D
Daniel_Keeran
Guest
All that is required of Christians to know is in inspired scripture, pertaining to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Mary is “the mother of my Lord” as Elizabeth declared.
- Status
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
Where in scriptures does it say that all that is required of Christians to know is in inspired scripture, pertaining to Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit?
P
PRmerger
Guest
Can you tell us how you know this? Chapter and verse, please.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Just wondering, Daniel, if you think what you post is “of God”?
If not, then why should we give any consideration to what you say regarding God?
If yes, then how is it that your posts are “of God” and CS Lewis’ writings are not?
M
MonFrere
Guest
Well then – all Arians are Christians. Their belief was from the scriptures. Maybe that whole controversy was for nothing. All that argumentation about the nature of Christ was really totally unnecessary because it couldn’t be determined from scripture alone - therefore unnecessary. So – all this need for creeds is actually ill advised.
Can’t you see, Daniel, it was the Catholic Church and Her authority that gave you a visible Church to rebel from. Had Protestantism been the mode of operation of the Church all of these heretical notions would have had opportunity to grow and perhaps even thrive. You do not see that because it was in the 16th century that your forebearers got off the bus. But had the Catholic Church not acted to protect the integrity of the deposit of faith given to the apostles by Jesus Christ you would not have had a Church to rebel from. The Church would be nothing more than an amorphous blob. Protestantism NEEDS the Catholic Church as a place to pack her amorphous self. On your own you would wither and die.
IOW - If the Catholic Church would suddenly vanish from existence those who rebelled from the Catholic Church in the 16th century would lose their root and would wither away. Why? Because you anchor yourself in opposition to the doctrines we hold. Without that anchor; you too would cease the viability that you now maintain.
MonFrere
D
Daniel_Keeran
Guest
Back to the subject of papacy. Are you familiar with the pseudo-Clementine literature, spurious documents written before Stephen, that refer to Peter as having transferred his authority to Clement in Rome, keys, binding and loosing, teaching chair? This document appears to have had wide influence and was thot to be genuine until the Renaissance. Here are some excerpts:
"I lay hands upon this Clement as your bishop; and to him I entrust my chair of discourse, even to him who has journeyed with me from the beginning to the end, and thus has heard all my homilies…Wherefore I communicate to him the power of binding and loosing, so that with respect to everything which he shall ordain in the earth, it shall be decreed in the heavens. For he shall bind what ought to be bound, and loose what ought to be loosed, as knowing the role of the Church. Therefore hear him, as knowing that he who grieves the president of the truth, sins against Christ, and offends the Father of all. Wherefore he shall not live; and therefore it becomes him who presides to hold the place of a physician, and not to cherish the rage of an irrational beast.”
“Therefore take the oversight gladly; and all the more in good time, because you have learned from me the administration of the Church, for the safety of the brethren who have taken refuge with us.”
“…that you may have the care of the Church always, in order both to your administering it well, and to your holding forth the words of truth.”
“…and so let them listen to you, knowing that whatever the ambassador of the truth shall bind upon earth is bound also in heaven, and what he shall loose is loosed. But you shall bind what ought to be bound, and loose what ought to be loosed. And these, and such like, are the things that relate to you as president.”
"Having thus spoken, he laid his hands upon me in the presence of all, and compelled me to sit in his own chair. And when I was seated, he immediately said to me: “I entreat you, in the presence of all the brethren here, that whensoever I depart from this life, as depart I must, you send to James the brother of the Lord a brief account of your reasonings from your boyhood, and how from the beginning until now you have journeyed with me, hearing the discourses preached by me in every city, and seeing my deeds. …when he learns, that not an unlearned man, or one ignorant of life-giving words, or not knowing the rule of the Church, shall be entrusted with the chair of the teacher after me. For the discourse of a deceiver destroys the souls of the multitudes who hear.”
M
MonFrere
Guest
and … ?
In all my reading of Catholic materials concerning the papacy this document that you quote in this post has not ever been quoted as “proof” of the papacy. We don’t “need” this as there is an abundance of materials that bear upon the papacy with more “authority”.
HOWEVER … The story of George Washington and his honesty demonstrated in the probable legendary story of telling his father he could’t lie but he chopped down the cherry tree does highlight the fact of his being a man of integrity that could be depended upon to tell the truth. The need for an historical “tree” isn’t the important issue.
PERHAPS (I said perhaps) this pseudo-Clement is trying to achieve the same type thing. It would not be unlikely that an ancient writer would do this. BUT this doesn’t mean that the concept behind the writing is false; just like the legend of George Washington cutting down his father’s cherry tree speaks to his integrity not to the specific historical event. All this is the work of historians. And if honest scholarship said this is spurious, so be it – but, as I said, even if spurious it doesn’t automatically mean that there in an element of truth in the writing. Again, this is for historians to research. So, as a Protestant I wouldn’t jump up and down just yet. NOTHING concerning the papacy hinges on the integrity of pseudo-Clement. There is no victory to be had here, as I see it.
P.S. You COULD answer my questions too. Otherwise I could consider it (in legalese) -* “Qui tacet consentit” *
MonFrere
D
Daniel_Keeran
Guest
This thread is on papacy and I am aware that a common CF tactic is to de-rail. Another is to swarm; another to demean, etc. I appreciate your addressing the pseudo-Clementines and it is also relevant to point out the time-line: pseudo-Clementines appeared first, then Stephen and Cyprian. I still have not heard from anyone who is aware of the Papal Primacy book from Liturgy Press. Will anyone acknowledge Catholic scholarly critiques of traditional views of the papacy?
P
paul_c
Guest
I have not read the book you bring up. What is the point you are trying to make with this reference?
P
PRmerger
Guest
I’m pretty certain, Daniel, that on the thread on Fate of Unbaptized Infants it was YOU who derailed it to a discussion on Tradition. Yes? Am I correct? Or, if it wasn’t you, you certainly had no problem continuing and contributing to the discussion on Tradition.
Another example of “I can do it but you can’t.”
M
MonFrere
Guest
Your implication is that Stephen and Cyprian borrowed from pseudo-Clement. I’m not an historian but having studied history in college I know that these pathways are not at all easy to determine with certainty. I will also say, that as a Protestant, Catholic scholarship was viewed with great respect for its integrity. IOW - the Catholic Church is not going to “fudge” historical facts to manipulate an outcome it wants. For example - In the Galileo affair Pope John Paul II wanted study done to know the facts and to determine if/where the Church may have erred. That’s integrity. Catholics do not need to “fudge” history. We can accept our errors. Because of this I think Catholics can be confident that our historical accounting of the papacy is perfectly fine. The movement from scripture to the ante-Nicean fathers to the post-Nicean fathers to the Scholastics demonstrates an extremely strong air-tight case for the development of the papacy as told by the Catholic Church. Because of this Catholics do not get all excited about every new book that comes out about the history of the papacy.
MonFrere
U
utunumsint
Guest
I see. So there was a leadership in the early church in your opinion that was governed by the twelve, like some kind of oligarchy. Peter did not have any specific authority over any of the other apostles.
And yet he is the rock on which Christ said he would build his church? This is a fairly singular role since he did not repeat this statement to the twelve. He also specifies the keys. If you see the association with Isaiah 22, then I’m not sure why you don’t believe in point 1. For certain Peter does not rule alone. There is a college of apostles and later on a college of bishops who govern and make decisions jointly with Peter, as is evident in Acts 15, which is quite a beautiful example of unity among the leadership. Each apostle (and also attending bishops and presbyters) were given a voice, and then a decision was made.
In the sense of transition from the authority of Peter to the bishop of Rome? Then no. I agree. This transition is not described in the new testament.
Agreed, but the notion of apostolic succession is established, especially in the pastoral epistles, like Timothy, Titus, to name only a few. I consider that these were only early embrionic forms of apostolic succession given that the apostles were still around. The bishops/presbyters were not fully distinguished in office yet because 1-the churchs were not big enough to warrant this division, 2-the apostles were still around to appeal to for overarching guidance. The third tier Apostolic succession was to come later after the apostles were gone, or just before. In this stage there was an authority vacuum in the structure of the church that needed to be filled. This is where the distinction between bishop and priest emerged. The bishops occupied the unitative and authoritative position of the apostles as described by Ignatius, bishop of Antioch. The ease in which this distinction emerged is evident by the uncontested nature of his epistles. There is no sense of controversy in his writings, no challange or repudiation from Polycarp who forwards the letters to the Phillipians, no recorded outcry to be found in the early church at all.
The natural conclusion of this process was the primacy of the bishop of Rome as traditioinally though successor of Peter, and with Rome being the accepted place of their martyrdom.
Peter as a basis of unity is establish, as is evident in Matthew 16.
Peter as a singular source of truth and a singular spokeman for God was established in the NT.
God bless,
Ut
D
Daniel_Keeran
Guest
Catholic scholarship, e.g. Papal primacy, no longer holds that a singular earthly head of the church existed in early centuries. Fundamentally, If the concept of the office of papacy was not stated/defined in scripture, it comes too late because an office responsible for defining truth had to be in place from the beginning. Peter as head of the church simply is not stated in scripture; therefore the papacy is of human origin.
U
utunumsint
Guest
If the church had authority to define doctrine in Acts 15, then the church has authority to do likewise for future generations. You have a trunkated church my friend because your church does not follow the pattern left us by the apostles as described in Acts 15 nor does it have any kind of Petrine office, which is why the protestant churches are so sadlyl fragmented today.
For all your bombast and boasting about following scripture, you guys don’t seem to put much stock in it.
God bless,
Ut
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Really? Then why does his name appear at the beginning of virtually every list of the apostles in the New Testament? And though it may not be explicit in scripture, so what? Neither are several other doctrines that Christians have held for 2,000 years, so not being explicit in scripture is not a valid test.
In fact, the errant new wind of doctrine of modern men known as Sola Scriptura doesn’t even have any implicit basis in the Word of God, so using it as a measuring device is a fallacy to begin with. http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h244/corona_stellarum/Smilies/emo-epicfail.png
S
stephraim
Guest
Actually, the date of the pseudo-Clementines is still disputed between the 2nd and 3rd century with most leaning towards the known recension at approximately the turn of the century, ca. 200. Several scholars have shown that the romance had a 1st century origin in the Kerygmata Petrou, The Preaching of Peter, used later in an anti-Marcionite recension, and quoted frequently by Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150-215). Hegesippus’ and Ireneaus’ lists of bishops of Rome date from ca. 180. There is also Dionysius of Corinth and his admission that the letter was from Clement from ca. 166.
That there was a singular bishop in the 2nd century St. Justin is a witness in his First Apology ca. 150:
“There is then brought to the **president **of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and **he **taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when **he **has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to γένοιτο [so be it]. And when the **president **has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent…”
S
stephraim
Guest
Amen.
S
stephraim
Guest
“For his own peculiar services are assigned to the high priest, and their own proper place is prescribed to the priests, and their own special ministrations devolve on the Levites. The layman is bound by the laws that pertain to laymen.”
M
MonFrere
Guest
St. Peter as the leader of the apostles, and therefore as head of the Church, is scripturally without dispute. This has demonstrated from every possible angle - as this is page 48 of this thread with numerous scriptural passages to give evidence to this fact.
Let’s reason in reverse. Concerning scripture – could you agree that those who determined the first canons possessed the Holy Spirit? For without it – How could they determine what they were examining was 1) accurate pious writings 2) what God inspired as scripture. Case in point – I can read to a Protestant sections out of Wisdom and I can read sections out of Proverbs. NO ONE can tell the difference. But, with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the Church determined that both were “scripture”. Without the Holy Spirit this determination WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE. Even a man as pious as St. Jerome couldn’t “on his own” be perfect on this point. This is WHY the Holy Spirit is absolutely necessary for making judgements that cannot be made by purely natural means. The Holy Spirit is JUST AS CRITICAL for the determination of scripture as it was in protecting the men who wrote scripture. Before the canonization of scripture the Church operated perfectly fine in accepting these writings as accurate pious writings. It wasn’t necessary for the operation of the Church to have these writings formally declared as scripture.
So, when the Church formally declared the early canons of scripture we can be certain that these men possessed the Holy Spirit. At the time of the determination of these canons the papacy was alive and functioning.
If what you propose were indeed the truth; that the Holy Spirit would think the papacy to be an apostasy, then there should be a ruckus on the level of the Arian controversy. But like many posters have demonstrated this ruckus simply did not exist. The Holy Spirit cannot bear sin - it cleanses us from sin; so, corporately it would certainly have cleansed the church of the concept of a central authority to rule the Church. Jesus did promise the Church protection and that the Holy Spirit would lead the church into truth. If the papacy is totally of “human origin” then certainly the Holy Spirit wouldn’t have permitted its becoming central governing arm of the Church. But if the papacy was the Petrine office given to St. Peter working its way out in the affairs of men then its origin is NOT of human origin. Why?
The development of the human being certainly applies here. At conception there is no heart, there is no brain, there are no bones, there are no organs. Yet, at conception all of these have their moment of inception which is TOTALLY NATURAL. You cannot say that the heart isn’t of “natural origin” because it wasn’t there at conception.
The Catholic understanding of scripture gives a clear path as to the movement of the “conception and birth of the Church” from Ceseara Philipi to Jerusalem to Rome. Just as Jesus “grew” and his self-understanding became more and more clearly determined in His mind – the Body of Christ “grew” in its self-understanding and became more and more clearly determined in Her mind. To deny development is to deny life itself.
MonFrere
M
MonFrere
Guest
Simple question. If God gives legitimate authority to human governments and EXPECTS submission to that authority – isn’t it very natural for God to invest in His Church AT LEAST the same legitimate authority?
IMHO – Protestants are spooked out by authority because rebellion against authority is in their spiritual DNA – it’s in their very name – they PROTEST against Catholicism.
MonFrere
- Status