Question on Matthew 5:29

[Pattylt]

That is a joke.

As an interested outsider, could you expand on this and explain the view that the church held? Is the above statement partially true, completely false, or what? Thank you.

 

[SeraficLeo]

There was an order. Everyone knew where to sit except once the “emperor” got involved.

 

[SeraficLeo]

As an interested outsider

And to be fair, if you showed up to my family’s Christmas dinner, everyone meets as equals too. That is because people who love each other do not boast of rank or place. It does not mean there isn’t an appropriate way to conduct things.

 

[Pattylt]

So, the Pope was assumed head of the family…so to speak…even though they were meeting as equals? Like some were more equal than others?

How is this shown or is it shown in the records? I do know some early Church Fathers commented on Rome and the seat of Peter as first in some sense. Was Rome always considered first? Thanks.

 

[De_Maria]

Okay, I couldn’t wait until tomorrow. I went down in my basement office to retrieve Dr. Loraine Boettner’s book Roman Catholicism. And on page 126 he speaks to our subject…

When did Dr. Loraine Boettner write this book?

And have you read what the Early Church Fathers wrote about the Papacy?

Do you find them in conflict at all? Or do you simply believe Dr. Boettner over the ECF’s for some reason?

 

[De_Maria]

So, the Pope was assumed head of the family…so to speak…even though they were meeting as equals?

Jesus Christ appointed him the head of the family when He appointed Peter the Rock upon whom He would build His Church.

Like some were more equal than others?

St. Peter is also a Bishop. In that sense, he is equal to the rest. But He is also the Vicar of Christ. And therefore, has authority over the rest. But, he does not flaunt his authority because of Jesus’ Teaching:

Matthew 20:25 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. 26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;

How is this shown or is it shown in the records?

Matt 16:18-19 is the main proof text in Scripture. Thereafter, it is shown in the writings of the Church Fathers. For example:

Clement of Rome

Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect (Letter to the Corinthians 58:2, 59:1[A.D. 95]).

I do know some early Church Fathers commented on Rome and the seat of Peter as first in some sense. Was Rome always considered first? Thanks.

Where ever St. Peter went, there was the Papacy. When he settled in Rome, that became the See of Peter.

 

[Pattylt]

Thanks for your answers. I think I remember correctly that one of the ECF’s specifically stated that the Rome church or Bishop of Rome was to be the final authority? Or am I remembering incorrectly? I can’t even recall which ECF it was! It was along the lines of, “look to Rome…” kind of statement. If you know who or where this was stated, it would help me…if not, no worries! :hugs:

 

[De_Maria]

Thanks for your answers. I think I remember correctly that one of the ECF’s specifically stated that the Rome church or Bishop of Rome was to be the final authority? Or am I remembering incorrectly? I can’t even recall which ECF it was! It was along the lines of, “look to Rome…” kind of statement. If you know who or where this was stated, it would help me…if not, no worries! :hugs:

I think you mean this statement from St. Augustine:

Rome has spoken, the matter is finished.

 

[Pattylt]

No, that wasn’t the one and Augustine is later. Thanks for trying though…I’ll eventually find it. I really appreciate your help!

 

[De_Maria]

Okay, I couldn’t wait until tomorrow. I went down in my basement office to retrieve Dr. Loraine Boettner’s book Roman Catholicism. And on page 126 he speaks to our subject.

My question to you was sincere. You seem to put a great deal of faith in Loraine Boettner. But he is a revisionist historian in our estimation. We believe the Early Church Fathers. For example, St. Augustine, who was a fourth century saint, is quoted as saying:

Rome has spoken, the matter is finished.

Showing that he was very much aware of the authority of the Papacy, long before the 6th century.

We can go further back.

St. Cyprian
With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Rome] 59:14 [A.D. 252]).

"For a period of six centuries after the time of Christ none of the regional churches attempted to exercise authority over any of the other regional Churches. The early ecumenical councils were composed of delegates from the various churches who met as equals. There is not a scholar anywhere

I’m pretty sure he means “Protestant” scholar.

who pretends to show any decree, cannon, or resolution by any of the ecumenical councils which attempts to give pre-eminence to any one church.

If not, then this person is obviously discounting the Early Church Fathers already mentioned.

The first six hundred years of the Christian era know nothing of any spiritual supremacy on the part of the bishops of Rome. The papacy really began in the year 590 with Gregory I, as Gregory the Great, who consolidated the power of the bishopric in Rome and started that church on a new course.

As shown above, this is untrue.

cont’d

 

[De_Maria]

cont’d

We quote two contemporary church historians, one a Protestant and the other a Roman Catholic, concerning the place of Gregory in this development. Says Professor A. M. Renwick of the Free Church College, Edinburgh, Scotland: … "His brilliant rule, set a standard for those who came after him and he, is really the first ‘pope’ who can, with perfect accuracy, be given the title. Along with Leo I (440-461), Gregory VII (1073-1085), and Innocent III (1198-1216), he stands out as one of the chief architects of the papal system, (The story of the church. p.64)

Hm? I think that sentence is ambiguous. It can also be understood to mean that he is the first pope in a series of popes, whom this person considers deserving of the title. It does not necessarily mean, without further context, that this person is insinuating that the papacy was first established by this Pope.

And the Catholic historian, Philip Hughes, says that Gregory I "… is generally regarded as the greatest of all his line… it was to him that Rome turned at every crisis where the Lombards, (the invaders from the north) were concerned.

In other words, the greatest Pope. I believe his title is St. Gregory the great.

He begged his people off and he bought them off. He ransomed the captives and organized the great relief services for widows and orphans. Finally, in 598, he secured a thirty years truce. It was St. Gregory who, in these years, was the real ruler of Rome and in a very real sense he is the founder of the papal monarchy" (a Popular History of the Catholic Church, p. 75, 1947, Used by permission of the Macmillan Company).

From this time forward, the unity of the CC became forced through the papal system is my point. This kind of unity bothers me greatly.

The Papacy is the monarchy of Jesus Christ. That’s the way we look at it. And we don’t believe the Catholic Church forced unity. We believe the Church is united because of it’s values and it’s design. The chief value is love and Christ designed it to be one Church.

 

[tgGodsway]

De_Maria, you make a compelling argument. But human nature’s disposition isnt as compelling. Churches in the 6th century learned to tuck away their personal understanding of spiritual authority and just submit. It wasn’t an option. But for the others, Jesus said it clearly; the blind follow the blind and both fall into the pit. This argument would be so much more persuasive if only you could get the gospel writers, the 12 apostles and prophets to openly support your idea of papacy. Their silence speaks volumes.

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria, you make a compelling argument. But human nature’s disposition isnt as compelling.

I’m not sure what that has to do with my question. I’m simply wondering why you hold Dr. Boetner as more persuasive than the Saints who actually lived in that era and the centuries coming up to that era. They seem to recognize an active and authoritative Church in Rome and they tie it call it the See of Peter.

Churches in the 6th century learned to tuck away their personal understanding of spiritual authority and just submit.

Where do you get this? Boetner wasn’t there. The saints which have written from the 2nd century onward, were there, and they paint a different picture.

It wasn’t an option. But for the others, Jesus said it clearly; the blind follow the blind and both fall into the pit.

Jesus also said:

John 20:29Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

This argument would be so much more persuasive if only you could get the gospel writers, the 12 apostles and prophets to openly support your idea of papacy. Their silence speaks volumes.

On the contrary, this is a phenomenon which is overcome by the Catholic methodology. You and I look at the same Scriptures and come to very different conclusions. This is a situation which you should have discerned even within Protestant circles. That is why there are so many Protestant denominations, today.

But, Jesus Christ established one Teaching Church. One authority to Teach all that He commanded.

The hermeneutic you follow does not have a mechanism for contradictory interpretations of Scripture. The Catholic methodology heads them off and prevents them. And if any persist in error, has a mechanism in place to resolve them (Matt 18:17). And all this was set in place by Jesus Christ.

 

[Gorgias]

This argument would be so much more persuasive if only you could get the gospel writers, the 12 apostles and prophets to openly support your idea of papacy. Their silence speaks volumes.

Matthew seems to have gotten the point just fine.

So does Luke, who demonstrates that when Peter spoke, all conversation ended. All that was left to do was to decree what had been decided and ratified by the Holy Spirit.

Their lack of silence speaks volumes.

 

[tgGodsway]

I’m not sure what that has to do with my question. I’m simply wondering why you hold Dr. Boetner as more persuasive than the Saints who actually lived in that era and the centuries coming up to that era. They seem to recognize an active and authoritative Church in Rome and they tie it call it the See of Peter.

Boettner didn’t just say this one thing. His book, along with many other scholarly writings paints a much bigger picture showing the wealth of evidence against the “papacy” position. I gave you just one small paragraph on this one topic. His arguments are also supported by many historical figures in Church history, and actual Catholic Catechism records, all to make his case. I can’t think of even one “personal opinion” unsupported by history or biblical precedence in his view.

Again, he is not alone, there are many theologians who side with him. I like his approach because he is very methodical in his layout of the material.

Again, one paragraph is all I quoted. You’ll have to get the book if you want to know why I am so compelled with him over who you call the “saints.” These saints who lived in that era, as you put it, in our view, were very much far removed from the Apostolic mindset. Boettner did a good job to show an evolutionary progression of theology, over long periods of time by the CC. Of course, as today, each pope decrees a matter all to make huge doctrinal changes from that of the Apostles, though I know you will disagree on that point.

 

[tgGodsway]

On the contrary, this is a phenomenon which is overcome by the Catholic methodology. You and I look at the same Scriptures and come to very different conclusions. This is a situation which you should have discerned even within Protestant circles. That is why there are so many Protestant denominations, today.

But, Jesus Christ established one Teaching Church. One authority to Teach all that He commanded.

I hear this a lot from Catholics. Am I wrong to say that you believe since we have the Methodist denomination, the Baptist, the Presbyterians etc. … we’re all divided?.. therefore we should be dismissed as un-authoritative. Do you believe this?..

So that when you see the many denominations, you interpret this as a weakness, not a strength. I don’t know if you personally see it this way, but I know most on this site do.

I do not see the many different views as a weakness at all. In general, every single one of them agree on what we would consider to be “essentials of the faith,” a topic also found in scripture. Each denomination is one small slice in a universal pie, even if you do not believe it.

But more to the point, we have a freedom of thought and expression the Catholic Church is restricted from having. Why do we? because we have the very same Holy Spirit working through us as you. He is our teacher of the scriptures as He stated in 1st. John.

When the official teachers of the CC arrive at a conclusion about any particular doctrine, it gets settled into the official view of the Church as the truth! even if other Catholics/protestants could never see it exactly the way it was settled.

Those dissenting voices are dismissed and overruled and made to submit because the official teaching of the church must be insolated from any scrutiny. After all, the pope and the cardinal- bishops are all practically infallible when they speak doctrine, I’m told. But anyone else (outside your teaching circle) is viewed as having less impartation of the Holy Spirit than them. What else could it be? This is a pride mistake.

There is only one group of people who could ever take such a posture, unapologetically. It was the Apostolic circle. When they spoke doctrine we all must yield. If we disagree,… we are wrong! We must make the adjustments. But those same foundational believers left us a divine record that would not corrupt in each generation.

You say, we both can look at a verse of scripture and get different meaning. yes!.. we BOTH have the burden to NOT read into the text our preconceived bias. Many protestants do… but so do the Catholics. … You read your interpretation from the lens of your tradition. We do the same, but should not. We must approach scripture without any bias. We must trust the author’s transcending message for each generation, even if it flies right in the face of our tradition. Protestants are just as guilty as Catholics on this, … but the Catholics are guilty of it… Good bible Hermeneutics forces us to retrieve what the Holy Spirit wanted us to retrieve.

 

[De_Maria]

Boettner didn’t just say this one thing.

I’ve read the book, tg. I debunked it years ago. Unfortunately, the work was on a pc that eventually died and I don’t think I have a copy. I wish I did and we could go over it point by point.

His book, along with many other scholarly writings paints a much bigger picture showing the wealth of evidence against the “papacy” position.

Boettner mixed lies with truth very well. But the bottom line is that he lied throughout his book.

I gave you just one small paragraph on this one topic. His arguments are also supported by many historical figures in Church history, and actual Catholic Catechism records, all to make his case. I can’t think of even one “personal opinion” unsupported by history or biblical precedence in his view.

No, all that he did was mix lies with the truth.

Again, he is not alone, there are many theologians who side with him.

Many Protestant theologians.

I like his approach because he is very methodical in his layout of the material.

That makes it easy to look at actual history and compare.

Again, one paragraph is all I quoted. You’ll have to get the book if you want to know why I am so compelled with him over who you call the “saints.”

I threw it away with the trash.

These saints who lived in that era, as you put it, in our view, were very much far removed from the Apostolic mindset.

On the contrary, they were infused with the Holy Spirit.

Boettner did a good job to show an evolutionary progression of theology, over long periods of time by the CC.

He did a good job of misrepresenting Christian history. See CA’s debunk.

Of course, as today, each pope decrees a matter all to make huge doctrinal changes from that of the Apostles, though I know you will disagree on that point.

The Catholic Church has never changed any Doctrines. She merely explains them with more and more precision.

Well, I’m not surprised that we have totally different impressions of this book. We have the same of the Bible. But, as for me, I will accept the witness and testimony of the Saints over people with an obvious bias who are many centuries removed from the facts.

 

[De_Maria]

I hear this a lot from Catholics. Am I wrong to say that you believe since we have the Methodist denomination, the Baptist, the Presbyterians etc. … we’re all divided?.. therefore we should be dismissed as un-authoritative. Do you believe this?..

Yes.

So that when you see the many denominations, you interpret this as a weakness, not a strength.

I consider it a sin against the unity which Jesus prayed for.

I don’t know if you personally see it this way, but I know most on this site do.

See above.

I do not see the many different views as a weakness at all. In general, every single one of them agree on what we would consider to be “essentials of the faith,” a topic also found in scripture.

Except that we can ask the Protestants here what they consider the essentials and we will have many different answers. Just look at the discussion you, TULIPed and others were having with Johan. I suppose you were debating an essential. The need to do good works and avoid sin, after being justified. The need to become holy.

Each denomination is one small slice in a universal pie, even if you do not believe it.

I do. But the universal pie is not the Church which Jesus Christ established. It is the world. Those who reject the Catholic Church will be judged with the rest of the world.

But more to the point, we have a freedom of thought and expression the Catholic Church is restricted from having. Why do we? because we have the very same Holy Spirit working through us as you. He is our teacher of the scriptures as He stated in 1st. John.

The Holy Spirit is God. And God does not contradict Himself.

cont’d

 

[De_Maria]

cont’d

When the official teachers of the CC arrive at a conclusion … even if other Catholics/protestants could never see it exactly the way it was settled.

Correct.

Those dissenting voices are dismissed …

It has been scrutinized. But now the matter is settled. That’s the problem with Protestantism. Nothing is ever settled. Every generation debates the same things, over and over again.

2 Timothy 3:7 always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth.

The Catholic Church studies something, debates it and then settles it.

After all, the pope and the cardinal- bishops are all practically infallible when they speak doctrine, I’m told. But anyone else (outside your teaching circle) is viewed as having less impartation of the Holy Spirit than them. What else could it be? This is a pride mistake.

On the contrary, we recognize that these people have dedicated themselves to God.

1 Corinthians 2:15 The person with the Spirit makes judgments about all things, but such a person is not subject to merely human judgments,

There is only one group of people who could ever take such a posture, unapologetically. It was the Apostolic circle. When they spoke doctrine we all must yield. If we disagree,… we are wrong! We must make the adjustments. But those same foundational believers left us a divine record that would not corrupt in each generation.

That’s a strange position. I know that is what Protestants believe. But Jesus expected His Word to be taught in all generations. Not just in the first.

John 17:20 “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one—

You say, we both can look at a verse of scripture and get different meaning. yes!.. we BOTH have the burden to NOT read into the text our preconceived bias.

You’re wrong. If I believed that, then I would not believe the true history of Christianity.

Jesus Christ established one Church. And He commanded that one Church to pass on His Teachings. This Church wrote the New Testament. What you call our preconceived ideas are Jesus Christ’s Teachings.

You have preconceived ideas which you are reading into the Scriptures.

Many protestants do… but so do the Catholics. … You read your interpretation from the lens of your tradition.

The New Testament is the product of Catholic Tradition.

We do the same, but should not. We must approach scripture without any bias.

If and when you do, you will become Catholic.

We must trust the author’s transcending message for each generation, even if it flies right in the face of our tradition.

You don’t. “not by faith alone” James 2:24

Protestants are just as guilty as Catholics on this, … but the Catholics are guilty of it…

No, Catholics are not. Protestants are. The New Testament is the product of Catholic Tradition.

 

[poche]

Origin is said to have mutilated himself so that he not commit sins against chastity.