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

[Radical]

You interpret, ‘yourselves’ as the laity?

yep, me and the scholars I that have read (ie Sullivan p.89) or at this source

In the Didache the verb “cheirotonein” (cf. imposition of hands) is used to define the ordination of bishops & deacons.

or by the community raising hands as per the above link

Only a bishop can ordain a priest and deacon.

didn’t see the Didache make this restriction…that would simply be your bias

 

[PRmerger]

I didn’t say that either…just like all those who did miracles weren’t necessarily apostles…try harder not to distort what I say.

So where are the requirements delineated in Scripture for an apostle?

You have made some requirements (arbitrary in my estimation) for apostleship. Yet someone who fits that criteria, yet objectively is NOT an apostle (such as St. Mary Magdalene) is rejected? Based on what?

How does one know what’s a requirement then?

Also, can you please provide your source that says that Roman Christians were Jewish converts and not pagan converts?

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
You interpret, ‘yourselves’ as the laity?

yep, me and the scholars I that have read (ie Sullivan p.89) or at this source

How nice,but how long have those scholars been around? A few hundreds-tops? So you mean to tell me the Apostles really did not appoint the first 7 deacons as indicated in scripture? Show me one ancient writing where the laity ordained a bishop/deacon?

Quote:
In the Didache the verb “cheirotonein” (cf. imposition of hands) is used to define the ordination of bishops & deacons.

or by the community raising hands as per the above link

And raising hands does equate into ordination. Catholic laity at times also raise hands,but that is not the same as ordination.Maybe to “Johnny-come-lately” churches all man-made like the one you follow,but not according to ancient-Christianity testifies.

Quote:
Only a bishop can ordain a priest and deacon.

di

dn’t see the Didache make this restriction…that would simply be your bias

And I did not see the **explicity **that IT WAS THE LAITY-that would be your Protestant BIASED BELIEFS and pure conjecture on your behalf.

BTW: Chapter 15 reads: Hiearchy and Method of Reproof. Tell me where does the NT or early church writings discuss hiearchy of laity? NT mentions bishops/priests and deacons,but laity?

 

[Radical]

This speaks volumes. You cannot claim that your “church has the Lord’s supper as the Lord meant it to be” for you have no idea if Sundays are important or not. That is your man-made, non-Scriptural tradition.

it might be, but it isn’t a tradition that I impose on others…but I can live with that…and if you can claim that your Church has got it right…then why can’t I do likewise?

You reflect your bias there. A fair-minded person would say, "So I would consider what this better informed, better trained and more capable than myself Magisterium has to say

saying that “I can’t simply accept what they proclaim” doesn’t mean that I reject whatever they say…but it does mean that I won’t automatically accept whatever they say. IHMO the latter is the more serious bias.

 

[Radical]

So where are the requirements delineated in Scripture for an apostle?

You have made some requirements (arbitrary in my estimation) for apostleship. Yet someone who fits that criteria, yet objectively is NOT an apostle (such as St. Mary Magdalene) is rejected? Based on what?

How does one know what’s a requirement then?

Also, can you please provide your source that says that Roman Christians were Jewish converts and not pagan converts?

sorry…I’ve got to go…I’ll answer all of these tomorrow. Peace.

 

[PRmerger]

it might be, but it isn’t a tradition that I impose on others…

That’s fine. The CC does not “impose” man-made non-Scriptural traditions on others either.

but I can live with that…and if you can claim that your Church has got it right…then why can’t I do likewise?

Fair enough.

I just hope you don’t object to man-made, non-Scriptural traditions, then, 'kay? For your music-playing (I assumed correctly, yes?) Sunday-only, in-a-church ritual of the Lord’s Supper is man-made, added-to, with extra-biblical traditions. (Not to mention I’m certain you don’t do it as the Bible did, 'cause you don’t recline at the table, yes? And you don’t eat lamb, right?)

Oh, and that does bring me to another question: do you only have men participate in the Lord’s Supper, for that’s how the Bible did it, yes?

saying that “I can’t simply accept what they proclaim” doesn’t mean that I reject whatever they say…but it does mean that I won’t automatically accept whatever they say. IHMO the latter is the more serious bias.

Fair enough. I hope you do consider what the Magisterium says and ponder and, if need be, reject it on its own merits.

 

[guanophore]

Nice hearing from you, Nicea. God bless you.

I was not referring to any need for the CC. It is none of my business. I was just trying to show that not all disagreeing is protesting.

Perhaps not, but in this case, you embrace doctrines that were created by those who were, most deliberately, protesting. Though you may not have known this when you embraced them, now you know that you stand in a 500 year tradition of protesters.

 

[Irish_Polock]

Radical;7593960:

are you looking for something like, say the Dead Sea Scrolls?..or the Nag Hammadi texts? …or a century more of study and analysis?

A century or more of study and analysis… of what? Surely not the Dead Sea Scrolls or the Nag Hammadi Library, after all they are only 50+ years found. These text are detrimental to your argument Radical, I am unsure why you would use them for support.

yep, you provided scholars commenting on something other than the consensus which was described in order to challenge the existence of that consensus…why would you possibly think that matters?

What I have done Radical, is provide a verity of opinions on the matter, they are all just as scholarly as Sullivan, although none of them have espoused a “consensus” of any kind, because there is none that you have shown me.

have you ever been to court? Tell you what, do this one thing for me…next time a murder trial is being conducted in your area, show up and when it gets to the point where an expert offers opinion evidence, jump to your feet and announce (as a “friend of the court”) that “If anyone relies on the opinion of that expert/authority, he will be guilty of a fallacy!”…tell me how that turns out for you…I am sure that the judge would be very grateful for your insight.

And a statement made in the court of law can be thrown out if a prejudice is proven of the person in question. I am indeed familiar with the court of secular law.

So what? How does this make Peter the first bishop of Rome? Even if I produced “an authoritative instruction from another church” it wouldn’t establish that he wasn’t the bishop of Rome…Why are you on this rabbit trail?

St. Peter’s authority can be easily proven through Sacred Scripture, I was speaking of the church in Rome, or St Peter’s bishopric; the authority that that office has inherited. It is no rabbit trail. Whether you can accept it or not, through the Church Fathers writings, it is easily proven.

well, if one is going to attack a consensus that was acheived in the last few decades and say that such a consensus doesn’t exist, then one has to:

1. demonstrate the existence of scholars who held a different opinion ** at the time that the alleged consensus** is supposed to have existed ( it is as simple as: If I said that there is today a consensus that the earth revolves around the sun, would you have disproved the existence of the alleged consensus by producing a bunch of medieval scholars who said that the sun revolves around the earth?)
2. demonstrate the existence of scholars who held a different opinion ** WRT the subject matter of the alleged consensus** ( it is as simple as: If I said that there is today a consensus that the earth revolves around the sun, would you have disproved the existence of the alleged consensus by producing a bunch of scholars who say that the moon revolves around the earth?)

In a debate Radical, if one party makes a claim that opposes that of the debated, then the burden of proof is his, you claim that in Sullivan’s book he says that there is a “consensus of scholars” that oppose the petrine privilege; I have rightfully questioned this “consensus”. The burden is most assuredly, yours Radical.

Every time you have denied this Radical, it ratifies your ignorance, thus your argument grows weaker.

spiritual unity is achieved by God providing us all with the same Spirit…just as scripture teaches.

What would this “same spirit” be Radical? Could you please expand on this “spirit of unity” and put forth an example of such in the protestant faith?

very nicely, thanks for asking. We have eliminated most of the corruptions and have, for the most part, kept to the unifying beliefs of the earliest Church. If you would like to have an idea of what the earliest church looked like, try ** Unity and Diversity in the New Testament ** by James Dunn for starters

Really? Could you tell me what ecclesiastical community you belong to so I too might have this “knowledge”?

 

[guanophore]

yep, you provided scholars commenting on something other than the consensus which was described in order to challenge the existence of that consensus...why would you possibly think that matters?

LOL!

:whacky:

Do you know what a consensus is?

have you ever been to court? Tell you what, do this one thing for me…next time a murder trial is being conducted in your area, show up and when it gets to the point where an expert offers opinion evidence, jump to your feet and announce (as a “friend of the court”) that “If anyone relies on the opinion of that expert/authority, he will be guilty of a fallacy!”…tell me how that turns out for you…I am sure that the judge would be very grateful for your insight.

What are the chances that the person testifying is the Son of God?

So what?  How does this make Peter the first bishop of Rome? Even if I produced "an authoritative instruction from another church" it wouldn't establish that he wasn't the bishop of Rome....Why are you on this rabbit trail?

I am wondering why YOU are on this rabbit trail!? You already agreed that any community that had an apostle in residence would defer to the oversight of that Apostle.

well, if one is going to attack a consensus that was acheived in the last few decades and say that such a consensus doesn’t exist, then one has to:

1. demonstrate the existence of scholars who held a different opinion ** at the time that the alleged consensus** is supposed to have existed

This was well done, even though it doesn’t seem to matter to you.

1. demonstrate the existence of scholars who held a different opinion ** WRT the subject matter of the alleged consensus**

So, you agreed the people cited held a different opinon…

spiritual unity is achieved by God providing us all with the same Spirit…just as scripture teaches.

But clearly, we have that spirit in varying degrees. Those who cling to the Truth all have unity. Since unity does not exist, clearly some are not clinging to the Truth.

We have eliminated most of the corruptions and have, for the most part, kept to the unifying beliefs of the earliest Church.

Please consider that it is nowhere the duty of man to remove corruptions from His Holy Bride. This is the work of the HS. Part of the reason for the fragmentation is people taking on the role of God.

 

[guanophore]

well, for starters we aren’t agreed that there was any successor…

You may not agree, but this is the unbroken faith of all Christians until the Reformation. At that time, the Apostolic Succession was thrown out, in an effort to throw out the corruption into which some of them had fallen…

.but, in any event, what you see as legitimate growth, I see as man-made innovation…

You would have to see it that way. If God did not do what He said He would do, and the testimony of the NT is bogus, then you can conclude no other.

and it isn't the only bit of man-made innovation, hence the need to label the founders of the CC as Mr. Inovation, Mrs. Development and Father Time

This is just a statement of calumny and disparagement.

Do you think that the first Roman Christians were primarily Jews? Were Jewish communities of that day led by elders?

Yes, I think that the community in Rome started with Jews who were pilgrims in Jerusalem on Pentecost. Yes, I think the Jewish communities were led by elders.

 The Didache instructs the congregation to appoint leaders for themselves.

The Didache is written for pastors.

now there’s a bit of pure speculation

The Jewish community was trained to defer to elders. However, in the Church, the role of Presbyter was passed through the laying on of hands.

an apostle: a) was sent out to preach the gospel, b) a witness to the resurrection and c) had his ministry confirmed by signs and wonders. An apostle provided pastoral care to a church (a temporary reality) and then moved on (thereafter providing pastoral care infrequently by letter, if at all). An overseer may have lacked (a), (b) and (c), would have been a local resident and it was intended that his provision of pastoral care would have been rather permanent

Some of the Aposltes settled and remained. When Peter and Paul went to Rome, they remained there until their deaths.

scripture doesn’t actually say that, does it? Where are the terms “succeed” and “office” used exactly? I suspect that you are referring to the replacement of Judas…which was necessary b/c the Twelve were to sit on 12 thrones and judge the 12 tribes (Matt 19, Luke 22) Judas needed to be replaced b/c he wasn’t going to serve as a judge after betraying Christ.

Yes, Jesus chose the 12 and intended for them to sit on the 12 thrones, but before that, they had an earthly ministry to teach and shepherd the flock. They appointed bishops and elders in the communities, and instructed the bishops to follow this same pattern not to lay hands on anyone hastily, and to guard what had been entrusted to them, teaching it to faithful men who were able to instruct others also. Primarily the duty of the Bishop is to teach and shepherd the flock.

There was no succession for the role of judge of the 12 tribes.

I am not sure how this relates…

The role of the Apostles in this regard is eternal. Why would they need a successor?

b/c that is what you want to see history affirm....others, like me don't see that affirmation

Actually, I didn’t. I fought tooth and nail for decades.

The Truth will out.

I thought that the CC wanted to claim that Peter was the first Pope and that a bishop of Rome "stepped into his sandals"and that the CC possesses an unbroken line of Popes going back all the way to Christ’s appointment of Peter and that the Roman bishop has served as the Vicar of Peter/Vicar of Christ ever since Peter passed on the torch.

Yes.

No, Radical. We don’t see this. We see that the Apostles came to Rome for the first time (after there was a thriving Christian community) and built up the foundation of the Church there, shepherding her and guiding her until they were martryrd. If you think that any of those “elders” that may have existed in Rome did not defer to the episcopal oversight of the Apostles then you are mistaken.

Seems like one would have to throw out a lot of history and scripture to maintain such a position.

there wasn’t a whole lot of deferring goin’ on when Paul confronted Peter to his face

No one should defer to hypocrisy.

I don’t suppose that all Christendom had that understanding…yes, you can provide a number of ECFs who held that opinion (or something similar), but a number of ECFs don’t equal all of Christendom.

The writings only testify to what all Christendom beleived. You see, there is one great flaw in your arguement. You have not dispatched the fact that the Eastern Christians have also maintained the Apostolic Succession. They have no love lost on Rome, either.

Continuing the work of, ministry of, task assigned to an apostle is the succession of a function/role and not the succesion of an office.

There is no difference. Scripture records that the “office” Matthias took was a “bishopric”.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Radical,

I just joined … read some posts … and would like to offer a comment or two.

While, this has been mentioned before … it appears it needs repeating. Matthew 16:18 identifies the Man (Jesus Christ) Who founded His Church on Peter - and gave Peter the Keys to Kingdom as a sign of authority Christ had just bestowed.

This is the real answer to the thread - and, if you look carefully you will find that there is a direct line from Peter to Benedict XVI the preseent Bishop of Rome - and the documentation is in this link: newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm. So, we have the founding and the continuation or succession of Christ’s Church.

After reading many of your posts… but, not all, so I may have missed something here… it appears that you are a bit short on any documentation for your opinions, appearing to go for those who deny some aspect of the Catholic Church’s teachings - and essentially claiming that they are right. You know there is an entire organization that claims the earth is flat (theflatearthsociety.org/cms/) but, I do not think main stream scientists really reference them when presenting an idea… May I suggest you suspend your opinions and provide some evidence for any of the positions you have put forward. I think this would really allow for a discussion with less of an edge or attitude…

God bless

This is open to debate. You recognize the Magisterium as the authority on the matter of what the mother Church has espoused, but if one doesn’t recognize that authority and one doesn’t interpret previous teachings through that lens, then one can come to the conclusion that the traditional Catholic view is not the view that the Mother Church has espoused…and, in fact, one can come to the conclusion that the CC is not the Mother Church.

I guess that would be why they are called “dissidents” by those that submit to the Magisterium (in all matters)…The thing is though, if these so-called “dissidents” are in the majority, who then, are the real dissidents? …in scholarly circles? …in the group that identify themselves as Catholic?

…and if the hierarchy of the CC aren’t the definers of the one true Church, then the anathema means nothing.

actually the OP seems to be a challenge to non-Catholics. My opinion, therefore, is what has been requested…yours not so much.

well, I have quoted a reputed scholar WRT the “consensus of scholars”…until your side offers anything more than the copying and pasting of snippets, I really don’t think that I have a need to produce more. In any event, the thread challenges non-Catholics to specify who founded the CC…my answer is Mr. Innovation, Mrs. Development and Father Time. I have specified why, and have seen nothing to cause me to begin to reconsider my answer. So, question asked, question answered, feel free to reject said answer.

So is it your position that all Protestants (who don’t recognize the CC as the one true Church…which seems to be the lot of us) are wolves amongst the flock? …and not part of the flock? …sounds kinda anti-Vatican II to me…but I am loath to throw out that “anti” label at the drop of a hat. Please clarify.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

it seems that you are trying to be offended…I am answering questions, if you don’t like an opposing opinion read something else

Thanks for your charitable explanantion for the need to use ad hominems in presenting an opposing opinion. It makes it even easier to reject your view and I don’t see any danger of you proselytizing Catholics with such a tone.

that is not what I said…I compared 1900 years of understanding to 2000 years of understanding…kindly stop distorting what I say

or a century more of study and analysis?

It is confusing to see 2000 years of understanding, supported by writings from early Christians, rejected because of much more modern understanding and analysis.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

here’s chapter 15 from the Didache:

Appoint, therefore, for yourselves, bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men meek, and not lovers of money, and truthful and proved; for they also render to you the service of prophets and teachers. Therefore do not despise them, for they are your honored ones, together with the prophets and teachers. And reprove one another, not in anger, but in peace, as you have it in the Gospel. But to anyone that acts amiss against another, let no one speak, nor let him hear anything from you until he repents. But your prayers and alms and all your deeds so do, as you have it in the Gospel of our Lord.

care to explain the alleged bias?

I know the Didache and I requested for any examples of your ‘spin’ from scriptures.

The ‘anti’ bias towards Catholics is easy to see when one persists in using a condescending tone in their posts.

 

[rinnie]

Looks like we are getting no where. Time to move on.

You are right buddy, Sometimes we have to call it a draw and let it go. Agree to disagree and drop it. In my book that does not make me the winner or you the winner we both are winners. Thanks Dokimas.

 

[rinnie]

Perhaps not, but in this case, you embrace doctrines that were created by those who were, most deliberately, protesting. Though you may not have known this when you embraced them, now you know that you stand in a 500 year tradition of protesters.

:tiphat: This is great!

 

[rinnie]

My church has the Lord’s supper as the Lord meant it to be, thanks for asking

been there done that…but I am not so arrogant as to assume that I can’t learn from those who are better informed, better trained and more capable than myself

Radical I have 2 questions for you.

1. You claim the Lord’s Supper in your Church is as the Lord meant it to be. Could you explain what that means, how do you feel the Lord meant it to be.
2. Now I admire your ability to admit you don’t know everything and have alot to learn, I also have alot to learn. We will learn until the day we see God and have all of the answers. But now to my second quesion. Do you understand why the Eucharist is such a big deal?

 

[Radical]

So where are the requirements delineated in Scripture for an apostle?

well the “sent” is from the term “apostle”. I have given you the reference for signs and wonders and the requirement of seeing the resurrected Lord is from what Paul stresses and from the requirements set by the 12 when they replaced Judas.

Yet someone who fits that criteria, yet objectively is NOT an apostle (such as St. Mary Magdalene) is rejected? Based on what?

was Mary sent? Did she work signs and wonders? If not, then she wouldn’t have been an apostle by NT standards.

Also, can you please provide your source that says that Roman Christians were Jewish converts and not pagan converts?

the assumption is that the first Roman Christians would have been those Roman Jews who were converted at Jerusalem during Pentecost (and who would have them returned home to Rome)…it is also believed that the standard approach was to go and preach in the synagogue of a city first…

 

[PRmerger]

was Mary sent?

Indeed, she was.

“Then go quickly and tell his disciples: ‘He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee.” Matt 28: 6

“But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.” Mark 16:7

In fact, many New Agers cite these verses as supportive of women priestesses.

 

[PRmerger]

well the “sent” is from the term “apostle”. I have given you the reference for signs and wonders and the requirement of seeing the resurrected Lord is from what Paul stresses and from the requirements set by the 12 when they replaced Judas.

Yes, but Radical? These are all arbitrary. I could very well list different criteria for what constitutes an apostle.

Maybe I would say that an apostle is one
-who lays down his life for a friend
-who proclaims that God is love
-who has had an angel appear to him
-who wears a beard
-whose wife bore only sons
-whose prophesies have borne true.

Any number of arbitrary criteria could be asserted.

You have only given your own fallible idea of what constitutes an apostle.

 

[PRmerger]

the assumption is that the first Roman Christians would have been those Roman Jews who were converted at Jerusalem during Pentecost (and who would have them returned home to Rome)…it is also believed that the standard approach was to go and preach in the synagogue of a city first…

Fair enough.