Peter's successors?

[Eden]

Fredricks:

Eden, I cannot work on my post if people keep responding.

You can continue working on your post while people are responding. Can you please use A.D. in your next post, too? We are living in 2006 A.D. (anno domini - year of our Lord), not the secular substitute “CE” - “common era”.

 

[Fredricks]

Eden:

You can continue working on your post while people are responding. Can you please use A.D. in your next post, too? We are living in 2006 A.D. (anno domini - year of our Lord), not the secular substitute “CE” - “common era”.

When I have let this happen in the past, people say I abandon threads or am evasive.
I will do that. It is not my training to do such, but if it is important to you, yes I will.

 

[Nicene]

Fredricks:

Sigh
What you guys assume is beyone me completely. I have said I will address what this means biblically later, in another thread.
I want to scream PAY ATTENTION, but screaming is rude!

Hrmm, when did you assume teaching authority?

You deny it for the church, yet presume to have it yourself and we somehow need to PAY ATTENTION and listen to you?

Irony.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Fredricks]

Nicene:

Hrmm, when did you assume teaching authority?

You deny it for the church, yet presume to have it yourself and we somehow need to PAY ATTENTION and listen to you?

Irony.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

Well, it is rather frustrating, when especially you are the only Protestant posting for the most part, to have to repeat your contentions over and over again.
You do not have to pay attention to me. It appears you have chosen to do that however we could agree.

 

[Eden]

Nicene:

Hrmm, when did you assume teaching authority?

You deny it for the church, yet presume to have it yourself and we somehow need to PAY ATTENTION and listen to you?

Irony.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

He is an elder in his church and so he is used to being treated as though he has authority. This “authority” is not conferred through apostolic succession, however, and holds no weight for a Catholic. Although I don’t think he realizes we don’t recognize his authority as an “elder”, at least that’s what I gather from the “authoritarian” tone of all of his posts.

 

[Fredricks]

Eden:

He is an elder in his church and so he is used to being treated as though he has authority. This “authority” is not conferred through apostolic succession, however, and holds no weight for a Catholic. Although I don’t think he realizes we don’t recognize his authority as an “elder”, at least that’s what I gather from the “authoritarian” tone of all of his posts.

I disagree. I think I am quite polite compared to most Protestants on here. I am not over authoritarian at all. Eden asked me to do something and I agreed. Shall I grovel? Only in the presence of Christ, which I am quite sure Catholic and Protestant agree. Now if I could kindly work on this!
If people keep responding or talking about me, I will never get this done!

 

[Nicene]

Why is this about me? I understand a common psychological defense mechanism is to attack another person when you feel that your presuppositions are being challenged. I will address all of these in a new post. Between you, me, and this board, you know you cannot prove when John died exactly and when Clement was written exactly. It is bad apologetics to use John as an example of Clements authority. Just like it is bad Protestant apologetics to use petros/petra. Just admit it. You guys cannot prove when it was written we have a range. 95 CE? Could be.
92 CE? Could be. 99 CE? Could be. Use good Catholic apologetic arguments, not that one.

Very simple. You challenge the churches authority. I challenge your authority. In fact I challenge it biblically. This is the third time I have asked, the other in the foundation thread, so it’s nothing new.

Until you can prove it beyond doubt, and show it exactly, it is all smoke and mirros.

You want to challenge authority but don’t want to be challenged. That pretty much says a lot.

Here is an example of your teaching authority. You have claimed that the churches were protestant back then, we say they were unified and the heretics were cast out, but doctrine remained the same.

Looking at Eusebius again for example as far as you saying the diversity of doctrine and essentials: Again Eusebaeus on Hegesippus:

Hegesippus in five short works that have come into my own hands has left a very full account of his own beliefs. In them he describes how when travelling as far as Rome he mixed with a number of bishops and found the same doctrine among them all

Hegesippus:
The Corinthian church contued in the true doctrine until Primus became bishop. I mixed with them on my voyage to Rome and spent several days with thye Corinthians, during which we were refresshed with the true doctrine. On arrival at Rome I pieced together the swuccession down to Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus, Anicetus being succeeded by Soter and he by Eleutherus. In every line of bishops and in every city things accorded with preadhing of the Law, the Prophets, and the Lord.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Nicene]

Fredricks:

I disagree. I think I am quite polite compared to most Protestants on here. I am not over authoritarian at all. Eden asked me to do something and I agreed. Shall I grovel? Only in the presence of Christ, which I am quite sure Catholic and Protestant agree. Now if I could kindly work on this!
If people keep responding or talking about me, I will never get this done!

No one said you weren’t polite Fredrick. In fact I think you are quite polite. But what we are pointing out isn’t politeness, it’s the issue of teaching authority. One of assuming and trying to prove where it doesn’t lie but at the same time assuming the same mantle.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Fredricks]

Very simple. You challenge the churches authority. I challenge your authority. In fact I challenge it biblically. This is the third time I have asked, the other in the foundation thread, so it’s nothing new.

Well now that would make for a rather boring Apologetics forum without us.

The Church is right!
NO, the Church is really right!
Agreed!

Until you can prove it beyond doubt, and show it exactly, it is all smoke and mirros.

You want to challenge authority but don’t want to be challenged. That pretty much says a lot.

I am challenged all the time. What are you talking about?

Here is an example of your teaching authority. You have claimed that the churches were protestant back then, we say they were unified and the heretics were cast out, but doctrine remained the same.

Is that what you think my view is?

Looking at Eusebius again for example as far as you saying the diversity of doctrine and essentials: Again Eusebaeus on Hegesippus:

Hegesippus in five short works that have come into my own hands has left a very full account of his own beliefs. In them he describes how when travelling as far as Rome he mixed with a number of bishops and found the same doctrine among them all

I think you would be surprised at how much we agree on many things Nicene.

Hegesippus:
The Corinthian church contued in the true doctrine until Primus became bishop. I mixed with them on my voyage to Rome and spent several days with thye Corinthians, during which we were refresshed with the true doctrine. On arrival at Rome I pieced together the swuccession down to Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus, Anicetus being succeeded by Soter and he by Eleutherus. In every line of bishops and in every city things accorded with preadhing of the Law, the Prophets, and the Lord.

I think the early Church held many of the same views but you and I both know we could put up lots of quotes that differ. Now before you say that was not the church, outside of scripture and some early quotes, what would be considered the official view the first two hundred years? What is official “Roman Catholic” views on important issues the first two hundred years? Could you point to a document that says what it is?

 

[djrakowski]

Fredricks:

Is that what you think my view is

Well, we are only left to guess, since you won’t tell us directly.

 

[Eden]

Fredricks:

What is official “Roman Catholic” views on important issues the first two hundred years? Could you point to a document that says what it is?

Why are you asking for the official “Roman Catholic” teaching? The foundations of the Catholic Church were laid at Rome and Peter’s successors continue to be based there but “Roman” or Latin Rite Catholics are only one rite of the Catholic Church united under the barque of Peter.

Can you please clarify that you do realize that “Roman” Catholics (actually Latin Rite Catholics) are not the only members of the Catholic Church united with the See of Rome?

 

[Nicene]

Let me put it this way, and it will probably put me in hot water with some catholics, but if Patriarch Bartholomew asked something of me, you can bet your sweet (fill in the blank) I would do it as long as it doesn’t go against my bishop and rite.

The apostolic sees are that important to christianity regardless of their differences through schism.

I still believe they still retain the power of Christ which was granted til the end of time. I know if an EO heard my confession and absolved me in persona christi that it would be forgiven in heaven.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Eden]

Nicene:

Let me put it this way, and it will probably put me in hot water with some catholics, but if Patriarch Bartholomew asked something of me, you can bet your sweet (fill in the blank) I would do it as long as it doesn’t go against my bishop and rite.

The apostolic sees are that important to christianity regardless of their defferences through schism.

I still believe they still retain the power of Christ which was granted til the end of time. I know if an EO heard my confession and absolved me in persona christi that it would be forgiven in heaven.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

I agree because the Orthodox do have valid apostolic succession. The Protestants do not. Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, King Henry VIII, John Wesley, none of them had the authority of apostolic succession to pass down to their ministers, preachers or elders.

 

[JaneFrances]

I know you are working on a response to Eden, Fred. . .just trying to catch up here myself.

Fredricks:

Fascinating Jane. I of course, addressed this from the get go. However bring it back up because it does prove my point

Which was? Honestly, Fred, I really don’t get your point. I’m trying, really I am.

All I can gather is from your “get go” posts is that you need a smoking gun quotation which would tie up the doctrine of papal succession and Roman primacy in a nice little bow for you.

We have all conceded TIRELESSLY that this magic quotation does not exist.

So, if your point is that there is no one quotation, between 50 CE through 200 CE, which suits you, then we agree. You are not appeased. Your specifications can not be met.

HAVING SAID THAT. . .The specifications of Fredricks do not a legitimate doctrine make. Your personal needs were not taken into account in the 1st and 2nd century. I am sorry.

Now, what you fail to see or refuse to acknowledge, is that there is PLENTY of early Church documentation to substantiate papal succession, much of which has already been supplied. And, interestingly, what you can not see was enough for early Church Fathers such as St. Cyprian, Eusebius, Optatus, St. Jerome, and St. Augustine (to name a few). Maybe they had less stringent standards? OR maybe their closer proximity gained them some element of perspective that modern Protestantism lacks.

This is not a personal attack, Fred. . .so, please don’t retreat to your defenses here. I just wonder what these early Church Fathers could gather and understand that you can not.

Peter and Paul were considered Bishops of Rome

This is really interesting to me. . .

What exactly does this prove about subsequent successors—which I believe is the crux of your argument. . .???

To be clear, if Peter was prime (Fredricks, et al.). . . if he and Paul were in Rome leading the Church of Rome (Irenaeus). . . if the Roman Church held the presidency of the universal Church (Ignatius). . . if Peter and Paul handed over the office of leadership of the Roman Church to Linus (Irenaeus). . .and if that office was then handed over to subsequent successors (Ignatius, Eusebius, et al.), then what exactly are you trying to disprove?

people must agree because they are faithful to the teachings not a word about it being because of Peter having a successor

Hmmm. . .Let’s read the whole thing together, shall we. . .

We shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which come down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world; and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition.

The blessed Apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the Church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. . . (Irenaeus)

Here, it is very clear. . .I’m going to go slow:

There are successions of bishops in the Church.

The Church was “founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul.”

The Church at Rome “has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us.”

The Church at Rome has a “superior origin.”

All Churches “must agree” with the Church at Rome.

By “all Churches” it is meant “all the faithful in the whole world.”

It is by the Church at Rome that “all the faithful in the whole world” know that they have “maintained the Apostolic tradition.”

Peter and Paul ensured the maintenance of “the Apostolic tradition” by specifically “hand[ing] over the office of the episcopate to Linus."

Let’s now do it backwards. . .

Linus succeeds Peter as Bishop of Rome. . .All the faithful must agree with Rome.

It’s just not that hard, Fred.

I know you don’t want to see it, but that doesn’t mean that it’s not there.

On a different note. . .

One of our favorite bedtime stories is the Emperor’s New Clothes. . .I think we’ll read it tonight.

. . .maybe the note wasn’t that different, after all.

 

[Eden]

JaneFrances:

On a different note. . .

One of our favorite bedtime stories is the Emperor’s New Clothes. . .I think we’ll read it tonight.

. . .maybe the note wasn’t that different, after all.

 

[awfulthings9]

Fredricks:

Jane has resorted to taunting instead of answering my contentions. If Awful is reading this thread, I hope he will post and agree that this was our mutual desire, although I made the initial request.

Yes, I agree. This isn’t a comment on who I thought came out on top with that thread (I’ll let it stand for itself), but I felt like we had gotten to the point where all that needed to be said or asked had been.

Sorry it took me so long to respond. I’m trying not to get hooked on a new thread now that I’m back at work, so I’ve been avoiding reading anything at this new thread. However, now that things have slowed down, I’ve read through quickly. I won’t add a new voice to the chorus here. Fredericks is working on a reply to already stated questions, so I’ll be a transparent eyeball for a bit.

 

[Fredricks]

Eden:

Why are you asking for the official “Roman Catholic” teaching? The foundations of the Catholic Church were laid at Rome and Peter’s successors continue to be based there but “Roman” or Latin Rite Catholics are only one rite of the Catholic Church united under the barque of Peter.

Can you please clarify that you do realize that “Roman” Catholics (actually Latin Rite Catholics) are not the only members of the Catholic Church united with the See of Rome?

My phrasing is intentional.
I am fully aware of the different rites I can assure you. They all adhere to the primacy of the Bishop of Rome and thus that is how I refer to them.

 

[Nicene]

Fredricks:

My phrasing is intentional.
I am fully aware of the different rites I can assure you. They all adhere to the primacy of the Bishop of Rome and thus that is how I refer to them.

That actually insults those of different rites. If your intention is to insult them on purpose: Then I suppose it will be fine for us to refer to you as protestants (and yourself) as Jehovah’s Witeness from this point forward, they are protestant after all.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Eden]

Fredricks:

My phrasing is intentional.
I am fully aware of the different rites I can assure you. They all adhere to the primacy of the Bishop of Rome and thus that is how I refer to them.

Why do you intentionally use inaccurate terminology?

Pardon me for saying so, but I think it is very arrogant to use inaccurate terminology and end with the statement “thus that is how **I **refer to them”.

 

[Fredricks]

Nicene:

That actually insults those of different rites. If your intention is to insult them on purpose: Then I suppose it will be fine for us to refer to you as protestants (and yourself) as Jehovah’s Witeness from this point forward, they are protestant after all.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

It insults them to be associated with Rome?

You make a bad analogy though, we do not believe in the primacy of the Jehovah Witnesses.
I admire JW’s for their dedication and their desire to spread their misguided theology!
Their passion is to be admired to be sure. They also do not have a racially bigoted bone in their bodies.
An additional point, I am quite familiar with many Catholics who do not support Rome. Of course, many would say they are not real Catholics, which would surprise them.

Catholics, who support Rome’s primacy
Would that be less offensive?