Pretty sure Cyprian wasn’t referring to the Pope. I haven’t looked up that document you quoted from, but it’s more likely he is referring to himself considering how much trouble he had with his priests.
No, I think that’s a pretty big stretch. It’s not like he wrote “the” in all caps, or write “the” at all, actually, since English didn’t even exist yet. It’s more likely he was justifying defrocking a bunch of his priests. He was a controversial guy.
Well - I’ll admit it’s a pretty good argument, but I’m afraid it is unconvincing.
I was never questioning your dedication in prayer or devotion but you do make me wonder do you obey the magisterium the Pope or the bishops now or are they just “guys at the top saying everyone has to listen to them because they’re at the top”?
Problem is: I, personally, am not the topic.
That’s okay, not trying to convince anyone.
Well, it goes far beyond that one construction, that’s just representative of thew theme of the whole book. It’s really a brilliant piece of writing, IMO. Maththew starts out with Jesus challenging the cultural understandings, with the Beatitudes. The culture of the Jews was that if you sufer misfortune, it is because of sin. You are cursed, IOW. But Jesus says, "Blessed are the poor in spirit, those who morn, the meek. He says the lowly are Blessed, not cursed. Then He telsl people what they need to do, hunger for rif ghteousness, be merciful, be peacemakers. And He warns that some wil be persecuted for the sake of righteousness.
Why would He need to tell a bunch of Jews that it’s a Jewish thing?
What different terminology? This seems perfectly normal. In fact, Mt 6:14-15 foreshadows “binding and loosing.”
He just did mention bind and loose in verse18. Probably why Peter asked. Jesus doesn’t want anyone to be lost, he wants them to stop this process, and forgive. And Peter says, “Well, how many times?” Like he wants to know when to go back to the process he is used to. And Jesus says, you never go back, you always forgive.
What do we mean by Church, anyway? We really mean the whole of the Body of Christ, including those who have passed, the baby baptized. You. Me. That guy over there preaching in Jesus’ name but not part of our group, if we are to believe Jesus in Scripture. We are the Church. In Chapter 18, Jesus is referring to the Church of His day, and the group that would sit in judgment. That isn’t “His Church.” His Church has Gentiles and pagans in it.
It was Jesus who said it, not me: “unless you turn and become like children you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.” He was speaking to His disciples. Sounds like He is saying to give up all power and authority.
He is specific about the seat of Moses: so they can give the people the Law in the Scrolls. And they should listen and obey the Law, as always. But any Jewish man in a local synagogue or at the head of his table could do as much. It says Jesus was speaking to the crowds and His disciples, the followers He knows will be spreading His word after His exodus. Which is our topic. He says to them:
He goes on for the whole chapter, He seems to be pointing out what happens when you have power, how corrupt the PTB has become.
That’s fine with me, I agree. How do you translate the universal Church having authority to the vast majority of that ecclesia being subject to the teachings of an exalted few?
Here’s a link to an English translation of the complete text. And this is fine, it’s the Church position. But it’s based on Scripture. The point of contention is that the early PTB took authority for themselves first, not based on anything Jesus said or did, and then later justified it by the interpretation of Scripture.
I do love Irenaeus and he is a 2nd generation source if we believe the tradition that he was a disciple of John’s with Polycarp. I do. But it just sounds like Paul, which is fine, and never mentions Bishops or Popes or authority. Still, it’s very compelling when arguing for the apostolic tradition of handing on the faith. But “prophets” and “teachers” aren’t necessarily anyone of authority. Neither are “apostles” at the time he wrote, the word referring to those who travel and preach to the unconverted as well as followers. And we have to note the irony that he says the teaching is everywhere consistent and then see the title of the doc is “Against Heresies.” So he has taken on himself the judgment of which of those persons preaching and teaching and prophesying are legitimately imbued with the Holy Spirit. In essence, the teaching is not consistent, and he’s claiming some group is the one right and others wrong and not part of the group.
I don’t have a problem with this. It supports the authority of Scripture.
Can’t disagree with that, if “him” is Jesus Christ and He did speak the words spoken and anything said was about who has authority. But none of those things are true. I can say the same thing, if you disobey Jesus’ admonition to forgive endlessly, you will be in no small danger. But it doesn’t claim authority. I should go read this one…
The problem with an apologetics site that tries to justify a position by taking a quote out of context is: just like the semiPentacostals do with Scripture, it’s tantamount to a lie. And when you post it without examination, you perpetrate that lie. Then we all look bad and give our detractors more fuel. Here’s a quote from this same work, only much earlier:
This is an amazing document, BTW, we should all read it, by the Bishop of Rome, the 1st who was not an Apostle, this work must have missed inclusion in the Canon by half a hair’s breadth.
I’m puzzled that you still feel this way in that the RCC “claims this authority for itself” as I think the facts are otherwise. You stated yourself that you believe Iraneus was 2nd generation Church leadership and a disciple of John. John to whom Jesus entrusted his mother and who was at the very foot of the cross and yet you think he did not have a proper understanding of the Church and the authority it was given? Also you cite the document by the first non apostle pope and admit it missed canonization by a hair. In a previous post you mentioned the New Testament writings were in existence by the end of the first century and being used as authoritative. This writing you cited and others were also being used as authoritative as were heretical forgeries. This is why the Holy Spirit set the Canon through the authoritative Church founded by Christ. It does not “all hinge in Matthew 16” it is truth. The Matthew 16 account is one of the best in Scripture to reinforce and illustrate this authority but were it not for the Catholic Church councils in 382, 392 & 397 AD telling us that Matthew and the three other Gospels were the ones given under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit by the authority of Christ then how would we even know for sure it belongs in the Bible?
Hence the debate.
I think you do not have an understanding of how he defined “church” and have read into that quote a statement of author that is not there.
The document as wonderful as it is, not only doesn’t support your contention, it actually contradicts you. And I never use the word “Pope,” and neither did he.
2nd century.
“Authoritative” of what?
You still haven’t demonstrated that there *was *any “authoritative church” and what you seem to mean is a lot of guys at the top who get to claim the power to decide these matters of theology for everyone else. Yet, the one you referred to as a Pope, the first Bishop of Rome not an Apostle, apparently personally acquainted with Paul, refutes that one who sets himself over the others is a friend of Christ.
Yes, it does. Read Clement yourself. Nowhere, does he even hint that Christ has given any of them the kind of authority you claim is the “truth.” You’d think he would if he had it, especially when writing to people who seem to be having some issues with being led astray. But he doesn’t. He extensively quotes the OT to support his position. He paraphrases Jesus Christ which is stunning and wonderful. But he never says, “By the power vested in me as the direct successor to Peter the Head of the Church you have to do what I say.” read it.
LOL! We don’t. It just is what it is because they decided what they wanted to declare Canon. I think they did a fine job. It was, in fact, a traditional list of books.
This is my deer in the headlights look.
I should have warned you! I did apologetics as practically an 8 hour a day job for a few years back in the day, of course, from the RCC side, and I ran off more than a few Protestants that way. Thing is, I also came away with a lot of respect for the positions of those that were well-thought out and think they have quite valid points. But, in the end:
…you and I agree completely, as far as I can see in the things you covered in your post. It was one reason I wanted to debate with you.
I wanted to address the couple things quoted here from your last post. You’re not the first person I’ve debated with whose made this argument that “the title of Pope wasn’t used so the authority doesn’t exist.” Also in the last part I quoted is “Cyprian never said he had authority so he didn’t have any authority.” I think the most important thing to remember is the Church hierarchy is more reactionary than proactive. Doctrines and beliefs which have existed since the beginning are further defined and clarified over time as they come under question or the Church matures in its understanding of God’s revelation. If it was already understood he had the authority then it was not necessary at the time for him to restate the obvious.
I didn’t say either one of those things. Please don’t add your thoughts to my words. I simply pointed out the fact that you identified the writer by the name “pope” not me, as you implied, or him. I didn’t say that Cyprian not claiming authority proved he didn’t have any, I was pointing out that there is no proof on your side. No real evidence at all. I’m not trying to prove anything to you through the quotes you picked off some website from documents you have obviously never read. I’m simply stating facts: they don’t support your proposition. One of them, arguably the most compelling, supports mine.
Some people don’t call this “reactionary” they call it “revisionist.” In order to say the Church never changes, the PTB claims, “oh, it was always this way, we are just now getting around to saying so, that’s all.” Pretty convenient. Hey, how did they get around burning Joan at the stake as a heretic and then Canonizing her later? That must have been some trick.
Yeah, but that was supposed to be what your quote was proving, that he was imbued with this authority by Jesus. It doesn’t. You keep saying things are “true” but you have nothing to back your belief up but things said by the Powers That Be after the fact.
Well, first I was just correcting you misquoting me. 2nd, when I said we had the Canon, I meant that the list of books included in the Canon in the 4th century, we actually already had completed in the 2nd. 3rd, Revelations was a 2nd century popular book, a form of what was called “apocalyptic literature” and it wasn’t written by John the Apostle. Nor did Matthew write Matthew. Scholars attribute much of John to the “Johanine Community” though I am a fan of his having written most of it himself. 4th: Paul’s letters were written before his death, but what appears in the Canon wasn’t finalized until - well - we don’t know when exactly. * Romans* is first because it was longest and it comprises a set of letters Paul wrote that were edited together. Same with the other long books.
It’s quite possible that what you hold in your hands when you read your Bible wasn’t actually finalized for centuries after the Councils of the 4th century. Many scholars think the story of the woman caught in adultery was added accidentally as a copyist’s error and was part of a commentary or homily incorporated into some Biblical text. Your official Catholic edition is the NAB, look in the sections of Matthew we’ve been discussing and see that the editor’s omitted a verse someone decided was probably not something Jesus really said, even though it appears in older editions. Matthew Chapter 18:11 - disappeared. Here’s what they took out: “For the Son of Man has come to save what was lost.”
If you are truly being courteous enough to give me the last word then I will resist the temptation to express my displeasure at you belittling me about referring to Apologetics websites. Judging by how you tactfully dodged my earlier question about honoring the authority of the magisterium and the overall tone of your posts on this thread, it appears you do not honor any authority aside from your own. The flaw here is if you feel I am so fallible by adhering to Church teaching then I can say you are equally fallible…unless of course you are claiming to be infallible in your interpretation of Scripture and the Church fathers. I’m sorry as two Catholics we could not see eye to eye on these issues. Peace be with your spirit.
Hi, as a Protestant, I’m sorry to hear that your Protestant friend argues with you in that manner, claiming “true” Christians this or that. Unfortunately, a personal faith is such a sensitive matter that it is easy to become defensive when it is questioned. Recently I have been approached by Catholics evangelising to me and claiming that there is no salvation outside the Roman Catholic Church and that I am facing eternal hellfire. At times a direct approach is appropriate, however it is shocking to hear something like that from total strangers. My faith is very dear to me, as I’m sure most believers feel, so a more sensitive attitude when entering dialogue is kinder?
Thanks, nikella, for your explanation.
I beg your pardon, I should have emphasised for us protestants. Since it was the protestant friend of the opening poster who claimed “true” Christians this and that, etc.
I am glad that you are here and are open to learning!