Please give me the name of the man, or men, that founded the Catholic Church, and when...

[Radical]

What you are saying is provide an unbiased historian and there is no such creature.

No. You are right that no one is totally free from bias…but you are very wrong if you want to say every one is biased to the same extent. Warren Carroll most certainly has a very strong bias…some recognize their bias and still let it determine their findings, while others, such as Sullivan try to eliminate the effects of their bias. Regarding whether Peter was the first bishop of Rome, the typical secular historian wouldn’t have a dog in that race…It simply wouldn’t matter (to his outlook) if the historical evidence pointed to Peter being the first bishop or if it pointed to Peter not being the first bishop. I trust that you can see the difference.

 

[Brian_Culliton]

Do you believe that the HS works through the laying on of hands to commission the bishop to service?

Sure. Do you believe the bishops described in Acts 20:30 received oversight of the church by the laying on of hands via apostolic succession?

What authority is that, under which they are charged to function by the Apostles?

They (bishops) are charged with oversight and they may or may not execute the duties of their office according to the apostles’ teachings.

The Teachings of the Apostles are preserved through the succession, in the people who were given custody of the message.

Did any bishops that received their office by this succession from the apostles teach heresy?

I think people believe they are in Christ’s Church because they have a deficient understanding of the nature of the Church. They are doing the best they can with what they have. They have a truncated gospel, but they follow it as best they can.

Are you saying that people that believe in Christ through the apostle’s words, and follow the precepts of their doctrine, have a deficient understanding of Christ’s church and follow a truncated Gospel? Do I understand you correctly?

Had you considered getting off the sandy bottom?

I described the foundation of the church in my last post of which I am built upon. Are you telling me that foundation is “sandy”?

Holy orders contain the passing on of the Apostolic authority.

No, they do not. That is simply your opinion.

The Apostles taught in person and in writing that their authority was to be followed, respected, and invested the Bishops with that same authority.

Please show me where the apostles taught that bishops are “invested with apostolic authority.”

I am curious, Brian. What would happen if you were to accept that the Bishops really do have apostolic authority? I mean,would that mean something would have to change for you?

You dont’ have to answer that, of course, it is a personal question, but you seem to be working so hard to deny the evidence, one has to wonder what is at stake.

I cannot deny evidence that has not been brought forth. What I have been denying is your opinion. What is at stake is the truth; and that is what I would have to deny if I were to accept the things you are telling me.

 

[guanophore]

It seems that your position is that, if the historian does not support (in every way) what the Vatican has declared, then his opinion on the matter is to be dismissed notwithstanding his credentials and the thoroughness of his work.

No, because nothing the “Vatican has declared” relates to history. The Vatican makes declarations on matters of faith and morals, not history.

However, if a scholar starts out his research by ignoring the Teaching of the Church, then yes, his work should be read from the perspective that the writer is a dissident, heretic, or schismatic.

He may have plenty of credentials, and be very thorough, but that does not mean he has arrived at Truth. The Truth about salvation has been divinely revealed to man, through the Church. Sometimes scholars can miss it. As Fr. Corapi says, it is possible to be educated into imbecility.

How am I to distinguish that approach from the defensiveness seen in a typical cult?

If a scholar denies the Apostolic Teaching, then Catholics will get defensive.

When a cult leader's teaching is attacked by a scholar, don't the cult members typically respond by attacking that scholar, declaring that he is evil and denying that there could be any validity in what the scholar has said (for no other reason than b/c he disagrees with their beloved leader)? Alarm bells should be going off for any one considering this matter....Any approach that requires a person to adopt the methodology of a cult should be rejected.

I agree, but there is a big difference between attacking the Teachings of the Church and the study of history. The Teachings of the Church come from divine authority.

I do…he declared that he was the way, the truth and the life. I value pursuing truth above preserving bad tradition.

Yes, but how do you determine which is “bad tradition”?

 

[adrift]

No. You are right that no one is totally free from bias…but you are very wrong if you want to say every one is biased to the same extent. Warren Carroll most certainly has a very strong bias…some recognize their bias and still let it determine their findings, while others, such as Sullivan try to eliminate the effects of their bias. Regarding whether Peter was the first bishop of Rome, the typical secular historian wouldn’t have a dog in that race…It simply wouldn’t matter (to his outlook) if the historical evidence pointed to Peter being the first bishop or if it pointed to Peter not being the first bishop. I trust that you can see the difference.

What evidence do you have that Warren Carroll has “a very strong bias” ? It seems to me that your own bias will not allow for him not to be strongly biased. As I already stated, when he began looking into Christianity he was an atheist. I would submit that if he were biased it would be against Christianity. It was history that facilitated his conversion. Your statement is unfounded.
What evidence do you have that Sullivan tried to eliminate bias? Or does he seem to because he supports your own bias? While Carroll is against it so he becomes “a very strong bias”

I apologize to the OP since this is really off topic.

 

[guanophore]

Sure. Do you believe the bishops described in Acts 20:30 received oversight of the church by the laying on of hands via apostolic succession?

Absolutely.

They (bishops) are charged with oversight and they may or may not execute the duties of their office according to the apostles’ teachings.

This is a sad fact.

Did any bishops that received their office by this succession from the apostles teach heresy?

Yes. At one point 80% of them.

Are you saying that people that believe in Christ through the apostle’s words, and follow the precepts of their doctrine, have a deficient understanding of Christ’s church and follow a truncated Gospel? Do I understand you correctly?

No. People who reject the Apostolic Succession follow a truncated gospel.

I described the foundation of the church in my last post of which I am built upon. Are you telling me that foundation is “sandy”?

Any supposed faith that rejects the Apostolic authority placed in the Church built by Christ has a sandy bottom.

No, they do not. That is simply your opinion.

Rejecting the authority of the Apostles contained in Holy Orders does not make it invalid for anyone but yourself. The authority remains intact. You cannot benefit from it because you reject the gift of Christ residing in it.

Please show me where the apostles taught that bishops are “invested with apostolic authority.”

The Apostle Paul ordained both Timothy and Titus. He wrote to them after their installation to give them instructions on how to conduct themselves as bishops. To Titus he wrote:

Titus 2:15

15 Declare these things; exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one look down on you.

These are the duties of the bishop according to the Apostolic instruction. They are to declare the Trugh, exhort, reprove, and carry their authority with dignity.

If all authority comes from God, and Paul tells the bishop he installed to undertake these tasks “with all authority”, what other authority could it be?

I cannot deny evidence that has not been brought forth. What I have been denying is your opinion. What is at stake is the truth; and that is what I would have to deny if I were to accept the things you are telling me.

If you cannot accept the testimony of the Holy Scriptures, then I am sure there is no evidence I can supply that will convince you.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Try looking at it from this perspective…Who invented (founded) the game of American Football? Like the CC it started from something and developed with innovative changes being made to the rules (doctrines)…It isn’t the same game that was first called football in the US…a player from 1890 wouldn’t be at home on the field today, nor would a bishop from 4th century Carthage be at home in a Catholic Church today.

This is a really good point. If true, it means that no early Christian would be at home in any “Christian” church of any kind today.

Not only that, I wonder if a Corinthian of Paul’s day would have been at home in the Corinthian church in the 90’s even.

 

[adrift]

This is a really good point. If true, it means that no early Christian would be at home in any “Christian” church of any kind today.

Not only that, I wonder if a Corinthian of Paul’s day would have been at home in the Corinthian church in the 90’s even.

I see it as being a poor point. It is stated as fact without any fact. I disagree with him. I think that a 4th century Christian would be very much at home. The Eucharist is the same no matter what century.

 

[mackbrislawn]

I see it as being a poor point. It is stated as fact without any fact. I disagree with him. I think that a 4th century Christian would be very much at home. The Eucharist is the same no matter what century.

Yes, actually it is a poor point.

So, tongue in cheek, I pointed out the further conclusions of that point.

 

[Radical]

No, because nothing the “Vatican has declared” relates to history. The Vatican makes declarations on matters of faith and morals, not history.

You are dead wrong. Does the Catholic Church claim that Peter presided as the first bishop in Rome and that Linus was appointed as his successor? If so, did those things actually happen (w/i history) or is it that they constitute some sort of Gnostic or spiritual reality?

However, if a scholar starts out his research by ignoring the Teaching of the Church, then yes, his work should be read from the perspective that the writer is a dissident, heretic, or schismatic.

how well did that approach work for you guys in the case of Galileo?

He may have plenty of credentials, and be very thorough, but that does not mean he has arrived at Truth.

agreed, but if your approach is merely to dismiss whatever Sullivan says b/c he thinks the Vatican has made mistakes in its description of what happened in the first century (in history), then you run the risk of repeating the mistake made in the Galileo case (ignoring the evidence) and are following the approach of a typical cult.

I agree, but there is a big difference between attacking the Teachings of the Church and the study of history. The Teachings of the Church come from divine authority.

this gets terribly circular, doesn’t it? Sort of like:

a)The Teachings of the Church come from divine authority…but how do you know that they come from divine authority?

b) B/c the CC says so…but how do you know that the CC is right in what it says?

c) b/c the Teachings of the Church come from divine authority, so they have to be right.

Now if you want to go outside that circle and try to validate the teachings of the CC from another source (other than itself/its adherents), then I would like to welcome you to the study of history where theories have to be established on the available historical evidence and where guys like Sullivan (and the majority of scholars that he stands with) are authorities on what actually happened.

The OPoster didn’t ask “Who does the Vatican say founded the CC?” Instead the OPoster asked for the name of the guy who founded the CC as a challenge to non-Catholics…since I am not inclined to merely echo what the Vatican has declared…I’ll look at history and to the interpretation of Scripture for the answer (and WRT the interpretation of Scripture, again I am not inclined to merely echo what the Vatican has declared)

Yes, but how do you determine which is “bad tradition”?

well it seems that one approach is to merely accept any tradition that comes from the CC as being good. That is an act of faith. Another approach would be to look at the history of that tradition and to determine what would be the likely origin and development of that tradition. After one makes that determination, some traditions start to smell bad.

Of, BTW from previous posts it seems that you are confused by the term “monarchical bishop”. That is a common term used to describe the type of bishop that Ignatius touted…you know, “bishop must be obeyed” and “no valid Eucharist w/o a bishop” sort of stuff.

 

[Radical]

What evidence do you have that Warren Carroll has “a very strong bias” ?

what (admittedly little) that I have read of his works…I understand that he admits to being biased and makes no apologies for allowing his devotion to all things Catholic to influence his presentation of history…

It seems to me that your own bias will not allow for him not to be strongly biased. As I already stated, when he began looking into Christianity he was an atheist. I would submit that if he were biased it would be against Christianity.

we are interested in what his bias was at the time that he said Peter was the first bishop of Rome…and not at some other time.

It was history that facilitated his conversion.

and it is history that has caused many a Catholic to conclude that the CC has erred…

What evidence do you have that Sullivan tried to eliminate bias?

what I have read of his works and, in particular, the thorough manner in which he reviewed the revelvant portions of the NT and earliest Church fathers. Although he believes that apostloic succession is a divine institution, he does not allow that belief to cause him to find support for his belief where such support does not exist

I apologize to the OP since this is really off topic.

I don’t think it is off topic …As I have said above, the OPoster didn’t ask “Who does the Vatican say founded the CC?” Instead the OPoster asked for the name of the guy who founded the CC as a challenge to non-Catholics…since I am not inclined to merely echo what the Vatican has declared…I’ll look at history and to the interpretation of Scripture for the answer (and WRT the interpretation of Scripture, again I am not inclined to merely echo what the Vatican has declared). Further, if we are going to look at what history has to say, we should at least take note of where the reputable scholars hang their hats. It seems the Catholics on this thread want to dismiss what most reputable scholars have had to say WRT Peter being the first bishop of Rome. Apparently there are some who think that the only scholars who can become experts on the history of the CC are those who agree with the Vatican. I think that is rather silly. Apparently, there are some (like you?) who want to dismiss those scholars who disagree with the position of the Vatican b/c those scholars are biased…yet the scholars that you reference are a) hardly free from bias b) in the minority and c) on the other side from secular scholars who don’t have an obvious bias. Now a small part of the answer to “Who founded the CC?” involves the consideration of whether Peter was the first bishop of Rome (b/c of the Catholic claim that it enjoys an unbroken chain of apostolic successors presiding as the bishops of Rome starting from the apostle Peter). If one is not going to merely swallow what the Vatican says, then those best positioned to opine, as to whether the CC enjoys an unbroken chain of apostolic successors presiding as the bishops of Rome starting from the apostle Peter, would say “No”. That means (according to most of the best historians) that the style of leadership at the church of Rome is not the same as when it started. So when the OPoster wants to know who founded the CC, I would like to know which Church he is talking about. Is it the one that started out with a group of elders in charge or is it the one that has a monarchical bishop in charge? If one argues that it is still the same Church with either form of leadership, then I would like to know how many substantive changes are allowed before it is properly deemed a different Church. Having the Vatican (or you) simply declare that it has always been the same Chruch doesn’t suffice, b/c in the scholarly realm “b/c the Vatican says so” doesn’t carry any weight.

 

[Stephen168]

how well did that approach work for you guys in the case of Galileo?

It went very well

 

[Stephen168]

Try looking at it from this perspective…Who invented (founded) the game of American Football?

and it is history that has caused many a Catholic to conclude that the CC has erred…

Only if you think soccer is American Football

 

[Stephen168]

… if your approach is merely to dismiss whatever Sullivan says b/c he thinks the Vatican has made mistakes in its description of what happened in the first century (in history), then you run the risk of repeating the mistake made in the Galileo case (ignoring the evidence) and are following the approach of a typical cult.

Galileo had no evidence which, except for a couple of ad populum quotes, is what Sullivan is saying. Sullivan is one of many learned men with an opinion.

 

[adrift]

what (admittedly little) that I have read of his works…I understand that he admits to being biased and makes no apologies for allowing his devotion to all things Catholic to influence his presentation of history…

we are interested in what his bias was at the time that he said Peter was the first bishop of Rome…and not at some other time.

and it is history that has caused many a Catholic to conclude that the CC has erred…

what I have read of his works and, in particular, the thorough manner in which he reviewed the revelvant portions of the NT and earliest Church fathers. Although he believes that apostloic succession is a divine institution, he does not allow that belief to cause him to find support for his belief where such support does not exist .

I have not seen him admit he has a bias but I have noted his careful study of his subject. it is your opinion that there is a bias which is a bias in itself.

I don’t think it is off topic …As I have said above, the OPoster didn’t ask “Who does the Vatican say founded the CC?” Instead the OPoster asked for the name of the guy who founded the CC as a challenge to non-Catholics
since I am not inclined to merely echo what the Vatican has declared…I’ll look at history and to the interpretation of Scripture for the answer (and WRT the interpretation of Scripture, again I am not inclined to merely echo what the Vatican has declared)…

Why would you be quoting the Vatican. What was asked was who do YOU say started the Catholic Church.

Further, if we are going to look at what history has to say, we should at least take note of where the reputable scholars hang their hats. It seems the Catholics on this thread want to dismiss what most reputable scholars have had to say WRT Peter being the first bishop of Rome. Apparently there are some who think that the only scholars who can become experts on the history of the CC are those who agree with the Vatican. I think that is rather silly. Apparently, there are some (like you?) who want to dismiss those scholars who disagree with the position of the Vatican b/c those scholars are biased…yet the scholars that you reference are a) hardly free from bias b) in the minority and c) on the other side from secular scholars who don’t have an obvious bias.

What does Peter being the Bishop of Rome have to do with the name of the person who started the Catholic Church? Catholics don’t claim that Peter started the Church. Are you claiming that Peter started the Church?

 

[Brian_Culliton]

I feel like we are getting somewhere now, Guanophore. You rightly stated that there were bishops that taught heresy, who had received the episcopate via the laying on of hands extending back to the apostles. You also stated that the teachings of the apostles are preserved through the succession. Those are two contrary statements. How can the very people who teach heresy preserve the true teachings? The only thing you can do to reconcile this contradiction is to pick and choose particular secessions and claim them innocent of heresy. But at least we can agree that the succession itself has no bearing on the soundness of the doctrines they teach.

The other thing you provided was your biblical base for your opinion. You said,

If all authority comes from God, and Paul tells the bishop he installed to undertake these tasks “with all authority”, what other authority could it be?

I will tell you.

Exousia: power of choice, liberty of doing as one pleases.

Exousia is always translated as power or authority in the New Testament. The most relevant verse is 2Cor. 10:8.

“For even if I should boast somewhat more about our authority (exousia), which the Lord gave for edification and not for your destruction, I shall not be ashamed.”

Exousia is the word Paul used to in reference to what the apostles received from Christ. However, that is not the word he used in reference to Titus’ authority; that word is epitagē.

Epitagē: an injunction, mandate, command.

Epitagē is translated as “commandment” in six places in the New Testament (Rom. 16:26, 1Cor. 7:6 and 7:25, 2Cor. 8:8, 1Tim. 1:1, Tts. 1:3) and as authority in one place (Tit. 2:15).

“Speak these things, exhort, and rebuke with all authority (epitagē). Let no one despise you.” (Tts. 2:15)

The authority Paul speaks of in Titus 15 is clearly not the same as he applied to himself as coming from Christ. Titus’ authority is really a commandment to teach, rebuke, etc. It is bound in the teachings of the apostles. His instruction from Paul is similar to that of Timothy’s: to teach, rebuke, and correct according to the Gospel they received and the Scriptures they learned.

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness.” (2Tim. 3:16)

“If anyone speaks, let him speak as the oracles of God. If anyone ministers, let him do it as with the ability which God supplies, that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom belong the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen.” (1Pet. 4:11)

 

[guanophore]

You are dead wrong.  Does the Catholic Church claim that Peter presided as the first bishop in Rome and that Linus was appointed as his successor?

Not that I know of. Perhaps you can show me this in an official Catholic document?

If so, did those things actually happen (w/i history) or is it that they constitute some sort of Gnostic or spiritual reality?

There are Catholic historical documents that attest to these events.

how well did that approach work for you guys in the case of Galileo?

I think the case of Galileo is a very good example why the Church does not teach in the areas of history, science, etc.

Galileo was excommicated because he insisted on instructing the Bishops,and demanded that they change the wording of the Holy Scriptures to conform with his scientific findings.

agreed, but if your approach is merely to dismiss whatever Sullivan says b/c he thinks the Vatican has made mistakes in its description of what happened in the first century (in history), then you run the risk of repeating the mistake made in the Galileo case (ignoring the evidence) and are following the approach of a typical cult.

I suppose, if the Vatican had really made any descriptions about history, then it is possible that a mistake could have been made. But, since the Vatican does not teach on history, it seems like a moot point.

this gets terribly circular, doesn't it? Sort of like:

a)The Teachings of the Church come from divine authority…but how do you know that they come from divine authority?

b) B/c the CC says so…but how do you know that the CC is right in what it says?

c) b/c the Teachings of the Church come from divine authority, so they have to be right.

Yes, it certainly does. Good thing it does not work like that for us!

Now if you want to go outside that circle and try to validate the teachings of the CC from another source (other than itself/its adherents), then I would like to welcome you to the study of history where theories have to be established on the available historical evidence and where guys like Sullivan (and the majority of scholars that he stands with) are authorities on what actually happened.

All of the Teachings of the CC can be also validated by history and many of them by modern science. However, we do not do these studies for the purpose of “validating” what God has said. We receive the divine revelation, and we find it confirmed through our human senses.

The OPoster didn’t ask “Who does the Vatican say founded the CC?” Instead the OPoster asked for the name of the guy who founded the CC as a challenge to non-Catholics…since I am not inclined to merely echo what the Vatican has declared…

You have not demonstrated that “The Vatican declared” anything on this point.

I’ll look at history and to the interpretation of Scripture for the answer (and WRT the interpretation of Scripture, again I am not inclined to merely echo what the Vatican has declared)

I guess that is a good thing, since that would leave you without much to say.

well it seems that one approach is to merely accept any tradition that comes from the CC as being good. That is an act of faith.

Perhaps you are not distinguishing between Sacred Tradition, and human Tradition?

Another approach would be to look at the history of that tradition and to determine what would be the likely origin and development of that tradition. After one makes that determination, some traditions start to smell bad.

We are the odor of death to those who are perishing.

Of, BTW from previous posts it seems that you are confused by the term “monarchical bishop”. That is a common term used to describe the type of bishop that Ignatius touted…you know, “bishop must be obeyed” and “no valid Eucharist w/o a bishop” sort of stuff.

The reason I object to the term is because my impression is that there was often more than one bishop present, and all had equal authority, and in some areas, such as Rome, there were apostles and bishops all present together. I conceive of a more ecumenical and counciliar form of leadership in the early church.

I also agree with Ignatius descriptions as accurate, but I can see that both things are true. This is why I reject the proposal that Peter somehow subjugated Paul while the two of them labored in Rome to lay the foundation of the Church.

 

[guanophore]

and it is history that has caused many a Catholic to conclude that the CC has erred…

You mean, with regard to the name of the man who founded the Catholic Church?

  It seems the Catholics on this thread want to dismiss what most reputable scholars have had to say WRT Peter being the first bishop of Rome.

I don’t dismiss it. It just has no relevance as far as I am concerned.

I don’t consider Peter a “bishop” in the same sense as his successors, so calling him that ( or not) does not make is so in my mind.

Apparently there are some who think that the only scholars who can become experts on the history of the CC are those who agree with the Vatican.

Since the Catholic Church is divinely instituted, and exists by, for, and about faith, it seems pretty much impossible to become an “expert” if one is unable to incorporate these elements.

  I think that is rather silly.  Apparently, there are some (like you?) who want to dismiss those scholars who disagree with the position of the Vatican

It is curious where such disagreement might be found, since “the Vatican” has no position on it.

You don’t seem to realize it, but the line of bishops that originated from Peter in Rome was inexistence for many centuries before the Vatican ever existed.

 Now a small part of the answer to "Who founded the CC?" involves the consideration of whether Peter was the first bishop of Rome (b/c of the Catholic claim that it enjoys an unbroken chain of apostolic successors presiding as the bishops of Rome starting from the apostle Peter).

Yes, the Church does enjoy this unbroken chain. However, the Church did not begin in Rome,a nd there is an equally valid line of Bishops succeeding from Peter that originated in Antioch, and is older than the line in Rome (it was started about 20 years sooner). There are also unbroken lines in Constantinople, Alexandria, and Jerusalem. All of these Apostolic lines constitute the Catholic Church. It would not have mattered if Peter remained in Antioch, and never travelled to Rome.

And certainly none of these facts are based in the “Vatican” as they are shared by the successors of the Apostles all over the world that are not even in communion with Rome. The Orthodox also embrace this historical fact about Peter in Rome, and they certainly did not get the idea from “the Vatican”.

  If one is not going to merely swallow what the Vatican says, then those best positioned to opine, as to whether the CC enjoys an unbroken chain of apostolic successors presiding as the bishops of Rome starting from the apostle Peter, would say "No".

It is becoming clear that this perspective is really full of a lot of hot air.

That means (according to most of the best historians) that the style of leadership at the church of Rome is not the same as when it started.

I agree, but that does not change the facts, and that does not contradict what Ignatius wrote, either.

Is it the one that started out with a group of elders in charge or is it the one that has a monarchical bishop in charge? If one argues that it is still the same Church with either form of leadership

Yes, it is the same church, with both forms.

then I would like to know how many substantive changes are allowed before it is properly deemed a different Church.

This is an excellent question, and does seem germaine to the thread.

Having the Vatican (or you) simply declare that it has always been the same Chruch doesn’t suffice, b/c in the scholarly realm “b/c the Vatican says so” doesn’t carry any weight.

No, it does not carry any weight for me either, especially since I dont see that “the Vatican” has said anything about it.

 

[Irish_Polock]

Let’s see how your approach looks from another angle. Suppose we are considering the Mormon Church and not the CC. Suppose further that I had cited a rather liberal (from the LDS point of view) Mormon scholar who is a recognized historian and who had extensively researched the matter in question. Now suppose that scholar had claimed that there was a consensus among scholars that the text which J Smith looked at to produce the Book Of Abraham was nothing but Egyptian funerary material. Now as a Mormon (in this imaginary scenario) you respond with:

Such an answer seems ridiculous, Why in the world would one have to be a conservative Mormon believer in order to become an authority on the history of the Mormon religion? The historical documents are there for any one to see. Surely you can see that conservative Mormons would tend to be rather biased b/c they are determined to find a “history” that would support their conservative Mormon theology.

Radical, if what you say is true in concerns of Sullivan, he is a heretic, although he also has other work that is very much heretical, so I am lead to presume he is indeed a heretic regardless.
If you would like to use Catholic Scholar’s to validate your position, I would encourage you to use a Catholic in good standing within the Church. If your ecclesiastical community was known, I might be able to equate it to a persona in you own community. Alas, all I know of your community is that it is in protest of the Catholic Church.

Your Mormonism analogy has no merit, we all know that the Mormons are grasping for straws in their theology.(except the Mormons obviously)

And what issue would that be?

The ‘Issue” is that you’re trying to use a very liberal theologian who has in the past has taught heretical teachings that are outside of what the Church actually has taught. I can only equate it to me using the theology of Charles Taze Russell to refute your own theology (Honestly, I have no idea if you are a JW or not, so I could be wrong).

It seems that your position is that, if the historian does not support (in every way) what the Vatican has declared, then his opinion on the matter is to be dismissed notwithstanding his credentials and the thoroughness of his work. How am I to distinguish that approach from the defensiveness seen in a typical cult? When a cult leader’s teaching is attacked by a scholar, don’t the cult members typically respond by attacking that scholar, declaring that he is evil and denying that there could be any validity in what the scholar has said (for no other reason than b/c he disagrees with their beloved leader)? Alarm bells should be going off for any one considering this matter…Any approach that requires a person to adopt the methodology of a cult should be rejected.

The “burden of proof “ is yours Radical, like you have said:

…The historical documents are there for any one to see…

Let us see it.

I do…he declared that he was the way, the truth and the life. I value pursuing truth above preserving bad tradition.

I agree, Jesus is the truth to our salvation, and in light of our sacred tradition and also to our Sacred Scripture, this truth is applicable only to the Catholic faith.

 

[guanophore]

I feel like we are getting somewhere now, Guanophore.  You rightly stated that there were bishops that taught heresy, who had received the episcopate via the laying on of hands extending back to the apostles.  You also stated that the teachings of the apostles are preserved through the succession.  Those are two contrary statements.

No, Brian, they are not.

How can the very people who teach heresy preserve the true teachings?

They may not.

The only thing you can do to reconcile this contradiction is to pick and choose particular secessions and claim them innocent of heresy.

No, Brian. The Teaching of the Church is bigger than any one bishop who may fall into error.

Not only that, the Teaching is infallibly protected from error by the Holy Spirit. Bishops only benefit from this gift of infallibility to the extent that they cling to the Teachings and remain in unity with the One Church.

But at least we can agree that the succession itself has no bearing on the soundness of the doctrines they teach.

The Apostolic authority resides in the succession. The Teachings are committed to the bishops,a nd it is their duty to perserve them.

In order for your theory to be true, you would have to show that none of the authentic Teaching was preserved anywere, by anyone.

Exousia: power of choice, liberty of doing as one pleases.

Exousia is always translated as power or authority in the New Testament. The most relevant verse is 2Cor. 10:8.

“For even if I should boast somewhat more about our authority (exousia), which the Lord gave for edification and not for your destruction, I shall not be ashamed.”

Exousia is the word Paul used to in reference to what the apostles received from Christ. However, that is not the word he used in reference to Titus’ authority; that word is epitagē.

Epitagē: an injunction, mandate, command.

Epitagē is translated as “commandment” in six places in the New Testament (Rom. 16:26, 1Cor. 7:6 and 7:25, 2Cor. 8:8, 1Tim. 1:1, Tts. 1:3) and as authority in one place (Tit. 2:15).

“Speak these things, exhort, and rebuke with all authority (epitagē). Let no one despise you.” (Tts. 2:15)

The authority Paul speaks of in Titus 15 is clearly not the same as he applied to himself as coming from Christ. Titus’ authority is really a commandment to teach, rebuke, etc. It is bound in the teachings of the apostles. His instruction from Paul is similar to that of Timothy’s: to teach, rebuke, and correct according to the Gospel they received and the Scriptures they learned.

Where did they get the authority to do these things?

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness.” (2Tim. 3:16)

And from your reading of Titus, who do you think is responsble for providing that reproof, correction and training that the scripture is so profitable as a resource?

“If anyone speaks, let him speak as the oracles of God. If anyone ministers, let him do it as with the ability which God supplies, that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom belong the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen.” (1Pet. 4:11)

Are you suggesting that the bishops do not have any different authority than the rest of the believers?

 

[PRmerger]

this gets terribly circular, doesn’t it? Sort of like:

a)The Teachings of the Church come from divine authority…but how do you know that they come from divine authority?

b) B/c the CC says so…but how do you know that the CC is right in what it says?

c) b/c the Teachings of the Church come from divine authority, so they have to be right.

No, Radical. It is not a circular argument, but a spiral one.

“We are not basing the inspiration of the Bible on the Church’s infallibility and the Church’s infallibility on the word of an inspired Bible. That indeed would be a circular argument! What we have is really a spiral argument. On the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is history. From that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded. And then we take the word of that infallible Church that the Bible is inspired. This is not a circular argument because the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired) is not simply a restatement of its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable), and its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable) is in no way based on the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired). **What we have demonstrated is that without the existence of the Church, we could never know whether the Bible is inspired.” **source