of course as always the good old USA.

 

[Bob_McKissick]

I think C.S. Lewis agreed with Augustine on that point (in Mere Christianity). To paraphrase Nietzsche … I think there is a beyond good and evil. The bible tries to explain the relationship between divine sovereignty and evil (or anything “bad” for that matter) by saying things like what we intend for evil god intends for good. Using that logic one might say the starvation of those in the third world serves some ‘other worldly’ purpose … but let’s be serious about this … it really serves no good whatsoever to imagine the plight of these people lies in the hands of some invisible devil or god. It seems to me it would be more productive to imagine mankind does not receive assistance (or obstruction) from intangible and unknown paranormal beings. Rather IMO if we operate under a rational premise (namely if we want the earth to be better we need to endeavor in that regard) we’ll never be tempted to throw up our hands in frustration and leave it in “gods hands.”

I understand the CC (and other religious organizations) is quite active in the third world, yet after centuries of effort we still remain at ground zero. I think it has much to do with the premise that people operate under, and the fact that many are beholden to false mythology (and its dogma). For instance many Africans are victims of war lords and tyrannical neighboring governments. Sure it’s great to give them food, but what happens when the war lords move in? I say give them guns, training, make them understand that they shouldn’t wait around for any god to rescue them, and if they desire any hope at all they need to fight for it themselves. I think religion promotes weakness in those desperate for help (who will accept it from anyone offering). I think they would be better served by a philosophy like a “will to power” mentality (even though I’m personally not a huge Nietzsche fan, I prefer him to the Greeks or Christians any day).

actually for me rejection of religion (and the existence of god) had little do with sophistic questions like “why does evil exist”? My view towards religion is premised on much more logical and pragmatic grounds. It has nothing to do with whether or not I agree with religious philosophy. If I actually thought for a minute god could exist I wouldn’t dispute his judgments (whether I agreed with them or not).

Albeit my evidence is circumstantial, many convictions have been made with less evidence. The way I see it is mankind has always needed an explanation for everything. What we couldn’t explain with reason we explained with mythology. For our predecessors it was earth quakes, solar eclipses, floods, etc. Today we understand the underlying cause of these events; yet many still rely on ancient mythology to explain the many other things we don’t yet understand. Take for instance the relationship between psychological and physical health. Medical science has recorded many pretty amazing manifestations of our mind; but they don’t yet know the exact cause (e.g. while we might be able to say this particular area of the brain lights up under an MRI under certain circumstances, we still largely don’t know why). Religion (trying to retain some semblance of mystery in our existence) will attribute things like recovery from serious (or even terminal) illnesses to a god. They will point to studies of the effectiveness of prayer and worship to our health (even though these studies indicate this phenomena is not confined to Christians, but rather something about involvement in a faith community, prayer or meditation, etc. can be beneficial to our health).

We see an obvious pattern here (meditation, having some semblance of discipline in our lives, good community relations, frequent contact with friends, etc. is healthy). By attributing these things to the intangible we in a sense dilute our impetus to discover its real cause; and therefore we create a fictitious obstruction to progress.

It’s hard to quantify the impact of religion in this regard … but I know it’s real. However, none of these question, at the end of the day, matter that much. The only question with regard to religion I find relevant is whether it’s true or not. I’ve been barraged with comments concerning the historicity of Jesus (and when I was religious I read Josephus, Tacitus, etc.). However, whether or not a man named Jesus lived isn’t even really the question is it? My doubt concerns the supernatural events claimed by scripture; and the historical pattern of logical fallacy associated with religion.

I remember the bible well enough to know it has a well formed response for people like me. In other words it anticipated well my objection, and and set people like me up as a fictitious enemy. Not only does this fact not concern me, but I believe (from a logical standpoint) it further bolsters my position. Why did the gospel concern itself so much with debunking and discrediting the intelligentsia? The answer seems obvious enough!

God is well pleased with your continued interest in Him. If, in truth, He doesn’t exist, then you are all upset about NOTHING! If there is not God or god, then go your way and quit wasting your time with the non-existent!

I saw an interesting sign on the back of a T-shirt in Anchorage, AK. It read, "God is dead! Nietzsche!
Below that was the following: “Nietzsche is dead!” God! bob

 

[humble_in_doubt]

God is well pleased with your continued interest in Him. If, in truth, He doesn’t exist, then you are all upset about NOTHING! If there is not God or god, then go your way and quit wasting your time with the non-existent!

I saw an interesting sign on the back of a T-shirt in Anchorage, AK. It read, "God is dead! Nietzsche!
Below that was the following: “Nietzsche is dead!” God! bob

I’m not upset about anything … just bored in my hotel room to be honest (far away from home for probably the next couple months). That T-shirt is pretty funny though

 

[Bob_McKissick]

I’m not upset about anything … just bored in my hotel room to be honest (far away from home for probably the next couple months). That T-shirt is pretty funny though

I thought it was a hoot!! I will pray that your return home will be soon and you will turn your boredom will turn into joy. Joy is much better driver that boredom. bob

 

[humble_in_doubt]

I thought it was a hoot!! I will pray that your return home will be soon and you will turn your boredom will turn into joy. Joy is much better driver that boredom. bob

Well, religion was even more boring when I was Catholic (though of course the Mass, coupled with some Excedrin, can be very soothing if you have a hang over).

 

[josie_L]

My apologies humble_in_doubt. I started at the beginning and read to the end; that’s when I found the distinction you made between science and philosophy. I guess I commented out of tern and interrupted your discussion. Looks like this thread has wandered quite far away from the first question.

I see now that you are wrapped around the axel on the concept of Papal authority and apostolic succession. **Josie L has his facts **straight and has got you doing some reading.

Seriously, I am sorry that I distracted you. I appreciate the fact that you are searching. Josie L is kind enough to dig deeply into the details on your behalf. I have been there and have found that the details really don’t mater unless you have the ears to listen.

I am a girl (I’m getting tired of having to say this ), and thank you for the compliment, I do indeed have my facts straight; if only Francis (humble in doubt) would listen.

 

[Bob_McKissick]

Well, religion was even more boring when I was Catholic (though of course the Mass, coupled with some Excedrin, can be very soothing if you have a hang over).

Sagan’s as dead as Neitzche! (I wish they had spell check on this thing. I’m dyslexic and ADHD and 80, so spelling is a pain to me) Which reminds me of the dyslexic, agnostic, insomniac who lay awake nights wondering if there was a dog or not. Any way if you are bored it is your boredom and you are doing or thinking something(s) or not doing or thinking something(s) that keep you in that box. Find out what it is and you’ll be fine. bob

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Sagan’s as dead as Neitzche! (I wish they had spell check on this thing. I’m dyslexic and ADHD and 80, so spelling is a pain to me) Which reminds me of the dyslexic, agnostic, insomniac who lay awake nights wondering if there was a dog or not. Any way if you are bored it is your boredom and you are doing or thinking something(s) or not doing or thinking something(s) that keep you in that box. Find out what it is and you’ll be fine. bob

Thanks Bob … I do enjoy thinking, sharing knowledge, and receiving it. This is who I am – so I embrace it.

 

[danonwaveland]

Bob,

I see you are a relatively new poster. I hope you post often; your wisdom of 80 years shows clearly. Your posts are humorous and cogent.

God bless,
Dan

 

[josie_L]

Good response … but in fairness Irenaeus only affirmed that Linus was the first “Bishop” of Rome … and also created the concept of apostolic succession (in a sense, though not exactly in the same way it’s viewed today). During Irenaeus’ time Christendom was not governed by a central authority in Rome. Indeed during his debates with the Gnostic’s he pointed to the mutual agreement among “all the apostolic churches” concerning core matters as evidence supporting his position (though there was occasional disagreement in very minor areas of doctrine … but that’s another story & not worth talking about really).

That could not be true since we have earlier church fathers/figures declaring the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome over other Bishoprics:

Pope Clement I

“Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved; and especially that abominable and unholy sedition, alien and foreign to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-willed persons have inflamed to such madness that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be loved by all men, has been greatly defamed. . . . Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him [God] through us *, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger. . . . You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy” (Letter to the Corinthians 1, 58–59, 63 [A.D. 80]).

Hermas

“Therefore shall you [Hermas] write two little books and send one to Clement [Bishop of Rome] and one to Grapte. Clement shall then send it to the cities abroad, because that is his duty” (The Shepherd 2:4:3 [A.D. 80]).

Ignatius of Antioch

“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]).

“You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force” (ibid., 3:1).

Dionysius of Corinth

“For from the beginning it has been your custom to do good to all the brethren in various ways and to send contributions to all the churches in every city. . . . This custom your blessed Bishop Soter has not only preserved, but is augmenting, by furnishing an abundance of supplies to the saints and by urging with consoling words, as a loving father his children, the brethren who are journeying” (Letter to Pope Soter in Eusebius, Church History 4:23:9 [A.D. 170]).

“Today we have observed the Lord’s holy day, in which we have read your letter [Pope Soter]. Whenever we do read it [in church], we shall be able to profit thereby, as also we do when we read the earlier letter written to us by Clement” (ibid., 4:23:11).

The Martyrs of Lyons

“And when a dissension arose about these said people [the Montanists], the brethren in Gaul once more . . . [sent letters] to the brethren in Asia and Phrygia and, moreover to Eleutherius, who was then [A.D. 175] bishop of the Romans, negotiating for the peace of the churches” (Eusebius, Church History 5:3:4 [A.D. 312])

“And the same martyrs too commended Irenaeus, already at that time [A.D. 175] a presbyter of the community of Lyons, to the said bishop of Rome, rendering abundant testimony to the man, as the following expressions show: ‘Once more and always we pray that you may rejoice in God, Pope Eleutherius. This letter we have charged our brother and companion Irenaeus to convey to you, and we beg you to receive him as zealous for the covenant of Christ’” (ibid., 5:4:1–2).

catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_1.asp*

 

[CJ_Nick]

I am sorry to inform you that we Catholics are not converting any more Presbyterians in the current year ( 2009 ). I would suggest you check back in January 2010 and see what happens.

Sorry to the OP, obviously I kid !!!

God bless you in your journey

Peace
CJ

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Hermas

“Therefore shall you [Hermas] write two little books and send one to Clement Bishop of Rome] and one to Grapte. Clement shall then send it to the cities abroad, because that is his duty” (The Shepherd 2:4:3 [A.D. 80]).

Yes … “bishop of Rome”

Ignatius of Antioch

“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]).

where did you get this language from? Here’s the actual wording:

*Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that willeth all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place of the region of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed holy . . . *

“And the same martyrs too commended Irenaeus, already at that time [A.D. 175] a presbyter of the community of Lyons, to the said bishop of Rome, rendering abundant testimony to the man, as the following expressions show: ‘Once more and always we pray that you may rejoice in God, Pope Eleutherius. This letter we have charged our brother and companion Irenaeus to convey to you, and we beg you to receive him as zealous for the covenant of Christ’” (ibid., 5:4:1–2).

catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_1.asp

again bishop of Rome. Really not my fight and all … but I see no theological support for the papacy (frankly in all the years I studied this stuff … I never did find any scriptural or early historical support – e.g. first century – for the papacy).

I know I know (not my fight – but them’s fightin words, oh oh … should of kept my trap shut).

 

[wisdomseeker]

Now, Eliakim is a minister in the cabinet, but now he is being granted the Prime Minister’s position. How do we know? Because he is given what the other ministers do not have, the keys of the kingdom, the key to the House of David. That symbolized dynastic authority entrusted to the Prime Minister and dynastic succession. Why? Because it’s the key of David; it’s the House of David.

Let me go back and try to simplify this even further. I’ll read the quote. Albright says, “In commenting upon Matthew 16 and Jesus giving to Peter the keys of the kingdom, Isaiah 22:15 and following undoubtedly lies behind this saying.” Albright, a Protestant, non- Catholic insists that it’s undoubtable that Jesus is citing Isaiah 22, “The keys are the symbol of authority and DeVoe rightly sees here the same authority as that vested in the vicar, the master of the house, the chamberlain of the royal household of ancient Israel.” In other words, the Prime Minister’s office.

Other Protestant scholars admit it too, that when Jesus gives to Peter the keys of the kingdom, Peter is receiving the Prime Minister’s office, which means dynastic authority from the Son of David, Jesus, the King of Israel, but also an office where there will be dynastic succession. When I discovered that, it was like the blinders fell off. Within a few weeks I had gotten together with the leading Protestant theologians in the world, one of the most reputable anti- Catholic Protestant theologians and spent ten hours with him and then in a Mercedes we drove two hours and I presented this case, and his only comment was, “That’s clever.” But he said, “You don’t have to follow the Pope because of that.” I said, “Why not?” And he said, “Well, I’m going to have to think about it.” He said, “I’ve never heard that argument before.” And I said, “It’ s one of the basic arguments that Cajeton used against the Protestants in the 16th Century and Cajeton was one of the most well-known defenders of the Catholic faith and you’ve never heard of him before?” I said, “I had never heard of it before until I discovered it on my own and then found it in all these other people.” And he said, “That’s clever.” Clever, perhaps. True, definitely; enlightening, illuminating, very interesting.

He goes on to say some other things. “It is of considerable importance,” Albright says, “that in other contexts, when the disciplinary affairs of the community are discussed, the symbol of the keys is absent, since the saying applies in these instances to a wider circle. The role of Peter as steward of the kingdom is further explained as being the exercise of administrative authority as was the case of the Old Testament chamberlain who held the keys.”

catholic-pages.com/pope/hahn.asp

 

[josie_L]

Yes … “bishop of Rome”

And your point being???

Peter was an apostle like the others, however, he was also recognized as their leader or the first amongst the apostles. Likewise, the Pope although a bishop like the others is first amongst them, and a leader just like Peter in relation to the other apostles. I have given you quotes from Church figures that give credence to the primacy/leadership role of the bishop of Rome, you choose to ignore it.

where did you get this language from? Here’s the actual wording:

Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that willeth all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place of the region of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed holy . . .

preside
Verb -siding, -sided]

1. to chair a meeting
2. to exercise authority: he presided over the burning of the books [Latin praesidere to superintend]

preside
verb officiate, chair, moderate, be chairperson

preside over something or someone run, lead, head, control, manage, direct, conduct, govern, administer, supervise, be at the head of, be in authority.

again bishop of Rome. Really not my fight and all … but I see no theological support for the papacy (frankly in all the years I studied this stuff … I never did find any scriptural or early historical support – e.g. first century – for the papacy).

You said you went to Catholic colleges and universities, what kind of theology did you learn there?

I know I know (not my fight – but them’s fightin words, oh oh … should of kept my trap shut).

Yes, them’s are figthin words, and I intend to fight.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Yes, them’s are figthin words, and I intend to fight.

presides in the place of the region of the Romans

Yes the church at Rome, the bishop of Rome, presides over the region of the Romans. The context of this statement is clear enough, I really don’t understand how you draw papal authority out of this – but hey who am I to argue? To me none of is true anyway.

The fact is Ignatius was also allegedly anointed by Peter as bishop of Antioch. When you read his letters (along with Polycarp’s and Clement’s) the language and context is clear. Authority over a region vested in the bishop … and no further. The bishop of Rome presided (e.g. had authority) over the region of Rome, equal to the authority Ignatius wielded over Antioch (and I assume the surrounding region), Polycarp over Smyrna, etc. etc.

In fact the “infallibility” of the church in this early period was based on unanimity among the bishops (the episcopate or the presbytery). The papacy was a post hoc innovation of Rome; and it doesn’t correlate with church history.

 

[josie_L]

presides in the place of the region of the Romans

Yes the church at Rome, the bishop of Rome, presides over the region of the Romans. The context of this statement is clear enough, I really don’t understand how you draw papal authority out of this – but hey who am I to argue? To me none of is true anyway.

The fact is Ignatius was also allegedly anointed by Peter as bishop of Antioch. When you read his letters (along with Polycarp’s and Clement’s) the language and context is clear. Authority over a region vested in the bishop … and no further. The bishop of Rome presided (e.g. had authority) over the region of Rome, equal to the authority Ignatius wielded over Antioch (and I assume the surrounding region), Polycarp over Smyrna, etc. etc.

In fact the “infallibility” of the church in this early period was based on unanimity among the bishops (the episcopate or the presbytery). The papacy was a post hoc innovation of Rome; and it doesn’t correlate with church history.

No, not the Church at Rome, but the Church, as in the Catholic Church in its entirety, well, that’s as I understood it.

Also, I am aware of the Magisterium as the means to which the Church manifested doctrine, I never stated otherwise. However, the Pope is necessary as he was given the power to loose and bind (as per scripture), an authority given to him by Jesus to the first Pope, Peter.

P.S. I will attempt at a later date to write more on this.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

No, not the Church at Rome, but the Church, as in the Catholic Church in its entirety, well, that’s as I understood it.

Also, I am aware of the Magisterium as the means to which the Church manifested doctrine, I never stated otherwise. However, the Pope is necessary as he was given the power to loose and bind (as per scripture), an authority given to him by Jesus to the first Pope, Peter.

P.S. I will attempt at a later date to write more on this.

Peter was given power to loose and bind (no one argues that point) … but there’s no support for the idea that the concept of a Peter should continue in perpetuity in the form of a Roman papacy. Seems a little coincidental to me (the leading world economic and military power at the time commandeered a religion they couldn’t otherwise control). Like they say … follow the money (or power) trail – because humans are so predictable.

 

[josie_L]

Peter was given power to loose and bind (no one argues that point) … but there’s no support for the idea that the concept of a Peter should continue in perpetuity in the form of a Roman papacy. Seems a little coincidental to me (the leading world economic and military power at the time commandeered a religion they couldn’t otherwise control). Like they say … follow the money (or power) trail – because humans are so predictable.

Call it divinely “coincidental”.

P.S. I have already mentioned in a previous post the perpetuity of Peter’s office, you did not give me a valid reason for not accepting this view (typology).

 

[Peter_J]

I’m not upset about anything … just bored in my hotel room to be honest (far away from home for probably the next couple months). That T-shirt is pretty funny though

Please excuse the irrelevance (plus the fact that I’m butting in) but speaking of that T-shirt reminds me of something from college (University of Steubenville, to be specific). I don’t remember what class it was or what we were discussing that day, but for whatever reason a girl spoke up to say how she’d seen a T-shirt that said “God is dead -Neitzche” “Neitzche is dead -God”, and how much she liked it etc. When she finished, the teacher nodded and said, “Yes, I’ve seen that too. On bathroom walls.”

 

[Peter_J]

Peter was given power to loose and bind (no one argues that point) … but there’s no support for the idea that the concept of a Peter should continue in perpetuity in the form of a Roman papacy. Seems a little coincidental to me (the leading world economic and military power at the time commandeered a religion they couldn’t otherwise control). Like they say … follow the money (or power) trail – because humans are so predictable.

I think a better illustration is that many centuries later, another pope moved to Avignon, because of the influence of wealthly kings.

But even that only really illustrates that popes are human, like the rest of us, and prone to worldly influence.