Peter and the Keys, Catholicism and the Pope

[Albion]

Who resurrected this thread? I remember this thread since my last time I was around. oh my my..... lol....

I'm inclined to agree. The title of the thread is so unspecific that we're just asking for "did so -- did not" exchanges on just about anything at all, so long as it has something, pro or con, to do with the Papacy or the Papacy's church.

 

[Standing Up]

Here's Lightfoot again on Polycarp's travelling to Rome and meeting with Anicetus. Again, Polycarp cites Apostles. Anicetus only Bishops (but we know from Trento's posts that the Bishops were asserted to be above all others, all includes all, having all authority and power). Two traditions were battling:

One incident more is recorded of this veteran preacher of the Gospel (Polycarp). In the closing years of his life he undertook a journey to Rome, where he conferred with the bishop, Anicetus. The main subject of this conference was the time of celebrating the Passion. Polycarp pleaded the practice of St John and the other Apostles with whom he had conversed, for observing the actual day of the Jewish Passover, without respect to the day of the week. On the other hand, Anicetus could point to the fact that his predecessors, at least as far back as Xystus, who succeeded to the see soon after the beginning of the century, had always kept the anniversary of the Passion on a Friday and that of the Resurrection on a Sunday, thus making the day of the month give place to the day of the week.

 

[Standing Up]

All that a comment like that one proves is that he doesn't know much about Christian church history.-snip-

The history of two battling traditions beginning circa 100.

J.B. Lightfoot - Essays on "Supernatural Religion"

The divergence of the two writers (Polycarp and Ignatious) as regards Scriptural quotations is still more remarkable. Though the seven Ignatian letters are together at least five times as long as the Epistle of Polycarp, the quotations from the Apostolic Epistles in the latter are many times more numerous, as well as more precise, than in the former. Whole passages in Polycarp are made up of such quotations strung together, while in Ignatius they are very rare, being for the most part epigrammatic adaptations and isolated coincidences of language or thought. Nor indeed is their range coextensive. Thus the Epistle of Polycarp, as I pointed out in a former article [109:1], is pervaded with the language of St Peter's First Epistle, but in the Ignatian letters there is no trace of its use [109:2].

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

CJ,

If you want me to believe you are sincere, then join me in condemning all religious slurs.

What part of this is unclear to you?

I never have, still don't and never will defend the purposeful use of offensive language - by a Catholic, Protestant, LDS or any other - and you WELL KNOW THAT.

.

 

[Standing Up]

-snip-

2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, 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. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at 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, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spoke with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.

4. But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true.

CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.3 (St. Irenaeus)

Notice the little word "but" at paragraph 4? I know you speak the truth, but Polycarp over there speaks the truth. And you and him aren't saying the same truth. (nothing personal, the universal you)

 

[Standing Up]

-snip-

Several years ago I was reading 1 Clement and I was alarmed that St. Clement (the fourth pope) seemed to believe that the phoenix was a real animal. Moreover, St. Clement uses the phoenix as a sign of Christ's resurrection.

Let us consider that wonderful sign [of the resurrection] which takes place in eastern lands, that is, in Arabia and the countries round about. There is a certain bird which is called a phoenix. This is the only one of its kind, and lives five hundred years. And when the time of its dissolution draws near that it must die, it builds itself a nest of frankincense, and myrrh, and other spices, into which, when the time is fulfilled, it enters and dies. But as the flesh decays a certain kind of worm is produced, which, being nourished by the juices of the deed bird, brings forth feathers. Then, when it has acquired strength, it takes up that nest in which are the bones of its parent, and bearing these it passes from the land of Arabia into Egypt, to the city called Heliopolis. And, in open day, flying in the sight of all men, it places them on the altar of the sun, and having done this, hastens back to its former abode. The priests then inspect the registers of the dates, and find that it has returned exactly as the five hundredth year was completed. (1 Clement 25)
​

Was Clement nuts or was he speaking from a valid tradition?

As it turns out, the tale of the phoenix is actually found in the Bible's oldest book - the book of Job. Job 29:18 reads,

Then I said: 'I shall die with my nest, and I shall multiply my days as the phoenix.'
​

Clement's idea that the phoenix dies and its nest and the returns for a length of days has its origin here.

The Hebrew translation is debated. The Hebrew word chol is typically translated in one of three different ways:

1. sand
2. phoenix, as in the mythical bird
3. palm tree
​

In nearly every context, the Hebrew word chol means "sand." We should expect then that to be the Jewish interpretation. But instead, the post-Christian rabbis have almost unanimously interpreted the passage in Job as referring to the mythical bird, the phoenix. The midrashic document the Genesis Rabba or Bereshit Rabba (19:5) explains that Eve “gave the cattle, beasts, and birds to eat of [the forbidden fruit]. All obeyed her and ate thereof, except a certain bird named chol, as it is written, “Then I said: I shall die with my nest, and I shall multiply my days as the chol.” (Job 29:18). The Genesis Rabba was composed no later than A.D. 450. From this point on, Jewish rabbinical scholars (e.g. Rashi) simply assume that Job 29:18 is speaking of the phoenix bird that is able to rise from the ashes. In fact, if you consult almost any Jewish translation of Job, you will find that Job 29:18 has been translated as referring to the "phoenix" and not "sand."

-snip-

St. Clement in 1 Clement likely had Job 29:18 in mind because he quotes Job just after describing his chapter on the phoenix (25). He does not quote the Job 29:18 passage directly, but still Clement quotes Job to prove the long expected hope of the resurrection. It is not surprising then to conclude that St. Clement's phoenix sermon illustration for the resurrection of the dead also has its origins in Job.

Thanks for the info. It appears that it alarmed you too. But the research you have appears backdated to explain it away. Clement's letter was circa 95. Your explanation is circa 400. Unless I've missed the point. BlueLetterBible.org lists some 11 translations and they all have 'sand', ie die in my nest and live as long as the number of grains of sand. Nothing about recurring death and resurrection that the phoenix implies. Clement does reference Heliopolis (city of the sun) and Egypt; perhaps there is a reference there.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.


Originally Posted by NewMan99

We aren't a denomination! Are you insulting us, CJ I am, frankly, disgusted by it.
​

My unseparated brother,

The term "denomination" is not a religious or racial "slur" according to any dictionary known to me. It is a VERY COMMONLY used religious/theological term.

And you KNOW how I define the term because I posted the typical dictionary definitions, noted how I use the term, and you acknowledged that. You KNOW that I use the term and that I regard it as a very positive thing. You know that. And yet.....


Friend, I NEVER said that Catholics are a denomination, I said The Catholic Church is. Just as Lutherans are not a denomination, but The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod is. I've given you the definitions of how I (and everyone else known to me) use the term.


No one known to me nor I do use the term in a negative, insulting or disgusting manner - so YOU are IMPUTING offense, insult and disgust where you know NONE is intended and where you know none is intended, implied, meant or conveyed. You are MAKING a problem where you KNOW none exists. And then rebuking me for it and terminating discussions with me because of such. Sadly, this seems fairly common Catholic rubric around CF (although not quite as much as a couple of years ago).

Now, could this be a case where you are simply choosing to be offended, angered, insulted and disgusted by ASSUMING I mean something that I actually don't? No. Because I defined the word for you. I told you I use the word in a positive, celebrative way. That I affirm community, cooperation and accountability and THUS I affirm congregations and denominations. You KNOW I use the term in a POSITIVE way. And yet, you chose to be insulted and disgusted by what you know is not a slur.


AS YOU KNOW, I don't use religious and racial slurs. I clearly, publicly and obviously rejected such - all of which you chose to ignore. My point - as you know - is that, IMHO, it's good to take the advise of your Catechism in our discussions, which says that we are to put the best construction on things and apply Christian charity. And I expressed this is what I tend to to - as your Catechism teaches. This, too (like so much I post, it seems) evidently disgusted you. NewMan99, please don't impute offense and disgust where you know it is not intended or conveyed and then spend numerous posts rebuking ME for that.


Can we get back to our discussion? Do the words of the "witnesses" you brought forward evidence that, from 30 AD on, Christians all accepted that Jesus founded the Papacy, that the bishop of the diocese of Rome was given the "keys" of Peter in a unique, special, individual sense and THEREFORE, by virtue of being the bishop of that specific singular diocese, he is the SURPREME, infallible, powerful authority over all as The Vicar of Christ? Did they give evidence to the distinctives of the Catholic Papacy? Quotes that express the view that Peter and Paul are associated with the congregation in Rome, or quotes showing that a beloved Christian is looked to for counsel, or that the bishop in Rome held a view another bishop did not docilicly accept - none of this documents that they viewed the Office of Pope as created by Jesus in or before 30 AD, that BY VIRTUE OF BEING the bishop of a particular, singular diocese, he is the SUPREME, infallible, powerful authority over all BECAUSE he uniquely has the "keys" of Peter. Isn't that obvious? Friend, I promised I would read your "witness" with an open mind and heart - assuming nothing. And that's what I did. And (prior to the 4th century anyway), they said nothing about any Papacy at all. Obviously. I think it's possible to read them with a very strong bias and thus read INTO them all kinds of things, probably almost endless things, as is always the case with anyone. But that doesn't mean the documentation is expressing that, it ONLY means that such is being read INTO that. When the quotes you provided are read objectively, with an open mind and heart - they speak of respect, love, humility, but they say NOTHING about The Papacy of the RCC. And this seems abundantly obvious, so obvious that I've kept the quotes you provided for evidence to support the Protestant position - which they do extremely well, as long as one reads what is actually written without purely imputing their own bias into what is written.



Thank you!


Pax


- Josiah




.

 

[racer]

It isn't just me. They are slurs that offend almost all Catholics...just like the "n" word is offensive to people of color.

Reread my post, I believe I said you and those of your faith. I'm sorry, I do not agree that those terms are on the same par as the "n" word.

Good. Thank you for that.

You're welcome.

And if you read back just a little bit you will see that I forgave Standing Up for his use of the word Romish. He was unaware it was an offensive term. He retracted it. He apologized. He was a gentleman about it. He is forgiven.

We should forgive without a prerequisite. We should not take offense at other peoples "opinions." We do just as much damage when we do that as when we intentionally offend others. Being offended and walking around with a chip on our shoulders causes us as much pain and turmoil as the offense that we objected to. *NOTICE I SAID "WE."*I include myself in this statement.

CJ (and now you),

Please show me where I "defended" the usage of such terms and did so in the fashion you describe below.

on the other hand, defended the use of the term

It is possible that some people use the term and do no intend to offend you, just as when people use the term "Protestant" and mean no offense. However, we all know that when Luther and others broke away from a church that was becoming corrupt and misrepresenting some of what Scripture taught, the people who labeled those they considered to be dissenters and guilty of heresy as Protestants, the term was used in a derogatory manner. But, call me a Protestant all day long and I could care less.

and condescendingly told me Catholics don't have the right to be offended by a term that is very commonly used derisively by rabid anti-Catholics.

Are you sure you are quoting Josiah correctly? Is this the exact argument he made? Did he actually say that this/those term(s) are "commonly used derisively by rabid anti-Catholics?" Or is this a typical misquote and exaggerated assertion that are of common usage by Catholics when no logical argument comes to mind?

Do you defend the public or private use of the "n" word too?

Nope.

If not, why not?

I think the reason is obvious. However, the "n" word is commonly KNOWN to be a derisive term among used by rabid racists. On the other hand, individuals cannot be expected to know what terms will offend the sensibilities of every individual with which they converse.

#1 - I don't view others in this thread as "foes". The conversation has been, for the most part, pretty civil.

Well, I find it odd that you would not consider those you claim are "rabid anti-Catholics" to be your "foes" in discussion if nothing else. Besides, though, you may not consider or know someone to be your foe, he still may be. When you wear your emotions on your sleeve, you give him the upperhand. Just some friendly advice from a long time member of GT.

#2 - When people are seemingly unaware that a given term is, in fact, unacceptable, don't I have the obligation to let them know?

Well, I don't know that you are obligated, but if it makes you feel noble or eases your offended emotions, you can. But, why would you expect rabid anti-Catholics to care if the term offends you?

#3 - Would you make the same comment to someone who objects to being called a "n" word?

Good grief, this comparison is invalid as it is, please don't run it into the ground.

 

[Albion]

.


Originally Posted by NewMan99

We aren't a denomination! Are you insulting us, CJ I am, frankly, disgusted by it.
​

My unseparated brother,

The term "denomination" is not a religious or racial "slur" according to any dictionary known to me. It is a VERY COMMONLY used religious/theological term.

And you KNOW how I define the term because I posted the typical dictionary definitions, noted how I use the term, and you acknowledged that. You KNOW that I use the term in its typical meaning as an association of congregations that come together under a common


Friend, I NEVER said that Catholics are a denomination, I said The Catholic Church is.

Fine, but there's no need to cater to that kind of mock outrage. It seems something just said for effect. For example, no one could take seriously that "'n" word comparison.

But it goes deeper. We see the same complaint raised, not against slurs, but against any opposition to Catholic belief or practrice. I hope we are not seeing an effort to censor ideas in the name of avoiding hurtful language.

 

[racer]

You would have ask them on an individual basis.

So, basically, before we begin a conversation with someone, we should ask them for a list of terms that offend them?

 

[racer]

Soooo.. how bout we all quit whining.

LOL!!!

 

[Standing Up]

CJ wrote: "The Protestant position is that there is no evidence that the 4 distinctives you presented are not evidenced. Rather, it seems this was a concept that developed AFTER Christ and the Apostles. I don't think anyone knows when "the first step toward" this concept happened (hard to pinpoint "first steps" when something is so developmental/evolutionary) - but the documentation you supplied tells me it was likely in the 4th century, that's when the "first step toward" the office of the Catholic Pope probably first happened; you've convinced me there's nothing to evidence it from earlier than that."

SUP: The documentation provided was circa 100-200. That's when the concept of "supremacy" began developing (I know folks think it scriptural, but leaving that part out for now). Trento told us the mind set from a quote circa 100: the Bishop is above all (including the Apostles), possesses all power and authority.

Skip to Clement of Rome, apparently a Hellenistic Jew, and his association of Aaron's rod blossoming versus the other 11. (That's a powerful argument to support the RCC notion of one man above all others; it is not Scriptural in the sense we are built on foundation of OT prophets and NT apostles (not just one man); Aaron v. the others is the clergy/laity argument's source that Protestants picked up on circa 1500).

Skip to Polycarp and Anicetus circa 155. Polycarp cites Apostles. Anicetus cites Bishops (but again, no problem, the Bishop is above all, that is the mindset, starting circa 100).

 

[vanshan]

"The Rock (petra) is the blessed and only rock of the faith confessed by the mouth of Peter. It is on this Rock of the confession of faith that the Church is built." --Saint Hilary of Poitiers (c. 315-368), 2nd Book on the Trinity

"If you believe that God has raised the whole building of His Church on Peter alone, what will you say of John, the Son of Thunder? What will you say of each of the apostles? Will you venture to say that the gates of hell shall not prevail against Peter in particular, but shall prevail against all the others . . . ? Are not the words addressed to them all?" --Origen, Commentary on Matthew

"Christ is the Rock Who granted to His apostles that they should be called rocks. God has founded His Church on this Rock, and it is from this Rock that Peter has been named." --Saint Jerome (419 A.D.) 6th Book on Matthew

"Faith if the foundation of the Church. For it was not the person, but the faith of St. Peter of which it was said, 'the gates of hell shall not prevail;' certainly it is the confession of faith which has vanquished the powers of hell." --Saint Ambrose (397 A.D.)

"The Rock on which Christ will build His Church means the faith of confession." --Saint John Chrysostom (407 A.D.) 53rd Homily on Saint Matthew

"Christ said to Peter . . . I will build thee upon Myself, I will not be built upon thee. Those who wished to be built among men said, I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, I am of Cephas. However, those who did not wish to be built upon Peter but upon the Rock say, I am of Jesus Christ." --Saint Augustine (430 A.D.) Retractions, 13th Sermon

"I believe that by Rock you must understand the unshaken faith of the apostles." --Saint Hilary (368 A.D.) 2nd Book on the Trinity

"This one (Peter) is called a rock in order that on his Faith (Rock) he may receive the foundations of the Church." --Saint Gregory of Nazianzen (390 A.D.) 26th Discourse

"The word 'Rock' has only a denominative value--it signifies nothing but the steadfast and firm faith of the apostles." -- Saint Cyril of Alexandria (444 A.D)

"The Bishop of Alexandria shall have complete control and jurisdication over Egypt, Libya, and the Pentapolis. As also the Roman bishop over those as are subject to Rome. So too, the Bishop of Antioch and the rest of the bishops shall have complete control and jurisdication over those faithful who are under them." --First Ecumenical Council, Canon 6

"Rock is the unity of faith, not the person of Peter." --Saint Cyprian (258 A.D.) De Catholicae Eccesiae Unitate, cap. 4-5

"In the administration of the Church, each bishop has the free discretion of his own will, having to account only to the Lord for his actions. None of us may set himself up as bishop of bishops, nor compel his brothers to obey him; every bishop of the Church has full liberty and complete power: as he cannot be judged by another, neither can he judge another." --Saint Cyprian (258 A.D.)

"If we also say, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, then we also become Peter . . . for whoever assimilates to Christ, become the Rock. Does Christ give the keys of the Kingdom to Peter alone? whereas other blessed people cannot receive them?" -- Origin, Homily on Matthew XIIx

I still haven't gotten a satisfactory response from any of the Roman Catholics refuting these quotes. They are pretty clearly worded; whereas, many of the quotes I've read allegedly supporting the papacy actually only prove what the Orthodox believe, which is that sometimes the Patriarch of Rome, as first among EQUALS, was sometimes appealed to in order to help resolve disputes in other regional churches as an arbiter. He was never legitimately given authority over the disputing parties, just the honored position to weigh in on the argument to help in the resolution of the dispute. They twisted the meaning of scripture against the concensus of the Church Fathers, regarding what was meant when Peter's confession was called the Rock of foundation for the Church, suggesting that Christ meant Peter himself, and his successors, would be the Rock or foundation of the Church. This is highly blasphemous really, considering that it usurps Christ's proper position as the only foundation for the Church.

Basil

 

[NewMan99]

So, basically, before we begin a conversation with someone, we should ask them for a list of terms that offend them?

Racer,

The word "Romish" is a COMMONLY KNOWN religious slur. The fact you are seemingly unaware of its offensive nature to Catholics speaks volumes.

You shouldn't need to ask anyone if it is offensive. Assume it is offensive - BECAUSE IT IS. Would you ask a person of color if it is okay to use the "n" word? No. You should already know that it is not okay.

If you don't get that simple concept then I feel sorry for you.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Fine, but there's no need to cater to that kind of mock outrage.

A churchman who says his church isn't a denomination--but everyone else's is--is merely attempting to position himself as superior and his church as somehow uniquely genuine.

There is no place for that on any multi-denominational forum, and any individual who pretends to have been insulted by the ordinary use of the English language that can be found in any dictionary is only playacting, IMO.


.

Well, I wouldn't be that strong, but it does (sadly) seem to be a common practice among some of our Catholic brothers and sisters here at CF - although not nearly as much as it was some years ago. It is sad, not for personal reasons but for ecumenical reasons.

We see the same thing every day when a sacrifice is not supposed to be called a sacrifice, a priest is not really a priest, a church is only an "ecclesial community," a mediator is not really mediating, a Roman Catholic must not be called a Roman Catholic, the Word of God should not be called the Word of God, and a dead person must never be called dead.

.... and on and on and on and on and on (speaking genericly and not of any specific poster). And then choosing to be insulted by such, and using the claimed "insult" as reason to terminate discussion of the topic at hand (which, IMHO, is the real sadness).

The frustrating thing for ME in our ecumenical discussions is that "offense" is claimed typically NOT for what is actually posted by the Protestant but for the opposite of what is posted (been on the receiving end of this many times). I'll note what I actually said - by a verbatim quote - but that is entirely, completely, absolutely moot. The only thing that seems to matter is what I "implied" via invisible words contradictory to what I posted, that the Catholic can "see" perfectly - and then is so deeply offended, injured, insulted and disgusted by it that he/she terminates all discussion of the important topic (and perhaps I'm reported). I can't possibly count the number of times this has happened in my time here at CF. But, the personal side of it is moot (I don't matter a bit), it's the use of such as an excuse to terminate the conversation that is very sad.

Imagine how the Roman Catholics here would react if the rest of us demanded, under penalty of being accused of being disgusting and offensive, that they never use any terminology, no matter how standard or common unless it's what some Protestant church chooses to use!

... it does seem remarkably one-sided; a double standard.

I appreciate that most Catholics here are not like this, but it sometimes surfaces with a few of the less secure of them, as in this instance. My humble opinion and request is that we just stop catering to this kind of thing.

Of course, NewMan99 is one of the most respected Catholics here at CF, deeply involved with his ministry as a Catholic Apologist (not principly here at CF), and was one the on the very highest level of staff here at CF as the "head" of all the Catholics here. He is one very, very smart man - very well informed and very articulate. Certainly, I'm not in his "league" (not even in the same ballpark) - and I'm not sure what Protestant here is. But, I agree with you, what we are attempting to do at CF is just more important than choosing to be offended by what isn't offensive - and then using that as a reason to terminate the discussion. AND, I long for the day when some Catholics will accept what we say rather than ignoring that, substituting the exact opposite of what we say, and then rebuking us for that and using that as the 'reason' they are terminating discussion (and perhaps issuing a warning) - even when they are informed of what was said and thereby what was meant. We NEED to get past this if we are to have fruitful conversations - and THAT'S what we are here for. We have made progress, at least in the theology forums if not elsewhere.



Now, again:

Do the words of the "witnesses" NewMan99 brought forward evidence that, from 30 AD on, Christians all accepted that Jesus founded the Papacy, that the bishop of the diocese of Rome was given the "keys" of Peter in a unique, special, individual sense and THEREFORE, by virtue of being the bishop of that specific singular diocese, he is the SURPREME, infallible, powerful authority over all as The Vicar of Christ? Did they give evidence to the distinctives of the Catholic Papacy? Quotes that express the view that Peter and Paul are associated with the congregation in Rome, or quotes showing that a beloved Christian is looked to for counsel, or that the bishop in Rome held a view another bishop did not docilicly accept - none of this documents that they viewed the Office of Pope as created by Jesus in or before 30 AD, that BY VIRTUE OF BEING the bishop of a particular, singular diocese, he is the SUPREME, infallible, powerful authority over all BECAUSE he uniquely has the "keys" of Peter. Isn't that obvious? I promised I would read NewMan's "witness" with an open mind and heart - assuming nothing. And that's what I did. And I posted my reply - but NewMan99 (a Catholic Apologist of some esteem) wrote that he will not be responding to me in this.

They said nothing about any Papacy at all. Obviously. I think it's possible to read them with a very strong bias and thus read INTO them all kinds of things, probably almost endless things, as is always the case with anyone. But that doesn't mean the documentation is expressing that, it ONLY means that such is being read INTO that. When the quotes provided are read objectively, with an open mind and heart - they speak of respect, love, humility, but they say NOTHING about The Papacy of the RCC. And this seems abundantly obvious, so obvious that I've kept the quotes provided for evidence to support the Protestant position - which they do extremely well, as long as one reads what is actually written without purely imputing their own bias into what is written.



Thank you!


Pax!


- Josiah




.

 

[Standing Up]

I still haven't gotten a satisfactory response from any of the Roman Catholics refuting these quotes. They are pretty clearly worded; whereas, many of the quotes I've read allegedly supporting the papacy actually only prove what the Orthodox believe, which is that sometimes the Patriarch of Rome, as first among EQUALS, was sometimes appealed to in order to help resolve disputes in other regional churches as an arbiter. He was never legitimately given authority over the disputing parties, just the honored position to weigh in on the argument to help in the resolution of the dispute. They twisted the meaning of scripture against the concensus of the Church Fathers, regarding what was meant when Peter's confession was called the Rock of foundation for the Church, suggesting that Christ meant Peter himself, and his successors, would be the Rock or foundation of the Church. This is highly blasphemous really, considering that it usurps Christ's proper position as the only foundation for the Church.

Basil

The quotes you provide are very interesting. They're circa 250-400.

IMO, they reflect a backlash against Rome. The Churches united against the only verifiable and universally agreed upon apostolic tradition that went from the Apostles to the Quartodecimans. So, as Rome asserted its Bishopric authority (Aaron's rod versus the other 11, see Clement of Rome's letter), this was the backlash.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

LLOJ looks in and decides to just lurk awhile

 

[Albion]

I still haven't gotten a satisfactory response from any of the Roman Catholics refuting these quotes. They are pretty clearly worded; whereas, many of the quotes I've read allegedly supporting the papacy actually only prove what the Orthodox believe, which is that sometimes the Patriarch of Rome, as first among EQUALS, was sometimes appealed to in order to help resolve disputes in other regional churches as an arbiter. He was never legitimately given authority over the disputing parties, just the honored position to weigh in on the argument to help in the resolution of the dispute. They twisted the meaning of scripture against the concensus of the Church Fathers, regarding what was meant when Peter's confession was called the Rock of foundation for the Church, suggesting that Christ meant Peter himself, and his successors, would be the Rock or foundation of the Church. This is highly blasphemous really, considering that it usurps Christ's proper position as the only foundation for the Church.

Basil

IMO, you've made a very solid argument here. One problem that has been mentioned previously is, however, that those members of any church or communion who rely upon quotations from the Early Church Fathers are selective. They choose those quotes that seem to support their purpose while ignoring those that go the other way. Then they claim that a consensus existed in antiquity!

That said, I tend to agree that those from the first two centuries which are made to appear as supporting the idea of a Roman pope are far, far weaker and ambiguous, whereas the ones that speak against such a thing are usually clear cut and direct.

 

[NewMan99]

I'm sorry, I do not agree that those terms are on the same par as the "n" word.

Translation: Catholics do not have the right to be offended when slurs are directed against them like weapons. It is exactly the same thing as the "n" word. Please do not presume to tell us how we are supposed to feel.

This conversation is pathetic. I am willing to accept the possibility that you were previously unaware that those terms offended Catholics (although how you could be ignorant of this is unfathomable to me). But now you ARE aware - you have been informed. Clearly you would rather rationalize its continued use of it at places like CF (even if you don't personally use them), instead of condemning it - otherwise why are we even debating it right now???

Just drop it. I am going to ignore you.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Translation: Catholics do not have the right to be offended when slurs are directed against them like weapons. It is exactly the same thing as the "n" word. Please do not presume to tell us how we are supposed to feel.

This conversation is pathetic. I am willing to accept the possibility that you were previously unaware that those terms offended Catholics (although how you could be ignorant of this is unfathomable to me). But now you ARE aware - you have been informed. Clearly you would rather rationalize its continued use of it at places like CF (even if you don't personally use them), instead of condemning it - otherwise why are we even debating it right now???

Just drop it. I am going to ignore you.

Greetings. I understand that myself so I will generally use "RCC" or "RCs" from now on.
Is that ok?