The Universal Church

[Michael16]

My question is @mcq72 is: Where’s your confusion?

I’d like to help if I can.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

I like his work. It’s insightful…clearly Rome was the head of the universal church long before Nicea as the critics love to claim and Irenaeus points that out.

However, he also argues that Jesus was like 50 years old. So he is not right about everything. And that is the critics life-raft against Rome and his work. If we can cast doubt on one statement we can muddy the waters entirely.

 

[mcq72]

My question is @mcq72 is: Where’s your confusion?

I’d like to help if I can.

Thank you. No confusion, just " much discussuon"( a Schaff quote on the text at hand).

 

[mcq72]

Never seen the 50 year old Jesus text…have seen discussion on whether Peter and Paul " founded the church at Rome"… most understand that believers congregated in Rome long before the apostles arrived…but I find it a minor detail in proper fight against gnostics…see it as a bit of " embellishment" but not affecting his overall points.

Ps…understand the counterpoint, that a congregation may not be a church until apostolic appointments are made, although Paul wrote to Romans i think before apostolic arrivals, and treated them i suppose as a “church”.

 

[mcq72]

Judas office was being filled when he died. All offices then of an apostle is handled the same way. Including Peter’s

So was Judas’s successor(Mathias?) the church treasurer as Judas kind of was ?

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

as I showed in a previous text, Paul called himself a priest.

Well, not all translations have " priest"… minister is used in other translations…but yes, word is for priestly duty, which is generally for one who sacrifices, yet ministering the word of God is also a priestly duty…Paul refers to himself as apostle many times…Peter says he is a fellow presbyter, Jesus being chief presbyter.

It is quite clear in text what Paul is metaphorically as priest offering up to God.

And Jesus made Peter the leader over all.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Paul is not the head of the Church. Peter is

Never inferred otherwise. Nor did Iranaeus, of either apostle, except that they were both the greatest, and one can correctly infer from that credential to properly follow them.

Just quoting you HERE your quote you used said “The blessed apostles (Peter and Paul), then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate”.

The “greatest” between the 2, however, was Peter.

Jesus already settled that argument the apostles were having over who is the greatest among them. Jesus said it was Peter

And in extension,

the bishops named by Irenaeus were successors to Peter.

 

[steve-b]

I like his work. It’s insightful…clearly Rome was the head of the universal church long before Nicea as the critics love to claim and Irenaeus points that out.

***However, he also argues that Jesus was like 50 years old So he is not right about everything… *** And that is the critics life-raft against Rome and his work. If we can cast doubt on one statement we can muddy the waters entirely.

Lenten_ashes

That is NOT what Irenaeus argued. Please, I’m doing you a huge favor, read the following answer.
by Mark J. Bonocore How Old is Jesus According to Irenaeus? -- Catholic Apologetics, Philosophy, Spirituality

That’s why Ya Don’t want to use that argument against Irenaeus again, nor keep that argument going, and put yourself in the same boat those who use it are in… for the reasons mentioned by Bonocore.

 

[mcq72]

2019, Pope Francis, 266th successor to Peter in Rome.

People can go to their grave arguing against this. I wouldn’t suggest it, but free will has consequences

No one argues that Pope Francis is a 266th successor to Peter, as a bishop of Rome. No one argues that as such bishop is in alignment with Peter in truth and spirit, so should every Christian church be also in unity. I suppose what we argue is the unconditionality of righteousness ( on teaching) of said mantle carrier, as if the " chair " could teach no wrong. That kind of thing was tried once before in OT ( chair of Moses).

Nothing can over ride the ministry of the Holy Spirit, and now the head of the body, Jesus Christ, who also thru His Word, can help us beware of leaven (false doctrine), just as suredly as the Lord helped many in OT to stay true to teaching.Indeed His Word was mighty thru Peter, and some sucessors, but appointments by man are not quite the same as appointments by God. For every David and Solomon you had ten who were not so good. Or man chose Saul, God chose David.

 

[mcq72]

And Jesus made Peter the leader over all.

And Jesus made peter leader of all (12)

 

[mcq72]

The “greatest” between the 2, however, was Peter.

well, I thought we were discussing Iranaeus. He makes no such distinction

The “greatest” between the 2, however, was Peter.

Again not noted by Iranaeus

the bishops named by Irenaeus were successors to Peter.

Again, Iranaeus , whom we use as one source for Rome’s bishops, makes no exclusive distinction apart from Paul also.

It would have been advantageous for Iranaeus to cite Catholic papacy in Peter or bishops of Rome, especially to authoritatively unify church against false teaching in his essay, but he does not.

But I respectfully understand Catholics to anachronistically to infer such things.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

2019, Pope Francis, 266th successor to Peter in Rome.

People can go to their grave arguing against this. I wouldn’t suggest it, but free will has consequences

No one argues that Pope Francis is a 266th successor to Peter, as a bishop of Rome. No one argues that as such bishop is in alignment with Peter in truth and spirit, so should every Christian church be also in unity. I suppose what we argue is the unconditionality of righteousness ( on teaching) of said mantle carrier, as if the " chair " could teach no wrong. That kind of thing was tried once before in OT ( chair of Moses).

Nothing can over ride the ministry of the Holy Spirit, and now the head of the body, Jesus Christ, who also thru His Word, can help us beware of leaven (false doctrine), just as suredly as the Lord helped many in OT to stay true to teaching.Indeed His Word was mighty thru Peter, and some sucessors, but appointments by man are not quite the same as appointments by God. For every David and Solomon you had ten who were

Re: papal infallibility

I have no idea how many times I’ve been in this discussion in the last 20 yrs. What I’ve seen is misunderstandings and misrepresentations of this subject in galactic proportions.

May I suggest a short read. Papal Infallibility | Catholic Answers

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

And Jesus made Peter the leader over all.

And Jesus made peter leader of all (12)

Jesus says to Peter, “ ποίμαινε my sheep"
as in ποίμαινε = shepherd, tend, rule, govern my sheep (present imperative active 2nd person singular)

Does Jesus restrict which sheep He means for Peter to shepherd, tend, rule, govern? NO

Do the keys of the kingdom that Jesus gives Peter alone, have jurisdiction restrictions (as in Peter can only shepherd, tend, rule, govern, ) only certain sheep and not the entire flock of Our Lord’s? NO

 

[mcq72]

Lenten_ashes

That is NOT what Irenaeus argued. Please, I’m doing you a huge favor, read the following answer.
by Mark J. Bonocore http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/a38.htm

That’s why Ya Don’t want to use that argument against Irenaeus again, nor keep that argument going, and put yourself in the same boat those who use it are in… for the reasons mentioned by Bonocore.

"But I think the most important issue here is the validity of “tradition” in general. As at one end of the spectrum we have those who wish to (for the sake of “salvaging tradition”) act as though Irenaeus presents no problem whatever here, there are those at the other end who like to use this as a prooftext which, presumably, invalidates all claims to the authoritative value of “tradition” whatever. And whereas the former read the text until they get what they want out of it (i.e., “proof” that Irenaeus didn’t really mean what is perfectly clear in his writings), the anti-traditionalists can be charged with reading the text “too lightly”. This was, in fact, a large part of Bud’s error. As argued above, there is no evidence whatever that Irenaeus was actually giving testimony to an actual and explicit Church tradition; rather, it seems he was using the data of tradition and subverting it to a theological motif for polemical purposes contra heretics. In other words, tradition itself is absolutely unscathed by Irenaeus claims here; rather, what we have is evidence of Irenaeus himself making a few marginal wrong turns in his attempt to “connect the dots”. And as there is no evidence of anyone either before or after Irenaeus claiming the same as regards the age of Christ, there is no warrant whatever for calling this a “tradition” in any sense.

The conclusions we must draw are, on the contrary, rather more nuanced. Just as with any other issue, “tradition” and “traditions” are something that must be subjected to analysis and approached within and according to context, among other factors. Passages from the fathers, or any author for that matter, must be subjected to careful interpretation, and the particular passage must be viewed in light of the work as a whole, the literary, theological, cultural, and historical context of the author, and then compared with other writings both chronologically before and after the author, and the reader should have his own conclusions conditioned by the works of experts in the field. Hence, if anything, it is my hope that this brief analysis will serve as an impetus of sorts, awakening people to the fact that a study of the fathers requires more than a text, a set of philosophical a prioris , an agenda, and a KJV-onlyist mentality. In other words, if we aren’t in some sense “shaken” by our analysis, we’ve probably failed; so often, exegetical rigor means discovery." …cont

http://www.tektonics.org/guest/irey50.html

 

[mcq72]

“But back to more general themes, held by people of a more sane disposition, the following can be said. First, as regards those who wish to explain away what Irenaeus says on this issue, and try to make it sound as though Irenaeus in fact actually taught Jesus to have been thirty three when he died, it can be claimed with certainty that the evidence strongly leans against this notion. At both the explicit and implicit levels, all the evidence seems unavoidable that Irenaeus indeed did believe that Jesus was in his mid to upper forties when he died. If it is the case that Irenaeus believed otherwise, we can honestly claim that there is no evidence in his extant writings that this is so.”

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

The “greatest” between the 2, however, was Peter.

well, I thought we were discussing Iranaeus. He makes no such distinction

the bishops named by Irenaeus were successors to Peter…not Paul

mcq72:

Again, Iranaeus , whom we use as one source for Rome’s bishops, makes no exclusive distinction apart from Paul also.

The distinction he draws is who follows Peter as the leader.

mcq72:

It would have been advantageous for Iranaeus to cite Catholic papacy in Peter or bishops of Rome, especially to authoritatively unify church against false teaching in his essay, but he does not.

Did you not read what Irenaeus wrote about some of the bishops he mentions as successors of Peter? Why does he go into that explanation? Because he’s defending the authority of ONE Church and ONE bishop of that Church. The Church with preeminent authority, against the heretics of his day the gnostics.
mca72:

But I respectfully understand Catholics to anachronistically to infer such things.

Not inferred, but taught.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Lenten_ashes

That is NOT what Irenaeus argued. Please, I’m doing you a huge favor, read the following answer.
by Mark J. Bonocore http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/a38.htm

That’s why Ya Don’t want to use that argument against Irenaeus again, nor keep that argument going, and put yourself in the same boat those who use it are in… for the reasons mentioned by Bonocore.

"But I think the most important issue here is the validity of “tradition” in general. As at one end of the spectrum we have those who wish to (for the sake of “salvaging tradition”) act as though Irenaeus presents no problem whatever here, there are those at the other end who like to use this as a prooftext which, presumably, invalidates all claims to the authoritative value of “tradition” whatever. And whereas the former read the text until they get what they want out of it (i.e., “proof” that Irenaeus didn’t really mean what is perfectly clear in his writings), the anti-traditionalists can be charged with reading the text “too lightly”. This was, in fact, a large part of Bud’s error. As argued above, there is no evidence whatever that Irenaeus was actually giving testimony to an actual and explicit Church tradition; rather, it seems he was using the data of tradition and subverting it to a theological motif for polemical purposes contra heretics. In other words, tradition itself is absolutely unscathed by Irenaeus claims here; rather, what we have is evidence of Irenaeus himself making a few marginal wrong turns in his attempt to “connect the dots”. And as there is no evidence of anyone either before or after Irenaeus claiming the same as regards the age of Christ, there is no warrant whatever for calling this a “tradition” in any sense.

The conclusions we must draw are, on the contrary, rather more nuanced. Just as with any other issue, “tradition” and “traditions” are something that must be subjected to analysis and approached within and
[snip for space]

http://www.tektonics.org/guest/irey50.html

From Irenaeus, writing ~180 a.d. ------> 2019, we still have the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, with Pope Francis 266th successor of S. Peter at the helm. And we still have Heresies that Irenaeus would be fighting against.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

That is NOT what Irenaeus argued. Please, I’m doing you a huge favor, read the following answer.
by Mark J. Bonocore http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/a38.htm

“But back to more general themes, held by people of a more sane disposition, the following can be said. First, as regards those who wish to explain away what Irenaeus says on this issue, and try to make it sound as though Irenaeus in fact actually taught Jesus to have been thirty three when he died, it can be claimed with certainty that the evidence strongly leans against this notion. At both the explicit and implicit levels, all the evidence seems unavoidable that Irenaeus indeed did believe that Jesus was in his mid to upper forties when he died. If it is the case that Irenaeus believed otherwise, we can honestly claim that there is no evidence in his extant writings that this is so.”

And it’s always, Context context context. Bonocore showed very well, in the case aginst “White’s” misrepresenting of Irenaeus, where “White” screwed up.

AND

If Irenaeus was alive today, he’d be writing against the heretic White.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

I’ve read the piece by Bonocore before. Not very convincing.

The Church Fathers aren’t infallible. We have never argued that…

 

[mcq72]

And it’s always, Context context context. Bonocore showed very well, in the case aginst “White’s” misrepresenting of Irenaeus, where “White” screwed up.

Found bonocores argument very weak…and that is being charitable.

But thank you…have read two articles on matter now…one I really like the other not…fascinating though.