M
mrs_abbott
Guest
I really REALLY need to read some church history. The only thing is that my attention span is next to non-existent. It took me several years before I could really focus on the Bible.
- Status
E
Eden
Guest
Interesting edit.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
Nope, I have the Church. Jesus said to his apostles, “He who hears you, hears me. He who rejects you, rejects the one who sent me.”4th century church councels, is that the best you’ve got. Even I know this was after Romes grab for power.
I have Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium of the Church.
You only have Sola Scriptura.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
“HE WHO HEARS YOU,HEARS ME”,
Luke 10:16
Is it legitimate to use these words of Jesus to support the teaching
commission of the Church? Vatican II said yes strongly, in “Lumen gentium”
P20: “This sacred Council teaches that the Bishops, from divine
institution, have taken the place of the Apostles, as the pastors of the
Church: he who hears them, hears Christ; he who spurns them, spurns Christ,
and Him who sent Christ”. And in LG P 25 the Council even taught that the
Bishops in unison with the successor of Peter and with each other can even
teach infallibly. Pius XII in “Humani generis” (DS 3855) said the same
thing about Lk 10:16: “Nor should we think that the things taught in
Encyclical letters do not of themselves call for assent, on the plea that
in them the Pontiffs do not exercise the Supreme power of their
Magisterium. For these things are taught with the ordinary Magisterium, of
which it is also correct to say: ‘He who hears you,hears me.’” Pius XII
went on to explain that this does not apply to everything in Encyclicals:
it applies only when the Popes in their “Acta” expressly make a judgement
on something that was debated up to then among theologians. Then it is
removed from debate, and falls under the promise of Christ.
An objector asserts: “The Scripture clearly states that Jesus said these
words to the 72 Disciples, among whom were women, and there is no evidence
that any of the 72 were from among the 12 Apostles - no evidence Peter was
among them.” One will look in vain to see where the Scripture “clearly
states” that there were women among that group. And while it does not
mention the 12 or Peter specially, it is unthinkable that they would not be
among the 72 since they were the chosen core of all the followers of Jesus.
So our objector thinks it quite clear Jesus gave authority to women, but
there is no evidence He gave it also to the Apostles!
In reply we note that according to Vatican II: “Since Sacred Scripture must
be read and interpreted by the Same Spirit by whom it was written, to
rightly draw out the sense of the sacred texts, one must look not less
diligently at the content and unity of the whole of Scripture, taking into
account the Tradition of the whole Church, and the analogy of faith.” So,
if we look at the passage in question narrowly, ignoring what Vatican II
calls for, we would say that Jesus indeed did speak to the 72. But there is
much more.
Luke 10:16
Is it legitimate to use these words of Jesus to support the teaching
commission of the Church? Vatican II said yes strongly, in “Lumen gentium”
P20: “This sacred Council teaches that the Bishops, from divine
institution, have taken the place of the Apostles, as the pastors of the
Church: he who hears them, hears Christ; he who spurns them, spurns Christ,
and Him who sent Christ”. And in LG P 25 the Council even taught that the
Bishops in unison with the successor of Peter and with each other can even
teach infallibly. Pius XII in “Humani generis” (DS 3855) said the same
thing about Lk 10:16: “Nor should we think that the things taught in
Encyclical letters do not of themselves call for assent, on the plea that
in them the Pontiffs do not exercise the Supreme power of their
Magisterium. For these things are taught with the ordinary Magisterium, of
which it is also correct to say: ‘He who hears you,hears me.’” Pius XII
went on to explain that this does not apply to everything in Encyclicals:
it applies only when the Popes in their “Acta” expressly make a judgement
on something that was debated up to then among theologians. Then it is
removed from debate, and falls under the promise of Christ.
An objector asserts: “The Scripture clearly states that Jesus said these
words to the 72 Disciples, among whom were women, and there is no evidence
that any of the 72 were from among the 12 Apostles - no evidence Peter was
among them.” One will look in vain to see where the Scripture “clearly
states” that there were women among that group. And while it does not
mention the 12 or Peter specially, it is unthinkable that they would not be
among the 72 since they were the chosen core of all the followers of Jesus.
So our objector thinks it quite clear Jesus gave authority to women, but
there is no evidence He gave it also to the Apostles!
In reply we note that according to Vatican II: “Since Sacred Scripture must
be read and interpreted by the Same Spirit by whom it was written, to
rightly draw out the sense of the sacred texts, one must look not less
diligently at the content and unity of the whole of Scripture, taking into
account the Tradition of the whole Church, and the analogy of faith.” So,
if we look at the passage in question narrowly, ignoring what Vatican II
calls for, we would say that Jesus indeed did speak to the 72. But there is
much more.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
We know that Jesus Himself wanted only a gradual revelation of Himself and
of His Church and mission. He did not at once say: “Before Abraham was, I
am.” Rather, He let the truths be seen gradually, a bit at a time. The
fullness of this revelation was to come with the descent of the Holy
Spirit, as He Himself said in John 16:13: “When He, the Spirit of Truth
comes, He will lead you into all truth.” So here in this Lucan text Jesus
begins, but does not complete His commission. He does, on a trial mission,
give a teaching authority to the 72 so that he who hears them, hears
Jesus. He completed that commission later to Peter and the Twelve,
especially in the words recorded in Matthew 16:19:to Peter alone:
"Whatever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in heaven, and
whatever you shall loose on earth, shall be loosed also in Heaven. Two
fine Protestant scholars, W. F. Albright (in his day often called the Dean
of American Scripture scholars) and C. S. Mann, in “Anchor Bible,
Matthew,” p. 198, write: “Peter’s authority to ‘bind’ or ‘release’ will be
a carrying out of decisions made in Heaven. His teaching and disciplinary
activities will be similarly guided by the Spirit to carry out Heaven’s
will.” For those words, binding and loosing,were well known in the
teaching of the rabbis of the time. Their usual meaning was to impose or
remove an obligation by an authoritative decision or teaching. These words
of Mt 16:19 were repeated to all what seems to be the twelve in Matthew
18:18. That they were not meant for all disciples but just for the
Apostles is confirmed by Mt 28:16-29, explicitly to the Twelve. Earlier,
at the Last Supper, in John 13:20 Jesus said to the Twelve: “Amen, amen I
say to you, he who receives the one I send, receives me; he who receives
me, receives the One who sent me.”
More of the context of the whole of Scripture is this: at once after the
ascension, the Apostles began their mission of teaching In Acts 1:15-26 a
replacement for one of the Twelve is chosen, Matthias. Acts 2:42 reports
that the people “devoted themselves to the teaching of the Apostles” and in
Acts 5:13: “No one of the rest dared to join himself to them [the Apostles]
but the people magnified them.” So all did understand from the start that
it was the Apostles, and they alone who had the commission from Christ to
teach. St. Paul constantly teaches with authority. Pope St. Clement I, in
an Epistle to Corinth c. 95 AD, intervened with authority. He said: “Our
Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife over
the name of Bishop. As a result, having received full foreknowledge, they
appointed those we have mentioned, and meanwhile added a provision that if
these would fall asleep [die] other approved men should receive their
ministry.”
St. Irenaeus Bishop of Lyons, who had listened to St. Polycarp telling of
the preaching of St. John the Apostle, wrote that since it was long to go
through the succession of Bishops in all the churches, he would speak of
Rome, “founded by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, which
holds the tradition and faith announced by the Apostles, coming down by the
succession of Bishops even to us…It is necessary that every
church…agree with this church because of its more important
principality…in which the tradition coming from the Apostles has always
been kept…”
of His Church and mission. He did not at once say: “Before Abraham was, I
am.” Rather, He let the truths be seen gradually, a bit at a time. The
fullness of this revelation was to come with the descent of the Holy
Spirit, as He Himself said in John 16:13: “When He, the Spirit of Truth
comes, He will lead you into all truth.” So here in this Lucan text Jesus
begins, but does not complete His commission. He does, on a trial mission,
give a teaching authority to the 72 so that he who hears them, hears
Jesus. He completed that commission later to Peter and the Twelve,
especially in the words recorded in Matthew 16:19:to Peter alone:
"Whatever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in heaven, and
whatever you shall loose on earth, shall be loosed also in Heaven. Two
fine Protestant scholars, W. F. Albright (in his day often called the Dean
of American Scripture scholars) and C. S. Mann, in “Anchor Bible,
Matthew,” p. 198, write: “Peter’s authority to ‘bind’ or ‘release’ will be
a carrying out of decisions made in Heaven. His teaching and disciplinary
activities will be similarly guided by the Spirit to carry out Heaven’s
will.” For those words, binding and loosing,were well known in the
teaching of the rabbis of the time. Their usual meaning was to impose or
remove an obligation by an authoritative decision or teaching. These words
of Mt 16:19 were repeated to all what seems to be the twelve in Matthew
18:18. That they were not meant for all disciples but just for the
Apostles is confirmed by Mt 28:16-29, explicitly to the Twelve. Earlier,
at the Last Supper, in John 13:20 Jesus said to the Twelve: “Amen, amen I
say to you, he who receives the one I send, receives me; he who receives
me, receives the One who sent me.”
More of the context of the whole of Scripture is this: at once after the
ascension, the Apostles began their mission of teaching In Acts 1:15-26 a
replacement for one of the Twelve is chosen, Matthias. Acts 2:42 reports
that the people “devoted themselves to the teaching of the Apostles” and in
Acts 5:13: “No one of the rest dared to join himself to them [the Apostles]
but the people magnified them.” So all did understand from the start that
it was the Apostles, and they alone who had the commission from Christ to
teach. St. Paul constantly teaches with authority. Pope St. Clement I, in
an Epistle to Corinth c. 95 AD, intervened with authority. He said: “Our
Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife over
the name of Bishop. As a result, having received full foreknowledge, they
appointed those we have mentioned, and meanwhile added a provision that if
these would fall asleep [die] other approved men should receive their
ministry.”
St. Irenaeus Bishop of Lyons, who had listened to St. Polycarp telling of
the preaching of St. John the Apostle, wrote that since it was long to go
through the succession of Bishops in all the churches, he would speak of
Rome, “founded by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, which
holds the tradition and faith announced by the Apostles, coming down by the
succession of Bishops even to us…It is necessary that every
church…agree with this church because of its more important
principality…in which the tradition coming from the Apostles has always
been kept…”
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
At the early Council of Ephesus, in 431 A.D. even though it was an Eastern
error in question, the Pope sent delegates, who asserted without being
contradicted by anyone there: “There is no doubt, it has been known to all
centuries, that the holy and blessed Apostle Peter, the prince and head and
pillar of the faith and foundation of the Catholic church, received the
keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ… He [Peter] lives even to
this time, and always in his successors gives judgment.” Twenty years later
the Council of Chalcedon on hearing the letter of Pope Leo exclaimed: “This
is the faith of the Fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. We all
believe thus… Peter has spoken through Leo.”
The General Council of Constantinople in 870 taught (DS 661): "Since we
believe that the word of the Lord, which Christ said to the holy Apostles
and his disciples, “He who receives you, receives me” and “he who spurns
you, spurns me"was said to all those too who after them became Supreme
Pontiffs and shepherds in the Catholic Church…we define that no one at
all of the potentates of the world should dishonor or move them from their
sees, but should judge them worthy of all reverence and honor…”
We conclude,that Vatican II, and Pius XII and the General Council of
Constantinople were well justified in taking Luke 10:16 as the foundation
of the teaching authority of the Apostles and their successors. It was part
of His gradual revelation of self and of His Church, it was a start of the
trajectory that was to be made clearer as time went on,as we have seen…
As for women, Scripture consistently forbids them to teach with authority.
1 Cor 14:34 says “the women must be silent in the Church”. First Timothy
2:12 insists: “I do not allow a woman to teach or to have authority over a
man but to be in silence.” So, to suppose that of course women received the
teaching authority in Lk 10:16 and to add that there is no sign it applied
to Peter and the Apostles - this is merely completely biased special
pleading.
error in question, the Pope sent delegates, who asserted without being
contradicted by anyone there: “There is no doubt, it has been known to all
centuries, that the holy and blessed Apostle Peter, the prince and head and
pillar of the faith and foundation of the Catholic church, received the
keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ… He [Peter] lives even to
this time, and always in his successors gives judgment.” Twenty years later
the Council of Chalcedon on hearing the letter of Pope Leo exclaimed: “This
is the faith of the Fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. We all
believe thus… Peter has spoken through Leo.”
The General Council of Constantinople in 870 taught (DS 661): "Since we
believe that the word of the Lord, which Christ said to the holy Apostles
and his disciples, “He who receives you, receives me” and “he who spurns
you, spurns me"was said to all those too who after them became Supreme
Pontiffs and shepherds in the Catholic Church…we define that no one at
all of the potentates of the world should dishonor or move them from their
sees, but should judge them worthy of all reverence and honor…”
We conclude,that Vatican II, and Pius XII and the General Council of
Constantinople were well justified in taking Luke 10:16 as the foundation
of the teaching authority of the Apostles and their successors. It was part
of His gradual revelation of self and of His Church, it was a start of the
trajectory that was to be made clearer as time went on,as we have seen…
As for women, Scripture consistently forbids them to teach with authority.
1 Cor 14:34 says “the women must be silent in the Church”. First Timothy
2:12 insists: “I do not allow a woman to teach or to have authority over a
man but to be in silence.” So, to suppose that of course women received the
teaching authority in Lk 10:16 and to add that there is no sign it applied
to Peter and the Apostles - this is merely completely biased special
pleading.
E
Eden
Guest
Sts. Peter and Paul laid the foundations for the Church at Rome. The Vatican is literally built over St. Peter (Matt. 16:17). And St. Paul’s burial place was recently unearthed right where tradition had always told us he was buried, hence, the name of the church where his tomb was recently unearthed being St. Paul’s. The deposit of faith was and has always been ours. The Catholic Church today is how God designed it and expected it to be all these 2,000 years later. A seed is designed to grow.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
That is your opinion and its not base on fact. Christian history show that the Early Church from its beginning is Catholic.
See the quotes I got from EWTN.
R
rtconstant
Guest
No I think that happened around post 14
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
What I have is Christ! and the innerrant Scripture.
All else is the work of man.
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
Here is a quote I am going to hold onto.
Eden,
If I wanted to! you know I could find quote after quote on these threads that are cut n pasted from Dave Armstrong and the likes of him, my proof is I do these same arguments on many forums and the responses are almost Identical and rarely answered.
So don’t be the pot calling the kettle black please!
it hurts your credibility.
These are viable points that you should be able defend!
J
JonathanKinsman
Guest
Seems pretty commonplace on the forum… Don’t you think?
SIMON: And you are always prepared. You bring the precooked, unchecked, not read diatribes of the Chickettes.It’s how I knew the manner I would be responded against, I viewed my previous ECF thread…Always walk in prepared, right?
However, we ask that you read what you allege is contrary to whatever Catholic belief you want to whack your frustrations upon.
Dialogue: you allege such-and-such; someone answers you; you ignore answer and rephrase the attack onto another topic. That is the MYFAVORITEMARTIN way.
You do not answer direct questions about your “Fatima translation from cardinalratzinger” when the Vatican website you link states that then-Cardinal Ratzinger only wrote a “Theological Commentary on the visions of Fatima.”
You dissemble and you think by throwing out vague, and poorly presented, allegations that you ‘catch’ we poor misguided Catholics in an inconsistency.
Your game of ‘gotch’ frustrates everyone on these threads and you can’t even see that!
The best I can hope and pray for is that you read those conversion stories by former Protestant ministers (like Scott Hahn). Then, if you think someone who was TRAINED as a Protestant minister in all those post-16th century concepts and ideas (like SS and OSAS and gospel dispensation and predestination) became a (oh horror!) Catholic did so without prayer, reading, understanding, research, prayer, reading in context, prayer, questioning HIS previous theological understanding, then none of us here can help you.
Sorry, Simon.
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
I see you’ve chosen your words carefully! As you well know that pre 185- 200AD. None of the ECF’s recognize it was Peter alone, all say Peter and Paul… None say universal authority lies in Rome alone because of Peter having the keys and passing them on to succesive bishops.
BUT… 1st vat. council says this.
"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 "
By your comment, might I ascertain that you disagree with the 1st Vat. council.
Blessings
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
Thanks, usually when people resort to personal things as such instead of the topic, it means they are getting slapped with truth… Lets see how it plays out.
Your analogy seems petty and doesn’t belong on this thread as it has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic… If you want answers to anything off topic PM me.
T
The_Catholic
Guest
I agree with you to a certain extant. The “Church” that he is talking about is not a “building” but our hearts. Those who have true Faith in Christ is the Church. This does not neccesarily deny the Catholic’s Church claim though, it only says that the true “Church” is not a physical building.
I do not condem you man. I believe that if you truley believe as you do, not out of arogance, then you are God’s child. We both worship the same God. And regarding the ECF I personaly see them as “Catholic.” The writtings are so profoundly clear. But just as the Bible people will interpret the ECF the way they want, lol. It’s typical human nature.
God bless you man.
T
The_Catholic
Guest
How do you know that the Bible is the True Word of God?
J
JonathanKinsman
Guest
E
Eden
Guest
Chosen carefully? It’s known history that Sts. Peter and Paul laid the foundations of the Church in Rome. This does not negate Peter’s role of primacy. I see you think somehow it does. Only one of these apostles who built up the foundations of the Church at Rome was Bishop of Rome. That was St. Peter. He held primacy and his successors continue to hold that primacy.
E
Eden
Guest
The issue is not whether someone cuts and pastes from an apologist. The issue is that you pasted Svendsen’s commentary as though it were an accurate representation of the context in the documents. Your quotes were meant to attack the validity of the visible Church, but they didn’t. As I stated, if you had read the actual documents before posting Svendsen’s take on them, you would have seen that the documents actually support the existence of tradition, a visible Church and a hierarchy in the early Church. My issue with your cut and paste is not that you use this technique, but that you take an anti-Catholic blogger’s word for it, instead of giving the Catholic viewpoint the benefit of the doubt by double-checking your sources before posting this man’s poor scholarship.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
Most of the time, myfavoritmartin ignore the reference and citations I pointed out concerning that the Catholic Church is the first Christian Church, and that ECF believed it.
- Status