The historicity of the Church

[nmgauss]

Yeah.
MEN reject the authority that GOD has put in place. They abhor the structure that Jesus established.

And yet they support divisions, which are clearly considered sinful in scriptures.

And they say that WE are the ones that don’t follow scripture???

What structure did Jesus put in place? As far as I know, designating Peter as the bishop of Rome is the only structural element He established.

 

[josie_L]

Then Paul lied if he said scripture is sufficient.

Then he lied about their being an oral teachings/tradition (as did the other writers of the N.T)??? Obviously, Saint Paul did not mean to say that scripture is all that’s necessary, otherwise, he would be contradicting himself and the other apostles.

that you have tradition or church as the carrier of that scripture or an apostle the writer used by God does not nullify that. For instance how do you or better yet how did the church combat error, even scriptural interpretation error? how did they correct Arius, Celestius, Pelagius etc.? Was it not with scripture itself.

Didn’t I just mention that Scripture alone was not sufficient as there could be as many interpretations of it as there were people, i.e., the Church relied on Tradition as well, i.e., the oral teachings of Christ handed down by the apostles and their successors in order to uphold the truth. Scripture and Tradition together formed the deposit of faith, i.e., if you lack the latter, you cannot sufficiently and/or correctly interpret the Scriptures. The Church through her magisterium (teaching authority) and guided by the Holy Spirit were/are duty bound to protect this deposit of faith from false interpretations.

Of course scripture by itself literally is powerless with out divine inspiration.

God left us a Church (one that was indivisible in it’s teachings and structure, holy, apostolic and catholic) to interpret the Scriptures, i.e., it is the Church (magisterium) guided by the Holy Spirit who is divinely inspired to interpret the Scriptures.

of course the oral gospel itself was first a tradition but it was put in writing for a reason.

Not everything was written down in Scripture, i.e., St. John mentioned this. In fact, the Didache (teaching of the twelve) is a perfect example of the oral teachings or Sacred Tradition of which I refer to that was held by the early church, yet was not part of the Bible.

writing is writing is a writing. God has spoken. His intent stands. That the church and every individual in Him give Him something to stand in is another matter. We must rightly divide what ? Tradition? No, the Word. And then upon that rightly dividing the Word can be Tradition.

Sorry, but the Word of God does not mean the WRITTEN Word of God only, it can and does entail the oral as well, as the Scriptures themselves testify.

P.S. The premise of Sola Scriptura does not exist in Scripture, i.e., what it is is a man-made heresy.

 

[benhur]

To much central authority? Then question God…not the church. Jesus speaks of Kingdom…not democracies. And who is the central authority of everything,visible and invisible? God. Who is the central head of the church? Jesus. Why would Jesus pick 12 men with full authority, if he did not want His church to have to “much” central authority?

OK, so now when it is expediant we see that Christ really has the twelve apostles as our foundation/authority , and not just Peter. We were discussing Papal authority, as part of central authority. That is my context when I say too much central authority, as in just drop off that one layer of authority, not all the rest.

No where in the NT are the lay folks making all of the decisions for the Church Christ founded- in matters of faith and morals. The Apostles and their successors are the ones

This to is inaccurate, at least in Spirit. Even Clement when he supposedly wrote to the church at Corinth did not write his name or office at all but instead wrote for the whole church at Rome, to whole church at Corinth.The whole church is pastors, elders, apostles, prophets, teachers, healers and all lay people.The same at Jerusalem Council.

Name one lay person involved in defining and ratifying the doctrine of the Trinity or Hypostatic Union at Nicaea (325 AD) or any council?

Well I mentioned the Jerusalem council though no lay person is “recorded” but can not be ruled out of the process for they are included in writing. As far as the next big council it is hundreds of years later and a council had to be more representative in nature thru sent leaders as you had more churches and larger ones and much more geography to cover. I would venture to say that the representatives were just that, representing their entire congregation/area.

God can set up His church any fashion he chooses and if chooses to have a mortal as head on earth-then so be it! And what have been the end results with a lack of central authority? More unity or less unity? You tell me…

Yes it would be nice to have unity,but that is a bigger challenge than what a head bishop can and should handle .it can help but is limited. The Orthodox again show that some unity is possible without head bishop of Rome. In the end, it is as with all of God’s dispensations, there can be unity in spirit and truth despite all our differences. In the end there only two kinds of people since the garden, those written in the book and those that are not, children of light and promise, and children of the serpent in darkness. Only two camps.
.

Do have an instance at a council were other bishops shared Protestant views:

Yes if I understand your question. Most accept a number of the councils and I would venture that any dogma put forth by a council that today is still universally accepted by all is "showing"shared P views. Remember Protestantism generally only rejects Rome’s authority over all other churches, not all her doctrine.

We do not believe in that office because it is not scriptural or historically correct
Where are those protests from the beginning? Where are those **written protests **from the ECF,which you claim is where the opposition is from?

Well maybe the office was not fully developed enough to protest. I also gave the frog analogy where put him in boiling water and he jumps out. Put him in lukewarm water and he remains even as you raise up the heat to boiling, to his death. So if change is slow of that office no one hardly says anything. The status quo, tradition are fine. At 220 degree F. the frog thinks everything is peachy as it always has been and little does he know a rupture is about to occur, even a death, like the great schism or Luther and reformation . But alas, some though few, protests were there but tough to go against the “all is well attitude” that I know I and my church can also easily be entrenched in.

 

[benhur]

Apparently those who reject it are really confused. How can you accept the offices clearly stated in the NT;however, not believe in the papacy? The papacy is an office and who is a…bishop. I do not understand their logic. Seems more like personal gripe and prejudice. I can dislike the president,but does not change the fact it is an established office.

I would rather compare church governance as like what we had with Articles of Confederation, with no president. But just as that body did ratify a new governance with a president(1789) , so did half of the church but with schism. The first three centuries did not matter much one way or the other due to persecution and lack of effect of on over the other. That is most churches, even patriarchal regions were independent of one another, somewhat.

I beg your pardon? What early church history are you reading? Name one ECF who flat out who did not believe in that office? Rjected it? Considered to be a usurpation from Christ? No offense,but the ECF were not Protestants.

Ignatius mentions no bishop of Rome for many historians say there was still no monarchal bishop, though the church at Rome held presidency of honor by being the good church at the center of the World, which Rome was… Tertullian for one (did not believe in that office). Cyprian when it suited him. Jerome said churches were first governed by a common council and then by a bishop (some time after the boastings of i am of Paul /Apollos65 ad?). I think the Orthodox have something that at best - Peter was first amongst equals.
Augustine did not think that Peter was The Rock that Christ built the church on. Even Ambrose who is often partially quoted explains much the same as Augustine (or that it is Peter’s confession of faith and not of ranking over the other apostles). Chrysostom also says the same though Peter is “head of the choir” and Peter is our example so that where he is (his confession) there we are and the gates of hell shall not prevail against us by this confession in Christ. Again what is the worst “hell” can do to you here? Martyr you. And we know how many prevailed against such hellish schemes.

So tell me,if the CC is so wrong,which denomination has the correct church structure?

First, no one holds to infallible structure. Second, I suppose all those who have no papacy. Having said that, I think it is fine for Catholics to have their own head bishop if they desire.Think it is wrong to say it is infallible in origin and that it was meant for the whole body. It’s like if the southern baptists or methods want a chief executive, fine, as long as they admit it for expediancy sake and not out biblical necessity.

Really? You mean every single denomination has valid orders? And no, not every pastor is a priest or bishop. Just because they say so does not make it a fact of history. Again…it is an established office in the NT and not everyone in the NT was an elder ( priest) .

Again, originally a presbyter /elder is the same as a bishop (I do not use word “priest” for any office, you can if you want- reminds me too much of OT “heirus” as opposed to NT " prebyteros" which is the inspired word). Because of sin and the church instituted in places a head bishop, according to Jerome. So today, yes there is a difference between a presbyter and bishops. I would not hold a denomination to having bishops over presbyters as opposed to common area councils for both are for expediancy and not for sure apostolic. Valid orders is now up to each denominational church to decide. Valid is as valid does .We should weigh any ordination by it’s fruit instead of unfortunately by whose club they belong to. There are presbyters in all denominations who are not called of God, not inspired, not anointed in the Spirit, even born again (remember Nicodemus ?). So just what is valid is more than proper motions or proper lineage.

 

[joe371]

benhur;11948103]OK, so now when it is expediant we see that Christ really has the twelve apostles as our foundation/authority , and not just Peter.

Yup. That is right in scripture. The two are not mutually exclusive.

We were discussing Papal authority, as part of central authority. That is my context when I say too much central authority, as in just drop off that one layer of authority, not all the rest.

I missed something. Drop off the Petrine office?

This to is inaccurate, at least in Spirit. Even Clement when he supposedly wrote to the church at Corinth did not write his name or office at all but instead wrote for the whole church at Rome, to whole church at Corinth.The whole church is pastors, elders, apostles, prophets, teachers, healers and all lay people.

The church leadership in Rome (Clement as the primary leaderwith the other leaders in Rome) wrote to the church leaders in Corinth, who then settled the matter for the flock in Corinth.

The same at Jerusalem Council. Well I mentioned the Jerusalem council though no lay person is “recorded” but can not be ruled out of the process for they are included in writing.

Scripture is really clear about deferring to the authority of church leaders in many places. For example: Have confidence in your leaders and submit to their authority, because they keep watch over you as those who must give an account. Do this so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no benefit to you. Hebrews 13

As far as the next big council it is hundreds of years later and a council had to be more representative in nature thru sent leaders as you had more churches and larger ones and much more geography to cover.

More Catholic Churches. requiring more reps (Bishops)? agreed.

I would venture to say that the representatives were just that, representing their entire congregation/area.

Yes it would be nice to have unity,but that is a bigger challenge than what a head bishop can and should handle .it can help but is limited.

There is unity in each respective Protestant church, with a few exceptions. They are however separated from one another e.g. the Baptist church is not in communion with the Lutheran Church etc. The CC has been one and united for 2000 years, in spite of certain folks breaking away. God get’s all the credit for said unity in His church, in my humble opinion.

 

[joe371]

benhur;
. Yes if I understand your question. Most accept a number of the councils and I would venture that any dogma put forth by a council that today is still universally accepted by all is "showing"shared P views. Remember Protestantism generally only rejects Rome’s authority over all other churches, not all her doctrine.

The CC leaders, what you call Rome, does not claim to have authority over any church other than the CC. If I belonged to the Lutheran Church for example, “Rome” has no authority. Even those Ecumenical councils have authority within the confines of the one CC.

 

[josie_L]

Here’s something I think will help our Christian brethren to understand that Sola Scriptura did not exist in the early Church, that actually heretics were the proponents of SS.

Sola Scriptura in the early Church

The Problem

“He, therefore, will not be a Christian who shall deny this doctrine which is confessed by Christians; denying it, moreover, on grounds which are adopted by a man who is not a Christian. Take away, indeed, from the heretics the wisdom which they share with the heathen, and let them support their inquiries from the Scriptures alone: they will then be unable to keep their ground.” Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the Flesh,3

Recently a few Evangelical Christians have attempted to find the Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura within the writings of the Church Fathers[1]. These writers do not understand the coordinate role of Tradition and its relationship with Scripture in the ancient Church. Catholic[2], Orthodox[3], Coptic[4] and many Protestant[5] patristic scholars agree that the rule of faith in the early Church consisted of Scripture, Tradition and Church[2]. Not a single Church Father interpreted Sacred Scripture in isolation from the traditional faith of the Church; rather, the Fathers applied Tradition as a rule to interpret Scripture. The only ancient teachers who interpreted Scripture apart from Tradition were the early heretics.

Before the NT was collated and canonized, there were those who would only admit the OT Scripture and reject the oral Christian tradition. St. Ignatius writes:

“And I exhort you to do nothing out of strife, but according to the doctrine of Christ. When I heard some saying, If I do not find it in the ancient Scriptures, I will not believe the Gospel; on my saying to them, It is written, they answered me, That remains to be proved. But to me Jesus Christ is in the place of all that is ancient: His cross, and death, and resurrection, and the faith which is by Him, are undefiled monuments of antiquity.”
Epistle to the Philadephians 8:2

St. Ignatius contrasts the authority of this Scriptures-only mentality with the Christian tradition. According to St. Ignatius, one interprets the OT Scripture within the framework of the Christian Gospel.

Some Gnostics not only attempted to falsify the canon of Scripture(such as Marcion) but appealed exclusively to the same and rejected tradition. Eusebius preserves this citation which describes the behavior of those who follow Theodotus, a Unitarian:

“They have treated the Divine Scriptures recklessly and without fear. They have set aside the rule of the ancient faith; and Christ they have not known. They do not endeavor to learn what the Divine Scriptures declare, but strive laboriously after any form of syllogism which may be devised to sustain their impiety. And if any one brings before them a passage of Divine Scripture, they see whether a conjunctive or disjunctive form of syllogism can be made from it.” Church History, V:28:13

These Unitarians relied on Scripture alone and rejected the tradition of the Church. Tertullian of Carthage discovered the futility of interpreting Scripture outside of the framework of the Church and her Tradition. Tertullian writes:

“Our appeal, therefore, must not be made to the Scriptures; nor must controversy be admitted on points in which victory will either be impossible, or uncertain, or not certain enough. But even if a discussion from the Scriptures should not turn out in such a way as to place both sides on a par, (yet) the natural order of things would require that this point should be first proposed, which is now the only one which we must discuss: 'With whom lies that very faith to which the Scriptures belong. From what and through whom, and when, and to whom, has been handed down that rule, by which men become Christians?” For wherever it shall be manifest that the true Christian rule and faith shall be, there will likewise be the true Scriptures and expositions thereof, and all the Christian traditions."
Prescription Against the Heretics, 19

cin.org/users/jgallegos/sola_her.htm

Please visit the cite in order to read the rest of the article.

 

[Nicea325]

Benhur:

OK, so now when it is expediant we see that Christ really has the twelve apostles as our foundation/authority , and not just Peter. We were discussing Papal authority, as part of central authority. That is my context when I say too much central authority, as in just drop off that one layer of authority, not all the rest.

And what gave you the idea the CC only believes Peter had authority? ALL bishops have authority to this day (Catholic/Orthodox and other liturgical churches).Yes…papal authority because it is very clear from the NT which Apostle was the head. My friend, even several ECF’s refer to Peter as the Head Apostle or Prince of the Apostles. Are they guilty of a false invention or tradition?

NiceaQuote:
No where in the NT are the lay folks making all of the decisions for the Church Christ founded- in matters of faith and morals. The Apostles and their successors are the ones

This to is inaccurate, at least in Spirit. Even Clement when he supposedly wrote to the church at Corinth did not write his name or office at all but instead wrote for the whole church at Rome, to whole church at Corinth.

No it is not. Your position is totally inaccurate. So Clement not writing his name automatically proves he had no authority? Pure conjecture! ANY bishop when he writes can and may write for his entire flock,which does not negate his authority.

The whole church is pastors, elders, apostles, prophets, teachers, healers and all lay people.The same at Jerusalem Council.

Yes and the CC has taught that long before any non-Catholic existed. And yet not ONE lay person was a decision maker in regards to defining doctrine and ratifying it. Got a name of lay person at Nicaea 325 AD?

Nicea325Quote:
Name one lay person involved in defining and ratifying the doctrine of the Trinity or Hypostatic Union at Nicaea (325 AD) or any council?

Well I mentioned the Jerusalem council though no lay person is “recorded” but can not be ruled out of the process for they are included in writing.

And they were not recorded because? If they are part of the doctrinal process,then why would they be excluded in name by every NT author or at any council? I’ll tell you why-because lay people were not given the same authority as the Apostles. It is very scriptural my friend.

As far as the next big council it is hundreds of years later and a council had to be more representative in nature thru sent leaders as you had more churches and larger ones and much more geography to cover. I would venture to say that the representatives were just that, representing their entire congregation/area.

And yet does not change the facts in church history no lay person conveyed at any council and was included in the decision making. Again,if your position is true,please provide one lay person’s name the first 1000 years when the majority of doctrines were defined and ratifyied.

Nicea325Quote:
God can set up His church any fashion he chooses and if chooses to have a mortal as head on earth-then so be it! And what have been the end results with a lack of central authority? More unity or less unity? You tell me…

Yes it would be nice to have unity,but that is a bigger challenge than what a head bishop can and should handle .it can help but is limited.

My friend, it is not a question of being “nice” or convenient. It is clear from God. Jesus left ONE church and expected us to keep His church as one.

The Orthodox again show that some unity is possible without head bishop of Rome.

Really? Which bishop from what orthodox church speaks for all of Orthodoxy?

In the end, it is as with all of God’s dispensations, there can be unity in spirit and truth despite all our differences.

No offense,but no uncommon to hear such a belief. Relativism at its best!

In the end there only two kinds of people since the garden, those written in the book and those that are not, children of light and promise, and children of the serpent in darkness. Only two camps.

Yes…and only ONE church which was founded by Jesus.
.

NiceaQuote:
Do have an instance at a council were other bishops shared Protestant views:

Yes if I understand your question. Most accept a number of the councils and I would venture that any dogma put forth by a council that today is still universally accepted by all is "showing"shared P views. Remember Protestantism generally only rejects Rome’s authority over all other churches, not all her doctrine.

But that is not what I am asking of you or proposed to oyu. You apparently said the ECF did not view or accept the Catholic position of the papacy-right? Therefore, show me one ECF who flat out rejects,denies or considered the papacy as novel or a usrupation of Christ? Got one early chruch father who sounds more Protestant than Catholic? Got his works on how false the papacy is and how no man should have his authority?

Nicea325Quote:
We do not believe in that office because it is not scriptural or historically correct
Where are those protests from the beginning? Where are those written protests from the ECF,which you claim is where the opposition is from?

Well maybe the office was not fully developed enough to protest.

Exactly! Key words: fully developed. The papal office was not fully developed in the NT. Yet like all organic organisms, it must grow. Were the doctrines of the Trinity and Hypostatic Union clearly laid out in their complexity in the NT? Or did they develop with time? So if you can accept the development of key doctrines as they were defined by its bishops, why is it impossilbe for the office of the papacy to exist or and not develop?

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
Apparently those who reject it are really confused. How can you accept the offices clearly stated in the NT;however, not believe in the papacy? The papacy is an office and who is a…bishop. I do not understand their logic. Seems more like personal gripe and prejudice. I can dislike the president,but does not change the fact it is an established office

.

I would rather compare church governance as like what we had with Articles of Confederation, with no president. But just as that body did ratify a new governance with a president(1789) , so did half of the church but with schism. The first three centuries did not matter much one way or the other due to persecution and lack of effect of on over the other. That is most churches, even patriarchal regions were independent of one another, somewhat.

And yet more than 225 years…we have an established office for the president. Like it or not. Agree or disagree-it is there.

Nicea325Quote:
I beg your pardon? What early church history are you reading? Name one ECF who flat out who did not believe in that office? Rjected it? Considered to be a usurpation from Christ? No offense,but the ECF were not Protestants.

Ignatius mentions no bishop of Rome for many historians say there was still no monarchal bishop, though the church at Rome held presidency of honor by being the good church at the center of the World, which Rome was… Tertullian for one (did not believe in that office).

And Ignatius never mentions an ecumenical council,a NT canon, ratification of doctrines, the Hypostatic Union doctrine,etc,etc. Matthew never mentions that he is the author of the NT. And? So the “silent” proof is all that is needed to debunk the papacy? Tertullian? As an orthodox Christian or as a Montanist?

Cyprian when it suited him

.

And it also suited him to defend orthodox doctrines. Do you have any issues here?

Jerome said churches were first governed by a common council and then by a bishop (some time after the boastings of i am of Paul /Apollos65 ad?).

Sources please…

I think the Orthodox have something that at best - Peter was first amongst equals.

First among equals-pre-Constantinople or post-Constantinople?

Augustine did not think that Peter was The Rock that Christ built the church on.

Apparently you have not read all of his works in their entirety.

Even Ambrose who is often partially quoted explains much the same as Augustine (or that it is Peter’s confession of faith and not of ranking over the other apostles).

And yet not Augustine or Ambrose rejects the primacy of Rome. You’ve got some of their works were both explicitly deny or reject the Primacy of Rome?

Chrysostom also says the same though Peter is “head of the choir” and Peter is our example so that where he is (his confession) there we are and the gates of hell shall not prevail against us by this confession in Christ. Again what is the worst “hell” can do to you here? Martyr you. And we know how many prevailed against such hellish schemes.

And yet oddly Chrsostom went to the Bishop of Rome to resolve the scandal at his See. So much for Chrysostom in believing no one bishop could have full authority-eh? If the bishop of Rome is “first among equals” as you claim,why would any bishop from any major See need the bishop of Rome to resolve an internal issue or need his final approval?

Nicea325Quote:
So tell me,if the CC is so wrong,which denomination has the correct church structure?

First, no one holds to infallible structure. Second, I suppose all those who have no papacy. Having said that, I think it is fine for Catholics to have their own head bishop if they desire.Think it is wrong to say it is infallible in origin and that it was meant for the whole body. It’s like if the southern baptists or methods want a chief executive, fine, as long as they admit it for expediancy sake and not out biblical necessity.

Who spoke of an infallible structure? Didn’t Peter deny Jesus three times? Yet Christ still bestowed full authority on him and the other Apostles. As the saying goes:

Christ pick the best office for the man,not the best man for the office.

Quote:
Really? You mean every single denomination has valid orders? And no, not every pastor is a priest or bishop. Just because they say so does not make it a fact of history. Again…it is an established office in the NT and not everyone in the NT was an elder ( priest) .

Again, originally a presbyter /elder is the same as a bishop (I do not use word “priest” for any office, you can if you want- reminds me too much of OT “heirus” as opposed to NT " prebyteros" which is the inspired word). Because of sin and the church instituted in places a head bishop, according to Jerome. So today, yes there is a difference between a presbyter and bishops. I would not hold a denomination to having bishops over presbyters as opposed to common area councils for both are for expediancy and not for sure apostolic. Valid orders is now up to each denominational church to decide. Valid is as valid does .We should weigh any ordination by it’s fruit instead of unfortunately by whose club they belong to. There are presbyters in all denominations who are not called of God, not inspired, not anointed in the Spirit, even born again (remember Nicodemus ?). So just what is valid is more than proper motions or proper lineage.

Interesting.

 

[benhur]

Really? Which bishop from what orthodox church speaks for all of Orthodoxy?

So like the president speaks for all and all Americans are united ? The CC pope is not dictorial. It reaches consensus , just as Jerusalem Council. And the Orthodox can’t and have no “James” to speak for any consensual/councilar conclusion ?

No offense,but no uncommon to hear such a belief. Relativism at its best!

No, just more than one vantage point, more than one paradigm- like what does it take to grow grass?..“a crack in the sidewalk”…Se both are true simultaneously , a “crack” and sunlight and water and good soil. …So I reiterate, there will be no division and all are united in at least being written in the Lamb’s Book of Life. That is absolute fact . And remember, if i have it correct, we are written in it when we are justified as in now (we only differ in whether we can be taken out of it).

But that is not what I am asking of you or proposed to oyu. You apparently said the ECF did not view or accept the Catholic position of the papacy-right? Therefore, show me one ECF who flat out rejects,denies or considered the papacy as novel or a usrupation of Christ? Got one early chruch father who sounds more Protestant than Catholic? Got his works on how false the papacy is and how no man should have his authority?

I thought I gave them out Tertullain, Cyprian when it suited Him. We also have some saying Peter is not the rock,though they may believe in head bishop. Some say the protetsant view of Matt that faith /confession of Peter is the rock and so are we one with Peter when we have same faith. .I gave stuff out. There is bit there though not much, either way.

Exactly! Key words: fully developed. The papal office was not fully developed in the NT. Yet like all organic organisms, it must grow

. Organic as in living, ever changing ? Like our constitution a living document that should change with the times, despite original intent of the signers ?

Were the doctrines of the Trinity and Hypostatic Union clearly laid out in their complexity in the NT? Or did they develop with time? So if you can accept the development of key doctrines as they were defined by its bishops, why is it impossilbe for the office of the papacy to exist or and not develop?

I say developed, and you seem to agree, just to say it takes more discernment. More discernment then is needed, as opposed to some of those things we both know for sure were true and evident and fully manifested form the beginning. Of course things can develop positively, correctly, as you say. But they can also develop negatively, with error. We both agree Trinity is good, Arainism was error, hypo union good gnosticism error. And now to Papal doctrine, you say good others say error. These discernments happened all thru the evolving process, the pros and cons of trinity, or arainism, gnosticism, and papal doctrine- all stared out small and grew and reach a crescendo.

 

[joe371]

benhur;11953446]So like the president speaks for all and all Americans are united ?

The U.S. functions as a democracy; The CC functions as a theocracy. God governs the CC via fallible leaders; fallible people voted into office lead the U.S., and God, well you know the rest. Big difference…

The CC pope is not dictorial. It reaches consensus , just as Jerusalem Council. And the Orthodox can’t and have no “James” to speak for any consensual/councilar conclusion ?

No, the Pope is not a dictatorial. The current pope, just as the first pope was, is a fallible sinner who goes to confession all of the time.

No, just more than one vantage point, more than one paradigm- like what does it take to grow grass?..“a crack in the sidewalk”…Se both are true simultaneously , a “crack” and sunlight and water and good soil. …So I reiterate, there will be no division and all are united in at least being written in the Lamb’s Book of Life.

In other words, doctrinal unity is irrelevant? It seems relevant to Jjesus: John 17. Of course there will be no division and all are united in at least being written in the Lamb’s Book of Life. Who those peope are, no one knows…

That is absolute fact . And remember, if i have it correct, we are written in it when we are justified as in now (we only differ in whether we can be taken out of it).
I thought I gave them out Tertullain, Cyprian when it suited Him. We also have some saying Peter is not the rock,though they may believe in head bishop.

No one in church history denies that Peter was the rock. They believe, as does the CC today: both peters confession and him as the rock on which Jesus’ church is built, Jesus of course being the Divine Cornerstone that keeps His Mystical Body, one and united.

Organic as in living, ever changing ? Like our constitution a living document that should change with the times, despite original intent of the signers ? I say developed, and you seem to agree, just to say it takes more discernment. More discernment then is needed, as opposed to some of those things we both know for sure were true and evident and fully manifested form the beginning.

Just to clarify: you do not believe that God has preserved truth, since the day of Pentecost, in the one church established by Jesus? Simple yes or no?

Of course things can develop positively, correctly, as you say. But they can also develop negatively, with error.

Not if God is infallibly guiding His church. If God cannot keep error out of Jesus’ church, then God is fallible.

We both agree Trinity is good, Arainism was error, hypo union good gnosticism error.

They would disagree with you and claim that their interpretation is the correct one.

And now to Papal doctrine, you say good others say error. These discernments happened all thru the evolving process, the pros and cons of trinity, or arainism, gnosticism, and papal doctrine- all stared out small and grew and reach a crescendo.

Catholics put their trust in God regarding doctrinal truth being preserved i.e. we believe, as per scripture, that God preserves truth via His church leadership. We do not believe that error entered in once the apostle went to be the Lord. If the CC failed to preserve truth then God failed to preserve truth via His fallible teachers. Why is it so impossible to have faith that God infallibly guides fallible leaders, beginning with the apostles, throughout every age?

 

[joe371]

The U.S. functions as a democracy; The CC functions as a theocracy. God governs the CC via fallible leaders; fallible people voted into office lead the U.S., and God, well you know the rest. Big difference…

I use the term, theocracy, loosely, in the sense that we believe that God runs the show, so to speak…

 

[nmgauss]

I use the term, theocracy, loosely, in the sense that we believe that God runs the show, so to speak…

So, you are saying that God runs the Catholic Church, which became established as the official Roman Catholic Church by Emperor Theodosius the Great in the year 387. Who ran the show before Christianity became the Catholic Church? Christianity was in flux for about 350 years before finally getting its act together under Constantine and Theodosius. There was no theocracy because there was no official organization. There was only a figurehead called the Pope in Rome, who pretended to be head of an organization that was in the process of perfecting itself. There was no unanimity in church teachings, so one can hardly say that there was a church.

 

[benhur]

Here’s something I think will help our Christian brethren to understand that Sola Scriptura did not exist in the early Church, that actually heretics were the proponents of SS.

Please visit the cite in order to read the rest of the article.

Am a bit confused some of quotes support the authority of scripture that it settles the matter. Not sure but the tertullian quote seems to say don,t listen to the oral tradition of a heretic who says there is no resurrection but look at scripture and you see they have no grounds for thei argument. Same for Ignacio’s who seems to say he disagrees with those who say Christ Is not found in OT and says Christ is in ancient old testament…furthermore many heretics were so before any canonized book. That is don’t pin heresy for misinterpreting scripture only but for misinterpreting oral tradition also. Any basis of authority can be misinterpreted…Paul and several ECCS do also say or admonish to stay within what is written

 

[BravoComp]

The historicity of the Church is something that has fascinated me for years. As an educator and man of Faith, I’ve always been interested in the history of the Church coming from both academic primary resources, as well as our Good Word. An educated evaluation of evidence calls for never ending folly down the rabbit hole.

 

[benhur]

Here’s something I think will help our Christian brethren to understand that Sola Scriptura did not exist in the early Church, that actually heretics were the proponents of SS.

Please visit the cite in order to read the rest of the article.

Read some more. Very persuasive article just reread tertullian. He does admit scripture alone may not convince or win the argument (as when both sides argue from it) he then suggests something deeper than tradition and mentions the source of truth by which men become Christians and their yo will find proper truth and tradition. Only difference now is you do have men becoming Christians in orthodoxy and Protestantism. Therefore it is hard to argue some differences between the three that deal with life giving doctrine like regeneration, baptism, Holy Spirit, salvation etc if indeed one has genuinely experienced new life in the Holy Spirit already. What is it the lumen gentia or something of second Vatican attests to these other churches as having salvation for the world in them also, (be it thru the cc however). A bit like proof is in the pudding. Again where you see “men becoming Christians, and truth and faith exemplified” you will see correct scriptural interpretation and traditions. That is what I see in Tertullians last sentence. I might venture to say that today we are not gnostic or Arian or heretics,but every true Christian has some validity to to the tradition that birthed him.

 

[benhur]

I use the term, theocracy, loosely, in the sense that we believe that God runs the show, so to speak…

Got it god has great experience in handling many forms of governance (try like all forms). So he can handle running an organization via a prophet, a king , with a pope or without a pope. That he runs the show is a beautiful understatement. He can even be his own vicar. Being a triune God has it’s advantages.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
Really? Which bishop from what orthodox church speaks for all of Orthodoxy?

So like the president speaks for all and all Americans are united ?

And yet you did not provide a specific Orthodox church or the name of a bishop-did you? And here is where your error lies. Jesus never founded a democratic church. To believe the church Jesus founded is an equal or comparable to the U.S. government is a poor example. Jesus spoke of the Kingdom of God,hence a visible hiearchy was set-up. Protestanism in large removed it and a never ending split continues with an array of structures. I’ll stick to Jesus structure versus the man-made structures of non-Catholic churches.Again, Jesus clearly left a church with a few selected men to have full authority-read it in the Bible. They were called Apostles who later had successors. Again-where are the names of lay folks?

The CC pope is not dictorial. It reaches consensus , just as Jerusalem Council.

Your other error. Give me one CC document stating the pope is a dictator? Just like Jerusalem? Yep! And you had the final words on doctrinal the matter at hand? Peter! Read it in Acts my friend.

And the Orthodox can’t and have no “James” to speak for any consensual/councilar conclusion ?

Which is why I asked:

Give me the name of the “head” bishop and the specific Orthodox church which speaks for all of orthodoxy?

Quote:
No offense,but no uncommon to hear such a belief. Relativism at its best!

No, just more than one vantage point, more than one paradigm- like what does it take to grow grass?..“a crack in the sidewalk”…Se both are true simultaneously , a “crack” and sunlight and water and good soil. …So I reiterate, there will be no division and all are united in at least being written in the Lamb’s Book of Life. That is absolute fact . And remember, if i have it correct, we are written in it when we are justified as in now (we only differ in whether we can be taken out of it).

Ah yes! The belief: Does not matter which church you follow or our differences, as long as we are united in spirit. No where does Jesus or the NT church teach such a position. Got names of denominations in the NT?

Quote:
But that is not what I am asking of you or proposed to oyu. You apparently said the ECF did not view or accept the Catholic position of the papacy-right? Therefore, show me one ECF who flat out rejects,denies or considered the papacy as novel or a usrupation of Christ? Got one early chruch father who sounds more Protestant than Catholic? Got his works on how false the papacy is and how no man should have his authority?

I thought I gave them out Tertullain, Cyprian when it suited Him. We also have some saying Peter is not the rock,though they may believe in head bishop. Some say the protetsant view of Matt that faith /confession of Peter is the rock and so are we one with Peter when we have same faith. .I gave stuff out. There is bit there though not much, either way.

And I rebuked you by telling you not one of those men ever rejected the Primacy of Rome. If so, show me where in any of their works they explicitly declare it?

Quote:
Exactly! Key words: fully developed. The papal office was not fully developed in the NT. Yet like all organic organisms, it must grow

.

Organic as in living, ever changing ? Like our constitution a living document that should change with the times, despite original intent of the signers ?

Yes. Time measures change. And why cannot our Constitution change? You mean to tell me we are all infants our entire lives? People do not change? Any given office cannot change and/or grow- ever?

Quote:
Were the doctrines of the Trinity and Hypostatic Union clearly laid out in their complexity in the NT? Or did they develop with time? So if you can accept the development of key doctrines as they were defined by its bishops, why is it impossilbe for the office of the papacy to exist or and not develop?

I say developed, and you seem to agree, just to say it takes more discernment. More discernment then is needed, as opposed to some of those things we both know for sure were true and evident and fully manifested form the beginning. Of course things can develop positively, correctly, as you say. But they can also develop negatively, with error. We both agree Trinity is good, Arainism was error, hypo union good gnosticism error. And now to Papal doctrine, you say good others say error. These discernments happened all thru the evolving process, the pros and cons of trinity, or arainism, gnosticism, and papal doctrine- all stared out small and grew and reach a crescendo.

Myy friend, again-explain to me how an office (papacy-bishop) established by GOD Himself is in error? And yet those who reject it live and follow a form of Christianity with massive disunity because an ancient Tradition was kicked to curb. What is more in error? An office or a lack of that office?

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Got it god has great experience in handling many forms of governance (try like all forms). So he can handle running an organization via a prophet, a king , with a pope or without a pope. That he runs the show is a beautiful understatement. He can even be his own vicar. Being a triune God has it’s advantages.

But He only established ONE organization in NT times. And He only promised ONE organization that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it.

And He only related so closely with ONE organization that He claimed that persecution of it was persecution of Him.

Why are you fighting against that ONE organization?

 

[nmgauss]

Do the other Catholic organizations figure into this scenario?

Albanian Byzantine Catholic Church
Belarusian Greek Catholic Church
Bulgarian Greek Catholic Church
Church of Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro
Greek Byzantine Catholic Church
Hungarian Greek Catholic Church
Italo-Albanian Catholic Church
Macedonian Greek Catholic Church
Melkite Catholic Church
Romanian Catholic Church
Russian Catholic Church
Ruthenian Catholic Church
Slovak Catholic Church
Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church
Maronite Church
Syriac Catholic Church
Syro-Malankara Catholic Church
Chaldean Catholic Church
Syro-Malabar Catholic Church
Armenian Catholic Church
Coptic Catholic Church
Ethiopian Catholic Church