The "Catholic System" Puts Us Under The Law

[geno75]

- or maybe
I don’t think .

Words that sound like self-interpretation.

 

[JaneFrances]

"Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole church. So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the church which he once received "
First Vatican Council
There is no room for development. According to this the first person to succeed Peter would primacy over the whole church.

Once again, Fred, you have shown an extraordinary misunderstanding of the development of doctrine.

You are citing the First Vatican Council, which would OF COURSE have a more well expounded and explicit explanation of papal succession and Roman primacy than a 1st or 2nd century document! You have proven nothing against papal succession and Roman primacy here, but only managed to point out the obvious: The First Vatican Council affirms papal succession and the Roman primacy.

Since a thorough reading of Newman’s Essay may prove too time consuming for you at this juncture, I would offer this statement from the reputable 19th century Protestant historian Philip Schaff. He has no interest in supporting the Catholic position, of course, but he does a fairly good job of expaining how the deveopment of doctrine is understood throughout Church history. In his General Introduction to his multi-volume History of the Christian Church (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1975, rep. of 1910 ed. from Scribner’s, New York, p. 10), he writes:

. . . the mind of the Church has gradually apprehended and unfolded the divine truths of revelation, . . . the teachings of scripture have been formulated and shaped into dogmas, and grown into creeds and confessions of faith, or systems of doctrine stamped with public authority. This growth of the church in the knowledge off the infallible word of God is a constant struggle against error, misbelief, and unbelief; and the history of heresies is an essential part of the history of doctrines.

Every important dogma now professed by the Christian church is the result of a severe conflict with error. The doctrine of the holy Trinity, for instance, was believed from the beginning, but it required, in addition to the preparatory labors of the ante-Nicene age, fifty years of controversy, in which the strongest intellects were absorbed, until it was brought to the clear expression of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. The Christological conflict was equally long and intense, until it was brought to a settlement by the council of Chalcedon.

To assert that “there is no room for development” based on the fact that a council in 1870 had a better formulated explanation of a particular doctrine than 1st or 2nd century Church Fathers is simply weak.

None of the quotes show that the person who succeeded Peter and Paul in Rome, or Peter in Antioch was viewed as being the successor of the whole church. All of the quotes about Peter and Paul relate only to Rome and nothing about the universal church.

That’s quite a statement, Fred. Sure you want to make it that specific?

How 'bout:

“. . .we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul. . .**For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. . .” ** (Irenaeus [3, 3, 2])

Here, St. Irenaeus is quite clear, I’ll even repeat it: “By pointing out here the successions of bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul. . .For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world.”

Hmmm. . .now, what did you need for it to say? Oh, right. . .something about the successors being over the universal church. I think “all the faithful in the whole world” may qualify.

 

[JaneFrances]

AND, so that we aren’t just depending on one quotation. . .

“**to the Church also which holds the presidency in the place of the country of the Romans, ** worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because of you hold the presidency of love, named after Jesus Christ and named after the Father.” (Ignatius’ letter to the Romans, A.D. 110)

Iganatius, too, is just so pointed.

Later in this same letter, he states

I am writing to all the Churches and I enjoin all. . .

So, he means for this letter addressed to the Roman Church to be of instruction to “all the Churches.”

Now, what is it exactly that he’s trying to communicate to the Roman Church that he wants all the Churches to hear?

“You [the Roman Church] have envied no one; but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force.”

Do you know what “enjoined” means, Fred? It goes a little something like this: to direct or impose by authoritative order or with urgent admonition

There’s something lost in translation here, but basically Ignatius is telling Rome: you have no other Church to envy (a figure of speech, indicating a position of supremacy). . .you are in a position of teaching authority. . .your instructions are to be heeded and “remain in force.” Sounds pretty PRIME to me. And since Ignatius makes it clear that he is intending for this message to be for “all the Churches,” he is apparently making a very clear testimony to the universal Church about Rome’s primacy.

I’m stumped, Fred. Tell me again what “proof” were you looking for?

 

[Fredricks]

This thread is not about the primacy of Peter, which I accept, although differently than Catholics to be sure.
If you wish to start a primacy thread Geno, please do so. I am attempting to keep this post biblical historical sources.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Jane is good.

 

[DianJo]

geno75:

Words that sound like self-interpretation.

What you wrote sounds more like self interpretation. I just asked where you came up with those qestions because I’ve never heard them asked about these passages before. I just gave you something else to think about. I thought an exchange of ideas would be a good thing?

 

[LilyM]

geno75:

So tell me, do you believe that God works with his people, his believers in his son Jesus Christ that do not belong to the catholic church? Does he provide for those who call out Jesus’ name that do not belong to the catholic church? Does he love those who call out his name, praise his son Jesus and the Holy Spirit, that do not belong to the catholic church?

Are you saying God opened up salvation to the entire world through shedding of blood his only son, but only through “apostolic succession?” And not by calling out his name?

‘Not everyone who calls me Lord Lord will be saved’ …

(to the Apostles) ‘who hears you hears me …’ and ‘whatever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven, whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven’

Clearly there’s a bit more to this being saved thing than just ‘calling out his name’ as you put it … after all, didn’t demons also call out Jesus’ name?

 

[Church_Militant]

geno75:

So tell me, do you believe that God works with his people, his believers in his son Jesus Christ that do not belong to the catholic church? Does he provide for those who call out Jesus’ name that do not belong to the catholic church? Does he love those who call out his name, praise his son Jesus and the Holy Spirit, that do not belong to the catholic church?

Are you saying God opened up salvation to the entire world through shedding of blood his only son, but only through “apostolic succession?” And not by calling out his name?

Hey, the fact is that the first Christians were indeed Catholics. They used the name in 107 and they believed the very same things that we do today.

If what you have been taught doesn’t line up with what they believed then that isn’t my fault or the Catholic Church’s. The teachings have been there for 2,000 years…

The question for you is, “How important is the truth to me?”
“If what this crazy Catholic is telling me turns out to be verifiably true…what will I do about that knowledge?”
Pax tecum,

 

[valient_Lucy]

geno75:

So tell me, do you believe that God works with his people, his believers in his son Jesus Christ that do not belong to the catholic church? Does he provide for those who call out Jesus’ name that do not belong to the catholic church? Does he love those who call out his name, praise his son Jesus and the Holy Spirit, that do not belong to the catholic church?

Of course. Catholics do not teach that non-Catholic Christians are universally doomed to Hell. The Catholic Church recognizes the Protestant baptism, and believes that they are Christians. This does not mean that ALL Protestants will be in heaven, any more than all Catholics will be in heaven. Nonetheless, Catholics do pray and work for unity of all Christians. After all, Christ prayed that Christians would be one, just as Christ is one with the Father. He also prayed that Christian unity would be a sign to all non-believers, so that all could come to believe in him. He was not simply praying for some sort of “invisible” or “spiritual” unity, but real unity in faith.

geno75:

Are you saying God opened up salvation to the entire world through shedding of blood his only son, but only through “apostolic succession?” And not by calling out his name?

This post shows a misunderstanding of Catholic teaching. Catholics believe that Christ did redeem us on the Cross. That’s why one of the memorial acclamations proclaimed at the Mass says, “Lord, by your Cross and Ressurection, you have set us free. You are the Savior of the world,” or “Dying, you destroyed our death, rising, you restored our life. Lord Jesus, come in glory!”

 

[kleary]

geno75:

If you believe that, then quit downplaying his word, his written word that is.

No one is doing that here. Why don’t you stop your idolatry of giving written copies of God’s Written Word divine power of self sustenance. Why don’t you stop claiming that Scripture contains all truth revealed by God when the Contents of the Word of God is not in there.

geno75:

Why would Jesus expose the importance of a
“office” that one ordinary man would fill in his church to the one who would betray him then go out of his way to tell the same betrayer not to tell anyone who he(Jesus) is. This doesnt make sense at all.

A lot of things don’t make sense to our human minds, namely Almighty God the Son becoming a little baby born in a food trough and executed by His own people dying naked on a tree. Neither does a virgin giving birth or Almighty God being three divine persons.

Ken

 

[AquinasXVI]

geno75:

You call the Church a “system.” Of course! God is not wishy washy. He created natural order in the whole of creation, all the more for order in the spiritual. To think that God desires a free for all-go at it on your own-make your own interpretation church is a serious underestimation of God.

What you need to look at is what’s outside the CC. Every non-catholic church has their own system…but it doesn’t seem like it for every 20 years, they change it…I challenge you to research your own denomination back to its root and see how close your present system is to that.

Then read up on Iganatius of Antioch, Polycarp, Iraneus, et al. and see what system they practiced in the 1st Century.

in XT.