Where on earth, after all we’ve talked about, do you get the idea that Lutherans by pass the Apostles? I just spent how many posts with you exploring the office of the papacy, and I don’t believe I ever mentioned scripture once.
Jon
- Status
Jon
P
passer_by
Guest
I am not sure I understand. The Primacy of Rome in teaching is clear. That is all I am alluding to in premise 1. I do not mean the Pope or a single Bishop. Just the Primacy of teaching of Rome.
From there, since Rome has taught Infallibility and whatever other precepts on Primacy at a later date, you must accept it because of its primacy in teaching.
So I am not referring to the fact that it was taught by the Pope. I am merely referring to the fact that it was taught by the Roman Church.
The fact that Orthodox disagreed with them puts them on the wrong side of the early practice and prior agreement on the Primacy of Rome. Do you understand the argument better now?
As for Nicea Canon 6, there are many explanations given for it that reconcile the teachings regarding the Primacy of Rome that Orthodox believe is contradicted. I would suggest you give the following a read for a good academic dissertation of the canon
philvaz.com/apologetics/CouncilNicaeaSixthCanon.htm
So the argument still stands since your objection to premise 1 is not valid (I am not talking about the Pope in premise 1 and just the general Primacy of Rome)
I present it here again and would like to see perhaps a more better objection
**1) Bishop of Rome had Primacy on teaching matters – We both agree
- At some point in time, Bishop of Rome and the Church of Rome defined Papal Infallibility and other precepts of Primacy, and was accepted and taught unanimously by the Roman Church – History
- Now since you accept (1) it automatically follows that you accept all that was defined in (2)**
I would like to put this discussion on hold and concentrate on the above issue. I think for the sake of this discussion, if the above is accepted by you, then we don’t even need to discuss Lutheranism at all since you have no reason to not become a Catholic
S
Safia
Guest
As this conversation is, IMO, going in circles (not pointless ones, mind you, but still circles – that passer may or may not have the success of breaking), Jon, I’ll direct you to this article and highly recommend Newman’s An Essay on the Development of Doctrine, which I hope will clear up your misconceptions more so than either passer or I will be able to (I, at least, would have to quote the whole book).
May God bless you.
May God bless you.
And may He also bless you.
I think discussions like this often go in circles because, frankly, we as laymen don’t always completely understand the teachings of the other’s communion. Passer certainly seems to lack some basic undersdtanding of Lutheranism, and I admit the same about Catholic teaching. Clearly, these issues can only be resolved by theologians and Church leaders (and I believe herneuentics and Apostolic Succession are a couple of the easier ones, frankly).
Peace,
Jon
P
passer_by
Guest
Jon,
Would just like to point out to you that I do not need an intricate Theological understanding of Lutheranism to condemn it as unreasonable.
I am arguing at the level of arriving at Lutheranism, Catholicism or any other religion. That is not a Theological journey but a journey carried out through reason. One needs to know which precepts to hold and what to analyze to do Theology. Reason is what leads to the material to do Theology with.
Your misunderstanding is that you are trapped at the Theological level that you have never questioned how you came to believe these Theological precepts/axioms you hold as true (even something like 'Bible is the divinely revealed word of God). Unlike in Mathematics, none of these axioms you hold are self-evident and hence require reasons to back them up.
But I think we are making much progress now at perhaps showing a logical inconsistency of your position as a Lutheran. So maybe the circle is finally about to break and your long sought reason to be Catholic finally here
If you want to end this discussion now and want to take away one thing, may it be that final argument I presented to you. Put some thought in to it. Also read that link I presented on Canon 6.
S
Safia
Guest
I’d disagree, vehemently, as I see the logical inconsistencies, despite a degree, and from in-depth reading – and will always stand by the lack of truth in the Lutheran POV, though of course respect your choice and faith, and pray for the reconciliation needed.
The article I linked? I recommend it highly. It’s written from a Lutheran perspective, and deals with every topic we’ve touched on thus far. Highly, highly recommend it. As well as the Newman book.
N
Newsy
Guest
May I point out one thing?
Passer keeps referring to the fact that one can only come to believe through reason. The problem is that many don’t see it that way. Many use reason in conjunction with their personal experience. If they have a “coming to Christ” moment, then they seek out a church. They won’t seek out the history of the church, they usually find themselves being invited to one or find one close, then they experience “church”. Many will find teaching and worship, these things enlighten them, so they keep going. Next they start attending a Bible study, everything explained the way that particular church views it. Sooner or later, the person has a wealth of knowledge, as it was taught to them, and their personal experience solidifies their choice.
When someone comes to a church in the manner explained, it doesn’t matter how you reason out their theological errors. They are indoctrinated in their church, you have a heavy burden of proof and you still cannot change their personal experience. I believe that “feelings” and personal experience are very subjective, but we are people so we have these to deal with.
My point is that to say the only way one can come to believe the Bible, or any thing else, is through reason is problematic. Like it or not, many come to faith by using very little reasoning.
Passer keeps referring to the fact that one can only come to believe through reason. The problem is that many don’t see it that way. Many use reason in conjunction with their personal experience. If they have a “coming to Christ” moment, then they seek out a church. They won’t seek out the history of the church, they usually find themselves being invited to one or find one close, then they experience “church”. Many will find teaching and worship, these things enlighten them, so they keep going. Next they start attending a Bible study, everything explained the way that particular church views it. Sooner or later, the person has a wealth of knowledge, as it was taught to them, and their personal experience solidifies their choice.
When someone comes to a church in the manner explained, it doesn’t matter how you reason out their theological errors. They are indoctrinated in their church, you have a heavy burden of proof and you still cannot change their personal experience. I believe that “feelings” and personal experience are very subjective, but we are people so we have these to deal with.
My point is that to say the only way one can come to believe the Bible, or any thing else, is through reason is problematic. Like it or not, many come to faith by using very little reasoning.
Safia, I’d like to thank you for opening this thread, which has been stimulating and thought-provoking. Additionally, let me say that I’ve read, albeit quickly, through the linked article. I really didn’t find too much that I would say is new there, other than some of the author’s perspectives on Lutheran thought seemed somewhat off, from what I’ve been taught. That said, I plan over time to read it more carefully, and I thank you for including it.
Thanks again,
Jon
N
Nicea325
Guest
JonNC:
Yes my friend,but uunfortunately if the canon is being used to rebuke the primacy,then history is not on its side as a rebuttal.If the above canon rebukes the primacy of Rome,why is there countless incidents/cases where Eastern bishops took serious matters to Rome to settle them? If canon 6 is to be universally understood,then why would any Eastern bishop not settle matters in-house? Why even bother to travel hundreds miles to Rome? It would seem the East and West would be guilty of violating the canon?
Hi Nicea,
I don’t believe that I am using canon 6 to rebuke the primacy, only to show what the early Church claims the primacy to be. They took serious matters to the Bishop of Rome because they viewed that see with respect and honor, and trusted the judgements they received, not because they thought he has above them, in a hierarchy sense.
Jon
N
Nicea325
Guest
Jon…always a blessing my brother in Christ. Actually,my friend,that is not exactly true. I can quote many ECF saying Rome held more than just a position of honor and trust,both from western bishops and eastern bishops. All the ancient Sees held honor and trust as Rome. If that were strictly the case,then why would a Bishop from Alexandria not just go to the Bishop of Constantinople during the 3rd,4th and centuiries onward?
Peace Jon
Pray for unity
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Passer_by,
As you see - just as you thought you had something … it evaporates before your eyes … ah, mine, too!
Church councils must be approved by the Pope to be binding. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Ecumenical_Councils) This tells me that the Pope has the last word on a given subject. That would mean he has Primacy on teaching matters.
To argue differently, there would need to be evidence of a Council that ‘over-rode’ the Pope’s ‘veto’ of a teaching matter. I for one would be interested in such evidence - do you think anything like this exists?
God bless
As you see - just as you thought you had something … it evaporates before your eyes … ah, mine, too!
Church councils must be approved by the Pope to be binding. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Ecumenical_Councils) This tells me that the Pope has the last word on a given subject. That would mean he has Primacy on teaching matters.
To argue differently, there would need to be evidence of a Council that ‘over-rode’ the Pope’s ‘veto’ of a teaching matter. I for one would be interested in such evidence - do you think anything like this exists?
God bless
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Safia,
This is an excellent link you have provide!
I only scratched the surface - but, it is all there, neatly organized and a complete refutation of Luther!
Passer … take a breather, read this and accomplish your goal. Anyone else really interested in seeing where Luther went off the deep end - just check it out.
God Bless
This is an excellent link you have provide!
I only scratched the surface - but, it is all there, neatly organized and a complete refutation of Luther!
Passer … take a breather, read this and accomplish your goal. Anyone else really interested in seeing where Luther went off the deep end - just check it out.
God Bless
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Nicea325
From a practical standpoint, it is hard to argue with this - traveling to Rome was always a major event in anyone’s life - just plain long-distance travel was not for the faint of heart. And, one never knew if one’s sea captain would sail too close to hidden sandbars as we have recently learned!
Do you have an on-line link you could share identifying ECF(s) expressing their belief in the Primacy of Peter?
Thanks and God bless
From a practical standpoint, it is hard to argue with this - traveling to Rome was always a major event in anyone’s life - just plain long-distance travel was not for the faint of heart. And, one never knew if one’s sea captain would sail too close to hidden sandbars as we have recently learned!
Do you have an on-line link you could share identifying ECF(s) expressing their belief in the Primacy of Peter?
Thanks and God bless
I join my prayers to yours.
If, my friend, the view of primacy was then as it is now in the Catholic Church, what do you make of the “Ratzinger Proposal”? He says:
Clearly he recognizes that how things were viewed in the 1st millennium is different from
“the form this primacy has taken in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries”.
You thoughts.
Jon
K
karaleigh
Guest
What happened to the spirit prayer? Learning to pastor, I had to write an essay on how to communicate with the All Mighty God and HIS blessed Son, Jesus.
This may very well have been a way the Byzantine priests conferred with the LORD. Faith, not doubt, serves many purposes! :doh2:
N
Nicea325
Guest
If James, and not Peter, held the primacy as some would have us believe, then why is he not mentioned even once by a single Church Father or early writer as holding that office?
Primacy of Peter as written by the Church Fathers…
St. Cyprian, Unity of the Catholic Church 4. J555-556, 251 A.D.
On him He builds the Church and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep (Jn 21:17); and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles, yet He founded a single chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity.Indeed the others were that also which Peter was; **but a primacy **is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too are all the shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by the Apostles in single minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert **the chair of Peter **upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?
Origen, Commentaries on John 5:3 J479a, 226 A.D.
Peter, upon whom is built the Church of Christ…
St. Cyprian, Letter to Quintas 71:1. J592a, 254 A.D.
For Peter, whom the Lord chose first and upon whom He built His Church, when Paul later disagreed with him about circumcision, did not claim anything for himself insolently nor assume anything arrogantly, so as to say **he held the primacy **and that he ought rather to be obeyed by novices and those more recently arrived.
Eusebius, History of the Church 2:14:6. J651dd, 300 A.D.
In the same reign of Claudius, the all good and gracious providence which watches over all things guided Peter, the great and mighty one of the Apostles, who, because of his virtue, was the spokesman for all the others to Rome.
Damasus, Decree of Damasus 3. J910u,382 A.D.
The first see, therefore is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman Catholic Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it.
St. Jerome, Letter to Pope Damasus 15:2, J1346,1346a, 374 A.D.
I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness, that is the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails…He that is joined to the chair of Peter is accepted by me.
*St. Augustine, Letter to Generosus 53:1:2. J1418, 400 A.D.
If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, “Upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it (Matt 16:18).” Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement, Clement by Anacletus, etc…
*Augustine, Sermons 295:2+. J1526, 391 A.D.
Before His suffering the Lord Jesus Christ, as you know, chose His disciples, whom He called Apostles. Among these Apostles almost everywhere **Peter alone **merited to represent the whole Church. For the sake of his representing the whole Church, which he alone could do, he merited to hear, “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven (Matt 16:19).”
St. Peter Chrysologus, Letter to Eutyches 25:2. J2178, 449 A.D.
We exhort you in every respect, honorable brother, to heed obediently what has been written by the Most Blessed Pope of the City of Rome; for Blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, provides the truth of faith to those who seek it.
*St. Leo I, Pope, Letter to the Bishops of the Province of Vienne 10:1. J2178a, July 445 A.D.
But the Lord desired that the sacrament of this gift should pertain to all the Apostles in such a way that it might be found principally in the most Blessed Peter, the highest of all the Apostles.
St. Leo I, Pope, Letter to Anastasius, Bishop of Thessalonica 14:11. J2179a, 446 A.D.
Through them the care of the Universal Church would converge on the one see of Peter, and nothing should ever be at odds with this head.
T
tqualey
Guest
While it is obvious that James presided in Acts, I am not denying any of this. What I’m saying only is that what primacy meant then is different than what it means now n Catholic teaching.
Again from the post I made last
“When the** Patriarch Athenagoras**, on July 25, 1967, on the occasion of the Pope’s visit to Phanar, designated him as the successor of St. Peter, as the most esteemed among us, as one also presides in charity, this great Church leader was expressing the essential content of the doctrine of primacy as it was known in the first millennium. Rome need not ask for more.”
Jon
N
Nicea325
Guest
I am sorry,but I disagree whole-heartedly against the patriarch. He expresses more the “first among equal” belief of today. Sorry my friend, but that is not what the ECF quotes I provided express.
- Status