Papal Primacy, Known For All Ages?

[Redbandito]

I’m showing that the Pope is not the only one who can speak infallibly when it comes to the scriptures. I litereally can’t lie about the bible, beacuse I know it to be true. I know that if I lie about it I’m denying my Savior, Jesus Christ and condemning myself to an eternity of torment. If you think you can speak against the scriptures, then try. You know it’s true because the Holy Spirit has revealed it to you in your heart. You have opened up and let it in. However, somewhere along the line of Catholicism, someone didn’t believe and let some heresies sink in.

Sooner, you are misinformed on the definition of infallibility. One can unintentionally speak error. Simply not lying, does not mean we are infallible. For instance, many well-meaning, HONEST Christians believe baptism is merely a symbol. Others believe it is something more than just a symbol. The fact that some deny that baptism is not regenerative does not mean they are lying. It just means they are wrong. Infallibility prevents someone from being wrong even unintentionally.

 

[SoonerServant]

Wrong, I would never mock you. I mock the lie that has been planted in you. Satan is crafty and wants to taint as many ppl as he can. Even through the church. We were warned against false prophets and new revelations. Even before the apostles died out, the churches were turning to different gospels. How do you know that the Catholic Church is not one of thoughs off shoots that picked up a different gospel early on. Maybe it wasn’t even recorded.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Simply not lying, does not mean we are infallible. For instance, many well-meaning, HONEST Christians believe baptism is merely a symbol. Others believe it is something more than just a symbol. The fact that some deny that baptism is not regenerative does not mean they are lying. It just means they are wrong. Infallibility prevents someone from being wrong even unintentionally.

Well put! And exactly correct. That is why St. Peter warned us about the dangers of personal interpretation of Scripture. Despite ‘burning in the bosom’ one can be oh-so-wrong.

 

[ProdigalSonOfOz]

I’m showing that the Pope is not the only one who can speak infallibly when it comes to the scriptures. I litereally can’t lie about the bible, beacuse I know it to be true. I know that if I lie about it I’m denying my Savior, Jesus Christ and condemning myself to an eternity of torment. If you think you can speak against the scriptures, then try. You know it’s true because the Holy Spirit has revealed it to you in your heart. You have opened up and let it in. However, somewhere along the line of Catholicism, someone didn’t believe and let some heresies sink in.

Once again, what your saying has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Its obvious you enjoy standing on your soap box (and there’s nothing wrong with that), but there’s a time and place for everything.

Start your own thread, its really not that hard.

 

[Redbandito]

Wrong, I would never mock you. I mock the lie that has been planted in you. Satan is crafty and wants to taint as many ppl as he can. Even through the church. We were warned against false prophets and new revelations. Even before the apostles died out, the churches were turning to different gospels. How do you know that the Catholic Church is not one of thoughs off shoots that picked up a different gospel early on. Maybe it wasn’t even recorded.

How do you know your church isn’t one of them? I know simply because we have writings from the disciples of the Apostles who all preach a very “Catholic” Gospel. You have admitted not even really reading the Bible. How can you even be here so brashly preaching things you have no clue about?

 

[SoonerServant]

Then apparently the Pope isn’t infallible, because he got baptism wrong. In the New Testament, everyone who was baptized, were baptized in water. They were fully submerged. Even Jesus went under the water. It’s not the water or the act it’s self that saves us, but the obedience we show by doing it. If Jesus said,“be buried up to your neck in sand, and be saved.” I would find the nearest sand pit. It’s not a fact of what’s close enough, but staying as close as you can.

 

[Redbandito]

I’m showing that the Pope is not the only one who can speak infallibly when it comes to the scriptures.

BTW, you have shown nothing of the sort. So far, you have been discussing the nature of free will rather than infallibility. That happens when we don’t understand the definitions of terms we are using. That is why I provided you a link. Unfortunately, you will not read it.

 

[SoonerServant]

A “very” Catholic Gospel. I noticed you didn’t use the word “exact”. Are you unsure? I’m off to work. I hope you guys will be on later, bye and God bles.

 

[Redbandito]

Then apparently the Pope isn’t infallible, because he got baptism wrong. In the New Testament, everyone who was baptized, were baptized in water. They were fully submerged. Even Jesus went under the water. It’s not the water or the act it’s self that saves us, but the obedience we show by doing it. If Jesus said,“be buried up to your neck in sand, and be saved.” I would find the nearest sand pit. It’s not a fact of what’s close enough, but staying as close as you can.

Look, sooner, if you want to debate baptism, take it to another thread. Needless to say, you will get dissected, much like you have here, because you have not even read the Bible. However, at least you would be following the forum rules in doing so. God bless you in your misunderstandings.

 

[Fredricks]

We have been hijacked!
I am more of a Pokies fan than the Sooners anyway but I also digress.

Can I address the argument from silence that Edwin mentioned. I also think we have to be cautious but MFM is.
The topic of Clement’s letter is authority. If someone is talking all about a subject but does not happen to mention the little fact that they are the leader of the entire church in the course of 60 plus chapters, it matters. A story a professor told me once about the “argument from silence”.

A married man walks into a bar and spends an hour talking to a young woman. Over the course of the hour, he enthralls her with stories of things he has done and people he knows. After the hour is up, the woman asks him for his telephone number, he replies, “Oh no, I am married”. She is furious. “What do you mean you are married!!!” He retorts, “thats an argument from silence, it does not mean anything!”

Context is everything. In this particular case, Clement’s silence speaks volumes.

 

[Redbandito]

A “very” Catholic Gospel. I noticed you didn’t use the word “exact”. Are you unsure? I’m off to work. I hope you guys will be on later, bye and God bles.

To me, they are one and the same. Watch out for those false dichotomies.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Of course, if one considers such things as the times (which are very precarious, Christians being continually persecuted), the context (few people being literate, few things actually committed to paper because of the risk of the paper being found and used to track down and kill people, for example), and the idea that not much was being written down but rather spread orally. . .it is to my mind entirely possible that the idea of authority was so well known orally that it would not have needed to be written down. In our society 2000 years on we do require ‘more’ having such things are greater literacy, cheap and available materials, etc. But back then, we cannot assume that the mindset, needs, and requirements of those Christians ‘required’ that someone’s claim to authority needed to be written down.

 

[Fredricks]

Does this not beg the question? So, if the early Church preserved the correct doctrine from the Apostles through lineage, at what point did they stray from the “true teachings” as you see it? And the fact that there were multiple heresies in the early Church does not necessarily speak to the integrity of the Church itself. For wasn’t it the Church that responded to these heresies and preserved “orthodox” Christian teaching? Furthermore, how are you to say you are “orthodox” if you do not agree with the “traditions” that have been passed down through this lineage?

At what point? I do not know exactly, I also do not want to overstate my objections to our common theology and most importantly our shared commitment to Christ as demonstrated by following his teachings.

This just happens to be one of those differences.

 

[Redbandito]

At what point? I do not know exactly, I also do not want to overstate my objections to our common theology and most importantly our shared commitment to Christ as demonstrated by following his teachings.

This just happens to be one of those differences.

Fair enough, but it is an important difference. I also share a mutual respect for my brothers in Christ. However, if one is going to make a claim that the Church departed from the true Apostolic teaching, he should at least know when this occurred. Furthermore, one should be able substantiate that claim by more than reading back into history through his own theological lens. Do you agree?

 

[Fredricks]

Fair enough, but it is an important difference. I also share a mutual respect for my brothers in Christ. However, if one is going to make a claim that the Church departed from the true Apostolic teaching, he should at least know when this occurred. Furthermore, one should be able substantiate that claim by more than reading back into history through his own theological lens. Do you agree?

Yes, and MFM is attempting to do such and I am as well. When did the church fall into its current Papacy mindset…that is gradually. Pope Victor seems to me to be the first to overstate his role I would say. Clement’s letter, of course I see nothing wrong, but I certainly do not see the Papacy.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Yes, and MFM is attempting to do such and I am as well. When did the church fall into its current Papacy mindset…that is gradually. Pope Victor seems to me to be the first to overstate his role I would say. Clement’s letter, of course I see nothing wrong, but I certainly do not see the Papacy.

Your absolutely right Fredricks and as another apologist said ( his name slips my mind) if the church is going to claim that the papacy was a devoloping thing “acorn to oak tree” a more appropriate way it should be stated would be water melon seed to oak tree.

It seems obvious that you can’t connect the dots from #1 if the #1 was never part of the puzzle.

Simon

 

[SPH1]

If you have read Eusebius, you would know he consistently refers to PETER** AND** PAUL. Not Peter alone.

You mistakenly interpret the reference to Paul as diminishing the Papacy.

The entire Church witnesses that the See of Rome took its authority from both Peter and Paul. That is, from both the Apostle to the Jews and the Apostle to the Gentiles. Each apostle handed on everything they had.

Apostleship to Jews and Gentiles ended, the See of Rome had a universal apostleship.

To my knowledge, no other See took its lineage from both apostles.

Peter was the “rock” and passed on the keys. Paul, by handing on his apostleship to the gentiles, solidifies everything.

You should think on this more.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

You mistakenly interpret the reference to Paul as diminishing the Papacy.

I don’t, rather the RCC makes the claim that from the blessed Peter it was handed on and this was known all along.

The entire Church witnesses that the See of Rome took its authority from both Peter and Paul. That is, from both the Apostle to the Jews and the Apostle to the Gentiles. Each apostle handed on everything they had.

This point is troubling so you say the church had the keys handed from both apostles, but Peter was the first pope? Yet Peter passed on his bishopric at antioch all by himself …
Eusebius
Ignatius, the second to be appointed to the bishopric of Antioch in succession to Peter.

Why isn’t Antioch the See?

 

[Contarini]

Why isn’t Antioch the See?

Because Peter didn’t die there. No doubt Rome being the capital also had something to do with it, of course. But that’s the rationale at least–apostles pass on their authority to the place where they were martyred. Bear in mind that one of the main claims of Rome to primacy was the presence of the bones of Peter and Paul. In a very real sense, the primacy of Rome was a primacy of the relics of St. Peter.

I do not know of a history of patriarchs of Antioch claiming primacy on the basis of Petrine succession, so this argument will go nowhere.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[marlo]

antioch is also claiming primacy after alexandria and alexandira after rome, that was before the 2nd Ecumenical council

Because Peter didn’t die there. No doubt Rome being the capital also had something to do with it, of course. But that’s the rationale at least–apostles pass on their authority to the place where they were martyred. Bear in mind that one of the main claims of Rome to primacy was the presence of the bones of Peter and Paul. In a very real sense, the primacy of Rome was a primacy of the relics of St. Peter.

I do not know of a history of patriarchs of Antioch claiming primacy on the basis of Petrine succession, so this argument will go nowhere.

In Christ,

Edwin