Sola Scriptura

[hlgomez]

Raymond Brown:
Obviously, first-century Christians would not have thought in terms of jurisdiction or of many other features that have been associated with the papacy over the centuries…(Responses to 101 Questions on the Bible (Mahwah, New Jersey: Paulist Press, 1990), p. 134)

Klaus Schatz:
There appears at the present time to be increasing consensus among Catholic and non-Catholic exegetes regarding the Petrine office in the New Testament….(Papal Primacy (Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1996 pp. 1-2)

Brian,

In this I wish to return to the Sacred Scriptures, since no amount of Patristic writings will convince you (and your quoted scholars) of Peter’s primacy, and I guess the holy Bible is the common ground of all, since all Patristic writings on Peter’s Primacy was summed up from the words of the Lord, which is found in the Bible.

Matt. to Rev. - Peter is mentioned 155 times and the rest of apostles combined are only mentioned 130 times. Peter is also always listed first except in 1 Cor. 3:22 and Gal. 2:9 (which are exceptions to the rule).
**
Matt. 10:2; Mark 1:36; 3:16; Luke 6:14-16; Acts 1:3; 2:37; 5:29 - these are some of many examples where Peter is mentioned first among the apostles.

Matt. 16:16, Mark 8:29; John 6:69 - Peter is first among the apostles to confess the divinity of Christ.

Matt. 16:17 - Peter alone is told he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation from God the Father.

*Matt. 16:19 - only Peter receives the keys, which represent authority over the Church and facilitate dynastic succession to his authority. *

*Matt. 17:24-25 - the tax collector approaches Peter for Jesus’ tax. Peter is the spokesman for Jesus. He is the Vicar of Christ. *

*Matt. 18:21 - in the presence of the disciples, Peter asks Jesus about the rule of forgiveness. One of many examples where Peter takes a leadership role among the apostles in understanding Jesus’ teachings. *

Matt. 19:27 - Peter speaks on behalf of the apostles by telling Jesus that they have left everything to follow Him.
**
Luke 9:28;33 - Peter is mentioned first as going to mountain of transfiguration and the only one to speak at the transfiguration.

*Luke 22:31-32 - Jesus prays for Peter alone, that his faith may not fail, and charges him to strengthen the rest of the apostles. *
**
John 6:68 - after the disciples leave, Peter is the first to speak and confess his belief in Christ after the Eucharistic discourse.
**
John 21:2-3,11 - Peter leads the fishing and his net does not break. The boat (the “barque of Peter”) is a metaphor for the Church.

John 21:15 - in front of the apostles, Jesus asks Peter if he loves Jesus “more than these,” which refers to the other apostles. Peter is the head of the apostolic see.

John 21:15-17 - Jesus charges Peter to “feed my lambs,” “tend my sheep,” “feed my sheep.” Sheep means all people, even the apostles.
**
Acts 1:15 - Peter initiates the selection of a successor to Judas right after Jesus ascended into heaven, and no one questions him. Further, if the Church needed a successor to Judas, wouldn’t it need one to Peter? Of course
**
continued.

Pio

 

[hlgomez]

Acts 2:14 - Peter is first to speak for the apostles after the Holy Spirit descended upon them at Pentecost. Peter is the first to preach the Gospel.
*
Acts 2:38 - Peter gives first preaching in the early Church on repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ.

Acts 3:6-7 - Peter works the first healing of the apostles.
**
Acts 5:3 - Peter declares the first anathema of Ananias and Sapphira which is ratified by God, and brings about their death. Peter exercises his binding authority.

Acts 5:15 - Peter’s shadow has healing power. No other apostle is said to have this power.
**
Acts 8:14 - Peter is mentioned first in conferring the sacrament of confirmation.

Acts 10:5 - Cornelius is told by an angel to call upon Peter. Angels are messengers of God. Peter was granted this divine vision.

*Acts 10:34-48, 11:1-18 - Peter is first to teach about salvation for all (Jews and Gentiles). *
**
Acts 12:6-11 - Peter is freed from jail by an angel. He is the first object of divine intervention in the early Church.
**
Acts 15:7-12 - Peter resolves the first doctrinal issue on circumcision at the Church’s first council at Jerusalem, and no one questions him. After Peter the Papa spoke, all were kept silent.

Acts 15:12 - only after Peter (the Pope) speaks do Paul and Barnabas (bishops) speak in support of Peter’s definitive teaching.
**
Gal.1:18 - Paul spends fifteen days with Peter privately before beginning his ministry, even after Christ’s Revelation to Paul.

1 Peter 5:13 - Some Protestants argue against the Papacy by trying to prove Peter was never in Rome. First, this argument is irrelevant to whether Jesus instituted the Papacy. Secondly, this verse demonstrates that Peter was in fact in Rome. Peter writes from “Babylon” which was a code name for Rome during these days of persecution. See, for example, Rev. 14:8, 16:19, 17:5, 18:2,10,21, which show that “Babylon” meant Rome. Rome was the only “great city” of the New Testament period. Because Rome during this age was considered the center of the world, the Lord wanted His Church to be established in Rome.
**
Matt. 23:11; Mark 9:35; 10:44 - yet Peter, as the first, humbled himself to be the last and servant of all servants.

Let us not, therefore, alter the wish of our Lord.

Pio
Source (scripturecatholic.com)

**
**
*

 

[hlgomez]

You claimed all RC teachings came from the Apostles. I simply asked for proof. If you have none, just admit it. BTW…many of the earliest church fathers who comment on Mary contradict the IC. Just more proof against your false statement.

Brian

Brian,

I noticed your dislike of Mary, and you mention Mary most often in your arguments, and as though, she has become the object of your objections against the Catholic Church.

Don’t you have proper discernment for what you are doing to the Mother of Christ? Saying, in most of your opinions, that what was declared to Mary by the Church is nothing but inventions, and therefore fall short of becoming evil? For, if you are unaware, you are declaring what is good as evil, and maybe you will also declare that what is evil is good (and I hope I’m wrong).

Are you not aware that the very same Mary (and her seed) “the Woman” prophesied in the first book of the Bible (Genesis), will battle against the Serpent? And that also in the last book of the Bible, again pictured the battle between the Woman and the Dragon, the Ancient Serpent? Who do you wish to belong to? And why dislike so much this Woman?

If you then, until now, doubt who this Woman is, both prophesied in the first and last book of the Bible, take the words of our Lord Himself. For refering to His Mother “Woman” is sufficient for us to know that this Woman prophesied is, indeed, Mary.

If the Catholic Church indeed had declared Mary to be sinless, it is not the invention of the Church, but the revelation that comes from the holy Spirit. For from the time Mary was born, she was in battle against Satan, who trapped the first Eve with lies, and thus sinned. But the Second Eve, Mary, thru the working of God, was kept undefiled, for she is to bore with her the second Adam–Christ–who was also sinless. For as the first Adam and Eve came into the world sinless, and in the process sinned thru disobedience, these new Adam and new Eve will also come sinless, and will remain sinless thru their obedience.

How can you justify before the throne of the Most High that you love Him, but hate His Mother? Honor His Mother the way He honors her in a perfect way.

Pio

 

[brianberean]

Pax:

That’s irrelevant. The scripture is inherently applicable. The other interesting thing about this set of verses is the statement that Eliakim will be a “father” to the people. Just as Pope means papa.

It is very relevent in this context. We are discussing the views of the ECFs and using a verse from Scripture to defend the papacy that was never used by the ECFs to defend the papacy does not adequately reflect the views of the ECFs.

Brian

 

[brianberean]

hlgomez:

Brian,

In this I wish to return to the Sacred Scriptures, since no amount of Patristic writings will convince you (and your quoted scholars) of Peter’s primacy, and I guess the holy Bible is the common ground of all, since all Patristic writings on Peter’s Primacy was summed up from the words of the Lord, which is found in the Bible.

Matt. to Rev. - Peter is mentioned 155 times and the rest of apostles combined are only mentioned 130 times. Peter is also always listed first except in 1 Cor. 3:22 and Gal. 2:9 (which are exceptions to the rule).

You, and the author you borrowed these reponses from (Dave Armstrong?) appear to be suffering from Peter Syndrome (defined and coined by James White); that being the tendency on the part of Roman Catholics to interpret all of the Bible (including the Old Testament) as well as all of Church History in the light of modern Petrine claims on the part of Rome. The result of this is that any mention of Peter, be it in the NT, or in the writings of an early Father, is automatically transferred in the thought and conclusions of the writer to the person of the Bishop of Rome. Despite the fact that there is no logical or historical reason to make such a huge leap.

Peter does have some unique characteristics, but so does Paul. If someone really caught a bad case of the Paul Syndrome and wanted to make a case for Paul being the first pope one could come up with the following list:

Paul is referred to in Scripture more times than Peter.

Paul is the only apostle who is called God’s chosen vessel who will bear His name before Jews and Gentiles (Acts 9:15).

Paul is the last apostle chosen by God, apart from the other twelve.

The resurrected Christ appears to Paul in a different way than He appeared to the other apostles (Acts 9:3-6).

Paul is the only apostle who publicly rebukes and corrects another apostle (Galatians 2:11).

Paul is the only apostle who refers to his authority over all the churches (1 Corinthians 4:17, 7:17, 2 Corinthians 11:28).

Paul is the only apostle to call himself “father” (1 Corinthians 4:15).

Paul is the steward of God’s grace (Ephesians 3:2). This means that Paul is the overseer of salvation. Fellowship with Paul and his successors is necessary for salvation.

Paul is mentioned more in the New Testament than any other apostle.

The book of Acts, which mentions all of the apostles, discusses Paul more than any other apostle.

Paul was the first apostle to write a book of scripture.

Paul wrote more books of the New Testament than any other apostle.

Paul is the first apostle to be taken to Heaven to receive a revelation (2 Corinthians 12:1-4).

Paul is the only apostle Satan was concerned about enough to give him a thorn in the flesh (2 Corinthians 12:7).

Paul seems to have suffered for Christ more than any other apostle (2 Corinthians 11:21-33).

I have about 35 more reasons to support a Pauline Papacy if you want to see them. members.aol.com/jasonte3/paul51.htm

The moral of the story is twofold: If you start reading Scripture with an agenda you will probably find support for it. And just because someone has unique characteristics that doesn’t make them the Vicar of Christ.

Brian

 

[brianberean]

hlgomez:

Brian,

I noticed your dislike of Mary, and you mention Mary most often in your arguments, and as though, she has become the object of your objections against the Catholic Church.

I love Mary. She is blessed! What I dislike are the unbiblical teachings of the RCC concerning Mary.

Don’t you have proper discernment for what you are doing to the Mother of Christ? Saying, in most of your opinions, that what was declared to Mary by the Church is nothing but inventions, and therefore fall short of becoming evil? For, if you are unaware, you are declaring what is good as evil, and maybe you will also declare that what is evil is good (and I hope I’m wrong).

You are the one who needs discernment concerning the mother of Christ. The unbiblical teachings of the RCC that have risen to near idolatry are shameful and no doubt cause Christ much sadness.

Are you not aware that the very same Mary (and her seed) “the Woman” prophesied in the first book of the Bible (Genesis), will battle against the Serpent? And that also in the last book of the Bible, again pictured the battle between the Woman and the Dragon, the Ancient Serpent? Who do you wish to belong to? And why dislike so much this Woman?

Mary will not battle against the serpent. If you are speaking of Gen 3:15 that is a translation error that has been acknowledged by most scholars today and changed in most bible editions.

How can you justify before the throne of the Most High that you love Him, but hate His Mother? Honor His Mother the way He honors her in a perfect way.

You are very reckless with your words, doesn’t Scripture say we will be held accountable for every reckless word? Now I hate Mary because I argue against the unbiblical teachings of the RCC concerning her? Keep up these irresponsible accusations and we won’t be conversing much longer, I won’t contribute to your sin.

Brian

 

[brianberean]

The quote from Clement of Rome is evidence that this ECF did not beleive in the mandatory confession to a priest. He speaks of confessing directly to God which is what most Protestants beleive.

Brian

 

[PhilVaz]

BrianBerean << We are discussing the views of the ECFs and using a verse from Scripture to defend the papacy that was never used by the ECFs to defend the papacy >>

You’re being attacked from all sides…anyway what’s the point? Not every Father – from the extant writings we have – even commented on Isaiah 22, but the connection of Isaiah 22 (the Chief Steward or Prime Minister) to Peter and the giving of the keys is noticed by many Protestant scholars today –

M. Eugene Boring [Disciples of Christ], The New Interpreter’s Bible [Abingdon Press, 1995], volume 8, page 346)

Francis Wright Beare [Presbyterian/Reformed], The Gospel According to Matthew [Harper and Row, 1981], page 355-356

Eduard Schweizer [Presbyterian/Reformed], The Good News According to Matthew [John Knox Press, 1975], page 343

George Arthur Buttrick, et al The Interpreter’s Bible [Abingdon Press, 1951], volume 7, page 453

And I’ll quote Albright/Mann in full:

“Isaiah 22:15ff undoubtedly lies behind this saying. The keys are the symbol of authority, and Roland de Vaux [Ancient Israel, tr. by John McHugh, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1961] rightly sees here the same authority as that vested in the vizier, the master of the house, the chamberlain, of the royal household in ancient Israel. Eliakim is described as having the same authority in Isaiah; it was Hilkiah’s position until he was ousted, and Jotham as regent is also described as ‘over the household’ [2 Kings 15:5]…It is of considerable importance that in other contexts, when the disciplinary affairs of the community are being discussed [cf. Matt 18:18; John 20:23] the symbol of the keys is absent, since the sayings apply in those instances to a wider circle…The role of Peter as steward of the Kingdom is further explained as being the exercise of administrative authority, as was the case of the OT chamberlain who held the ‘keys.’ The clauses ‘on earth,’ ‘in heaven’, have reference to the permanent character of the steward’s work.” (Albright/Mann, The Anchor Bible: Matthew, page 196-197)

These are ones I personally looked up and verified myself. There are many others: R.T. France, J. Jeremias [Lutheran] in Kittel, the evangelical New Bible Commentary, Brown/Reumann [Catholic/Lutheran dialogue] Peter in the NT, Richard Gardner [Brethren/Mennonite], and finally F.F. Bruce.

All found here in unfinished response to McCarthy’s book

It’s Protestant scholars that make the Isaiah 22 connection.

Forget Klaus Schatz, forget Philip Schaff. Please go to Dom John Chapman if you want the best defense of the early Papacy

St. Augustine and the Papacy

Phil P

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

brianberean:

You seem to be saying that nobody can correctly interpret Scripture without the RCC. How did you come to the conclusion that the RCC is the one true church? If you are a cradle catholic, how do you conclude that the RCC is the correct “infallible” interpreter of Scripture? Why not the Eastern Orthodox or Mormons or JWs?

Good question. It can’t be the Mormons or JW’s because they are too new. The infallible interpreter of Scripture would have to go at least as far back as the time that the canon of the NT was decided upon. It would also stand to reason that the infallible decider of the canon of scripture would also be the infallible interpretor of said scriptures which exludes the Eastern Orthodox church.

What church do you believe is the God-ordained upholder, protector and defender of the truth (1 Tim 3:15)?

Where do you come up with 25,000? What proof do you have that all 25,000 “can’t agree with each other”? What is your source (evidence)?

Each of the tens of thousands of denominations must disagree with all the others in at least one way otherwise there would have been no need to break off and start a new denomination.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

TheTruth:

that ONLY means that there are 25001 interpretations…it just so happens that your interpretation includes a ton of stuff that doesn’t appear ANYWHERE in the bible.

Every Christian denomination, without exception, holds as truth things that aren’t explicitly in the bible. The difference is that Catholics acknowledge it and give it a name…Tradition.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

brianberean:

I have faith in God the Father, Jesus Christ our savior and the Holy Spirit. I have faith in the promises made to believers in God’s Word (God-breathed Scripture). That’s why I don’t need to follow the clearly unScriptural teachings of the RCC

Brian

Unscriptural doesn’t necessarily mean ANTI-scriptural, but EXTRA-biblical. You DO follow extra-biblical Catholic teaching. It’s called the canon of scripture.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[fulloftruth]

Brian I see you want ECF evidence for the Isaiah 22 reference and while I do not Know if any exists, if it does not, it would only mean that everyone knew that Peter was the Prime Minister, and that the absurd Idea of questioning his seats’ authority had not yet wasted the ECF’s time. Too bad you weren’t around then so we would have such a defense.

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

TheTruth:

ALL of your assertions are offered as truths, but with NO INDEPENDANT VERIFYABLE proof. The only proof you can assert for your statements are church teachings…that makes them suspect.

That’s like saying that Hyundai makes the best cars…Hyundai Motor Coproration said so.

The fact remains that catholics have asserted that they are the only true church…it is therefore their responsibility to offer irrefutable proof of this assertion, something that has yet to be accomplished…

For the sake of discussion let’s say that the Catholic Church is out of the running for “true church”.

There are a few things we know about this true church:

1. It was built by Jesus Christ himself (Matt 16:18) which means that the “true church” must be about 2000 years old.
2. Jesus only built ONE church (Matt 16:18).
3. This church is the God -ordained upholder, protector and defender of the truth (1 Tim 3:15).
4. This church is the fullness of Christ (Eph 1:22-23) which means that it is also the fullness of truth (John 14:6).
5. The unity of this church will be proof to the world that Jesus was sent by God (John 17:21,23). In order for this unity to be seen by the world this church must be a visible church.
6. The unity of this church must be a unity like that which exists between Jesus and the Father (John 17:21-23), therefore there can be no contradictions in doctrine. The Father and the Son do not disagree on doctrine therefore neither can the “true church”.
7. This church can never change what it proclaims to be true. Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever (Heb 13:8) therefore truth is the same yesterday, today and forever (John 14:6).

With the Catholic Church out of the running and taking the above into consideration, if I was to walk into a local branch of the “true church” this Sunday, which would you specifically recommend and why?

Thanks!

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

(I was catholic for 30+ years, and a Knight of Columbus I might add)

Brian, why’d ya leave?

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[E.E.N.S]

Very well put, Nancy, if I do say so myself

 

[montanaman]

Brian,

The Pauline “evidence” looks to me like you’re trying to build a case for “impeccability,” not “infallibility.” It seems as though you think Catholics build a case for the primacy of Peter based on merely the number of times he’s mentioned, or because he’s somehow “better” than the rest. That simply isn’t true. We mention the frequency of Peter in Scripture because it’s always in conjunction with his “ranking,” not merely because he’s mentioned a bunch of times.

Just looking cursorily over your evidence for the primacy of Paul, it falls apart pretty quickly.

Paul is referred to in Scripture more times than Peter.

So? That’s not what we build our case on. Peter is usually mentioned first, or being deferred to, etc…

Paul is the only apostle who is called God’s chosen vessel who will bear His name before Jews and Gentiles (Acts 9:15).

The other Apostles weren’t God’s chosen vessels? Even when He sent them forth to preach to all nations?

Paul is the last apostle chosen by God, apart from the other twelve.

Saving the best for last? Is that your assumption? Okay, I’ll grant that, if you can show me from Scripture where the last chosen person is supposed to be the best, and how that invalidates Christ’s establishing the Church on Peter…

The resurrected Christ appears to Paul in a different way than He appeared to the other apostles (Acts 9:3-6).

What is this supposed to prove?

Paul is the only apostle who publicly rebukes and corrects another apostle (Galatians 2:11).

Paul still went to the Church after being chosen directly by Christ.

Paul is the only apostle who refers to his authority over all the churches (1 Corinthians 4:17, 7:17, 2 Corinthians 11:28).

He may refer to his authority over the other churches, but then, so could Peter or any of the other Apostles.

Paul is the only apostle to call himself “father” (1 Corinthians 4:15).

If Christ had referred to Peter as a “father,” that might mean something. But all this is is one recorded instance of Paul referring to himself as such. Of course we grant that that title is accurate, but it’s also accurate of all the other Apostles. Merely referring to himself as such isn’t much.

Paul is the steward of God’s grace (Ephesians 3:2). This means that Paul is the overseer of salvation. Fellowship with Paul and his successors is necessary for salvation.

Paul is the overseer of salvation? Are you sure you want to make theological hay with that? If WE’D made that assertion, you would be squirming out if it in seconds. Still, it makes sense, because Paul was part of the Church—as were the other Apostles and their successors.

Continued…

Paul is mentioned more in the New Testament than any other apostle.

Didn’t we already cover that?

The book of Acts, which mentions all of the apostles, discusses Paul more than any other apostle.

Again, a mere word count with a high number of Pauline mentions doesn’t mean anything. I know Catholic writers who are frequently cited, but that doesn’t mean they have more authority than, say, the Apostles.

Continued…

 

[montanaman]

Paul was the first apostle to write a book of scripture.

I didn’t know that was the criteria. Where in Scripture does it say writing a letter first gives you primacy?

Paul wrote more books of the New Testament than any other apostle.

See above.

Paul is the first apostle to be taken to Heaven to receive a revelation (2 Corinthians 12:1-4).

But Peter had already been given the authority to bind and loose, not to mention the fact that he’d already been given the keys. So, it’s neat that Paul got that special favor, but Peter had already been tagged by Christ as the rock upon which the Church would be built.

Paul is the only apostle Satan was concerned about enough to give him a thorn in the flesh (2 Corinthians 12:7).

Primacy or authority is incumbent upon Satan’s involvement? We’ll just let that be…

Paul seems to have suffered for Christ more than any other apostle (2 Corinthians 11:21-33).

Perhaps. But Peter chose to be crucified upside down. Oh, wait, sorry…That’s one of those traditions…

I have about 35 more reasons to support a Pauline Papacy if you want to see them. members.aol.com/jasonte3/paul51.htm

Nah. If they’re anything like this, there’s really no point.

The moral of the story is twofold: If you start reading Scripture with an agenda you will probably find support for it.

True. You should think long and hard about that. What’s more likely—Christ establishes and earthly authority only to see it torn asunder within the lifetime of the Apostles, only to have it restored a millennium and a half later, or, that earthly authority has been teaching consistently ever since, breathed through with the Holy Spirit? Which sounds more like the result of reading Scripture with an agenda?

And just because someone has unique characteristics that doesn’t make them the Vicar of Christ.

Agreed. But when someone is given authority by Christ, and he is placed prominently by Scripture writers around 30 times, it lends to a certain conclusion…

Obviously, this wasn’t a theological treatise on authority. I went through the trouble to hopefully show you that you misunderstand our reasons for highlighting Peter’s frequency in Scripture. Merely showing that he appeared many times doesn’t make our case. It’s made when you consider HOW he was mentioned. And, we’re not trying to prove that he’s a great guy–only that he had authority.

Your Pauline evidence seems intended to prove what a helluva guy Paul was. I’d agree. But it doesn’t make him the boss.

 

[brianberean]

hlgomez:

Brian,

First of all, who was Lactantius referring to when he wrote this statement? Was he not referring to the Greeks who worship pagan idols living during that time? People worshipping Hercules, Hermes, Apollo, Neptune, etc.? And those people worshiped these very idols? You are taking Lactantius statement out of context and throw it to Catholics. Put your mind in the situtation where Lactantius is before you quote his words, for you are far way unfair to his statements.

Lactantius is anti-images for the reason you state. That this translated over to veneration of images as the RCC teaches today is proclaimed by Catholic theologian Ludwig Ott:

“Owing to the influence of the Old Testament prohibition of images, Christian veneration of images developed only after the victory of the Church over paganism. The Synod of Elvira (about 306) still prohibited figurative representations in the houses of God (Can. 36).” (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma [Rockford, Illinois: Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., 1974], p. 320)

More evidence:

Tertullian wrote:
“For how could he [Peter on the Mount of Transfiguration] have known Moses and Elias, except by being in the Spirit? People could not have had their images, or statues, or likenesses; for that the law forbade.” (Against Marcion, 4:22)

“Moreover, I have heard that certain persons have this grievance against me: When I accompanied you to the holy place called Bethel, there to join you in celebrating the Collect, after the use of the Church, I came to a villa called Anablatha and, as I was passing, saw a lamp burning there. Asking what place it was, and learning it to be a church, I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. **It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loth that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ’s church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person. ** They, however, murmured, and said that if I made up my mind to tear it, it was only fair that I should give them another curtain in its place. As soon as I heard this, I promised that I would give one, and said that I would send it at once. Since then there has been some little delay, due to the fact that I have been seeking a curtain of the best quality to give to them instead of the former one, and thought it right to send to Cyprus for one. I have now sent the best that I could find, and I beg that you will order the presbyter of the place to take the curtain which I have sent from the hands of the Reader, and that you will afterwards give directions that curtains of the other sort–opposed as they are to our religion–shall not be hung up in any church of Christ. A man of your uprightness should be careful to remove an occasion of offence unworthy alike of the Church of Christ and of those Christians who are committed to your charge.” - Epiphanius (Jerome’s Letter 51:9)

In addition to your argument above, quoting the dear words of one of the fathers of the Church, are you unaware that you are borrowing words written by a Catholic Christian?

These “Catholic Christians” didn’t venerate images, didn’t beleive the bishop of Rome was infallible or had universal jurisdiction, they didn’t beleive in the Assumption or the IC (Tertullian). They had some things in common with me.

Brian

 

[brianberean]

Catholic4aReasn:

Good question. It can’t be the Mormons or JW’s because they are too new. The infallible interpreter of Scripture would have to go at least as far back as the time that the canon of the NT was decided upon. It would also stand to reason that the infallible decider of the canon of scripture would also be the infallible interpretor of said scriptures which exludes the Eastern Orthodox church.

The Mormons and JWs don’t consider “newness” an obstacle. Neither did the Apostles…

Would the infallible interpreter need to go back at least as far as the OT was correctly recognized and protected? If not, why? How did a Jew living 50 years before Christ know that the book of Isaiah was inspired?

What church do you believe is the God-ordained upholder, protector and defender of the truth (1 Tim 3:15)?

Secret: I heard that 1 Tim 3:15 was (in context) referring to a local church. Shhh…

Each of the tens of thousands of denominations must disagree with all the others in at least one way otherwise there would have been no need to break off and start a new denomination.

You are simply wrong. Many churches simply do not view belonging to a denomination or having a central hierarchal government important. And where do you come up with “tens of thousands”, do you have evidence for that figure?

Brian

 

[brianberean]

Catholic4aReasn:

Unscriptural doesn’t necessarily mean ANTI-scriptural, but EXTRA-biblical. You DO follow extra-biblical Catholic teaching. It’s called the canon of scripture.

In Christ,
Nancy

I have no problem acknowledging that God used a fallible NT era church to correctly recognize and protect his NT canon. He did the same thing for the OT when He used the fallible Jews to correctly recognize and protect it.

Brian