The Visible, Hierarchial, Apostolic Church

[Hesychios]

All I know is, I can’t get blamed for this one.

 

[O.S.Luke]

You know, Dave Armstrong occasionally reads posts here at CAF - I know because he (gently) corrected me once about a misunderstanding I had about Augustine’s theology.

I wonder how he would feel about being plagiarized?

 

[JonNC]

All I know is, I can’t get blamed for this one.

I don’t know about that. As my pappy used to say*, “where there’s a will, there’s a way.”

Jon

• I hereby credit Bret Maverick for the phrase, “as my pappy used to say…”

 

[SpiritMeadow]

You cut and pasted the above from Dave Armstrong’s article.

The full article can be found here for anyone who wants to read the original, credited to the author, not plagerised by someone trying to sound like an apologist for the catholic church

quovadisyouth.org/newsletter%202.1.html

It’s very bad form to copy the work of another person and pass it off as your own, without giving them the credit.

Yes, when I first opened the thread yesterday, I also realized she hadn’t written it. I assumed somebody would locate where she had plagerized yet again. This is now the 2nd or third time she has written others work as her own.

 

[Radical]

Hello Hesychios

Glory to Jesus Christ!

So if a theological notion can be traced no further than the nineteenth century, it should be rejected, if no further back than the fifteenth century it should be abandoned, if no further back than the twelfth century it should be seriously challenged, if no further back than the eighth century it should be suspect. We need to go back as far as we can to replicate the church of the Fathers. Some time in the first one thousand years we will find the True Faith, in this case less is more.

I found this quite interesting…but I would employ different criteria. I note that in the early centuries (but still quite removed from the earthly ministry of our Lord) the church debated and then defined certain aspects of the nature of our Lord. I don’t see that the ECFs at that time were possessed of some inspired revelation that would have placed them in any better position to craft those definitions than are we today. As such, if the early church is capable of defining matters of theology, then the later church should also have that capacity, but in both instances it should be recognized that the product results from human reasoning working off of divinely inspired revelation (as opposed to being actually inspired).

From there it must also be recognized that the writings of the ECFs that we possess are not inerrant…so then it becomes question of what, if anything, in those writings can be said to derived from or are a record of divine revelation. For example, we can see that practice varied with respect to a central matter such as the Lord’s Supper (ie use of water) and that views of the Lord’s Supper varied greatly (ie Tertullian calling the bread a figure and Origen and Clement of Alexandria holding to view not far from purely symbolic at one end and the views of ECFs that your church favors at the other end). As such, I don’t think that we can assume that all practices and views of the early church were obtained directly from the apostles.

Therefore, I would say that theological notions should be grouped as follows:

a) Teachings that are set out clearly in the scriptures (being the only source of revelation which is agreed to be free of error).
b) Teachings that are derived from less than clear scripture, (we have to acknowledge an increased possibility of error as clarity decreases and the contribution of interpretation and reasoning increases).
c) Teachings that are derived from less than clear scripture and from tradition that can be demonstrated to have been handed down by the apostles, (Regarding tradition, its existence in the early church record merely establishes its early existence, and not necessarily an apostolic origin…the trick would be establishing the certainty of apostolic origin…but, of course, earliness increases likelihood of apostolic origin).
d) Teachings that are entirely independent of scripture and based on tradition that can be demonstrated to have been handed down by the apostles (I don’t know that any such traditions can be demonstrated to exist…and the later such a teaching appears on the historical record, the more suspect it must be. Also, the existence of various views in the early church decreases the likelihood that an official apostolic teaching existed).

We need to go back as far as we can to replicate the church of the Fathers.

…let’s go with replicating the church of the apostles.

Some time in the first one thousand years we will find the True Faith, in this case less is more.

agreed, everything apart from what is included in (a) above should be accompanied by an asterisk

So what do you think? How would your groupings differ from mine? (I assume that you hold that the ECFs would have been kept free from erring in certain situations)

 

[SSTeacher]

You know, Dave Armstrong occasionally reads posts here at CAF - I know because he (gently) corrected me once about a misunderstanding I had about Augustine’s theology.

I wonder how he would feel about being plagiarized?

Interesting question. Ought I to start a new thread?

Uncertainly,
Mick

 

[O.S.Luke]

Dave is pretty resourceful. I imagine he has search engines and gophers that flag anything of interest to him, including discussions that have his name in them.

OTCA, if you think we are tenacious, you should have a bonafide Catholic apologist after you!!

Thou shalt not steal, indeed.

 

[Guyonthestreet]

I may just email him directly and inform him his work is being plagiarized and point him in the direction of OneTrueCathApos.

I’m sure he’ll have a gentle word of correction for her too

 

[Guyonthestreet]

I may just email him directly and inform him his work is being plagiarized and point him in the direction of OneTrueCathApos.

I’m sure he’ll have a gentle word of correction for her too

Done. And I left a note on his blog pointing out OneTrueCathApos’ dispicable behavior.

I really don’t like people that steal other peoples stuff.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Obviously, for Protestants, the succession of Peter doesn’t trump each person’s and each congregation’s faith in the saving grace of Jesus Christ.

**So Protestants basically see the Roman Catholic Church as the party that jumped off the ship. **

Interesting. The claim of Papal succession doesn’t “trump” a person’s saving grace… unless they are Catholic

God bless

 

[O.S.Luke]

Done. And I left a note on his blog pointing out OneTrueCathApos’ dispicable behavior.

I really don’t like people that steal other peoples stuff.

He (Dave) does have all the t’s crossed and i’s dotted:
Dave Armstrong:

All material contained herein is written by Dave Armstrong (all rights reserved) unless otherwise noted. Please retain full copyright, URL, and author information when downloading and/or forwarding this material to others.

- from Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, with Dave Armstrong​

Let this be a reminder to all of us: cite our sources. Be honest. In all manner of things.

 

[O.S.Luke]

Addendum: Dave Armstrong did reply to his being plagiarized.

 

[Alethiaphile]

The word “catholic” means “universal”. It claims the universality of Christ’s church makes it open to all: all classes, both genders, all nationalities. It implies that the Body of Christ is not limited to a time, place, race or culture.

“Catholic” in it’s original and primary sense means much more than that. It comes form the Greek “kata 'olos” roughly meaning “over the whole”. It’s primary meaning is “wholeness”. In the early and patristic Church, this was taken to mean that in the “catholic” Church, as opposed to heretical sects, the whole of the Apostolic Faith was preserved.

 

[imjustme]

“Catholic” in it’s original and primary sense means much more than that. It comes form the Greek “kata 'olos” roughly meaning “over the whole”. It’s primary meaning is “wholeness”. In the early and patristic Church, this was taken to mean that in the “catholic” Church, as opposed to heretical sects, the whole of the Apostolic Faith was preserved.

Yes, I agree with you on the meaning. What I disagree with is the Roman Catholics saying that the word “catholic” in the early church meant “Roman Catholic”…from which they derive the idea that the early church that the apostles and early believers were part of is the same as the Roman Catholic Church.

According to various sources (including the following), the word catholic was not applied to the Church in Rome until much later.

Quoting from
etymonline.com :

“c.1350, “of the doctrines of the ancient Church,” lit. “universally accepted,” from L.L. catholicus “universal, general,” from Gk. katholikos, from phrase kath’ holou, from kata “about” + gen. of holos “whole” (see safe (adj.)). Applied to the Church in Rome c.1554, after the Reformation.”

---

 

[kalt]

Thanks for bringing that to our attention. Please note one difference between the original author and OneTrueCathApos’ version…the word “catholic” in the original is lower case and the OneTrueCathApos’ typed it “Catholic” with a capital letter. There is a HUGE difference…the word “catholic” was not meant to mean “Roman Catholic” or “Catholic” but “universal”.

As explained in wikipedia:

The Four Marks of the Church are a group of four adjectives—one, holy, catholic and apostolic—characteristics describing the marks or “notes” of the Christian church. The source is the Nicene Creed of A.D. 325 which contains the statement: "We believe in one holy, catholic and apostolic church. "

The word “catholic” means “universal”. It claims the universality of Christ’s church makes it open to all: all classes, both genders, all nationalities. It implies that the Body of Christ is not limited to a time, place, race or culture.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Marks_of_the_Church#Catholic

It also implies unity in belief.

 

[Guyonthestreet]

Addendum: Dave Armstrong did reply to his being plagiarized.

I’ve copied the link to OTCA’s wall in case she misses it.

Hopefully, she will finally realise plagiarizing someone else’s work really is, as Dave says, highly unethical and to be condemned.

And, as he says, we should keep OTCA in our prayers. He used the word ‘bizzare’ in his response. I might not have been so charitable if it had been my work.

As I told you before OTCA - being a catholic is not the same as wearing a magic cloak of all knowledge

You actually have to read and study if you want to learn, that way you can develop your own thoughts and arguements rather than stooping so low as to just copy someone elses work and passing it off as your own

You need our prayers. You’re definately in mine

 

[guanophore]

Yes, I agree with you on the meaning.  What I disagree with is the Roman Catholics saying that the word "catholic" in the early church meant "Roman Catholic"....from which they derive the idea that the early church that the apostles and early believers were part of is the same as the Roman Catholic Church.

It is true that many Roman CAtholics do this. But the Latin Rite did not emerge as a separate Rite until after the common linguistic currency shifted away from the Greek. That means, all the Greek Rites were first! No, really, the Mass first was offered in Jerusalem in Aramaic. Syriac Rite is the next eldest, because that is where the Apostles took the Gospel. The Latin Rite is actually one of the later ones. Many Roman Catholics are not aware of the other 22 Catholic Rites in union with the bishop of Rome.

According to various sources (including the following), the word catholic was not applied to the Church in Rome until much later.

Quoting from
etymonline.com :

“c.1350, “of the doctrines of the ancient Church,” lit. “universally accepted,” from L.L. catholicus “universal, general,” from Gk. katholikos, from phrase kath’ holou, from kata “about” + gen. of holos “whole” (see safe (adj.)). Applied to the Church in Rome c.1554, after the Reformation.”

You really need to dig up a more accurate source of history, imjustme. I recommend the Early Church fathers.

It is true, during the Reformation there were many insulting terms derived by Protestants to refer to the Catholic Church. However, that does not mean it was the first time Catholic sas used to describe the One Church founded by Christ.

 

[guanophore]

There is a HUGE difference…the word “catholic” was not meant to mean “Roman Catholic” or “Catholic” but “universal”.

Only in your mind.

As explained in wikipedia:

The Four Marks of the Church are a group of four adjectives—one, holy, catholic and apostolic—characteristics describing the marks or “notes” of the Christian church. The source is the Nicene Creed of A.D. 325 which contains the statement: "We believe in one holy, catholic and apostolic church. "

The word “catholic” means “universal”. It claims the universality of Christ’s church makes it open to all: all classes, both genders, all nationalities. It implies that the Body of Christ is not limited to a time, place, race or culture.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Marks_of_the_Church#Catholic

This is true, but it also means a unity of doctrine. All those who have split off into denominations have altered doctrine to a greater or lesser extent.

 

[VARC]

Addendum: Dave Armstrong did reply to his being plagiarized.

 

[imjustme]

I’ve copied the link to OTCA’s wall in case she misses it.

Hopefully, she will finally realise plagiarizing someone else’s work really is, as Dave says, highly unethical and to be condemned.

And, as he says, we should keep OTCA in our prayers. He used the word ‘bizzare’ in his response. I might not have been so charitable if it had been my work.

As I told you before OTCA - being a catholic is not the same as wearing a magic cloak of all knowledge

You actually have to read and study if you want to learn, that way you can develop your own thoughts and arguements rather than stooping so low as to just copy someone elses work and passing it off as your own

You need our prayers. You’re definately in mine

Another member, Bill Pick, also seems to do the same thing and I took the liberty in using your wording (and giving you proper credit, of course!) to remind him that it is not acceptable (in another thread).
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5460401&postcount=27