What Iam in your eyes?

  • Thread starter Thread starter historyfan81
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
lets see lack of sources from the early church fathers mentoning suprme papal authority.

historians even catholic ones

like Jesuit historian Klaus Schatz led him to claim that, “If one had asked a Christian in the year 100, 200, or even 300 whether the bishop of Rome was the head of all Christians, or whether there was a supreme bishop over all the other bishops and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church, he or she would certainly have said no.” But he believes it likely that 'there very quickly emerged a presider or ‘first among equals.

Catholic theologian [Francis A. Sullivan], claims "expressed agreement with the consensus of scholars that available evidence indicates that the church of Rome was led by a college of presbyters, rather than a single bishop, for at least several decades of the second century.

and the secular historian claim is the same one as francis A that church of Rome was led by a college of presbyters, rather than a single bishop, for at least several decades of the second century.

in contrast to a universal papacy to which all were subject, Roman bishops who tried to exert authority as supreme heads were severely reprimanded by other bishops

like the filoque for example

we see more of phases and the evoltution from the first among equals with authority to undesputed supreme leader

evidence to papal supremecy in the earlier times was … is very small in comperison
 
Last edited:
Same can be said about the immaculate conception. Virtually nothing on that in the patristic writings, from what I have seen…

Doesn’t mean it isn’t true, though.

From a Catholic perspective, the keys given to Peter give us some assurance that binding decisions made here are not pie in the sky theology.
 
true inmaculate conception is not explicitly noted before the 12th century.

before that by the time of the 5th century we get vagueness
example
Augustine

As regards the mother of God," he says, “I will not allow any question whatever of sin.” It is true that he is here speaking directly of actual or personal sin.

But his argument is that all men are sinners; that they are so through original depravity; that this original depravity may be overcome by the grace of God, and he adds that he does not know but that Mary may have had sufficient grace to overcome sin “of every sort” ( omni ex parte ).

he is not sure
beofore him we get super-innocent", and “singularly holy” again all of this is during late antiquity (so 284)

so the third century fathers are all dead
so yes you are correct on that , in terms of assurance , eh like i said i dont reject anything (except papal supremacy there is enough evidence to reject that the first chirstians belive that) since its unknowns
 
Last edited:
You may want to read about the Epistle of Clement, it was a letter admonishing corinthians (like the ones Paul wrote) and not only did it receive an obedient response (considering that Clement wasn’t the founder of the Church of Corinth but the bishop of Rome) but it was also kept as local scripture for centuries.

You can also look at Scripture when Peter is the one who had the last word when all the Apostles discussed something.

Not to mention, the councils, which, as others posters mentioned, where seeked to be approved by the bishop of Rome.

The bishop of Rome was clearly at least an arbiter in theological matters in the Early Church. No offense, but it would be better if you cite actual historical instances and sources instead of the word of historians…
 
Ok

Sullivan, Francis A. (2001). From apostles to bishops : the development of the episcopacy in the early church

Otto, Klaus Schatz ; translated from German by John A.; Maloney, Linda M. (1996). Papal primacy : from its origins to the present . Collegeville, Minn .: Liturgical Press. p. 3. ISBN 978-0814655221. Retrieved 28 March 2017.

“You can also look at Scripture when Peter is the one who had the last word when all the Apostles discussed something.”

“The bishop of Rome was clearly at least an arbiter in theological matters in the Early Church”

this is true but that would not be papal supremacy that is Papal primacy there not the same thing

this doctrine is not here till the fith century which is instresting as the wester roman emperor looses more power the pope gains more this reinfroced by the papacy getting even more power as the byzantine dark ages came with the muslim , bulgar , slavic , and lombardic invasions
 
Last edited:
Well, in regards to the immaculate conception, the belief was already around as Muslims believe it and we are talking like 7th century. They got it from somewhere. Eastern Church believes all the Marian stuff we do they just don’t dogmatize it and we split with them before that arbitrary 1054AD year that has been put out there.

I know there was definitely parallels about her being the new eve and the Ark early on.

Augustine was the expert on original sin but even that was not even formalised until Trent.

Anyone with any valuable quotes on the immaculate conception from patristrics, would be appreciated.
 
You can present all the evidence in the world yet some will keep repeating the same thing, that there is no evidence. If the evidence is against what they want to believe they just simply say “there is no evidence for that.” Will they consider the words of Jesus concerning St Peters authority, no, they will say we misunderstand Jesus. Will they accept the words and actions of early Christians, such as you mentioned, no they won’t. Will they consider that the number of Bishop of Rome who were martyred were killed because of their authority, no they won’t. Instead they will paint a picture of the Pope as though he is some theological dictator acting alone. We know better, but for those outside the Church established by Christ, which is the Catholic Church, the first thing they must do to justify not being Catholic is to undermine the authority of the Pope and the Magisterium.
 
Historyfan 81, which Bible do you consider the Word of God and having the highest authority? The one with 66 books, or the one with 73? You say you do not consider yourself Protestant, so by whose authority do you accept the table of contents for your Bible?
 
When we first came here and I started attending Protestant churches, they were all proud of being Protestant and insisted they be referred to as Protestants.

Now Protestants seem ashamed to be what they are and run from from it by joining non denominational churches.

Regardless of whether or not they are members of the original Protestant churches, they are still Protestants.
 
I didn’t want to believe any specific thing to not be bais .

This why I say I’ma in doudt of everything that I mentioned except papal supremacy Wich was overwhelming evidence of not being pratice early on ( papal primacy yes not supremacy)

If new evidence does come that shows papal surprmacy was a believe back.then I will gladly change my mind .

I wouldn’t say he is a theologian dictador
But there has been times in history where the papacy does something with out consolting and his response is IAM.the pope the maximum authority I don’t need your opinion . To other bishops

Like for example the filioque

If papal surprmacy existed back then this debate would not have happened as the pope only need it to show the patriach of Constantinople the early sources where it says the pope is supreme.

Historians point out something called the 2 phases of papal surprmacy (raging from late antiquity to the middle ages ) and how the concept evolved .

This is why it’s the only Catholic concept I do reject ( the rest are just doudt) since the evidence against it is a lot .
 
Last edited:
I think your confusing the imaculate conception with the virgin birth .

The imaculate conception teaches that Mary had no original sin .

The Muslims dont even believe in original sin
Much less that a human is in any regard sinless
 
Last edited:
yeah i agree the concept did exist before 12th century , around the 5th is where we see it appear.
and evolving over time (what it seems)

from then at did not become universal until x century
(this is at least what is showed)

also no the muslims dont belive mary was sinless , i know it says she is sinless in the page ( saying she is sinless like the prophets) but

islamic theology is more complicated , that the prophets , are “sinless” but they do comit mistakes

even though their “mistakes” for you and me are consider a sin
 
Last edited:
Ive had a muslim explain it to me before. He said they commited mistakes and mistake is something done accidentally or something that went bad without ill intent…meaning culpability isn’t a thing so it’s not sinful.
 
mistakes to them are to us sins

example muhamed and the satanic verses , if muhamed was alive during the time of moses , moses would have stone him.

“But any prophet who falsely claims to speak in my name or who speaks in the name of another god must die”

to the muslims this a mistake from muhamed , to the old and new testament this is a sin breaking the second comandment.
 
fhansen said:
The fact that many non-Catholics “dont identify as one and desagree on the many core protestant views” gives testimony itself for the need of such an institution. God being so wise and al
Click to expand...
Does it ? Is that the wisely instituted fix for an otherwise sinful nature in these areas, of coralling divine revelation in one tidy package? And what testimony is there to the contrary? The reformers and Orthodox certainly saw something equally as troubling, don’t you think?
 
mcq72 said:
Does it ? Is that the wisely instituted fix for an otherwise sinful nature in these areas, of coralling divine revelation in one tidy package?
Click to expand...
Um…yes, of course. Jesus established a Church, and that Church necessarily presented a unified body of beliefs since day one. The creeds, themselves, produced by the same Church are attempts to corral and summarize the basics of those beliefs in concise form. And for its part the RCC considers the EO to be Church in the full sense and for its beliefs to be consistent with her own while yet in schism. Protestants, OTOH, are considered to possess truth more or less fully, and associated with the Church imperfectly.

Anyway, should we prefer variety and conflict in beliefs for some reason? The Reformers, uniquely, pointed to the bible alone as the source of their faith, and ended up with more division than Christianity has ever known, with more yet developing daily.
 
Last edited:
Interesting, so your arguement it is that it is supposed to be some one time deal in some unique case in the future. Can you back that up?

An Elder or Bishop isn’t just an ordinary Joe, so you seem to be further suggesting this letter is supposed be to some ordinary person to whom we have no knowledge.

Does that really make sense?

Peace and God Bless
Nicene
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top