The Universal Church

[mcq72]

Why then does Irenaeus go into naming one bishop at a time, from Rome, in direct succession from Peter at Rome, down to his day? No one else gets named in that succession of bishops.

well Iranaeus tells us why:
because many city churches can list their successive bishops, and such lists were used to validate “catholicism” against heretics, not to promote papacy, but succession in teaching thru its line of bishops everywhere. Another words, better be in line with a church has has such ( “in as much as they hold to their teaching tradition”).

" to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up (all churches/apostles, will show succession in Rome’s church by two apostles)."…book 3, ch3

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/irenaeus-book3.html

 

[mcq72]

I’m not following your thought. Please explain

Can not see Jesus having anything to do with more than a few elected popes, and Peter himself would be very disappointed.

Man appointed some of the popes, certainly not attributable to Holy Spirit, or in spirit of St. Peter…my opinion

 

[ziapueblo]

Man appointed some of the popes, certainly not attributable to Holy Spirit, or in spirit of St. Peter…my opinion

I think Pope Benedict XVI would agree:

While still Cardinal Ratzinger, he was asked by Bavarian television in 1997 if the Holy Spirit is responsible for the election of a pope. His answer:

“I would not say so, in the sense that the Holy Spirit picks out the Pope. . . . I would say that the Spirit does not exactly take control of the affair, but rather like a good educator, as it were, leaves us much space, much freedom, without entirely abandoning us. Thus the Spirit’s role should be understood in a much more elastic sense, not that he dictates the candidate for whom one must vote. Probably the only assurance he offers is that the thing cannot be totally ruined. . . . There are too many contrary instances of popes the Holy Spirit obviously would not have picked!”

ZP

 

[mcq72]

There are too many contrary instances of popes the Holy Spirit obviously would not have picked!”

Wow, pretty cool pick/ quote you have…very appropriate for my post.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

How is it Clement, is even attempting to influence, and correct with authority, disorder, in another Church, among their bishops, in another country?

well, because Corinth asked for the help, having past connection thru Paul, and Peter…not sure John was ever there.

even though Corinth asked, who says the bishops of that Church need to obey the bishop of Rome? Unless of course it’s already understood, the authority the bishop of Rome, is universal.

mcq72:

As to John maybe he was alive , maybe not for “Thus one may place the composition of 1 Clement between A.D. 80 and 140.”

John died around the year 100. His last work was writing the book of Revelation. So John is still alive at the time of Clement’s letter to the Corinthians.

bishops don’t interfere with other bishops,

mcq72:

is an epistle "interference’’ ? half the NT might then be considered such.

My reference has to do with the general understanding of a bishop’s authority within their own area of authority. In this case Clement is exercising authority in another Church in another country. That is already understood to be proper…from the 1st century, for the bishop of Rome

That bishop is the bishop of Rome. And everybody understands THAT from the beginning, that HE has such authority.

mcq72:

only Catholics understand this in Catholic fashion.

This understanding I gave, as you can see, goes back in Catholic Church history, to the 1st century. Heretics and schismatics of course, don’t understand this the same way, that’s true.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Why then does Irenaeus go into naming one bishop at a time, from Rome, in direct succession from Peter at Rome, down to his day if that is NOT important? No one else gets named in that succession of bishops except the bishops of Rome who are successors to Peter

well Iranaeus tells us why:
because many city churches can list their successive bishops, and such lists were used to validate “catholicism” against heretics, not to promote papacy, but succession in teaching thru its line of bishops everywhere. Another words, better be in line with a church has has such ( “in as much as they hold to their teaching tradition”).

" to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up (all churches/apostles, will show succession in Rome’s church by two apostles)."…book 3, ch3

Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies / Adversus Haereses, Book 3 (Roberts-Donaldson translation)

From that link,

ONE Church among them had pre-eminent authority, the Church of Rome.

AND

“Chapter IV.-The Truth is to Be Found Nowhere Else But in the Catholic Church, the Sole Depository of Apostolical Doctrine. Heresies are of Recent Formation, and Cannot Trace Their Origin Up to the Apostles.”

Irenaeus (Against Heresies) was writing against the heretics of his day (the Gnostics).

So

no heretic then, can claim THEY have the truth, nor that their beliefs came from the apostles.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

I’m not following your thought. Please explain

Can not see Jesus having anything to do with more than a few elected popes, and Peter himself would be very disappointed.

Man appointed some of the popes, certainly not attributable to Holy Spirit, or in spirit of St. Peter…my opinion

Your opinion aside, here is what scripture and Church history says

biblical support for apostolic succession

snippit of Church history showing apostolic succession

 

[mcq72]

even though Corinth asked, who says the bishops of that Church need to obey the bishop of Rome? Unless of course it’s already understood, the authority the bishop of Rome, is universal.

That is myopic view of authority, even like big stick authority. Obviously you take it to be exclusive authority.

Jesus says take a dispute with a brethren to another brethren , so that two witnesses against one may persuade with authoritative reasoning. The other witness is not exclusive. It can be any brethren with objective reasoning. It is an assumption that only Rome has such reasoning authority, to adjoin with another church in correction. So yes there was reasoning in choosing Rome ( Paul and Peter) , etc. ) but it is an assumption even anachronistic to say it was because of supremacy of seat

 

[meltzerboy2]

And if you fully understand what it is you are rejecting, you are then most likely bound for hell? G-d would punish one so severely for exercising one’s G-d-given faculty of reason in a way similar to what a teacher might do if a student draws a rational conclusion which the teacher does not happen to agree with? No credit given for the process of using one’s mind, however faulty the outcome is?

 

[adf417]

And if you fully understand what it is you are rejecting, you are then most likely bound for hell? G-d would punish one so severely for exercising one’s G-d-given faculty of reason in a way similar to what a teacher might do if a student draws a rational conclusion which the teacher does not happen to agree with? No credit given for the process of using one’s mind, however faulty the outcome is?

The understanding of a school teacher vs the understanding of God is nothing to compare.

Peace!!!

 

[mcq72]

Your opinion aside, here is what scripture and Church history says

Agree with articles, agree with choosing bishops presbyters as needed, agree to succession. My point was that it is conditional, as Iranaeus says “in as much as it holds to the tradional apostolic teaching” which is oral written/ teachings.

Linkage is conditional . Jesus had true linkage ( lineage). Those that put him on cross also claimed linkage, to Moses and Abraham.

All I am saying, as the pope also said, man seems to appoint, and certainly some of the linkage is quite carnal, not of the Spirit.

Furthermore, there is not unanimous consent of the fathers on papal succession, which is altogether something different. It is also not as readily biblical as say regular presbyter/ bishop appointments/ succession.

 

[mcq72]

ONE Church among them had pre-eminent authority, the Church of Rome.

Again, that can be read several ways. It is this catholic church, this church that has apostolic bishop succession that had preeminent authority, that should be agreed with. So if you are in Rome or Alexandrea or Jerusalem or Antioch, go to the church, agree with the church, that has teaching and bishops linking to apostles. Stay away from gnostics/ heretics who have broken the linkage in apostolic teaching and succession.

Another view is that if He singles out Rome church, it is because of Peter and Paul laying their blood there. Was Paul a pope ? And the writing would not suggest that a bishop appointed by Peter and Paul in Rome would have jurisdiction over a bishop they also appointed say in Antioch or Corinth.
The pre eminence is one of honor.

 

[mcq72]

no heretic then, can claim THEY have the truth, nor that their beliefs came from the apostles.

You misconstrue Iraneaus if you think succession is the only link to truth, that it is unconditional to what a successor teaches, that being apostolic is guaranteed by laying on of hands in succession. Again such a thought was proved wrong in OT " succession".

Apostolic is as apostolic teaches and does.

Man can appoint but I would not rule out that God still chooses also. Yes the apostles appointed a Judas replacement, by drawing of straws. Jesus also chose another apostle, by knocking him off a horse. We never hear again of the one chosen by straws, and the other? Well, the rest is HIStory.

 

[meltzerboy2]

A pale comparison, I admit, yet a comparison of some value nonetheless. But what about my larger point, namely, regarding whether you believe G-d would punish the gift of reason in mankind which He bestowed, if reason, after due consideration of Church teaching, should lead one to reject Church teaching on many or all matters?

 

[mcq72]

And if you fully understand what it is you are rejecting, you are then most likely bound for hell? G-d would punish one so severely for exercising one’s G-d-given faculty of reason in a way similar to what a teacher might do if a student draws a rational conclusion which the teacher does not happen to agree with? No credit given for the process of using one’s mind, however faulty the outcome is

It is the ultimate " big stick", the Father up there watching ready to whack over the head if you mis step.

Leaves us in a light of such dignity as humans right?

I have come to know many who have been set free from the big stick view, and been set free by the truth of a more gracious One, who gently and quietly says, come, let us reason together. Quite a humbling occasion when the one pleading shows you his hands and feet pierced for you, no big stick in hand.

 

[adf417]

A pale comparison, I admit, yet a comparison of some value nonetheless. But what about my larger point, namely, regarding whether you believe G-d would punish the gift of reason in mankind which He bestowed, if reason, after due consideration of Church teaching, should lead one to reject Church teaching on many or all matters?

I don’t think God would punish in the name of this gift of reason. He would however, punish that which free will took from Him. Please don’t underestimate the fuller meaning of “fullness of understanding”, that which only God knows. We children MAY think we understand based on what we heard another human said or wrote but that may not necessarily constitute the deeper more perfect communication that which God can only do. The Church’s teaching is only what God will allow and her flawed members will always fail in our explanations of these teachings.

Peace!!!

 

[mcq72]

But what about my larger point, namely, regarding whether you believe G-d would punish the gift of reason in mankind which He bestowed, if reason, after due consideration of Church teaching, should lead one to reject Church teaching on many or all matters?

In honoring free will, if we reject the Giver of better reasoning, we get what we want or deserve, to be a part from, seperated from, such a Giver, even forever.

Our mind is a great gift, along with some others ( body, heart/ emotions soul). Yet such a gift can be to our detriment, because of a sin/ flawed nature, of our spirits. So the best of our reasonning can not overcome ones own flaw. God does reason with us, but such reasoning is to lead to see the ineptness of our own reasoning compared to His. He even pleads or promises to make us anew, in spirit and reasoning, if we humble ourselves, even die to our own reasoning.

Rejection of the medicine is the only thing that really is unforgiveable, and our default existence and destination is seperation from God otherwise.

Reasoning that justifies oneself is vain. Reasoning that does not cover sin is vain. True reasoning sees Moses with the ten commandments about to topple us over the head with them, and better to be saved and protected from such by a Savior huddled over us, His hands stopping the action.

So to me my graced reasoning lead me to the top of the ladder , yet still to short of where i needed to be.( grace to see i was too short still). Only by jumping was I promised to receive His reasoning, by faith, and that a gift ( His problem, His fixing).

Augustine though talking of higher authority of our scriptures, wrote," Therefore, since we were too weak to find truth by pure reason…"

Lol…in the end that is my version of the “big stick”

 

[meltzerboy2]

I somewhat agree with what you say, with the main exception regarding what Moses might have intended through the Ten Commandments. The latter certainly do NOT mean to “topple us.” They are the essence of the Law and held sacred by Jews AND Christians alike, including Jesus Himself, so they cannot be in any sense a form of punishment or bondage but, on the contrary, the epitome of personal freedom.

 

[mcq72]

They are the essence of the Law and held sacred by Jews AND Christians alike, including Jesus Himself, so they cannot be in any sense a form of punishment or bondage but, on the contrary, the epitome of personal freedom

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
This is sketch found in my copy of Pilgrims Progress by John Bunyan .
The text below picture reads,

" The man who overtook you is Moses. He spareth none, neither knoweth he how to shew mercy to those that transgress the law."

This is the Christian (pilgrim’s) experience. Such a view of the 10 Commandments is perhaps the most fundamental difference between a Christian Jew/ Gentile and a non Christian Jew/ Gentile.

I do not infer punishment, and not sure what you mean by personal freedom by the Law. The commandments indeed were given to us for life, even righteousness, by keeping them, but…and this is where the grind begins.

The Law is sacred, but just how is the question.

I also do not infer that there was not salvation or grace and mercy and forgiveness of sins in OT covenants. Again the question is how, which i feel can be seen in sketch or " designs" as they were called.

OT saints looked forward to the Messiah in faith, as first prophesied at the Garden (the Protoevangelium), as we look backwards to Messiah in faith, at Calvary.

As always and from the beginning (the Garden) without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins.

 

[meltzerboy2]

John Bunyan, good writer and Puritan preacher that he no doubt was, apparently was no expert on the Torah (Mosaic Law). The Ten Commandments is the bedrock of the Law, and is divided into both positive and negative statements (the do’s and don’ts) as well as love for G-d and love for fellow human beings. The famous rabbi Hillel the Elder, a generation prior to Jesus, summed up all 613 commandments of the Torah as falling under the headings of loving G-d and loving one another. Judaism, both in ancient times and today, is a religion based on love, compassion, and mercy intertwined with justice. Any other depiction is a false stereotype. Moses, who, let us remember, was inspired in his writing of the Pentateuch by G-d Himself, gave the Ten Commandments to all of humanity, not just Jews, whereas the details of the Law were given to the Jewish people specifically to make them a light unto the nations of the world. In this sense, the Ten Commandments make people free to lead a life of meaning and purpose according to G-d’s will. I am not here to provide a primer of Judaism but this much which I have noted any Christian should know.