Why all the Fuss on the Reformation?

[Denise1957]

Bear in mind 1) Peter was not the rock, faith was,

Could you explain why it is that you believe that faith was the rock, and not Peter?

 

[Tomyris]

I don’t “understand” it in the sense that I don’t see how any reasonable person, with any knowledge of history, can believe in such a thing, indeed. We can draw on the sources of the faith for renewal, but we can never go back. Never.

No, we cannot go back. We can see where we have gone wrong and correct it. It seems, however, that the Catholic Church has adopted a position in which any doctrinal correction is out of the question.

I don’t know what that means.

I’m thinking here that I spoke in terms of their interest more in politics than in religion.

How? You mention two issues which I find to be pretty trivial and really pertain to discipline more than to doctrine (the key doctrine on the episcopacy, for Catholics, is apostolic succession–sometimes there is more than one bishop in one diocese, though in such cases the others are clearly labeled as assistants to the diocesan bishop).

I just don’t think that the case can be sustained. On the key doctrine of sola fide, the claim is manifestly false. Sola fide is an innovation, not a return to anything.

Debatable on the claim,and on the definition.

The monarchical episcopacy was solidly in place in Syria and Asia Minor by the early second century, as the letters of Ignatius testify.

No, that is not how I read Ignatius. He seemed plenty concerned that people where insufficiently regarding the bishop - he reads to me more like the question was in doubt. But he definitely had the idea down of the bishop

There is no evidence that Rome, which probably still did not have a monarchical bishop, had any problems with Ignatius doing things, or vice versa.

Argument from silence. Note that 1 (or was it 2nd- don’t have it here) Clement was written, as it says from the elders, not the episcopos, indicating where the power lay in that church at the time. I read later insistence that it had to have come from the bishop as a papal propaganda piece.

That seems to indicate that the whole thing just isn’t the big deal that people on both sides have later made it. The derivation of authority from the apostles, on the other hand, was a big deal.

Somwhere Calvin said he would have had no problems with a papacy that had his 2 marks of the church.

Mandatory celibacy developed over time, true (though there were calls for it in the West as early as the third century), but the principle of honoring celibacy is a Scriptural one. Again, I don’t see the big deal here, doctrinally.

Edwin

Then there’s justification by faith. Yes, honoring celibacy is Scriptural, but it has been pushed to an extreme. Have you read Augustine’s “On Continence”?

I may be tilting at windmills, but it is possible Presbyterians could reconcile with Catholics. I am not sure we really have a grasp, though, on how far apart we are.

 

[Tomyris]

Could you explain why it is that you believe that faith was the rock, and not Peter?

What did Peter say?

How is it possible to please God?

 

[Denise1957]

What did Peter say?

How is it possible to please God?

I don’t see how your response is an answer to my question. I asked you to explain why you believe that faith is the rock, and not Peter. If you would prefer to not answer, that’s fine. I’ll instead give you an idea of the Catholic view of why Peter is the Rock.

 

[Contarini]

No, we cannot go back. We can see where we have gone wrong and correct it. It seems, however, that the Catholic Church has adopted a position in which any doctrinal correction is out of the question.

Insofar as it would involve directly contradicting infallibly defined doctrines. But there has been a great deal of “ressourcement,” and more will no doubt follow.

I’m thinking here that I spoke in terms of their interest more in politics than in religion.

I’m not sure how that constitutes throwing aside the Sacred Tradition.

Debatable on the claim,and on the definition.

Well, people do argue the opposite. But they are wrong. The case for sola fide before the Reformation is based on special pleading and a misreading of texts. I define sola fide as the view that we are declared righteous based only on faith and not on the love that the Holy Spirit pours into our hearts. The “sola fide” that can be found in the Fathers and the medieval tradition pertains to initial justification (not final) and is not set over against charity, but against works done by our own efforts without the divine gift of charity as the motivator. And this “sola fide” is entirely compatible with Catholic teaching.

No, that is not how I read Ignatius. He seemed plenty concerned that people where insufficiently regarding the bishop - he reads to me more like the question was in doubt.

Sure, although these issues seem to have gone along with doctrinal issues (proto-Gnosticism and/or Judaizing). In other words, we would all want to agree, I think, that Ignatius and those who thought like him were the orthodox party and our spiritual ancestors. And this early orthodoxy, from which we are all descended, was in Ignatius’ view very much tied in with the office of the bishop.

Argument from silence.

Which is valid if used carefully. Given how polemical Ignatius is about the episcopacy, the fact that he never criticizes Rome is relevant.

Note that 1 (or was it 2nd- don’t have it here) Clement was written, as it says from the elders, not the episcopos, indicating where the power lay in that church at the time.

If Hermas is to be trusted, Clement was the presbyter charged with “foreign correspondence.” That may have been the office within the Roman church that eventually developed into a monarchical episcopacy.

Somwhere Calvin said he would have had no problems with a papacy that had his 2 marks of the church.

Exactly. And I think it’s clear that the papacy today does (and retrospectively that it did in the sixteenth century too, although one can understand why people were confused at the time).

Yes, honoring celibacy is Scriptural, but it has been pushed to an extreme. Have you read Augustine’s “On Continence”?

I’m not sure, which means probably not–but I did read a lot of things in grad school that I remember only dimly now.

The point is that this isn’t a major doctrinal issue–it’s a question of discipline and one can legitimately argue that the Roman discipline is, as you say, an extreme and inappropriate application of a legitimate principle.

I may be tilting at windmills, but it is possible Presbyterians could reconcile with Catholics. I am not sure we really have a grasp, though, on how far apart we are.

Which Presbyterian denomination do you belong to again?

Edwin

 

[Denise1957]

What did Peter say?

How is it possible to please God?

So, here’s the explanation of why Peter was the Rock on which the Church was to be built. Peter’s name was changed from Simon Bar Jona (meaning Simon, son of John) to Simon Peter. The word ‘Peter’, or ‘Cephas’, meant “rock” in the language of that day. So it was Jesus himself who changed Simon Bar Jona’s name to Simon Peter. In the OT, a name change by God usually signified something very important, and it was not often done. I think that Abraham was one referred to as “rock” also.
So Simon’s name was changed to “Rock.” And it was upon the Rock of Peter that his church was to be built.

 

[PRmerger]

This is silly, as are your following posts. The cute little video is close to insulting.

Wait…what?

Something that is a “cute little video” is also “close to insulting”?

Really?

How is that GIF anything more than an animated version of this:

:doh2:

Is that “cute little smilie” also “close to insulting”?

How about DEFINING a ‘charism of infallibility’?

God spoke. He used men. That does not mean that He continues to speak in the same way, as if the revelation were still open.

Let’s step back first.

1. 
   *]God spoke.
   *]He used men.
   *]These men spoke with the assistance of the Holy Spirit.
   *]We know that since these men were assisted by the Holy Spirit that what they said was without error
   
   I think we can agree on 1-3.
   
   And I think that you would be reluctant to say that #4 is untrue. Doing so would have lots of very bad implications for you vis a vis professing anything in the NT being actually theopneustos.
   
   That is, if you can’t say that #4 is true, then you can’t know that any of the books in the NT are really the inspired Word of God.
   
   And, as far as defining the charism of infallibility, I believe I just did.
   See #1-4.

 

[Tomyris]

Wait…what?

Something that is a “cute little video” is also “close to insulting”?

Really?

How is that GIF anything more than an animated version of this:

:doh2:

Is that “cute little smilie” also “close to insulting”?

I said ‘close to’. Doh2 is inherently comic. Humor can very difficult, as I have said before,especially when we are crossing lines of belief. We really never know how someone will react. My initial reaction to that was that you thought I was really, really stupid. Since I can be really, really stupid, I was thinking you discovered this. It is not that hard to discover, so…

Let’s step back first.

1. 
   *]God spoke.
   *]He used men.
   *]These men spoke with the assistance of the Holy Spirit.
   *]We know that since these men were assisted by the Holy Spirit that what they said was without error

1. 
   

   I think we can agree on 1-3.

   Here we go. I would say on #3 The Holy Spirit spoke through these men.
   

   And I think that you would be reluctant to say that #4 is untrue. Doing so would have lots of very bad implications for you vis a vis professing anything in the NT being actually theopneustos.

   That is, if you can’t say that #4 is true, then you can’t know that any of the books in the NT are really the inspired Word of God.

   I would rephrase it to say that the Holy Spirit cannot lie, always speaks the truth, and we can believe what He says.
   

   And, as far as defining the charism of infallibility, I believe I just did.
   See #1-4.

   Then I reject it. The way you have defined it manages to emphasize the human role over and against the divine more than I would like. Here are some more propositions.
   
   1. 
      *] God creates people with particular personalities.
      *]God, at his complete liberty and for His own glory and pleasure, uses those particular people with their particular and peculiar personalities for His particular purposes in a way that neither compromises their free will or His divine glory.
      1. 
         *]He has been pleased to speak in an authoritative way through His apostles and prophets
         *]He speaks today, but that must be measured against His Divine Revelation
         *]He speaks today, but the Church has a role in judging personal prophecy, private revelations, etc.
         *]That role includes teaching people how to properly discern when God is speaking

 

[Tomyris]

So, here’s the explanation of why Peter was the Rock on which the Church was to be built. Peter’s name was changed from Simon Bar Jona (meaning Simon, son of John) to Simon Peter. The word ‘Peter’, or ‘Cephas’, meant “rock” in the language of that day. So it was Jesus himself who changed Simon Bar Jona’s name to Simon Peter. In the OT, a name change by God usually signified something very important, and it was not often done. I think that Abraham was one referred to as “rock” also.
So Simon’s name was changed to “Rock.” And it was upon the Rock of Peter that his church was to be built.

This issue has been debated into the ground. Just search the forums for it.

Wait a minute…So has almost everything else here…

There are numerous Church fathers who went with his confession being the rock, not Peter being the Rock. Without faith it is impossible to please him - the church was not built on a man but on Christ the Rock. Many argue that “this Rock” refers not to Peter but to Christ; there are other theories as well I am not current with.

 

[Tomyris]

Originally Posted by Tomyris

No, we cannot go back. We can see where we have gone wrong and correct it. It seems, however, that the Catholic Church has adopted a position in which any doctrinal correction is out of the question.

We will not live to see where it all leads.

Quote:

I’m thinking here that I spoke in terms of their interest more in politics than in religion.

I’m not sure how that constitutes throwing aside the Sacred Tradition.

I’m not sure I have anything worthwhile to say here now.

Quote:

Debatable on the claim,and on the definition.

Well, people do argue the opposite. But they are wrong. The case for sola fide before the Reformation is based on special pleading and a misreading of texts. I define sola fide as the view that we are declared righteous based only on faith and not on the love that the Holy Spirit pours into our hearts. The “sola fide” that can be found in the Fathers and the medieval tradition pertains to initial justification (not final) and is not set over against charity, but against works done by our own efforts without the divine gift of charity as the motivator. And this “sola fide” is entirely compatible with Catholic teaching.

As I’ve referred to elsewhere I am working through McGrath’s ‘Theology of the Cross’. I’ve been through Justitia Dei 2x but I do not claim to understand it. Calvin, Luther and the Church enthusiastically wander deep into Aristotle almost immediately when you start reading it. So I have his Metaphysics on my list of books to get my head around, not that it is likely. But McGrath asserts that sola fide was a Lutheran novelty. I have not gone past that, I am not sure where the Catholics are presently regarding God giving grace to him who does what is in him.

Quote:

No, that is not how I read Ignatius. He seemed plenty concerned that people where insufficiently regarding the bishop - he reads to me more like the question was in doubt.

Sure, although these issues seem to have gone along with doctrinal issues (proto-Gnosticism and/or Judaizing). In other words, we would all want to agree, I think, that Ignatius and those who thought like him were the orthodox party and our spiritual ancestors. And this early orthodoxy, from which we are all descended, was in Ignatius’ view very much tied in with the office of the bishop.

I cede that the protopresbyterianism was short lived and ask myself what is up with that? We’ve been doing it for 500 years and they could not do it for 200? Wimps? No.

Quote:
Argument from silence.
Which is valid if used carefully. Given how polemical Ignatius is about the episcopacy, the fact that he never criticizes Rome is relevant.

His attitude towards the Romans in his epistle to them is different from in the others.

Quote:

Note that 1 (or was it 2nd- don’t have it here) Clement was written, as it says from the elders, not the episcopos, indicating where the power lay in that church at the time.

If Hermas is to be trusted, Clement was the presbyter charged with “foreign correspondence.” That may have been the office within the Roman church that eventually developed into a monarchical episcopacy.

Making the case more difficult for those who think Peter showed up, started the Roman church and full-blown papacy.

Quote:

Somwhere Calvin said he would have had no problems with a papacy that had his 2 marks of the church.

Exactly. And I think it’s clear that the papacy today does (and retrospectively that it did in the sixteenth century too, although one can understand why people were confused at the time).

Our huge objection here is our understanding of the Mass. But from what I have read of Catholic understanding, our objection may well be to something that they deny. I need to look into this more.

Quote:

Yes, honoring celibacy is Scriptural, but it has been pushed to an extreme. Have you read Augustine’s “On Continence”?

I’m not sure, which means probably not–but I did read a lot of things in grad school that I remember only dimly now.

You would remember it. Anyone would. Augustine believed, for example, that David had not lust problem, and copulated only for progeny, and that people would have reproduced without sex except for the fall. It is quite a work.

The point is that this isn’t a major doctrinal issue–it’s a question of discipline and one can legitimately argue that the Roman discipline is, as you say, an extreme and inappropriate application of a legitimate principle.
Quote:

I may be tilting at windmills, but it is possible Presbyterians could reconcile with Catholics. I am not sure we really have a grasp, though, on how far apart we are.

Which Presbyterian denomination do you belong to again?

EPC. I am speaking in long-term theoreticals. I don’t think I will see official conversations in my lifetime.
Edwin

 

[guanophore]

 Well...You are seeing through your Rome-colored glasses, with everything as the Church has instructed you, when has bothered to.

This statement is hostile in several ways. I actually “see” my faith more through Eastern glasses, though I am not in opposition to Latin theology.

I was very poorly catechized, and I learned more spending 3 years in a Protestant Seminary. Since that time, I have continued to study, and I have ceased to blame “the Church” for those things in which I was not well instructed. It is my responsibility to study, to show myself approved.

Your statement “when has bothered to” seems to be a disparaging comment of poor catechesis. I cannot argue that I came up in a post Vatican 2 period that did suffer very poor instruction. It is the main reason I wandered away from the faith into which I was baptized, looking for some more solid instruction in Bible and Theology. It had nothing to do with the Church’s lack of interest or passion about instruction. I had many catechists who were very passionate and interested. I will add your sentiment to the list of reasons why you are anti-Catholic.

  What you do not understand is the going-back to the beginning business after the bishops and popes threw away any sort of 'Sacred Tradition'

It is not that I don’t understand it, Tomi, it is that it contradicts scripture and the Teaching of the Apostles so I am not at liberty to agree with it. This concept constitutes “a different gospel” so I will be anathema if I accept it.

Sacred Tradition (the Word of God) cannot be “thrown away”. The Word of God endures forever. People can reject the purpose of God for themselves, but they cannot change the purpose of God. It is immutable.

and that the Catholic Church, in Reformed eyes, is the one that departed, slowly, from the Catholic faith.

There is a perfect thread for you right now, Tomi! It is all about the departure from the faith.

Paul warned of wolves coming, Jesus warned against religious authority more than anything, yet you seem to embrace wolves and those who love respectful greetings in the marketplace.

You have a kindred spirit that has already posted about this scripture just today on that thread.

Jesus has called us to love everyone, and to pray for those who persecute us. I have been fortunate to have known only holy bishops and popes in my lifetime, and I am happy to embrace them and greet them respectfully.

Your comment seems to imply that the Bishops are presently doing something you consider “wolfish”. It sounds like a personal problem, so I won’t ask about it on a public board.

At the beginning there were groups of elders in every city. You will see that there was never one elder over one city in Scripture - there were groups.

I don’t believe I have ever asserted otherwise.

There was the idea that ‘the least among you shall be the greatest’ - never the idea that a bishop would rule over priests, never in the beginning.

I submit that this is still true. Jesus never intended to have a secular type of authority, but a servant leadership, which He modeled to His Apostles.

One of the qualifications for an episcopos was that he would have children who behaved.

Yes.

But it is not forbidden for a priest or a bishop to be celibate, either. Paul wrote that he would that all be celibate like himself.

1 Cor 7:8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do.

The Catholic church in its corruption has mandated celibacy totally against Scripture  (celibacy is on the List - I thought I would throw that in there just to check that item off :rolleyes:) for priests and bishops and has made them into separate classes.

Clearly you have been poorly instructed yourself on this matter, Tomi. On the contrary, it was the corruption that precipitated the rule of celibacy. The Church did not want to support the offspring of the clerics, legitimate and illegitimate. There was also the problem of property.

But celibacy cannot be “mandated”. It is a gift of God, and as Jesus said, the one who is given the gift should accept it.

The CC has plenty of married priests, and it is only the Latin Rite that prefers to choose from among those called to celibacy to serve as priests. Even so, ,there are married priests also in the Latin Rite.

The Church needs the pure gift of those who are undistracted in service. I am surprised that you would accuse the CC of “corruption” and in the same sentence, criticise her for callin1 Cor 7:32-35

32 I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; 33 but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, 34 and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband. 35 I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord.

Would it not be equally “scriptural” to say that the married man is divided? It looks like you will find fault no matter what Catholics do!

You will have to explain about the “classes”. I don’t know what that means. Priests and bishops serve as an office, a ministry. It has nothing to do with their socioeconiomic status.

 

[guanophore]

Historically we have seen bishops envying each other, archbishops striving for power, bitter envy between Rome and Constantinople that should not have been, and would not have been, had they stuck to the original plan.

I don’t think you will find any disagreement on this point. Human beings are prone to these things, and they are not exclusive to church clerics, either.

Looking back to the OP, I am wondering why you have not moved on from this historical rivalry? The people that were selfish, ignorant, bigoted or whatever sins they had are now dead and long gone. The conditions that fomented the Reformation existed, but they do not any longer. How is it that you are still holding a resentment against them?

But like the Israelites of old they wanted a king, like Saul, rather than having Christ as their head they wanted a human ruler, and so the papacy came about.

You have a very interesting perspective of history and Scripture Tomi. Can you show any evidence that what you said occurred? Where do you find this idea anywhere before the Reformation.

  From a presbyterian viewpoint the whole office of bishop, and therefore anything descending from it, is a corruption of the church (nothing there touches on the personal belief, conduct or holiness of any individual clergy, of whom there have been a good number, despite this hobbling of the church).

I guess all I can say to this is that God has given you the right to reject what He established, to deny Scripture, and the history of the Church He founded. Each human being has a right to go their own way.

With that as a starting point, reconciliation with the Catholic Church would be a most interesting endeavor.

No, I don’t think reconciliation can happen at all with so much hostility, prejudice, and unforgiveness in the hearts of those who are separated. This is not a starting point for reconciliation but a recipe for continued emnity and separation.

Let us pray that we can all overcome our prejudices and hostilities, so that we may be One, as He and the Father are One, and thereby, all will know Him.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

No, we cannot go back. We can see where we have gone wrong and correct it.

That’s going forward, not back

It seems, however, that the Catholic Church has adopted a position in which any doctrinal correction is out of the question.

I share your frustration, if I am to be honest…

However, there are some caveats on what the Church understands as doctrine and what it understands as discipline and/or practice. Disciplines can change.

To add… There is also the development of doctrine. Where it is not necessarily a correction but a clarification (I like to call this: mental gymnastics).

And there is an undeniable evolutionary aspect to the development of doctrine. Not only that, but I’ve found out that sometimes we mean basically the same thing in very different ways - ie. The “Faith Alone” gold medal gymnastic treatment by PE Benedict XVI in his Nov 19, 2008 General Audience.

This doctrinal development is best seen in Chapter 8 of Dei Verbum:

1. And so the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved by an unending succession of preachers until the end of time. Therefore the Apostles, handing on what they themselves had received, warn the faithful to hold fast to the traditions which they have learned either by word of mouth or by letter (see 2 Thess. 2:15), and to fight in defense of the faith handed on once and for all (see Jude 1:3) (4) Now what was handed on by the Apostles includes everything which contributes toward the holiness of life and increase in faith of the peoples of God; and so the Church, in her teaching, life and worship, perpetuates and hands on to all generations all that she herself is, all that she believes.

This tradition which comes from the Apostles develop in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. (5) For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts (see Luke, 2:19, 51) through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through Episcopal succession the sure gift of truth. For as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her.

The words of the holy fathers witness to the presence of this living tradition, whose wealth is poured into the practice and life of the believing and praying Church. Through the same tradition the Church’s full canon of the sacred books is known, and the sacred writings themselves are more profoundly understood and unceasingly made active in her; and thus God, who spoke of old, uninterruptedly converses with the bride of His beloved Son; and the Holy Spirit, through whom the living voice of the Gospel resounds in the Church, and through her, in the world, leads unto all truth those who believe and makes the word of Christ dwell abundantly in them (see Col. 3:16).

The thing we need to watch out for is: Is it a doctrine, a practice, a discipline? And then ask is it infallibe?

 

[PRmerger]

I said ‘close to’.

Yep. That’s what I said, too. “Close to.”

Doh2 is inherently comic.

I would say it’s comical. Inherently so, probably not…but I won’t quibble about that.

Similarly, I would say that GIFS are comical, too.

Here we go. I would say on #3 The Holy Spirit spoke through these men.

Very Catholic, that.

And when the Holy Spirit speaks through this men…there can be no error, yes?

I would rephrase it to say that the Holy Spirit cannot lie, always speaks the truth, and we can believe what He says.

And this is nothing more than the definition of the charism of infallibility.

God speaks through these men…and since the Holy Spirit cannot lie and always speaks the truth…these men did not lie and spoke the truth.

The charism of infallibility.

 

[guanophore]

Thanks for your work, GKC. That’s all helpful information.

PRmerger–please see GKC’s two posts.

I saw Steven Spielberg in April of this year has signed on to produce a movie on Edgardo Mortara based on Kretzer’s book. If that movie does materialize, it may behoove Catholics to be familiar enough with the story to do some Catholic apologetics for the friends and acquaintances who may ask about it.

I myself apologize for dropping out of this thread. I know I owe several replies to PRmerger from way back, Guanophore, and FathersKnowBest; I’m sorry for being an absentee discussion partner. I have some elderly-mom-still-living-alone responsibilities that came up; she is such a lovely person that I’ve been too heavy-hearted and preoccupied to focus my attention on the internet.

But, this has been an interesting thread, as far as I’ve read it.

Your priorities are the right ones. You and your loved one’s will be in my prayers,

 

[Tomyris]

I don’t think you will find any disagreement on this point. Human beings are prone to these things, and they are not exclusive to church clerics, either.

Looking back to the OP, I am wondering why you have not moved on from this historical rivalry? The people that were selfish, ignorant, bigoted or whatever sins they had are now dead and long gone. The conditions that fomented the Reformation existed, but they do not any longer. How is it that you are still holding a resentment against them?

You have a very interesting perspective of history and Scripture Tomi. Can you show any evidence that what you said occurred? Where do you find this idea anywhere before the Reformation.

I guess all I can say to this is that God has given you the right to reject what He established, to deny Scripture, and the history of the Church He founded. Each human being has a right to go their own way.

No, I don’t think reconciliation can happen at all with so much hostility, prejudice, and unforgiveness in the hearts of those who are separated. This is not a starting point for reconciliation but a recipe for continued emnity and separation.

Let us pray that we can all overcome our prejudices and hostilities, so that we may be One, as He and the Father are One, and thereby, all will know Him.

I think you misread me profoundly.

 

[guanophore]

We have not touched on the absence of teaching authority in the Catholic Church in the late medieval era,

Tomi, your refusal not to accept the Teaching Authority committed by Christ to the Church does not make it disappear. You can claim it is not valid, or that, since there were corrupt persons (Judas) that it was “lost” (The rest of the Apostles’authority went to the grave with Judas) but that does not make it so. It may be a convenient way for you to ignore what the Scriptures and the early church says about authority and Apostolic succession.

and the prevalence of multitudinous views that the Magisterium was silent on.

For example?

People did not know where the teaching authority lay, whether with the monastarys, the universities, or where.

Can you produce any evidence of this assertion? It seems to me that the Teaching Authority in the NT is very clear, and that it has never changed. Since all the monasteries and universities were Catholic, I don’t see the source of the confusion. Monks and Professors like Luther than deviated from the Teaching of the Church were removed or silenced.

Some of this was because of the aftereffects of the time of the pope and anti-pope and the papal concern for earthly power, but another whole effect was the real abandonment of any sort of guidance of the church in terms of teaching.

There were no changes to any doctrines that occured with the anti-popes. These represent electoral disputes and although tragic, have no influence on the teaching authority that Christ gave to the Church.

You will get no argument from me that papal concern for earthlyl power has been a divisive force in the Church, but the lack of holiness does not set aside the Gifts of Christ either. Jeuss tells Peter he is rock, and upon this rock he will build His Church, then in the next breath tells him “get thee behind me Satan”.

If you and your eccelsial community entered into a “real abandonment of any sort of guidance of the Church in terms of teaching” then the responsiblity for that lies upon those who engaged in such abandonment. Those who leave the One Faith do not invalidate the faith for anyone except themselves.

You can blame your refusal to enter the Apostolic faith on the actions of people 500+
years ago, but your posts have made it clear that you have many errant ideas about Catholcism, and that you have been infused with resentment toward the Catholic faith.

I find in this presumption and a bizarre twist on ‘once saved, always saved’ only at the corporate level. God took away Israel and Judah because of their sins, and he took away the Levitical priesthood. Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD. Why do you think God would spare the papacy?

The authority given by Chrst to teach is embedded in the Bishops through apostolic succession. It is not confined to “the Papacy”, though the successor of Peter is the visible head on earth of the structure. The Magesterium, or teaching authority are the Bishops in unity with the Holy Spirit, such that it can be said “Acts 15:27-28
28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us”. This authority cannot be"taken away" because God does not deny Himself. He promised to be with His Church “until the end of the age”.

2 Tim 2:13
3 if we are faithless, he remains faithful - for he cannot deny himself.

Secondly, much of what the Reformation discussed were matters that had not been central in earlier disputes in the Church.

This is quite true. There was, and continues to be, the creation of doctrines and practices hitherto unknown to Christianity. Your example above of the Golden Thread of Salvation, along with the other elements of the TULIP are good examples. Previously, departures from the apostolic faith were treated as heresies.

For example, during the Trinitarian controversy, people wrote on that, and the quotes we have to bolster whatever position are asides, presented in the course of discussing other things. There is an enormous amount of overly enthusiastic eisegesis on both sides, particularly pertaining to Augustine. Methinks less of an interested in rhetoric and more of one on lucidity would have been helpful. The gentle bishop rambled and was infected with prolixity.

This is really irrelevant, though I do agree that it would have been helpful to have more writings on things that are now in dispute. It does not matter, though, becuase the Teaching of the Apostles is not defined by the witings of theologians that came after them. It was a “once for all” divine deposit of faith. While it helps to find refereneces to it in the writings of the Fathers, they can meander indefinitely and it will change nothing of the doctrines of the faith. Those who have embraced the Apostolic faith do not extract the doctrines from the Scriptures or the pages of theologians as modern evangelicals often do. We receive it through the paradosis.

 

[Denise1957]

This issue has been debated into the ground. Just search the forums for it.

Wait a minute…So has almost everything else here…

There are numerous Church fathers who went with his confession being the rock, not Peter being the Rock. Without faith it is impossible to please him - the church was not built on a man but on Christ the Rock. Many argue that “this Rock” refers not to Peter but to Christ; there are other theories as well I am not current with.

How many Church fathers were personally named “Rock” by Jesus Christ himself? That’s something that you haven’t addressed. So really, it’s not a debate when you ignore the obvious. Of course we have to have faith to please God. Who here has maintained that we don’t have to have faith to please God? Duh.

 

[spina1953]

This statement is hostile in several ways. I actually “see” my faith more through Eastern glasses, though I am not in opposition to Latin theology.

I was very poorly catechized, and I learned more spending 3 years in a Protestant Seminary. Since that time, I have continued to study, and I have ceased to blame “the Church” for those things in which I was not well instructed. It is my responsibility to study, to show myself approved.

Your statement “when has bothered to” seems to be a disparaging comment of poor catechesis. I cannot argue that I came up in a post Vatican 2 period that did suffer very poor instruction. It is the main reason I wandered away from the faith into which I was baptized, looking for some more solid instruction in Bible and Theology. It had nothing to do with the Church’s lack of interest or passion about instruction. I had many catechists who were very passionate and interested. I will add your sentiment to the list of reasons why you are anti-Catholic.

It is not that I don’t understand it, Tomi, it is that it contradicts scripture and the Teaching of the Apostles so I am not at liberty to agree with it. This concept constitutes “a different gospel” so I will be anathema if I accept it.

Sacred Tradition (the Word of God) cannot be “thrown away”. The Word of God endures forever. People can reject the purpose of God for themselves, but they cannot change the purpose of God. It is immutable.

There is a perfect thread for you right now, Tomi! It is all about the departure from the faith.

You have a kindred spirit that has already posted about this scripture just today on that thread.

Jesus has called us to love everyone, and to pray for those who persecute us. I have been fortunate to have known only holy bishops and popes in my lifetime, and I am happy to embrace them and greet them respectfully.

Your comment seems to imply that the Bishops are presently doing something you consider “wolfish”. It sounds like a personal problem, so I won’t ask about it on a public board.

I don’t believe I have ever asserted otherwise.

I submit that this is still true. Jesus never intended to have a secular type of authority, but a servant leadership, which He modeled to His Apostles.

Yes.

But it is not forbidden for a priest or a bishop to be celibate, either. Paul wrote that he would that all be celibate like himself.

1 Cor 7:8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do.

Clearly you have been poorly instructed yourself on this matter, Tomi. On the contrary, it was the corruption that precipitated the rule of celibacy. The Church did not want to support the offspring of the clerics, legitimate and illegitimate. There was also the problem of property.

But celibacy cannot be “mandated”. It is a gift of God, and as Jesus said, the one who is given the gift should accept it.

The CC has plenty of married priests, and it is only the Latin Rite that prefers to choose from among those called to celibacy to serve as priests. Even so, ,there are married priests also in the Latin Rite.

The Church needs the pure gift of those who are undistracted in service. I am surprised that you would accuse the CC of “corruption” and in the same sentence, criticise her for callin1 Cor 7:32-35

32 I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; 33 but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, 34 and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband. 35 I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord.

Would it not be equally “scriptural” to say that the married man is divided? It looks like you will find fault no matter what Catholics do!

You will have to explain about the “classes”. I don’t know what that means. Priests and bishops serve as an office, a ministry. It has nothing to do with their socioeconiomic status.

Hi Guanophore: I would like to chime in and just add that celibacy is a Church discipline and not dogma, as I am sure you already know. Thanks.

 

[guanophore]

My suspicion is that at some point the Church has endeavored to rule on what the paradosis did not contain, making the mistake that any extension from the same is as good as the original if you presume on the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

You phrase it this way because you have already decided that the Holy Spirit has departed from the CC.

The Magesterium actualy CANNOT rule on anything the paradosis does not contain. She does not have the authority to do so. She can rule on how the contents of the paradosis pertains to the present culture, she can define and develop ideas contained in the paradosis, and she can definitively rule when such things as the TULIP depart from the paradosis, but she cannot create any new doctrines that were not contained in it. This limitation of the apostolic faith has not been embraced by many modern evangelicals, who have created many new doctrines and practices not included in the paradosis.

No.  Neither was he blowing hot air when he warned leaders what He would do to them, or when Israel went into exile, etc.

Can you give an example of where He told the Apostles he would take their teaching authority away from them? Or of Jesus teaching that bishops being swept away for disobedience? It seems you are trying to pull something forward from the Old Covenant into the New that has no NT support.

 The apostolic deposit is one of truth, which they abandoned. They forfeited the deposit, did they not?

Indeed, and each and every human being will be held accountable if they do so. However, their abandonment of Truth does not change the Truth.

The OT was written for our instruction, including warning.

Absolutely. But using examples from it to deny the NT is not appropriate.

Identify the promise that Jesus would set up a papacy and it would still be there when He returns.

I will attempt to do this as soon as you define what you mean by “papacy”. You have already stated that you do not believe in the office of the Bishop, or apostolic succession, which are very clear in the NT and the Early fathers, before the office of the Papacy grew into what it is now. The modern Papacy is rooted in these Apostolic Teachngs and the Petrine Gifts, which I think you also deny, though to my knowledge have not specifically done so in this thread.

Bear in mind 1) Peter was not the rock, faith was,

Isn’t this a bit disingenuous, Tomi? I think if you look into Scripture, you will find that God very seldom changes the name of a person, and that each time He does, it indicates a major chage of direction and ministry in that person’s life. Everyone after that day called Simon bar Jonah “Peter” (rock). That being said, of course his statement of faith is a firm and rocky foundation upon which we can place our faith, and the ultimate Rock is Christ Himself.

Scripture is clear that the Church is founded upon the Apsotles and Prophets - people. Jesus grafted Peter into Himself, the cornerstone. Peter became part of the foundation upon which Jesus built His Church. Why is this so difficult?

in Matthew 16 and 2) 'gates' are defensive fortifications - Jesus was speaking of the church on the offensive, not giving some guarantee about doctrine and

Both things are true. We cannot storm the gates of hell if error is taught. Teaching error will make the Church weak, cause divisions and sin, and render us unable to advance the faith.

Well, we read our NT differently, don’t we? It is clear to all that have received the Apostolic faith that Peter has a position of primacy. Apparently you must deny these facts in order to justify your continued separation from the Bishop of Rome?

 Also 4) there was a church in Rome before Peter got there, so clearly, even if you buy into 'bishops', he could not have been the first one there.

“Buy into Bishops”?! I can’t possibly see myself ignoring so much of the NT by doing so. It amazes me that anyone can. But I dont’ think anyone here has tried to claim that Peter started the Church in Rome. It is clear from the NT that you are ignoring parts of that Paul wrote the letter to Rome prior to the coming there of any of the Apostles. The Churc was already strong and “known throughout the whole world” at that time. It is likely it was started by disciples returning from Jerusalem where they were converted at the Preaching of Peter at Pentecost.

[/QUOTE]