The historicity of the Church

[seanman611]

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.

We seem to be having a communication problem that is hindered by discussing this issue on a forum. Of course the Catholic Church was active in the British Isles and I do not dispute your claim. However, saying that the English Church recognized an infallible monarch bishop is something quite different. The Church in England was Catholic and in our eyes remains Catholic, but the Church had a level of autonomy. This is why the Church in England and the Papacy had such a contentious relationship that lasted hundreds of years before any break. That is why I say that full Papal authority never reached the British Isles, this is historical fact.

“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.

You are quite right and I personally feel that the Bishop of Rome was the first among equals. However, the history is really hard to sift through. What is clear in my eyes and in the eyes of others is that the Papacy wasn’t an office established to grant the Pope endless power nor infallibility. I also believe that the various churches held a degree of autonomy and appealed to Rome for mediation in cases of dispute.

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.

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.

The most important documents used by Rome to prove Papal authority in political, religious, and secular matters have been shown to be forgeries. What more is there to say? The burden of proof is on you to show that the Papacy was established as an infallible monarch bishop that rules totally over all the Church. Good luck trying to prove that without using forgeries.

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?

The office of the Papacy and its power grew as the desire of Italy’s most powerful families grew to desire this office for power and money. Nobody can say with a straight face that the office of the Papacy in the 5th century is even close to being the same office in the 15th century.

The proof is in the history of the era, study the history of this era and the elite Italian families. Contrast this with the office of the Papacy in earlier centuries, it’s not the same.

 

[fhansen]

In the latest Sola Scriptura thread, my friend Per Crucem posted:

This in reply to the unbroken line of the historical Christian Churches: Oriental Orthodox (OO), Eastern Orthodox (EO), and Catholic (CC).

All of us (Me being Catholic) can trace our undisputed origin to the Apostles, and therefore to Christ. We each blame the other for separating but we all owe our existence to Christ and the evangelization of the Apostles themselves.

It is a very common argument that we are not the Church that Jesus founded.

I am not interested in ideas, opinions, or gut feelings. I want dry, cold and hard facts. We can produce dry, cold and hard facts, so we expect nothing less in return.

This brings a very dramatic question in place…
**
When, Where, and How did the Church that Jesus founded disappear?**

1. SS, Scripture alone, doesn’t work as a norm or rule of faith because of the differing interpretations that result from that method.
2. The only plausible alternative is that the rule of faith must be the Church, itself, which Jesus established at the beginning, using Scripture along with its own, lived history, or Tradition, to draw from in making determinations on matters of faith and morals, guided by the Holy Spirit.
3. But differences in doctrine between the ancient Churches (east vs west and east vs east) means that the Church must insist on the need for a centralized authority, a place where the “buck stops”, so to speak, and there’s only one I know of that’s made such a boldly honest claim.
4. If such a Church ever ceased to exist then the Christian faith is unknowable with any degree of certainty.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

We seem to be having a communication problem that is hindered by discussing this issue on a forum. Of course the Catholic Church was active in the British Isles and I do not dispute your claim. However, saying that the English Church recognized an infallible monarch bishop is something quite different. The Church in England was Catholic and in our eyes remains Catholic, but the Church had a level of autonomy. This is why the Church in England and the Papacy had such a contentious relationship that lasted hundreds of years before any break. That is why I say that full Papal authority never reached the British Isles, this is historical fact.

You are quite right and I personally feel that the Bishop of Rome was the first among equals. However, the history is really hard to sift through. What is clear in my eyes and in the eyes of others is that the Papacy wasn’t an office established to grant the Pope endless power nor infallibility. I also believe that the various churches held a degree of autonomy and appealed to Rome for mediation in cases of dispute.

The most important documents used by Rome to prove Papal authority in political, religious, and secular matters have been shown to be forgeries. What more is there to say? The burden of proof is on you to show that the Papacy was established as an infallible monarch bishop that rules totally over all the Church. Good luck trying to prove that without using forgeries.

The office of the Papacy and its power grew as the desire of Italy’s most powerful families grew to desire this office for power and money. Nobody can say with a straight face that the office of the Papacy in the 5th century is even close to being the same office in the 15th century.

The proof is in the history of the era, study the history of this era and the elite Italian families. Contrast this with the office of the Papacy in earlier centuries, it’s not the same.

You are moving into a “red herring” fallacy here by moving into a controversial subject like the Papacy and getting away from the actual subject: The Historicity of the Church.

The Church in Rome has existed since the Apostles. The subject of the primacy is for a different thread, for which there are probably several dozen in this forum.

And still, you are using another fallacy: “false in one thing then false in everything else” - in which you are appealing for some forged documents were discovered for a purpose and concluding that all documents used for the same purpose are then forged.

In this case, because there have been forgeries of a minuscule sample you have arbitrarily chosen to use - then you are concluding that all others must be forgeries as well.

From 2,000 years of Church history, you chose a small sample and then try to taint all of the other hundred of years and say that it is my burden of proof?

You have no idea how this actually works in a democratic society… You are the one alleging to present evidence. You must do so by presenting material beyond a reasonable doubt or at the minimum with the preponderance of evidence.

Unless, you have a twisted and corrupt system of justice where you are always guilty unless proven innocent?

You also make claims like this:

The proof is in the history of the era, study the history of this era

And yet, you are not saying anything…

Well, my reply is that my proof is in the history of this era as well.

If you want to attack the Papacy - Please go and do it on a different thread.

And by the full authority of Pope Gregory the Great - Augustine of Canterbury and other 40 monks were at England with full authority from the Catholic Church. That is a fact.

 

[seanman611]

You are moving into a “red herring” fallacy here by moving into a controversial subject like the Papacy and getting away from the actual subject: The Historicity of the Church.

Is the Papacy not a part of the Historicity of the Church?

The Church in Rome has existed since the Apostles. The subject of the primacy is for a different thread, for which there are probably several dozen in this forum.

And still, you are using another fallacy: “false in one thing then false in everything else” - in which you are appealing for some forged documents were discovered for a purpose and concluding that all documents used for the same purpose are then forged.

In this case, because there have been forgeries of a minuscule sample you have arbitrarily chosen to use - then you are concluding that all others must be forgeries as well.

Please show me in any of my posts were I claim that the Roman Church is a false church. I never said the Church was false in everything. I believe that the Roman Church has went astray in regards to certain issues, however, I believe the same can be said about the Anglican Church. However, Anglicans don’t claim to have an infallible magisterium.

Also, you keep downplaying the forgeries, however, the forgeries that I provided are big ones and ones that have been used for centuries to justify an increase in Papal power. Also, all of your posts keep putting words in my mouth. Maybe I haven’t been clear and if so, my apologies. However, I believe that most documents detailing increases in Papal power are forgeries. I provided you with some big ones, yet you have not addressed them.

From 2,000 years of Church history, you chose a small sample and then try to taint all of the other hundred of years and say that it is my burden of proof?

Please show me that this infallible monarch bishop has existed in Rome from the very beginning. I have said that I personally think that the Bishop of Rome was the first among equals, but the office evolved into something much more powerful over time. This evolution coincides with the rise of the Italian city-states and the powerful families of Italy. You have yet to address any of this.

You have no idea how this actually works in a democratic society… You are the one alleging to present evidence. You must do so by presenting material beyond a reasonable doubt or at the minimum with the preponderance of evidence.

Unless, you have a twisted and corrupt system of justice where you are always guilty unless proven innocent?

This is an attack on my person and it is something that I’m not going to sink to. If you don’t like my arguments fine, but please don’t resort to such immature games. I have not once attacked your person or said such things about your person.

You also make claims like this:

And yet, you are not saying anything…

Well, my reply is that my proof is in the history of this era as well.

If you want to attack the Papacy - Please go and do it on a different thread.

And by the full authority of Pope Gregory the Great - Augustine of Canterbury and other 40 monks were at England with full authority from the Catholic Church. That is a fact.

Did I once deny that Anglicans and Catholics share a common history? Did I deny that Augustine of Canterbury came to England? However, I am denying that the Pope was the infallible monarch bishop of the Church in England. The Pope’s authority was much less in England than elsewhere in Europe, history attests to this and the rocky history between the Church in England and the Papacy attests to this as well.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Is the Papacy not a part of the Historicity of the Church?

It is one part, yes. However, that is not being discussed here as there are already several threads about it. Plus, the polemics surrounding that subject alone will depart from the OP that deal with the Church as the Body of Christ continually present since Jesus and the Apostles. You are more than welcome to discuss them of those threads.

Please show me in any of my posts were I claim that the Roman Church is a false church. I never said the Church was false in everything. I believe that the Roman Church has went astray in regards to certain issues, however, I believe the same can be said about the Anglican Church. However, Anglicans don’t claim to have an infallible magisterium.

The Church is an institution. It is impossible for Her to go astray. The men in the Church are a whole different story. You are equating the actions of the men to the Church in general. I doubt that those who had nothing to do with the behavior of those in power are culpable.

Also, you keep downplaying the forgeries, however, the forgeries that I provided are big ones and ones that have been used for centuries to justify an increase in Papal power. Also, all of your posts keep putting words in my mouth. Maybe I haven’t been clear and if so, my apologies. However, I believe that most documents detailing increases in Papal power are forgeries. I provided you with some big ones, yet you have not addressed them.

Actually, you mentioned them (2) and did not include any more information about them. I included a link from Britannica in regards to one of the 2 that you mentioned. I am downplaying the forgeries because in the big picture - those documents play a minority. I am counting all the letters, bulls, encyclicals done by Popes since 1 and 2 Peter. I have found that what you are claiming to be “most” is actually “small” in the big picture.

OTOH, I think you are overplaying them.

I am downplaying because they do nothing to imply that the Church stop existing or that the Church went astray. The Church suffered from the actions of those men but the Church remained.

Please show me that this infallible monarch bishop has existed in Rome from the very beginning. I have said that I personally think that the Bishop of Rome was the first among equals, but the office evolved into something much more powerful over time. This evolution coincides with the rise of the Italian city-states and the powerful families of Italy. You have yet to address any of this.

Again, that has nothing to do with the fact that the Church was or wasn’t present. In the same manner that the Ecumenical Councils were called for by powerful Emperors. I am not negating the influence of the State in men of the Church. What I am presenting is that the Gospel was preached continuously since Pentecost. Regardless to the misbehavior of men in the Church and of the political influence into men in the Church. There have been Priests, Brothers, Bishops, Nuns that have been taking care of the faithful.

I am also not discussing infallibility on this thread. Like the Papacy subject, there are several threads about it on the forum. You are welcome to discuss them there.

This is an attack on my person and it is something that I’m not going to sink to. If you don’t like my arguments fine, but please don’t resort to such immature games. I have not once attacked your person or said such things about your person.

No, please don’t play the victim. I said that the burden of proof was yours. And your reply was that it was mine.

I don’t know what country you are posting from and if you live in a justice system where the laws are different. In the U.S. whoever is presenting evidence must do so beyond a reasonable doubt or do so by the preponderance of evidence.

That is why I finished it with a question mark.

I will apologize for using the words twisted and corrupted. Those were uncalled for and written in frustration from another situation that should not have bleed into the thread. Still no excuse as I should have double check my post. Again, my apologies.

Did I once deny that Anglicans and Catholics share a common history? Did I deny that Augustine of Canterbury came to England? However, I am denying that the Pope was the infallible monarch bishop of the Church in England. The Pope’s authority was much less in England than elsewhere in Europe, history attests to this and the rocky history between the Church in England and the Papacy attests to this as well.

You are saying that the Papacy never had full authority in England. Your understanding from what “full authority” means has to be different than mine. To me, if the Pope commands the Church to go and preach the Gospel and make disciples and teach them about Jesus Christ — That means that with the full authority of the Pope the Catholic Church was established in England. I suspect that you are referring to political influence? Perhaps you can expand on what your understanding is.

 

[joe371]

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

It’s kind of like we are in a constant, never-ending loop, never really making any headway. Lol… I suppose that is life…Do you agree with the following? Notice that I am using scripture when it comes to history:

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 (Eliakim) of the Davidic Kingdom (Hezekiah) while he is gone. In Matthew 16:18-19 we see God granting authority to the prime minister of the Kingdom of Jesus (Davidic thrown promised in the OT). Same language, indicating that Simon, renamed Cephes, is the prime minister of Jesus’ kingdom while Jesus is gone?

“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.”

Jesus was paraphrasing a passage from Isaiah well known among the Jews (Is 22:15-25) in which Hezekiah, the King of Israel (son of David) possessed a general cabinet of ministers and his chief chamberlain, the prime minister Shebna was proved unworthy of his post and removed. To fill his office, King Hezekiah names Eliakim son of Hilkiah as the new prime minister.

 

[joe371]

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.

Does it really matter what his end was; after all Jesus (His prime minister) is the one kingdom that was prophesied to never end - right? Jesus used the same language, regarding the prime minister; Jesus was paraphrasing a passage from Isaiah well known among the Jews (Is 22:15-25), so yes, logically speaking, Jesus clearly reminds us that His prime minister would be the steward of His church aka kingdom on earth, in His stead - agreed?

 

[joe371]

1. SS, Scripture alone, doesn’t work as a norm or rule of faith because of the differing interpretations that result from that method.
2. The only plausible alternative is that the rule of faith must be the Church, itself, which Jesus established at the beginning, using Scripture along with its own, lived history, or Tradition, to draw from in making determinations on matters of faith and morals, guided by the Holy Spirit.
3. But differences in doctrine between the ancient Churches (east vs west and east vs east) means that the Church must insist on the need for a centralized authority, a place where the “buck stops”, so to speak, and there’s only one I know of that’s made such a boldly honest claim.
4. If such a Church ever ceased to exist then the Christian faith is unknowable with any degree of certainty.

That was the conclusion that I drew as a former non-Catholic.

 

[seanman611]

It is one part, yes. However, that is not being discussed here as there are already several threads about it. Plus, the polemics surrounding that subject alone will depart from the OP that deal with the Church as the Body of Christ continually present since Jesus and the Apostles. You are more than welcome to discuss them of those threads.

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

The Church is an institution. It is impossible for Her to go astray. The men in the Church are a whole different story. You are equating the actions of the men to the Church in general. I doubt that those who had nothing to do with the behavior of those in power are culpable.

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

Actually, you mentioned them (2) and did not include any more information about them. I included a link from Britannica in regards to one of the 2 that you mentioned. I am downplaying the forgeries because in the big picture - those documents play a minority. I am counting all the letters, bulls, encyclicals done by Popes since 1 and 2 Peter. I have found that what you are claiming to be “most” is actually “small” in the big picture.

OTOH, I think you are overplaying them.

I am downplaying because they do nothing to imply that the Church stop existing or that the Church went astray. The Church suffered from the actions of those men but the Church remained.

Certainly the Church remained, but the nature of the Church changed during that time. The Pope gained a lot of power during that era, some of which he has kept to this day. I can certainly post more forgeries if you want, but I doubt that either of us doing a dissertation on the issue will change either of our minds on this matter. Furthermore, I have taken this thread off topic. I would like to continue this discussion in another thread though.

Again, that has nothing to do with the fact that the Church was or wasn’t present. In the same manner that the Ecumenical Councils were called for by powerful Emperors. I am not negating the influence of the State in men of the Church. What I am presenting is that the Gospel was preached continuously since Pentecost. Regardless to the misbehavior of men in the Church and of the political influence into men in the Church. There have been Priests, Brothers, Bishops, Nuns that have been taking care of the faithful.

I never said the Church wasn’t present or that it disappeared at some point. What I am saying is that there were churches that held a certain degree of autonomy, while being in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Remember, it was the Pope that declared the Church in England to be out of communion with Rome after the Reformation. The Church in England did not stop existing after this declaration and it continued in England as it always has, albeit out of communion with Rome. When I say that Rome “went astray,” I’m not saying that it ceased to exist or that it was not longer a Church. Anglicans recognize the validity of Roman Catholic sacraments and orders and considers your Church to be a Church.

I am also not discussing infallibility on this thread. Like the Papacy subject, there are several threads about it on the forum. You are welcome to discuss them there.

Agreed, I will take this conversation to that thread.

No, please don’t play the victim. I said that the burden of proof was yours. And your reply was that it was mine.

I’m referring the part calling my thinking, in regards to justice, as possibly being twisted and corrupted. I post on another forum that has a strict policy of attacks on one’s person. I have been guilty of this in the past, but do my best to avoid going down that road.

I don’t know what country you are posting from and if you live in a justice system where the laws are different. In the U.S. whoever is presenting evidence must do so beyond a reasonable doubt or do so by the preponderance of evidence.

That is why I finished it with a question mark.

My faith says Anglican (Episcopalian), therefore, I figured most would understand that I belong to the Episcopal Church USA, however, seeing that other provinces call themselves Episcopalians, I can see that it may not be obvious.

I will apologize for using the words twisted and corrupted. Those were uncalled for and written in frustration from another situation that should not have bleed into the thread. Still no excuse as I should have double check my post. Again, my apologies.

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

You are saying that the Papacy never had full authority in England. Your understanding from what “full authority” means has to be different than mine. To me, if the Pope commands the Church to go and preach the Gospel and make disciples and teach them about Jesus Christ — That means that with the full authority of the Pope the Catholic Church was established in England. I suspect that you are referring to political influence? Perhaps you can expand on what your understanding is.

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.

 

[benhur]

joe371;11891166I:

don’t know what you mean when you say: “where you sit is where you stand”.

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.

I believe in the Trinity because the CC leaders via council, settled the matter in an official way in the 4th century.

Agreed. Official. Anthanasius declared after Nicea, “Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith’s sake;for divine scripture is sufficient above all things”. DeSynodis 6 Even Later Augustine tells Maximim (Arian)-“you don’t recognize Nicea as I don’t recognize Ariminum Council, but let us come to common ground, the testimony of the Holy Scriptures” *To Maximim the *Arian

How doctrinal disputes were eventually resolved is pretty clear, The first people to break away from the following catholic paradigm of resolving doctrinal differences were Luther and Swingli etc.

This is where more history is needed. Obviously the Great Schism is missing from your remark. That took place way before Luther. Also after the Nicea Council and it’s christology, you still had great problems and splits. It led to two more councils, with splits continuing. These are Catholics splitting, or being excommunicated from each other and they immediately parted ways because of it, with anathemas and civil penalties (way before Luther). 38 bishops departed from one of the councils ( Constantinople -381) in “protest”, way before Luther. Finally the Nestorians split, and I think there church still exists today.

with this newfangled approach (SS) to authority,

There is nothing new. Councils can be problematic as i have shown as sure as as Holy Writ authority also. I have shown just how the councils used scripture for authority in Christology. .

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?

Councils are fine as long as they are scriptural as Augustine alludes to. And correct scriptural interpretation is what made Nicea so authoritative, as Athanasius points out. Luther said nothing new that a council could be wrong, and that correct scriptural interpretation is paramount. Luther’s rationale was over a thousand years old.

The fourth century CC council of Constantinople was attended by 186 catholic bishops,gave the final and official definition, and it was to be upheld by all the Christians belonging to the CC…

Again 28 bishops departed in protest, and would not agree to councils stand.

 

[joe371]

benhur;11894887]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)

He was a Christian belonging to the Catholic church, and since you are referring to him as a reliable source of information then why not follow in his shoes and join the church to which he belonged? Absolutely no sarcasm intended.

Could you show me the quote where he defers to scripture alone, as opposed to the Catholic council, in terms of the final say on the matter i.e. show me where he believed in the trinity from scripture, before any catholic council?

What the council did do is sharpen and formulize the language to address and refute the non-trinitarian view. Agreed.

:yup:They also quashed heresy - agreed via the guidance of the Hs?

Official. Anthanasius declared after Nicea, “Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith’s sake;for divine scripture is sufficient above all things”. DeSynodis 6 Even Later Augustine tells Maximim (Arian)-"

Athanasius held to scripture and tradition; he was not a SS advocate; of course the opinion of one man is not sufficient; it’s the church leadership as a whole (EC + PO) that is guided in terms of preserving doctrinal truth; Thomas Aquinas is a good example; he did not immediately embrace the IC but deferred to Jesus’ church anyway for the final analysis :

Athanasius, To Adelphius, Letter 60
60.2 You, however, beloved and most truly longed-for, have done what befitted **the tradition of the Church **and your piety toward the Lord, in refuting, admonishing, and rebuking such men

Letter 2,6
But after him and with him are all inventors of unlawful heresies, who indeed refer to the Scriptures, but do not hold such opinions as the saints have handed down, and receiving them as the traditions of men, err, because they do not rightly know them nor their power. Therefore Paul justly praises the Corinthians because their opinions were in accordance with his traditions. And the Lord most righteously reproved the Jews, saying, ‘Wherefore do ye also transgress the commandments of God on account of your traditions.’ For they changed the commandments they received from God after their own understanding, preferring to observe the traditions of men.

Letter 2.7
In this holy joy of Easter, which being continually in our hearts, we always rejoice, as Paul commanded; 'We pray without ceasing; in everything we give thanks. So we are not remiss in giving notice of its seasons, as we have received from the Fathers. Again we write, again keeping to the apostolic traditions, we remind each other when we come together for prayer; and keeping the feast in common, with one mouth we truly give thanks to the Lord.

Letter 10.11
I both give thanks to God myself, and exhort you to thank Him with me and on my behalf, this being the Apostolic custom, which these opponents of Christ, and the schismatics, wished to put an end to, and to break off.

 

[joe371]

benhur Athanasius On the Incarnation of the Word

you don’t recognize Nicea? OK.

as I don’t recognize Ariminum Council, but let us come to common ground, the testimony of the Holy Scriptures" To Maximim the Arian This is where more history is needed.

Why would you?

"Council of Ariminum**,** also called Council of Rimini, (ad 359), in early Christianity, one of the several 4th-century church councils concerned with Arianism; it was called by the pro-Arian Roman emperor Constantius II and held at Ariminum (modern Rimini, Italy). It was attended by some 400 bishops of the Western Roman Empire, with the Eastern bishops simultaneously meeting at Seleucia (now Silifke, Turkey). The majority of bishops at Ariminum were orthodox and accepted the faith of Nicaea, but the Arian minority included skilled diplomats who successfully undid the orthodox decision of the majority when it reached the emperor. The orthodox bishops remaining at Ariminum were then forced to recant and subscribe to an Arian creed drawn up at Nice in Thracia. Pope Liberius soon repudiated this creed and declared the Council of Ariminum without authority."

Obviously the Great Schism is missing from your remark. That took place way before Luther. Also after the Nicea Council and it’s christology,

Agreed. :shrug:Jesus’ Catholic Church kept going though, guided by God.

There is nothing new. Councils can be problematic as i have shown as sure as as Holy Writ authority also.

If councils can be wrong then perhaps Arius was right? He would agree with your statement. Perhaps those catholic synods were wrong about the books that they eventually codified?

I have shown just how the councils used scripture for authority in Christology.

Not scripture alone, and it was the CC leaders via EC + PO that made the final decisions using both SS + ST?

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 identify the Bible as the infallible word of God.

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

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 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?
.

Luther said nothing new that a council could be wrong, and that correct scriptural interpretation is paramount. Luther’s rationale was over a thousand years old.
Again 28 bishops departed in protest, and would not agree to councils stand.

So I should believe them as opposed to the CC council?

In the final analysis I cannot think of one reason to trust my fallible interpretation versus the interpretation of Jesus’ Catholic church, comprised of fallible leaders, when it comes to resolving doctrinal disputes - agreed?

 

[FathersKnowBest]

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

Why are you changing the subject?

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Your sources deal with succession of the apostles and differing churches/areas/cities and their bishops. Ignatius does not mention a head bishop, not any bishop of Rome . He does mention other “city” bishops by name .

Again, changing the subject.

It is the CATHOLIC bishops that have the Apostolic Succession.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

No. I have read other catholics say they did.

So? You don’t believe in scriptures?

Would my quoting any random protestants count as evidence against your beliefs?

 

[FathersKnowBest]

"Is there anything in the text that compels us to understand “sacrifice” in a propitiatory sense?

Not using that word, which wasn’t applied theologically until quite late.

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.

“Usually” blodless. And, of course Jesus’ sacrifice was voluntary.

Moreover, the context in the Didache is highly suggestive of a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving:

You really need to study up more on the Eucharist.
I’d suggest reading Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist to start. GREAT book.

The very word “Eucharist” comes from (quoting wikipedia here)
Eucharist: the Greek noun εὐχαριστία (eucharistia), meaning “thanksgiving,”

 

[Nicea325]

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

By all means…be my guest. That term was applied much later. I have yet to read “first among equals” by the early church fathers.

 

[Nicea325]

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

But is that what the early church fathers refer to the Bishop of Rome? First among equals? Care to provide an early church father using the term and using it in the same premise as non-Catholics do today?

 

[Nicea325]

benhur:

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

.

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.

 

[seanman611]

But is that what the early church fathers refer to the Bishop of Rome? First among equals? Care to provide an early church father using the term and using it in the same premise as non-Catholics do today?

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