The historicity of the Church

[Isaiah45_9]

To discuss the Pope there is an open thread titled:

“First Among Equals” due to St. Peter’s death occurring in Rome OR due to Rome being the Imperial City?

:hey_bud:How about you fellas take it over there and we can stay in the OP here?:hey_bud:

Thanks,

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Indeed, I will check out one of those threads or wait to join the discussion on a new one.

Thank you!

The Pope is not as powerful today as his medieval counterpart was, however, today’s Pope is much more than a first among equals.

Of course not! Popes and other Christians were being persecuted and killed in those early stages. I posted a thread link that deals with the “first among equals” subject .

Furthermore, I have taken this thread off topic. I would like to continue this discussion in another thread though.

Thank you!

I never said the Church wasn’t present or that it disappeared at some point.

Thank you!

No problems at all, I did not take it personally and have enjoyed this conversation.

Thank you, so have I. I was worried I had offended you .

Not just political influence, but religious as well. The Pope was first among equals, but the Church in England operated with a degree of autonomy for much of its existence, while being in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

I really don’t want to get into any Papal arguments… but… lol… I have to say that each Bishop is pretty much doing his own business as long as he stays within the boundaries. It’s not like they have to call the Pope every time they have to make a decision. I think that is a big misconception about the Papacy. He is not sending emails and making phone calls micromanaging the Bishops. Each Bishop has an enormous amount of responsibilities.

 

[Nicea325]

The East starting using the title “first among equals” in regards to the Pope after the Great Schism. Does any early church father use this exact phrase to describe the Bishop of Rome? No, but you certainly won’t be finding any early church father calling the Pope an infallible monarch bishop either. During the early structure of the Church, there were 5 ancient Patriarchates, with each having power in their own jurisdiction. That said, the Pope was given special honor and mention of “First” due to Rome being the seat of the Empire. In fact, the Great Schism is a direct result of the increasing and evolving power of the Papacy, a power that had not always existed. It also didn’t help that Rome used forged documents when trying to prove to the Orthodox that the Pope is more than a first among bishops. The Pope used the forged Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals when trying to impose his authority over the East. The Greek Orthodox even referred to Rome as being the “home of forgeries.”

The Papacy of the the early Church had nowhere near the power that the Pope of 1870 delcared himself of having. For example, take the history of the canon of scripture. The declaration of 2 Popes did not solve the issue of the canon of scripture. If the Pope was an infallible monarch bishop and was more than a first among equals, then why didn’t these declarations settle the matter?

catholicapologetics.org/ap030700.htm

And yet the term was used at a later time-correct? Of course the pope of the early church did not have the same as a pope in 1870. Did the U.S. President have the same power in 1789 as 2009? The Greek Orthodox can refer to Rome as they wish,still does not change the facts of countless of writings describing the Bishop of Rome’s primacy in the early church. I can also call the Greek Church the “home of heresies” of the East-is that fair?

 

[benhur]

Again, changing the subject.

It is the CATHOLIC bishops that have the Apostolic Succession.

Sorry, I thought you said ECF’s show St. Peter “passing the batton”, and I meant it as not to a bishop, but one to be head bishop, as in Pope. No one is denying that the apostles appointed bishops. You replied to my post where I said no scriptural evidence of papal succession.You then quoted ECF’s , but they do not deal with papal succession, only bishop succession from apostles.

 

[benhur]

benhur:

.

He believed from Scripture alone? Nope! Athanasius lived nearly 400 years after Christ and understood the Trinty from Scripture because scores of men before him were able to explain it better over the years. The Trinity was believed and taught before the NT was ever written down. Scripture teaches the Trinity implicitly,not explicitly.

The “alone” is your word , not mine nor Anthanisus. His words speak for himself. No one is denying that it was explained or even taught to Him, from the scriptures. I am not willing to frame the conversation in reformation/counter-reformation paradigms. The piting of scripture against tradition is something else.The context of His words are scripture and council relationship.

 

[benhur]

Why are you changing the subject?

It’s your scriptural quote and inference I was commenting on.

 

[Nicea325]

The “alone” is your word , not mine nor Anthanisus. His words speak for himself. No one is denying that it was explained or even taught to Him, from the scriptures. I am not willing to frame the conversation in reformation/counter-reformation paradigms. The piting of scripture against tradition is something else.The context of His words are scripture and council relationship.

Not it is not mine word,but yours. You are implying Scripture alone in which a great church father supposedly believed. These are your own words verbatim:

Quote:
it means we come in with a belief,(even bias) and that is where we take our stand. For instance, Athanasius believed in the trinity from scripture, before any council

. It is not like people came together to figure it out, or who were not sure before hand (on both sides) What the council did do is sharpen and formulize the language to address and refute the non-trinitarian view *

That my friend is where the belief “Scripture alone” is being applied by you. Athanasius did not believe Scripture alone nor defend it.

 

[Nicea325]

Sorry, I thought you said ECF’s show St. Peter “passing the batton”, and I meant it as not to a bishop, but one to be head bishop, as in Pope. No one is denying that the apostles appointed bishops. You replied to my post where I said no scriptural evidence of papal succession.You then quoted ECF’s , but they do not deal with papal succession, only bishop succession from apostles.

And where does Scripture require Scripture to be explicit?

 

[benhur]

Not it is not mine word,but yours. You are implying Scripture alone in which a great church father supposedly believed. These are your own words verbatim:

**

That my friend is where the belief “Scripture alone” is being applied by you. Athanasius did not believe Scripture alone nor defend it.

Sorry. Disagree. Again, don’t see “alone” in my words or even implied. Athanasius speaks for himself. I didn’t ask him to write that.

 

[benhur]

And where does Scripture require Scripture to be explicit?

OK so Scripture is not explicit, but neither are ECF’s. But understand CC reasoning from both.

 

[joe371]

benhur;

Councils are fine as long as they are scriptural as Augustine alludes to.

Councils are only fine if God is infallibly guiding them in their decision-making process? If God is not guiding these fallible leaders then yes, there would be no reason to embrace the CC, or to identify the Bible as the infallible word of God - agreed? If not then explain?

Should it have been the right of Christian during those old councils to determined if said councils were teaching what should be perfectly in line with scripture? That makes each Christian the final arbiter, as opposed to the council - you must agree with this logic?

And correct scriptural interpretation is what made Nicea so authoritative, as Athanasius points out.

Recap: This brings me to an important question: each person as they are guided by God, is required to determine whether or not the CC council properly agreed with scripture, which negates the council and put’s the final analysis squarely in each Christians hands; they have the final say-so. Is this what you are saying?

 

[joe371]

Sorry. Disagree. Again, don’t see “alone” in my words or even implied. Athanasius speaks for himself. I didn’t ask him to write that.

In terms of the historicity of the Catholic Church: do you believe that the CC leaders (remember we see apostolic succession to 4 generations via the laying on of hands, regarding the pastoral care of Jesus’ church) deferred to scripture alone and told each and every Christian to do the same, when attempting to discern the truth as some have clearly developed over time e.g. the trinity, theotokos the canon itself etc., and resolve doctrinal disputes?

 

[joe371]

And where does Scripture require Scripture to be explicit?

Well if this is what he is suggesting then he better run from the practice of sola scriptura which is found nowhere within the pages of sacred scripture. How do SS advocates, in your experience try to get around this obvious fact?

 

[Nicea325]

Sorry. Disagree. Again, don’t see “alone” in my words or even implied. Athanasius speaks for himself. I didn’t ask him to write that.

Disagree all you want and the word “alone” does not to be said or written. Your statement easily implies Athanasius believed the Trinity by Scripture “alone” before any council was convened. Your statement conveys the message Anthanasius would not have known or understood the Trinity unless he had Scripture.

 

[Nicea325]

OK so Scripture is not explicit, but neither are ECF’s. But understand CC reasoning from both.

I beg your pardon? Who do you think exactly gave us the deep explicit and complex understandings of such doctrines as the Trinity, Hypostatic Union,etc? Many church fathers.

I have yet to read an early church father who was very vague on his understanding on any doctrine.

 

[Nicea325]

Well if this is what he is suggesting then he better run from the practice of sola scriptura which is found nowhere within the pages of sacred scripture. How do SS advocates, in your experience try to get around this obvious fact?

They get around it by simply going around it.

 

[benhur]

Councils are only fine if God is infallibly guiding them in their decision-making process? If God is not guiding these fallible leaders then yes, there would be no reason to embrace the CC, or to identify the Bible as the infallible word of God - agreed? If not then explain?

I do not wish to embrace all or nothing judgement of the matter. It would be like saying that because the Orthodox are not in agreement with Petrine doctrine (of his chair) that they are wrong and unguided on everything.

Should it have been the right of Christian during those old councils to determined if said councils were teaching what should be perfectly in line with scripture? That makes each Christian the final arbiter, as opposed to the council - you must agree with this logic?

It is the right, or gift, or nature of us to have freedom of conscience, of conviction on a matter. We are to be fully convinced, and why else would the Lord say ,"choose ye this day ". Yes we are to obey Paul’s words for instance, and he said to, but he also knew the Spirit’s unction to illumine us to the properness of his words. The individual must be given proper discernment on whom to obey.

Recap: This brings me to an important question: each person as they are guided by God, is required to determine whether or not the CC council properly agreed with scripture, which negates the council and put’s the final analysis squarely in each Christians hands; they have the final say-so. Is this what you are saying?

What makes our conversation interesting and valid and important is that each of us has become convinced individually, decided individually as to the properness of all things, whether which church is right, or what bible is right, or what historian said it right, or theologian, or council, etc…We certainly are not born with any correctness, it must be put on as He so graces us.

 

[benhur]

They get around it by simply going around it.

Stated scripture may not be explicit on this matter and neither were ECF’S. Pretty straightforward.

 

[Nicea325]

Stated scripture may not be explicit on this matter and neither were ECF’S. Pretty straightforward.

Nope! The only reason why we have deep complex theological understandings and explanations of doctrines is because of the ECF’s. I really do not know where you believe we got such complex explanations from?

 

[joe371]

benhur - I do not wish to embrace all or nothing judgement of the matter. It would be like saying that because the Orthodox are not in agreement with Petrine doctrine (of his chair) that they are wrong and unguided on everything.

Never really sure why people always bring up the Orthodox Church…I do not believe that any church is all wrong. See CCC 817 - 821 if interested. I am only suggesting that the fullness of truth is found in the church founded by Jesus, on Pentecost, and of course I am not suggesting anything bad about churches founded by mere men; the CCC reminds us that plenty of truth can be found in all churches. All I am suggesting is that the past CC Councils could be wrong if God did not infallibly guide them in their decision-making process? If God did not guide these fallible leaders then yes, there would be no reason to embrace the CC, or to identify the Bible as the infallible word of God - agreed? If not then explain?** It’s not an all-or-nothing judgement of the matter,** because no one is judging anyone; just pointing out the idea that truth, regardless of the particular doctrine, is knowable, or it’s not. I say it is. For example, the truth about the Eucharist is knowable in spite of the fact that there are at least 3 different and opposing beliefs about it. How can I know for sure? Not because I say it is so, but because I take the dispute to the church founded by God, and God resolves the matter via His church. If God is not ineffably guiding His church then sola scriptura would be the next best thing, although truth regarding doctrines that divide would continue to be unknowable.