W
wisdomseeker
Guest
here is how it happens. the devill always try to steal the Truth with a lie. but God is always a step ahead of him.
- Status
N
Nicea325
Guest
Yes I am starting to get the impression Brian is all talk and does not walk the walk. And yes I have taken notice to his very biased views. I cornered him with the doctrine for the canon of scripture since it is not mentioned in the Bible. His rebuttal? A source about the development of the canon,which is not what I asked him to confirm.
He has yet to tell me why he accepts the canon,if the Jesus or the Apostles never give an iota of information about it.
N
Nicea325
Guest
Brian even claims it is all conjecture and manipulation of primary sources? I have asked him to provide his empricial evidence supporting such a charge? Let us see what he can pull out of his magic hat?
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
Others have said that holy men decided on the Cannon of Scriptures but when you ask who were these holy men, they run out the door. so as when you asked them about the Church. protestants that dissagree with Catholics what Church do we take our problems to, one told me if we cannot take to the Church, we must decide for ourselves, and when i ask him to show where the Bible says that, he run out the door, never heard from him again. if you persist on the proof, they call you argumentative. when the devil doesnt get his way, he will flee from you.
S
steve_b
Guest
Here’s a classic case of bias in footnoting. As Brian noted, this translation of Irenaeus is from protestant Phillip Schaff… I refer to footnote #3313
#3313 is a footnote refering to the term “pre-eminent authority” used by Irenaeus. Schaff a protestant obviously felt readers needed his help in properly understanding a Catholic bishop, and the term he used, because it’s too Catholic and readers need to understand it from a protestant point of view.
Here is what Schaff said about “pre-eminent authority”
"The Latin text of this difficult but important clause is, “Ad hanc enim ecclesiam propter potiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam.” Both the text and meaning have here given rise to much discussion. It is impossible to say with certainty of what words in the Greek original “potiorem principalitatem” may be the translation. We are far from sure that the rendering given above is correct, but we have been unable to think of anything better. [A most extraordinary confession. It would be hard to find a worse; but take the following from a candid Roman Catholic, which is better and more literal: “For to this Church, on account of more potent principality, it is necessary that every Church (that is, those who are on every side faithful) *resort; in which Church ever, by those who are on every side, has been preserved that tradition which is from the apostles.” (Berington and Kirk, vol. i. p. 252.) Here it is obvious that the faith was kept at Rome, by those who resort there from all quarters. She was a mirror of the Catholic World, owing here orthodoxy to them; not the Sun, dispensing her own light to others, but the glass bringing their rays into a focus. See note at end of book iii.] A discussion of the subject may be seen in chap. xii. of Dr. Wordsworth’s St. Hippolytus and the Church of Rome"
And who are Joseph Berrington, and Joe Kirk that Schaff mentions to support his footnote? 2 Ultra liberal Roman Catholics. Can clerics be contrary to the Church? Yep!! That-a-boy Schaff! Pick “Catholics” who contradict the Roman Church teaching to support you.
sheesh!!!:tsktsk: Shame on Schaff, but predictable. Schaff probably didn’t even get the point, Irenaeus was writing AGAINST guys like Schaff.
Here is the text I used. What Shaff had problems with SHOULD give him problems. It shows how obvious and clear Irenaeus was.
“For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority**,**3313 that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles.this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren In the time ofat Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles,…” [Book III, Ch 3, vs 2-3]
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.iv.html
N
Nicea325
Guest
They can call it argumentative or any other term,makes no difference to me. The Truth is always defended with facts and lie,distortion,perversion,etc is never proven because they are lies.
N
Nicea325
Guest
And who are Joseph Berrington, and Joe Kirk that Schaff mentions to support his footnote? 2 Ultra liberal Roman Catholics. Can clerics be contrary to the Church? Yep!! That-a-boy Schaff! Pick “Catholics” who contradict the Roman Church teaching to support you.Here’s a classic case of bias in footnoting. As Brian noted, this translation of Irenaeus is from protestant Phillip Schaff… I refer to footnote #3313
#3313 is a footnote refering to the term “pre-eminent authority” used by Irenaeus. Schaff a protestant obviously felt readers needed his help in properly understanding a Catholic bishop, and the term he used, because it’s too Catholic and readers need to understand it from a protestant point of view.
Here is what Schaff said about “pre-eminent authority”
"The Latin text of this difficult but important clause is, “Ad hanc enim ecclesiam propter potiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam.” Both the text and meaning have here given rise to much discussion. It is impossible to say with certainty of what words in the Greek original “potiorem principalitatem” may be the translation. We are far from sure that the rendering given above is correct, but we have been unable to think of anything better. [A most extraordinary confession. It would be hard to find a worse; but take the following from a candid Roman Catholic, which is better and more literal: “For to this Church, on account of more potent principality, it is necessary that every Church (that is, those who are on every side faithful) *resort; in which Church ever, by those who are on every side, has been preserved that tradition which is from the apostles.” (Berington and Kirk, vol. i. p. 252.) Here it is obvious that the faith was kept at Rome, by those who resort there from all quarters. She was a mirror of the Catholic World, owing here orthodoxy to them; not the Sun, dispensing her own light to others, but the glass bringing their rays into a focus. See note at end of book iii.] A discussion of the subject may be seen in chap. xii. of Dr. Wordsworth’s St. Hippolytus and the Church of Rome"
sheesh!!!:tsktsk: Shame on Schaff, but predictable. Schaff probably didn’t even get the point, Irenaeus was writing AGAINST guys like Schaff.
Here is the text I used. What Shaff had problems with SHOULD give him problems. It shows how obvious and clear Irenaeus was.
“For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority**,**3313 that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles.this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren In the time ofat Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles,…” [Book III, Ch 3, vs 2-3]
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.iv.html
Exactly! I have read so many non-Catholic sources and at times they ‘proof-text’ a written work from many ECFs in order to present a smoking gun. It is the oldest trick in the realm of distortions and perversions.
S
steve_b
Guest
The translation could be correct, in that if scholars screw with the language as some do they get found out quickly. Where they do most of their damage, is in their footnotes. And Brian got sucked into Schaffs corrupt footnote.
N
Nicea325
Guest
Or they simply have a secondary source backing up their claims or charges. Likewise, at times they have no references supporting their claims or charges.
B
Brian_Culliton
Guest
From your post:
What it should have said:
The word faithful is missing. Go back and look at it. You said…
And in a later post you said…
So it must have been you that removed the words from the quote. Real nice.
This is typical of many Catholics I’ve debated. Rather than respond with intelligent rebuttal, you attack and manipulate the source. I can’t tell you how many times I heard from Catholics that “Origen was a heretic,” “Tertullian was not orthodox”, or “Clement was mistaken.” It really is pathetic how many Catholics will turn on the church fathers as soon as they see a reference from them they don’t like. And if they are not turning on the fathers they attack the translator. I know this happens out of frustration, but it really is unfortunate.
Both bishops were disciples of John? Would you care to demonstrate how it was even possible that Irenaeus was a disciple of the Apostle John?
The letter to the church in Rome was the only one written to a church outside the jurisdiction of Antioch and happened to be the patriarchal seat of the west. That is why he said the Roman church “presides (or hold the presidency) in the place of the region of the Romans.” He didn’t say anything about Rome holding the presidency over the whole church.
And what do you think about how he addressed the bishop of Rome, wasn’t that something?
No, that’s not the point. You are trying to turn Irenaeus’ defense of the faith into a defense of Roman supremacy. Irenaeus was not refuting some claim that Rome was supreme he was refuting heretical doctrine.
“It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position 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; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to the perfect apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves… Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches…”
You can remain obstinate, and I am sure you will, but you are clearly wrong.
And Rome must agree with Antioch and Alexandria because of their preeminent authority. I don’t know why you cannot understand what the preeminent authority is.
It is a matter of you not understanding the text.
Are you going to comment on the rest of what I posted too?
B
Brian_Culliton
Guest
You know, I would think that someone who claims to have twenty years of early church study and a graduate degree in history, would have a lot more to offer than throwing bombs from the sideline.
I ask you to show early church support for a Catholic doctrine; you failed to produce any evidence, then you turn around and ask me a ridiculous question that I would only expect to hear from someone who possesses no understanding Christian history or Scripture. Nevertheless, I answered your question directly by saying it isn’t in the Bible. Then I tried to offer you more insight into what I believe by pointing you to an article that **I wrote **about the development of the canon. Somehow, as appropriate and simple as all that seemed to me it went right over your head. And now you keep asking me the same question over and over again. Then you continually ridicule me for not answering your question (among other things), which I did answer. Do you seriously have nothing more to offer than that? Twenty years of early church study and this is all you have?
Why don’t you draw from your well of knowledge and tell me where in the Ante-Nicene church I can find evidence that they believed and taught the assumption of Mary? You believe this was taught by the apostles and you have twice the early church study under your belt than I do, so instruct me on where the connection is between the acceptance of this doctrine and the teaching of it by the apostles? I would like to know because in my studies I have not come across it.
N
Nicea325
Guest
And I rather throw bombs from the sidelines than merely throw duds! Claims? And 10 years of study and the best you can muster are the same ole boring words: conjecture and manipulations? I do have my degrees Brian,which is why precisely I am asking you to show me the empirical evidence the RCC has manipulated primary sources? Show me your evidence they have been manipulated? You made the charge,now back it up! Enlighten me?
No Brian…you DID NOT answer my question. Here let me refresh your memory a tad bit here. These are your words verbatim…read them:
*If you are going to assert **apostolic origin for doctrines *that are not found in the Bible, then you are going to have to prove it by getting specific.
More of your words:
I answered your question directly by saying it isn’t in the Bible
If you do not believe everything must be in the Bible,then I’ll ask again Brian:
Why do you accept the DOCTRINE for the canons for the Bible,if not ONE Apostle even mentions it?
More of your words:
Why don’t you draw from your well of knowledge and tell me where in the Ante-Nicene church I can find evidence that they believed and taught the assumption of Mary?
Exactly Brian! Why don’t you draw your well of knowledge and tell me where the Apostles and many ECF’s such as Origen,Clement,Justin,etc believed and taught about the doctrine for the canon of scripture?
Once again, why do you accept the DOCTRINE for the canon of scripture?
S
steve_b
Guest
Me thinks you protest too much.
Irenaeus said
“it is a matter of necessitiy every Church should agree with this Church on account of its pre- eminent authority”
What does “ every Church mean? let’s see.
Irenaeus continues
*"*inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere."
faithful EVERYWHERE means just that. It is a necessity every Church agrees with this Church (the Church of Rome) EVERYWHERE, on account of it’s pre-eminent authority.
Now if you want to emphasize, faithful men everywhere who keep the apostolic tradition & agree with the Church of Rome because of her pre-eminent authority vs unfaithful men who don’t keep the apostolic tradition, I agree.
B:
Origen and Tertullian were ECF’s but not saints.
Origen’s writings had mixed results. newadvent.org/cathen/11306b.htm
Turtullian became a montanist newadvent.org/cathen/14520c.htm
I’m not sure your point regarding Clement.
B:
My bad, I wasn’t clear.
I meant to say, Irenaeus and Polycarp were from the same city(Smyrna) and knew each other. Both bishops Ignatius and Polycarp were disciples of St John
Thanks for spotting that :tiphat:
B:
- There WAS no patriarchal system at this time. That was introduced much later. Many years prior to Ignatius letters, Clement of Rome has already settled sedition among the bishops in the Church of Corinth Greece. If there was a notion as you describe, Corinth should have gone to Antioch not Rome.
- Ignatius doesn’t say the see of Antioch holds the presidency in any letter he writes. Only to the Church of Rome does he acknowledge this title
- on Ignatius expectation of death, he asks Rome not any other Church, to watch over Antioch.
The president of the United States presides in the region of Washington D.C. Does that mean he presides in only Washington D.C.?
The chair of Peter is recognized to be Rome. But Peter’s responsibility is the entire world
B:
Do you think he would ignore the Bishop of Rome after writing this to the Philadelphians
“Those, indeed, who belong to God and to Jesus Christ - they are with the bishop. Do not err, my brethren: if anyone follow a schismatic; he will not inherit the kingdom of God.” (St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Philadelphians, A.D. 107, [3,2])
B:
How is it refuted? What are the characteristics of faithful men vs unfaithful men in this case?
B:
This is gnosticism Irenaeus is refering to. And the antedote as the quote continues, is for EVERYONE EVERYWHERE, to agree with Rome
B:
Quote the passage that says that?
B:
Irenaeus says it’s Rome.
O
oneGODoneCHURCH
Guest
The earilest writings date to the late 300’s. And the chruch has always maintained that it is referenced in the Revelation to ST John.
B
Brian_Culliton
Guest
I am emphasizing context. In context you argument makes no sense. It is typical of Catholic apologists to isolate quotes and ignore context.
Patriarchal is the word I like to use with Catholics. The term pretty well describes the way the churches were set up in the Ante-Nicene church.
All we know is that the Corinthians contacted the church in Rome concerning the dissention that took place there. We don’t know what other churches might have been notified. If you happened to read that letter you probably noticed that Clement seemed to have intimate knowledge of the church in Corinth. A possible explanation is that Clement is precisely the person they thought could settle the issue. But at any rate, there is too much evidence that points to Rome NOT having universal authority in the Ante-Nicene church.
The other churches Ignatius wrote to were in the jurisdiction of his church in Antioch, so it wouldn’t make sense for him to say they hold the presidency. Besides, once again you are leaving out the part where he said, “in the region of the Romans.” It’s that context thing again.
He did not ask the church in Rome to watch over his church, he explicitly asked Polycarp to do that.
“It is fitting, O Polycarp, most blessed in God, to assemble a very solemn council, and to elect one whom you greatly love, and know to be a man of activity, who may be designated the messenger of God; and to bestow on him this honour that he may go into Syria, and glorify your ever active love to the praise of Christ.” (To Polycarp, Chapter 7)
What he said to the church in Rome was, “Remember in your prayers the Church in Syria, which now has God for its shepherd, instead of me. Jesus Christ alone will oversee it, and your love [will also regard it].”
The chair of Peter was also recognized to be Antioch. Peter was not the bishop of either church, but rather one of the apostles that laid the foundation in both places.
He [Ignatius] DID ignore the bishop of Rome. His letter addressed the Christens in Rome without partiality.
B
Brian_Culliton
Guest
I think that might be a bit early, and it defiantly is nowhere near the time of the apostles.
Which writings are you referring to? And when did the church first teach that Revelation reveals the assumption of Mary?
J
joe370
Guest
Brian, what is your response to the OP below:
Based on my last thread regarding the non-Catholic consensus of what sola scriptura is, and is not, I have concluded that the bible, as per sola scriptura advocates, is the Christians only source of divine authority via private interpretation, and that all Christians, as per the practice of sola scriptura, must defer to the authority of the bible alone via private interpretation, (with the exception of one SS advocate) - as opposed to deferring to the authority of the Catholic Church or any other Protestant Church for that matter. I am told that All have the right to read the bible (with which I agree, to a point…) - as it has been written, and discern truth for themselves via private interpretation: no church Bishop or Pastor (regardless of church affiliation) - is needed to further expound that which has been expounded by the Spirit of Christ in the Prophets and the Apostles.
Where is this taught in the bible??? 2 Timothy 3 does not teach this…
Based on my last thread regarding the non-Catholic consensus of what sola scriptura is, and is not, I have concluded that the bible, as per sola scriptura advocates, is the Christians only source of divine authority via private interpretation, and that all Christians, as per the practice of sola scriptura, must defer to the authority of the bible alone via private interpretation, (with the exception of one SS advocate) - as opposed to deferring to the authority of the Catholic Church or any other Protestant Church for that matter. I am told that All have the right to read the bible (with which I agree, to a point…) - as it has been written, and discern truth for themselves via private interpretation: no church Bishop or Pastor (regardless of church affiliation) - is needed to further expound that which has been expounded by the Spirit of Christ in the Prophets and the Apostles.
Where is this taught in the bible??? 2 Timothy 3 does not teach this…
S
steve_b
Guest
EVEN Schaff admits he had problems with that passage, because Irenaeus was so clear. Schaff admits it’s hard to see it in writing. The plain understanding was too damaging to Schaffs protestant understanding of ecclesiology so he manipulated his footnote to take away the plain meaning, and so introduces his bias.
B:
Nope.
B:
Look at what people DO. Not hypothecize and speculate on what they coulda/shoulda/woulda done.
- Rome is a long way from Corinth.
- St John was still alive and living (either in Ephesus or Patmos) which is much closer to Corinth than Clement was over in Rome.
- Corinth went to Rome for help. It’s the chair of Peter
- Lot’s of people had knowledge of the Church at Corinth. Any Church established by Paul. Plus Corinth was an important busy seaport…
- Athens (mentioned in Acts) is a stones throw (literally) from Corinth. Both Churches were started by Paul. They had valid bishops. But Corinth went to Rome.
- What is your evidence to show Rome didn’t have wide reaching authority (Ante-Nicene period)?
Where’s the proof those Churches are in Antioch’s juristiction. Was Ignatius presiding over all those Churches? Was Antioch considered holding the presidency? Ignatius didn’t say anything like that.
As far as the “region of the Romans”, was Corinth Greece in that region? NO. So why did Rome settle their sedition between their bishops?
Then ask who is in the region of Antioch? Why did Ignatius ask Rome to watch his episcopate after his death and not bishops much much closer to Antioch, like any/all of the Churches he wrote to previously?
B:
Jesus Christ alone will oversee it, and your love [will also regard it].”- What does “and will also regard it” mean, regarding Rome regarding Antioch, in that context with Jesus as overseer?
- Can you show me the evidence that Antioch exercised that chair in any capacity one would think the chair of Peter would be exercised. I’ve asked EO to defend Antioch as the chair of Peter and I haven’t gotten any responses yet.
- BTW, Rome always took 1st place in ranking of sees because everyone looked at Rome as the see of Peter… Even after Constantinople took 1st place for itself in the East. the ranking of sees went like this
- Rome
- Constantinople
- Alexandria
- Antioch
- Jerusalem
- BTW, Peter wrote from Rome. [1st Pet.]
- Bottomline, Rome is the see of Peter and has always been that way. That’s why it is listed 1st.
Ignatius said do nothing without the bishop. That’s what he taught. Now he’s going against his own teaching, and sending a letter to no one in particular in Rome, and anyone/everyone in general, hoping it gets to the right person/destination?
O
oneGODoneCHURCH
Guest
I do not do other peoples research. Just type earliest teaching on the assumpion of Mary in you browser. Also just because that the earliest writting does not mean that is the earliest teaching. You must keep in mind that many many things were taught and not written down in those time. the norm was oral teaching. so if first witten in 300 something was taught many many years earlier.
B
Brian_Culliton
Guest
Your opinion of a person who far out qualifies yourself in matters of early ecclesiastical writings is of absolutely no consequence to me.
Clements letter makes no suggestion at all that Rome is the chair of Peter or that the Corinthians contacted them for that reason. It is crystal clear that Clement knew the church in Corinth personally and intimately. Objective people will admit they can only speculate on why the Corinthians contacted the church in Rome, the rest will blindly assert their biased opinions.
Primary:
- Ignatius letter to Polycarp
- Origen, Commentary on Mathew (12:9-12)
- Paul of Samosata (Second biggest controversy in the Ante-Nicene church)
- The Arian Controversy (Biggest controversy in the Ante-Nicene church)
- Nicea, Canon 6
- Variance in accepted books of Scripture
- Variance in accepted doctrine
- Cyprian, Unity of the Church
- Constantine’s supremacy at Nicea
Nicea, Canon 6. And the obvious fact that those are the churches Ignatius felt compelled to give his final instruction and exhortation. His letter to the church in Rome was written for a completely different reason.
Because they asked them to. You can only speculate.
Did you not read my last post?? Ignatius DID write to a bishop much closer to him, and he EXPLICITLY asked him to handle the affairs of his episcopate. He did not ask Rome to do that, he only asked for their prayers.
It doesn’t mean, “Please oversee my episcopate in Antioch.” Jesus would oversee the church in Antioch until Polycarp assembles local bishops and they elect a new bishop to take Ignatius’ place. You are trying to create something that isn’t there.
Eusebius treats Rome and Antioch exactly the same in his history. Bishops of both churches are acknowledged as succeeding from Peter.
“Linus, whom he mentions in the Second Epistle to Timothy as his companion at Rome, was Peter’s successor in the episcopate of the church there” (E.H. 3:4:9)
“And at the same time Papias, bishop of the parish of Hierapolis, became well known, as did also Ignatius, who was chosen bishop of Antioch, second in succession to Peter, and whose fame is still celebrated by a great many.” (ibid 3:36:2)
- Status