The historicity of the Church

[benhur]

Seriously?

Mt 23:2 "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat;
3 so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.

No, we don’t have to obey whatever they DID, but we are commanded by Jesus to “practice and observe whatever they tell you.” Did you throw in the “or did” as a lawyer-like red herring trick?

Absolutely. That’s why Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to guide the Church. Church, singular.

They had authority from God.

Caiaphas even was “forced” to prophesy because he was high priest:
Joh 11:51 He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation,

You’re projecting your belief in sola scriptura on the Jews, who had nothing of the sort.
Catholicism, and not protestantism, is fulfilled Judaism.

They had authority before then? Like what?

This is a fairly common belief among protestents; a belief that is scripturally unfounded. Amazing for people who claim that scripture is their “norm.”

You can disagree all you wish. The reformers were not bishops who were given the authority to ordain others.

What you mention is the authority of the Sanhedrin or high priest .Beyond that did scribes and pharissees have authority from God ?

 

[benhur]

That’s a great question, and important.

The answer is quite definitely “NO”.

Does that change your understanding? (It should!)

No. I have read other catholics say they did.

 

[benhur]

I read it. Interesting, but includes a few important errors.
Such as when he says that “The Didache makes no mention of a sacrifice or a memorial associated with these prayers;”

"Is there anything in the text that compels us to understand “sacrifice” in a propitiatory sense? The reference to the Book of Malachi suggests that the sacrifice is not propitiatory for Malachi uses the word “minchah” which according to Strong’s definition, it is usually a bloodless and voluntary offering. Moreover, the context in the Didache is highly suggestive of a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving: ‘break bread and give thanks…that your sacrifice may be pure.’Referring to Malachi’s prophecy and the Eucharist, Justin Martyr writes: “Accordingly, God, anticipating all the sacrifices which we offer through this name, and which Jesus the Christ enjoined us to offer, i.e., in the Eucharist of the bread and the cup, and which are presented by Christians in all places throughout the world, bears witness that they are well-pleasing to Him….Now, that prayers and giving of thanks, when offered by worthy men, are the only perfect and well-pleasing sacrifices to God, I also admit. For such alone Christians have undertaken to offer, and in the remembrance effected by their solid and liquid food, whereby the suffering of the Son of God which He endured is brought to mind…” (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho). justforcatholics.org/a173.htm Maybe the author read this other offer. I do like Hebrews 13:15 “a sacrifice of praise”.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

(Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho). justforcatholics.org/a173.htm Maybe the author read this other offer. I do like Hebrews 13:15 “a sacrifice of praise”.

That website you linked introduces itself as:

This evangelical ministry is dedicated to Roman Catholics who desire to know how to be saved. It is our sincere desire to proclaim to you the Good News of Jesus Christ, because the Gospel is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes.

That is sheer pompous arrogance and grave ignorance…

We have been preaching the Good News of Jesus Christ for 2,000 years, our Bishops (the Apostles) preached and wrote those very same words that is called the New Testament.

To say the contrary is to be either a fool or evil.

And I take grave offense at that comment

Now I have to figure out how to pray for this enemy… God Help me and Christ have mercy

 

[josie_L]

That website you linked introduces itself as:

That is sheer pompous arrogance and grave ignorance…

We have been preaching the Good News of Jesus Christ for 2,000 years, our Bishops (the Apostles) preached and wrote those very same words that is called the New Testament.

And what’s even more distasteful is that their website is entitled “JustforCatholics” leading one to believe that it’s a Catholic website (I assume that was the purpose, i.e., to lead unsuspecting Catholics to visit their site).

 

[josie_L]

No. I have read other catholics say they did.

Benhur, the keys were entrusted to St. Peter by Christ (this is in scripture), and as such everyone in COMMUNION with Peter also “holds” the keys and shares in it’s powers, however, it is still Peter who was entrusted with the keys symbolizing that he above all other apostles is the pre-eminent holder of the keys (primacy).

 

[benhur]

That website you linked introduces itself as:

That is sheer pompous arrogance and grave ignorance…

We have been preaching the Good News of Jesus Christ for 2,000 years, our Bishops (the Apostles) preached and wrote those very same words that is called the New Testament.

To say the contrary is to be either a fool or evil.

And I take grave offense at that comment

Now I have to figure out how to pray for this enemy… God Help me and Christ have mercy

Sorry. I didn’t go past the article I posted. Didn’t even realize or read the site name (I was quite in a hurry)…Did take a look just now. Certainly not in your face like Chick or some others. While it is offensive to you I can not deny the expression of the guy’s own walk and experiences. But as you feel, not sure how many Catholics are prone to such a tactic of abruptness. Again, sorry, and I thought we were doing pretty good on our topic and conversation…

 

[benhur]

Benhur, the keys were entrusted to St. Peter by Christ (this is in scripture), and as such everyone in COMMUNION with Peter also “holds” the keys and shares in it’s powers, however, it is still Peter who was entrusted with the keys symbolizing that he above all other apostles is the pre-eminent holder of the keys (primacy).

OK Thank you. I thought some sited the scripture where Jesus commissions them all just before His ascension with similar function of a “keyholder”.

 

[joe371]

Again a multitude of counselors. And where you sit is where you stand. That is, people had an opinion already . I have heard that you train FBI counterfeit agents by showing them real money all day long. After awhile you stick in a counterfeit and it jumps out at them.(They had a strong opinion of what was real)… I think they relied pretty much on scriptural reasoning (both sides)…Again all divine illumination as He so graces. ( I can not get a definitive answer from any sourceby myself either.)

I don’t know what you mean when you say: “where you sit is where you stand”. However, let’s stick with one thing if you don’t mind. I believe in the Trinity because the CC leaders via council, settled the matter in an official way in the 4th century. How doctrinal disputes were eventually resolved is pretty clear, and it was not accomplished via a multitude of counsellors from different church affiliations e.g. the Baptist church, the Catholic church, the Lutheran church the Presbyterian etc., all coming together as one church to decide on the matter; that would never happen today for obvious reasons, and never happen back then because only one of those churches existed. The first people to break away from the following catholic paradigm of resolving doctrinal differences were Luther and Swingli etc., and they immediately parted ways because of it, replacing the paradigm with sola scriptura, and as a result could not view scripture alone(Eucharist) in the same way i.e. they could not resolve their doctrinal dispute about the Eucharist with this newfangled approach to authority, which eventually gave rise to the first reformed churches, which in turn would continue to lead to more reformed churches in the future, for the same reasons. Was it wrong for the CC to resolve doctrinal differences in the following manner, and right for the reformers to defer to scripture alone as the definitive replacement coming from God?

The fourth century CC council of Constantinople was attended by 186 catholic bishops, and it resolved two important issues that were being challenged by certain folks deferring to scripture alone: the deity of the Holy Spirit and the true humanity of Christ. Those leaders of the church via God’s guidance (otherwise I cannot know if those opposing them were wrong) gave the final and official definition, and it was to be upheld by all the Christians belonging to the CC.

Do we agree on how the Catholic Church definitively settled the matter, in the face of doctrinal disputes, on things like the Trinity, when people were challenging the teaching in the 4th century i.e. who officially dogmatized the Trinity when strong opinions for and against the common understanding today, were being bandied about?

 

[seanman611]

Yes, it is not that simple.

Especially when we consider that Pope Gregory the Great sent Augustine of Canterbury (1st Archibishop of Canterbury) to the mission that arrived in England around 597AD in what was known as Regnum Cantuariorum. (Kingdom of Kent?).

It doesn’t get any more Popish than that, so to say that the power of the papacy didn’t fully reach Brittania is a really big fat envelope to push under the door.

Of course the Pope had some influence in England during the early days of the Church, however, the Church in England was the Church in England. The power, influence, and scope of the Papacy was much more powerful on mainland Europe than on the British isles. The Pope may have been a first among equals, but he certainly was not the infallible dictator of the English Church.

As for the whole Henry VIII issue - I take a back seat to GKC.

I enjoy GKC’s posts and I think he is far more eloquent than I on the subject.

To say that the Papal office developed as a political office is a gross misrepresentation of history and it would have to ignore, not only Scriptures, but the unity of the Church under one visible head on earth and how it has actually been an effective historical advantage to defend matters of the faith. You also need to demonstrate how this developed as a political office.

Also, I am now obliged to call you on your scant evidence and mostly (It has to be over 51% in order to qualify as most) forgeries that you appeal to.

Not at all. Is it possible that the Pope was a first among equals? Yes, but was the Pope the infallible monarch ruler of the entire Church before the medieval Church? Most historians say no. The power of the Papacy increased with the increased political role of the office of the Papacy and the competition for the Papal crown amongst the most powerful Italian families.

I’ll give you a few big ones that are considered by historians to be forgeries: The Donation of Constantine and the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals, which are 115 documents that were supposedly written by early Popes. The Catholic Encyclopedia admits that these are forgeries. The Isidorian Decretals and the Donation of Constantine contain perhaps the most important claims to Papal power and they are forgeries. They are also perhaps the most widely used by the medieval Popes to assert their domination over the Church.

This is you personal opinion and you are entitled to it.

Can you name when, where and how did the Church go astray? That is after all the OP and what I am demanding proof of.

When the Church began using forged documents to consolidate the office and power of the Papacy and Rome, that would be a good place to start.

That is a great blanket waiver…

So I wait for the evidence.

Thanks, it is impossible to speak for all Anglicans, I can only speak for myself. However, I think that most Anglicans would agree with my two posts on the thread.

 

[joe371]

OK Thank you. I thought some sited the scripture where Jesus commissions them all just before His ascension with similar function of a “keyholder”.

In other words, Peter was the prime minister of the 12 minister aka apostles. Just as there was a prime minister in Isaiah 22. Eliakim possessed the office of prime minister of the kingdom of Hezekiah; he succeeded ShebnaGod said to the prime minister Eliakim, the assistant PM Shebna, and the senior priests to dress in sackcloth and tell the prophet Isaiah:

These are difficult and disgraceful times. Our nation is like a woman too weak to give birth, when it’s time for her baby to be born. Please pray for those of us who are left alive. The king of Assyria sent his army commander to insult the living God. Perhaps the Lord heard what he said and will do something, if you will pray…I will depose you from your office, and you will be ousted from your position “In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the people of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open. I will drive him like a peg into a firm place; he will become a seat of honor for the house of his father. All the glory of his family will hang on him: its offspring and offshoots—all its lesser vessels, from the bowls to all the jars. “In that day,” declares the Lord Almighty, “the peg driven into the firm place will give way; it will be sheared off and will fall, and the load hanging on it will be cut down.” The Lord has spoken.

In Isaiah 22:20-22 we see God granting authority to the Prime Minister of the Kingdom of David (Hezekiah). In Matthew 16:18-19; God grants authority to the Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Jesus (David). Same language:

“And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Sorry. I didn’t go past the article I posted. Didn’t even realize or read the site name (I was quite in a hurry)…Did take a look just now. Certainly not in your face like Chick or some others. While it is offensive to you I can not deny the expression of the guy’s own walk and experiences. But as you feel, not sure how many Catholics are prone to such a tactic of abruptness.

Again, sorry, and I thought we were doing pretty good on our topic and conversation…

We are doing well in our conversation, thank you.

But, I can’t let a toxic website like that go unnoticed. In my opinion it is worse than Chick, because it truly represents a wolf in sheep clothing. The name of the website with a statement like that one is highly offensive to me and I have little tolerance for things like that. Like I said, it is sheer pompous arrogance and grave ignorance.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Of course the Pope had some influence in England during the early days of the Church, however, the Church in England was the Church in England. The power, influence, and scope of the Papacy was much more powerful on mainland Europe than on the British isles.

That’s not what you said: “The power of the Papacy never fully reached the British isles”.

And I presented to you historical evidence of full reach by 597AD.

The Pope may have been a first among equals, but he certainly was not the infallible dictator of the English Church.

“May” have been? It sounds as if you don’t agree with that statement. He was first. To deny the primacy of Peter is to read the Scriptures and the History of the Church selectively.

What you “may” want to argue is mediate primacy and immediate primacy.

But, regardless, you can’t escape the primacy.

I enjoy GKC’s posts and I think he is far more eloquent than I on the subject.

I enjoy his posts as well.

Not at all. Is it possible that the Pope was a first among equals? Yes, but was the Pope the infallible monarch ruler of the entire Church before the medieval Church? Most historians say no. The power of the Papacy increased with the increased political role of the office of the Papacy and the competition for the Papal crown amongst the most powerful Italian families.

That depends on the historian, does it not? Again, you say most and yet I don’t see any statistics to show this majority. If you are going to make claims of most, please provide sources and evidence to back the claim.

I’ll give you a few big ones that are considered by historians to be forgeries: The Donation of Constantine and the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals, which are 115 documents that were supposedly written by early Popes. The Catholic Encyclopedia admits that these are forgeries. The Isidorian Decretals and the Donation of Constantine contain perhaps the most important claims to Papal power and they are forgeries. They are also perhaps the most widely used by the medieval Popes to assert their domination over the Church.

From Britannica:

False Decretals, a 9th-century collection of ecclesiastical legislation containing some forged documents. The principal aim of the forgers was to free the Roman Catholic church from interference by the state and to maintain the independence of the bishops against the encroachments of the archbishops, who were attempting to extend their power.

A party had been formed in the Carolingian Empire to combat the subjection of the church to the state. Within this party was a group that became convinced that the use of legitimate means would never accomplish this purpose and determined to try to achieve it by illegitimate means. They conceived that positive legislation of their demands could be projected into the past by attributing it to popes and kings long dead. Thus, they produced a number of falsifications of church law, of which the best known was the False Decretals.

The False Decretals—also called the Decretals of Pseudo-Isidore because their compilers passed as Saint Isidore of Sevilla, a Spanish encyclopaedist and historian, and sometimes the Collection of Isidore Mercator because they usually begin with the words Isidorus Mercator, servus Christi lectori salutem (“Isidore the merchant, a servant of Christ, salutes the reader”)—purports to be a collection of decrees of councils and decretals of popes (written replies on questions of ecclesiastical discipline) from the first seven centuries. The collection contains (1) the letters of the popes preceding the Council of Nicaea (325) from Clement I to Miltiades, all of which are forgeries; (2) a collection of the decrees of councils, most of which are genuine, though the forged Donation of Constantine is included; (3) a large collection of letters of the popes from Sylvester I (died 335) to Gregory II (died 731), among which there are more than 40 falsifications.

You said most - again. We would have to count all the Papal letters and encyclicals and bulls, starting with 1 and 2 Peter to the present and then conclude that most of them were forgeries. Since you are the one making the claim - the burden of proof rests on you.

When the Church began using forged documents to consolidate the office and power of the Papacy and Rome, that would be a good place to start.

The Church is the same. The people in the Church that sinned and committed offenses hurt the Church but the Church doesn’t stop to exit or go astray. What you are saying here is nothing but demagoguery in a futile attempt to present some sort of evidence. When in fact, these very same issues are witnesses to the presence of the Church with Her struggles. Yet, with these people trying to do harm, Christ prevailed and we are still here. The gates of Hades has not overcome and will not overcome.

Do you have concrete and actual proof?

Thanks, it is impossible to speak for all Anglicans, I can only speak for myself. However, I think that most Anglicans would agree with my two posts on the thread.

I was meaning evidence for your post. GKC has made me aware that Anglicans are motley.

 

[joe371]

OK Thank you. I thought some sited the scripture where Jesus commissions them all just before His ascension with similar function of a “keyholder”.

I was rushing when I wrote this. I meant to ask you if you agreed with the following?

Peter was the prime minister of the 12 minister aka apostles; just as there was a prime minister in Isaiah 22; Eliakim possessed the office of prime minister of the kingdom of Hezekiah; he succeeded Shebna. God said to the prime minister Eliakim, the assistant prime minister at the time, Shebna, and the senior priests to dress in sackcloth and tell the prophet Isaiah:

These are difficult and disgraceful times. Our nation is like a woman too weak to give birth, when it’s time for her baby to be born. Please pray for those of us who are left alive. The king of Assyria sent his army commander to insult the living God. Perhaps the Lord heard what he said and will do something, if you will pray…I will depose you from your office, and you will be ousted from your position “In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the people of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open. I will drive him like a peg into a firm place; he will become a seat of honor for the house of his father. All the glory of his family will hang on him: its offspring and offshoots—all its lesser vessels, from the bowls to all the jars. “In that day,” declares the Lord Almighty, “the peg driven into the firm place will give way; it will be sheared off and will fall, and the load hanging on it will be cut down.” The Lord has spoken.

In Isaiah 22:20-22 we see God granting authority to the prime minister of the Kingdom of David (Hezekiah). In Matthew 16:18-19; God grants authority, again to the prime minister of the Kingdom of Jesus (Davidic thrown promised in the OT). Same language:

“And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

 

[Nicea325]

Very nice (name removed by moderator)ut, thank you (and I needed some company). I like the “first amongst equals” for Peter as you put it.

First among equals? According to who?

 

[benhur]

I don’t know what you mean when you say: “where you sit is where you stand”. However, let’s stick with one thing if you don’t mind. I believe in the Trinity because the CC leaders via council, settled the matter in an official way in the 4th century. How doctrinal disputes were eventually resolved is pretty clear, and it was not accomplished via a multitude of counsellors from different church affiliations e.g. the Baptist church, the Catholic church, the Lutheran church the Presbyterian etc., all coming together as one church to decide on the matter; that would never happen today for obvious reasons, and never happen back then because only one of those churches existed. The first people to break away from the following catholic paradigm of resolving doctrinal differences were Luther and Swingli etc., and they immediately parted ways because of it, replacing the paradigm with sola scriptura, and as a result could not view scripture alone(Eucharist) in the same way i.e. they could not resolve their doctrinal dispute about the Eucharist with this newfangled approach to authority, which eventually gave rise to the first reformed churches, which in turn would continue to lead to more reformed churches in the future, for the same reasons. Was it wrong for the CC to resolve doctrinal differences in the following manner, and right for the reformers to defer to scripture alone as the definitive replacement coming from God?

The fourth century CC council of Constantinople was attended by 186 catholic bishops, and it resolved two important issues that were being challenged by certain folks deferring to scripture alone: the deity of the Holy Spirit and the true humanity of Christ. Those leaders of the church via God’s guidance (otherwise I cannot know if those opposing them were wrong) gave the final and official definition, and it was to be upheld by all the Christians belonging to the CC.

Do we agree on how the Catholic Church definitively settled the matter, in the face of doctrinal disputes, on things like the Trinity, when people were challenging the teaching in the 4th century i.e. who officially dogmatized the Trinity when strong opinions for and against the common understanding today, were being bandied about?

Are you sure that is the entire history of the trinity problem ? Did it really resolve as you say?

 

[joe371]

Are you sure that is the entire history of the trinity problem ? Did it really resolve as you say?

It is not the entire history…That was not the point of the post though…

 

[benhur]

It is not the entire history…That was not the point of the post though…

Yes but part of that history may be partly contrary to your point

 

[benhur]

First among equals? According to who?

Well apparently to the poster and maybe Anglican folk. Shall I look for others ?

 

[benhur]

I was rushing when I wrote this. I meant to ask you if you agreed with the following?

Peter was the prime minister of the 12 minister aka apostles; just as there was a prime minister in Isaiah 22; Eliakim possessed the office of prime minister of the kingdom of Hezekiah; he succeeded Shebna. God said to the prime minister Eliakim, the assistant prime minister at the time, Shebna, and the senior priests to dress in sackcloth and tell the prophet Isaiah:

These are difficult and disgraceful times. Our nation is like a woman too weak to give birth, when it’s time for her baby to be born. Please pray for those of us who are left alive. The king of Assyria sent his army commander to insult the living God. Perhaps the Lord heard what he said and will do something, if you will pray…I will depose you from your office, and you will be ousted from your position “In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the people of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open. I will drive him like a peg into a firm place; he will become a seat of honor for the house of his father. All the glory of his family will hang on him: its offspring and offshoots—all its lesser vessels, from the bowls to all the jars. “In that day,” declares the Lord Almighty, “the peg driven into the firm place will give way; it will be sheared off and will fall, and the load hanging on it will be cut down.” The Lord has spoken.

In Isaiah 22:20-22 we see God granting authority to the prime minister of the Kingdom of David (Hezekiah). In Matthew 16:18-19; God grants authority, again to the prime minister of the Kingdom of Jesus (Davidic thrown promised in the OT). Same language:

“And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

What of the last part," he will be cut down and the burden it held cut off"’. What was Eliakim’s end ? Did he serve his purpose and was there always then to be a “Eliakim” therafter ? Shebna was a prime minister and he was deposed. Eliakim did good and the Lord was faithful… Peter did good and the Lord was faithful .To go beyond them is another thing, though their “glory” is established for their works and faithfulness for their time …Otherwise the analogy is good and one I would use if I were Catholic.