Peter and the Keys, Catholicism and the Pope

[WarriorAngel]

I believe there is one God, and I do believe He agrees with Himself. Whether I do is a matter I do not claim - only that I should.

Yes, the RCC currently and officially has a theology, and yes it agrees with it (officially and currently anyway). But then the LDS currently and officially has a theology, and yes it agrees with it (officially and currently). So, if your apologetic is that Truth is wherever self alone agrees with self alone, then you must accept that the LDS is just as correct as the RCC is - and I doubt you do; thus you reject the very apologetic you are using.





.

IS that really the best you got?

Always comparing a Church started by Jesus with a church started in the 1800's who imitated the Catholic Church's obvious heirarchy.

Does this mean the Lutherans are comparible to the Jehovah Witnesses because they too refuse authority?

Apples and oranges, and yet you persist.

 

[NewMan99]

NewMan99 was Methodist (I think!) and now is a Catholic Apologist...

I was raised Methodist but converted to Catholicism about 10 years ago (in my early 40s). Of course this was long before I ever heard of CF.

 

[NewMan99]

So, if your apologetic is that Truth is wherever self alone agrees with self alone,

That is not our apologetic. That is a false apologetic you continue to put in our mouths...

then you must accept that the LDS is just as correct as the RCC is

Whew! Lucky for us, then, that that is not our apologetic.

thus you reject the very apologetic you are using.

Or.....we reject the false words you insert in our mouths as you argue against that.

 

[WarriorAngel]

QUESTION CJ:

DO you not any sort of authority in which to guide your church?

And if you do, do you dispute their authority as much as you dispute the authority the Pope has over the Catholic Church?

AND last - why does it bother you if we uphold the same doctrines thru our Pope?

 

[Standing Up]

Go back and read post #855.

Look, I did. And I responded. You are not the first or only one to assert that. Here is the reply:

ANF08. The Twelve Patriarchs, Excerpts and Epistles, The Clementia, Apocrypha, Decretals, Memoirs of Edessa and Syriac Documents, Remains of the First | Christian Classics Ethereal Library
"[a.d. 180.] When Eusebius says that the churches of “all Asia” concurred in the Ephesine use concerning the Paschal, he evidently means Asia Minor, as in the Scriptures and elsewhere.37843784 See (Polycrates) p. 773, supra, and Eusebius, H. E., book v. cap. xxiii., etc., pp. 222–226. Throughout “the rest of the world,” he testifies, however, that such was not the use. The Palestinian bishops, after the Jewish downfall, seem to have been the first to comprehend the propriety of adopting the more Catholic usage; and our author presided over a council in Cæsarea, of which he was bishop, assisted by Narcissus, bishop of Jerusalem, with Cassius of Tyre and Clarus of Ptolemais, which confirmed it. It is to be noted, that Alexandria is cited by Theophilus as authority for this custom; and it is not quite correct to say that the Western usage prevailed at Nicæa, for it was the general use, save only in Asia Minor and churches which were colonies of the same. This fact has been overlooked, and is very important, in history."

Do you understand what was just said, or done and why? Rome was the only one at first. Clement asserted the Roman rod alone bloomed. THe Bihsop was above all others, including the Apostles. It was HQ for the Roman Empire. They destroyed, as prophesied, Jerusalem. The Palestinian Synod understood and ADOPTED the Roman usage. The rest of the Churches came along.

Except for the Quartodecimans. They maintained the faith once delivered.

I know this stuff may cut close to home folks, but God is faithful.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.


NewMan99,


Here's the problem with your suggesting that I use the word "church" in lieu of the theologically precise term, ______________________ (which you won't permit because you find very great personal insult and disgust by it). "Church" is a very broad term that is defined quite differently among us (I even use the term in several different ways). Thus, it is almost unavoidable that what I post will be misunderstood - and as you seem to be aware, precision is suggested in our discussions. When I used the word ___________________, I did so in the precise theological meaning of it because I'm NOT talking about the communion of saints or the oikos or Body of God or the mystical union of believers - I'm not even talking about people or Christians. And I don't mean a local congregation/assembly of people in a given place/time or the institutions which they may create. I'm speaking of the intercongregational institution as the term ______________________ refers. When the Pope speaks (officially), he does not speak as a Christian (and thus one tiny part, one small voice of the catholic church) - he speaks for his ________________________. When his ___________________ offically declares a dogma, it is the ______________________ doing that: it doesn't mean the communion of saints is doing that or that each of those with a vote at the meeting are doing that, the _______________________ is doing that. Friend, as you know, even posting The Catholic Church leads to great (and often severe) misinterpretations - since some use that as the proper name of a __________________, others as the true visible aspect of the church catholc, the communion of saints - so we're talking about two different things, and thus not comunicating.

Friend, for reasons you never explained, you find GREAT personal offensive, insult and disgust in this "slur" and so, for some 40 pages, I've been typically posting to you with a _________________________ since I don't know of a theological term that is a substitute for it. I'm SURE this causes confusion for all who read my posts to you, and makes my posts less communicative - but I SOMEHOW need to be able to post without causing the whole discussion to suddenly divert into pages of personal rebukes to and about me. Frankly, my brother, I don't want to talk about me. I'm a 21 year old NOBOBY and I think everyone else is even LESS interested in talking about me than I am, so I reallly want to help you keep the discussion on the topic and away from me and your feelings about me - I'm sure you see my point. Sometimes we just gotta do what we just gotta do - because all this is more important than me. INFINITELY more important.

Now, my brother, it is POSSIBLE that as I post to you, I MAY forget (for a second) whom I'm replying to and your enormous issue here - and type the word by accident. That happened about 50 pages ago and BOY did I live to regret it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It could happen again. Perhaps, rather than again resurrecting strong, personal rebukes of me about issuings slugs and causing you such great disgust at me, maybe you'd consider a friendly PM to me, just to remind me? I'd be glad to edit the post, delete the insulting slur, and put in a _______________________. In posting to OTHERS, I will continue to use the theological precise term. Would that be acceptable to you? I pray so. Perhaps you have another suggestion?


Moving on (again)......




.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I was raised Methodist but converted to Catholicism about 10 years ago (in my early 40s). Of course this was long before I ever heard of CF.

Congrats!!

 

[WarriorAngel]

Look, I did. And I responded. You are not the first or only one to assert that. Here is the reply:

ANF08. The Twelve Patriarchs, Excerpts and Epistles, The Clementia, Apocrypha, Decretals, Memoirs of Edessa and Syriac Documents, Remains of the First | Christian Classics Ethereal Library
"[a.d. 180.] When Eusebius says that the churches of “all Asia” concurred in the Ephesine use concerning the Paschal, he evidently means Asia Minor, as in the Scriptures and elsewhere.37843784 See (Polycrates) p. 773, supra, and Eusebius, H. E., book v. cap. xxiii., etc., pp. 222–226. Throughout “the rest of the world,” he testifies, however, that such was not the use. The Palestinian bishops, after the Jewish downfall, seem to have been the first to comprehend the propriety of adopting the more Catholic usage; and our author presided over a council in Cæsarea, of which he was bishop, assisted by Narcissus, bishop of Jerusalem, with Cassius of Tyre and Clarus of Ptolemais, which confirmed it. It is to be noted, that Alexandria is cited by Theophilus as authority for this custom; and it is not quite correct to say that the Western usage prevailed at Nicæa, for it was the general use, save only in Asia Minor and churches which were colonies of the same. This fact has been overlooked, and is very important, in history."

Do you understand what was just said, or done and why? Rome was the only one at first. Clement asserted the Roman rod alone bloomed. THe Bihsop was above all others, including the Apostles. It was HQ for the Roman Empire. They destroyed, as prophesied, Jerusalem. The Palestinian Synod understood and ADOPTED the Roman usage. The rest of the Churches came along.

Except for the Quartodecimans. They maintained the faith once delivered.

I know this stuff may cut close to home folks, but God is faithful.

Maybe it's not the Catholics who are misunderstanding this.

But wait - you are referring to a council of the whole Church. Obviously yopu can see then that the Church continued.
You are referring to them 'using the Roman usage' due to the council.

What's the problem?

Councils have been held since the Apostles to discuss events of ideas.
Certainly we know that Pascha was discussed and it took time to decide what to do about celebrating the Day [actual Day] besides every Sunday - the original Sunday Our Lord rose.

What's the dilemma?

Are you actually thinking the Roman empire was the Pope?
Or are you not understanding that Rome was already the Church everyone looked to? Aside from there being a Roman empire?

How about St Ignatius?
Have you ever read his letters?

The Church of Alexandria is also mentioned to be second to Rome... but they do not take the place of Rome.

What I dont understand is your point to this.

 

[Standing Up]

What i see is that someone apparently didnt want to agree. Right?

So if they seperately choose new doctrine, are they still correct?

IF the Church can use both scriptures as an example to Tradition as well as Tradition itself, and they obtained and held the keys and were told from the start that the gates of hell shal not prevail...should they then think it isnt possible?

Yes, there was a battle between Rome and the rest of the Churches, especially and most particularly per history against the Quartodecimans (the Orthodox submitted like everyone else and then the GS in 1054).

It'd be important to clarify your pronouns. If they chose new doctrine, are they still correct is your question. They is RCC? RCC chose new doctrine. Yes, they did. Are they still correct? Yes, if you want to follow Traditions of men and/or the OT way of doing things.

She didnt make this up for herself...scriptures state plainly that Jesus gave this authority.

That's right, if you are not of the "tribe of Judah" from which Christ came. Clement was most likely a Hellnistic Jew. Read his letter (same with Irenaeus-OT stuff, very little NT--see Lightfoot cited earlier). Clement understood the OT priesthood (Aaron's rod bloomed only. That was God's way of telling the Jews who was in charge, the Levites.) Likewise, Rome's rod bloomed only they asserted. That's what he established circa 100ad. That's what RCC still believes.

Is that true? Of course not. Peter himself said, you all are living stones. Paul said built on the foundation of OT prophets and NT apostles with CHRIST as the cornerstone. Not one man Peter. Melchizedek priesthood changed things. Changed the Law. If you say, I am of Peter, I am of Paul, you are carnel/fleshly/mere men Scripture tells you.

-snip-

Enought for now.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

WarriorAngel -

QUESTION CJ: DO you not any sort of authority in which to guide your church?

Want I find NOT to be acceptable is to regard self as infallible/unaccountable if self alone agrees with self alone. You are the one who stressed that the CC agrees with itself, and placed some significance on such. I simply pointed out that the LDS agrees with itself, too. Every denomination does. The interesting thing is the RCC ONLY agrees with ITSELF only - having a unity with one - itself. Now, if you find some significance in that, please let us know what it is.

And if you do, do you dispute their authority as much as you dispute the authority the Pope has over the Catholic Church?

Quote me where I EVER suggested that the Pope does not or should not have authority over The Catholic Church.

What is the topic now in this thread is the biblical and/or historical substantiation for the Dogma of The Catholic Papacy, which is regarded by the RCC as a matter of objective fact, of highest importance and greatest certainty; is largely the foundational and keystone dogma of it; and is perhaps the single most divisive teaching in all of Christianity.


It's a diversion, but IMHO, accepting only the authority one sees in the mirror is not an acceptance of authority - it's simply the imposition of self. But that's another issue for another day and thread, let's keep on topic here. And, friend, AGAIN, I'm NOT stating, implying or remotely suggesting that the Dogma of the Catholic Papacy is false - that's not a position for me to take. It is the RCC's dogmatic insistance as a matter of objective fact that it is TRUE - thus the "burden of proof" lies solely and singularly with the RCC.

AND last - why does it bother you if we uphold the same doctrines thru our Pope?

Who ever remotely suggested that it did?

What I said is just because the RCC officially and currently agrees with itself alone in all areas where itself alone thinks it good to agree carries no more significance than the fact that the LDS officially and currently agrees with itself alone in all areas where itself along thinks it good to agree. Now, IF you think the reality that the LDS alone agrees with the LDS alone carries no significance whatsoever, then you must agree that the reality that the RCC alone agrees with the RCC alone also carries no significance.



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah




.

 

[WarriorAngel]

[/b]

Yes, there was a battle between Rome and the rest of the Churches, especially and most particularly per history against the Quartodecimans (the Orthodox submitted like everyone else and then the GS in 1054).

It'd be important to clarify your pronouns. If they chose new doctrine, are they still correct is your question. They is RCC? RCC chose new doctrine. Yes, they did. Are they still correct? Yes, if you want to follow Traditions of men and/or the OT way of doing things.

They didnt choose new doctrines.
Most of the time a council was held to discuss events or celebrations OR to counter heresies.
AND in doing so, they had to make a concrete fact on what the doctrines stated against the heresies.

IE - Nestorians, Arians...so forth.
And the councils held a meeting to discern if someone was in heresy and then excommunicate them [until they recanted]

Doctrines didnt change.

The doctrines had to be made clear against heresies.

That's right, if you are not of the "tribe of Judah" from which Christ came. Clement was most likely a Hellnistic Jew. Read his letter (same with Irenaeus-OT stuff, very little NT--see Lightfoot cited earlier). Clement understood the OT priesthood (Aaron's rod bloomed only. That was God's way of telling the Jews who was in charge, the Levites.) Likewise, Rome's rod bloomed only they asserted. That's what he established circa 100ad. That's what RCC still believes.

Is that true? Of course not. Peter himself said, you all are living stones. Paul said built on the foundation of OT prophets and NT apostles with CHRIST as the cornerstone. Not one man Peter. Melchizedek priesthood changed things. Changed the Law. If you say, I am of Peter, I am of Paul, you are carnel/fleshly/mere men Scripture tells you.



Enought for now.

O - ok, I see.

Christ taught them how He fulfilled the OT and the OT is a witness to Him.
BUT it was for both Jew and gentile.

Obviously the Church wouldnt 'take it sitting down' if the Roman Church wasnt using an analogy to the fact the Lord took twelve tribes and by the bloom picked the one who would lead.

JUST as He took 12 Apostles and choose thru the Father who would lead.

Ahhh - BUT Rome is rather suggesting that the confession of Peter was the Bloom.
Because the Father choose Peter to speak the answer Christ sought, thereby showing everyone whom was choosen.

Its an analogy of the bloom.

 

[Standing Up]

Maybe it's not the Catholics who are misunderstanding this.

But wait - you are referring to a council of the whole Church. Obviously yopu can see then that the Church continued.
You are referring to them 'using the Roman usage' due to the council.

What's the problem?

Yes, it was a council of the whole Church that Rome called for. Asia Minor and Rome disagreed on a doctrinal issue (NewMan99 believes it only a liturgical issue). The issue apparently (earliest cite I have found) arose circa the time of Pope Sixtus.

In the council, Rome cited the letters from Palestine as support for their position. Those letters from Palestine area said, we have always followed the Roman custom and we learned it from the Apostles.

The Quartodecimans said to the contrary, Christ died on the 14th; we learned it from the Apostles.

(There is still an unanswered questions: Rome says Christ rose on Sunday. Quartodecimans says Christ died on the 14th. So, what is the assumption? The 14th is what day?).

Anyway, per this:

ANF08. The Twelve Patriarchs, Excerpts and Epistles, The Clementia, Apocrypha, Decretals, Memoirs of Edessa and Syriac Documents, Remains of the First | Christian Classics Ethereal Library
"[a.d. 180.] When Eusebius says that the churches of “all Asia” concurred in the Ephesine use concerning the Paschal, he evidently means Asia Minor, as in the Scriptures and elsewhere.37843784 See (Polycrates) p. 773, supra, and Eusebius, H. E., book v. cap. xxiii., etc., pp. 222–226. Throughout “the rest of the world,” he testifies, however, that such was not the use. The Palestinian bishops, after the Jewish downfall, seem to have been the first to comprehend the propriety of adopting the more Catholic usage; and our author presided over a council in Cæsarea, of which he was bishop, assisted by Narcissus, bishop of Jerusalem, with Cassius of Tyre and Clarus of Ptolemais, which confirmed it. It is to be noted, that Alexandria is cited by Theophilus as authority for this custom; and it is not quite correct to say that the Western usage prevailed at Nicæa, for it was the general use, save only in Asia Minor and churches which were colonies of the same. This fact has been overlooked, and is very important, in history."

It is obvious something is not quite right, isn't it? The Palestinian Synod, truth be told, did not always follow the Roman custom, but adopted it. They did not learn it from the Apostles, but from Alexandria. So, as I said, Rome alone followed the Sunday custom, citing the Bishopric as authority. The rest of the Churches followed the Apostolic Tradition.

Where did Rome learn it? The issue was over the Feast day and Fast. In the OT, however, no fast is associated with Passover. But there is a day and fast to something similar in the OT; and unfortunately, it fits precisely with your RCC assertions, much to my amazement.

Councils have been held since the Apostles to discuss events of ideas.
Certainly we know that Pascha was discussed and it took time to decide what to do about celebrating the Day [actual Day] besides every Sunday - the original Sunday Our Lord rose.

What's the dilemma?

Are you actually thinking the Roman empire was the Pope?
Or are you not understanding that Rome was already the Church everyone looked to? Aside from there being a Roman empire?

How about St Ignatius?
Have you ever read his letters?

The Church of Alexandria is also mentioned to be second to Rome... but they do not take the place of Rome.

What I dont understand is your point to this.

Alexandria was a support (Clement again, cites the Phoenix returning to Egypt). Maybe there's some connection.

Anyway, maybe you see the dilemma? Rome's custom and the Quartodeciman Tradition contradicted each other. Scripture precisely confirms the Quartodeciman Tradition.

Thank you for thinking about this.

Like I said, I know this stuff will cut close to home, but God is faithful.

Still and all, thank God that Christ has been preached for whatever reason.

 

[Standing Up]

They didnt choose new doctrines.
Most of the time a council was held to discuss events or celebrations OR to counter heresies.
AND in doing so, they had to make a concrete fact on what the doctrines stated against the heresies.

IE - Nestorians, Arians...so forth.
And the councils held a meeting to discern if someone was in heresy and then excommunicate them [until they recanted]

Doctrines didnt change.

The doctrines had to be made clear against heresies.


O - ok, I see.

Christ taught them how He fulfilled the OT and the OT is a witness to Him.
BUT it was for both Jew and gentile.

Obviously the Church wouldnt 'take it sitting down' if the Roman Church wasnt using an analogy to the fact the Lord took twelve tribes and by the bloom picked the one who would lead.

JUST as He took 12 Apostles and choose thru the Father who would lead.

Ahhh - BUT Rome is rather suggesting that the confession of Peter was the Bloom.
Because the Father choose Peter to speak the answer Christ sought, thereby showing everyone whom was choosen.

Its an analogy of the bloom.

Yep, pretty close. I don't think Clement makes the association of keys, chair, rock, or anything else. He simply asserts it and again, they were the people who destroyed Jerusalem; the HQ of the Empire. But yes, that's my understanding from which you RCC make the assertion, we can make doctrines and you need to follow them; ie we are the Levites of the NT.

The only question now, once we understand this, IS IT TRUE? Is the NT modeled on the OT? Rome certainly thinks so circa 100ad. The other Churches came along. (Clergy/laity, alters, bloodless sacrifices, etc.).

But, the Apostolic Truth from the Quartodecimans is the NT model. Jesus Christ was of the tribe of Judah. Melchizedek priesthood with Christ as the High Priest. That's the model. Not OT Levite. Priesthood change. Law change.

So what's that mean?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.

WarriorAngel -

Always comparing a Church started by Jesus with a church started in the 1800's

Both denominations claim that Jesus founded itself, and make essentially the same chain of claims form such; they are the only two KNOWN TO ME that do so. And when each claims each was founded is moot to my point or this discussion. The issue is: You suggested some significance in the reality that the CC is in unity with one and only one: itself. Well, then the same significance must be placed on the LDS which also has a unity with one and only one: itself. Seems obvious to me. THAT is what I addressed.

Does this mean the Lutherans are comparible to the Jehovah Witnesses because they too refuse authority?

I know nothing of the Jehovah's Witnesses (can't even spell it, so thanks for putting it there, lol). But Lutherans don't reject authority. But, friend, I PURPOSELY have kept this discussion away from disagreements or rebukes of the Papacy - and it must be noted that it is you (a Catholic Staffer) that seems so intent on diverting this thread to that. I NEVER stated, implied, conveyed or suggested that The Dogma of the Catholic Papacy is wrong - and I really resent you (especially as a fairly high ranking Staffer) TRYING to pull me into such.


Friend and respected Staffer, this thread is not about the value of authority for Christians. The topic before us is the biblical and/or historic confirmation for the Catholic Dogma of the Papacy - a matter of greatest certainty and importance, and issue that is regarded as a matter of objective fact. Okay. It's YOUR dogma. It's YOUR claim. The "ball" is in YOUR court. IF you care to supply the confirmation - GREAT!!!! If not, okay. But PLEASE, Supervisor, don't try your hardest to get posters off onto another topic or to create "bad blood" among us and to try to make this an "anti-Catholic" thread. Our Admins here in Theology have been working hard to try to keep posters here from doing that - and for all these many pages in this thread, we have TRIED to be respectful to each other and to the RCC.



You and I have known each other for years here at CF. You KNOW my position on the RCC, for I have stated it publicly and often. But for the sake of others (and perhaps to remind you), here it is: I regard The Catholic Church to be a valid and good denomination that I hold in great esteem. I am profoundly and deeply appreciative to God and the RCC for my years there and for the many blessings I recieved there. I regard Her ministers and ministries as valid. I regard all the believers there to be my FULL, equal and inseparable brothers and sisters in Christ and in every sense members of the one holy catholic church - the communion of saints, the mystical union of believers. I regard nothing She officially teaches as unbiblical, and agree with probably 95% of it, which my priest commented is, "A whole lot better than most Catholics." I pray daily, fervently and passionately for God's richest blessings to Her, Her ministries and Her Holy Father. Now, if you can and will say the SAME about me and my denomination - then we are at least equals in this; if not, then the "anti" label applies less on my side than yours. My longtime friend and now high CF staffer - don't TRY to cast me as anti-Catholic (unless you are willing to say MORE positive about me and my denomination) or TRY to turn everything I post or this thread into Catholic bashing. We (Catholics and Protestants, staff as lowly posters like me) are working hard to avoid that. And I invite you to join with us in that.


Now, do you have confirmation? Do you plan to answer the numerous questions I've respectfully asked of you in several posts in this thread? Do you plan to join in the discussion of the confirmation for this Dogma of the CC? If so, GREAT! If not, perhaps there are other threads of interest to you or where you might be helpful?


God's blessings to you, and thank you for your service on Staff here!


Pax


- Josiah




.

 

[NewMan99]

Do you understand what was just said, or done and why?

Why don't you just say in plain language what you keep trying to cryptically extract from everyone? It isn't that we don't have opinions, but we don't have the slightest clue where you are going with this. It seems as if that for every "just Christian" in GT there are just as many opinions on several different topics (I mean this as a general observation only - I am not attaching a value judgment on it). What don't you just tell us what YOU think it means - and why?

Rome was the only one at first.

I am not so sure about that. But...let's assume for the sake of argument it is true...it is our contention that the Roman tradition was received from both Peter and Paul...not just any old bumpkin with an agenda.

THe Bihsop was above all others, including the Apostles.

Context is important here. Clement never claimed to be above an Apostle, in the way that you might imply (assuming I catch your drift). What is claimed is that the Bishop of Rome, as a successor to the Petrine ministry and therefore Key-bearer and supreme pastor of the flock, holds universal jurisdiction to keep the Church in unity and orthodoxy as an outgrowth of the EPISCOPAL dimension of his special office. This dimension is of an entirely different nature and character than the APOSTOLIC ministry which the Apostles ALONE held. Therefore Clement could not issue New Revelation to the Church like an Apostle could. He did not have that kind of ministry or charism. Just as the Apostle John did not have the same kind of ministry or charism that Peter and his successors had insofar as the authority of the Keys were concerned. It wasn't a question of Clement being "above" the Apostle John - it's rather more like apples and oranges. They are not pitted against each other, rather they co-existed in tandem...at least until John, the last of the Apostles, died. Then the only thing that remained was the Episcopal dimension of those who succeeded the Apostles. Nobody suceeded to the Apostolic dimensions. All successors to the Apostles (which were FAR MORE than 12 or 13 by the time John died) had episcopal authority given to them by virtue of their apostolic succession. But only one of them, the Bishop of Rome, succeeded to special Petrine ministry of that of Key-bearer and authoritative shepherd to keep the Church united and orthodox.

It was HQ for the Roman Empire. They destroyed, as prophesied, Jerusalem.

Sure, IMPERIAL ROME was the HQ for the Roman Empire when the whole Easter controversy first arose. But the Christian Church was apart from the empire and often (not always) operated underground and illegally.

The Palestinian Synod understood and ADOPTED the Roman usage. The rest of the Churches came along.

By the time this happened MANY Churches had already started observing Easter on Sunday. This happened LONG before Nicea...long before the Roman Empire legalized Christianity. When Ireneaus appealed to Pope Victor I on behalf of the Asian Churches at the end of the second century, MANY Eastern Churches had already begun to observe Easter on Sunday.

Except for the Quartodecimans. They maintained the faith once delivered.

BOTH sides maintained the faith once delivered. BOTH sides received *liturgical* traditions from the Apostles that varied insofar as WHEN and HOW they were to observe our Lord's Resurrection. Just as we have different "versions" (which can be reconciled but not without some nuance) of the Passion and Resurrection narratives when comparing the Synoptic Gospels to the Johnine Gospel...so too the Church in the first two centuries reflected that (reconcile-able) variation when it came to observing that singular event on the liturgical calendar of the city-churches.

So, did John get mixed up on dates and make an error in his Gospel narrative of the Passion? Did he "forget" that Jesus rose on Sunday? Or did the Synoptic Gospels make an error in theirs? Did they make errors in their dating? Why do they differ? Are they mutually exclusive?

The reality is that the Johnine and the Synoptic versions of the one event we still observe (the death and resurrection of Jesus) are both right, but in different ways. Each of them stress different and distinct THEOLOGICAL TRUTHS. The Sacred Writers were not writing a history book or a textbook whereby everything needs to be told in linear or hyper-literalistic fashion. Rather, they were explaining theological Truths as seen through events that happened in time.

When it came time to observe and commemorate the events of the death and resurrection of Christ, two different and distinct strands of liturgical traditions developed - each of them equally valid and equally apostolic (unless you care to say that the traditions of Peter and Paul do not count as Apostolic). It wasn't just the Easter liturgy that was different and distinct from one city-church to another during that time period. From a VERY early time...while the Apostles were still alive...different city-churches developed different expressions and devotions of Christian worship (which they were given via the Apostolic deposit of faith even if they were not personally taught by an Apostle, but only by one who succeeded from an Apostle). For example, we still have the ancient and venerable "Liturgy of St. James" (attributed to St. James the Just) which is STILL celebrated among some of the Eastern Churches to this day. We even have rites that are still said in Aramaic. But even though the Liturgy of St. James is VERY ancient and can be traced back to the first or second century (some claim as early as 60 AD), does NOT mean that it was the rite used universally throughout the Church everywhere. No. Different city-churches had their own liturgies, with their own devotions, their own distinct expressions of faith, their own focus and emphasis on elements most important to them, and so on --- but ALL of them --- if they wished to remain in communion with the other Churches drew their liturgical traditions and theological language from that one and same Apostolic Deposit of Faith. This is how they "maintained the faith once delivered to them" - not through identical rites, identical liturgies, identical traditions, identical devotions, or identical theological language or concerns.

I know this stuff may cut close to home folks, but God is faithful.

Indeed - God is faithful. I urge you, Standing Up, to consider if what I write above isn't cutting close to your home. Just because there are two distinct Passion/Resurrection narratives and two distinct Easter traditions does NOT mean they are drawn from two mutually exclusive contradictory gospels. They are BOTH right - in different ways. And BOTH liturgical traditions are equally valid and equally Apostolic.

God's Peace,

NewMan

 

[NewMan99]

Asia Minor and Rome disagreed on a doctrinal issue (NewMan99 believes it only a liturgical issue).

The ancient texts between those DIRECTLY involved in the controversy - on BOTH sides - clearly refer to it as a LITURGICAL matter and cite this reason as to why the Church need not divide over it. They NEVER characterize it as a "doctrinal" issue. Ever.

So, please, you tell ME...in what way is it a DOCTRINAL issue? What DOCTRINE are they disputing?

Thanks!

God's Peace,

NewMan

 

[NewMan99]

.


NewMan99,


Here's the problem with your suggesting that I use the word "church" in lieu of the theologically precise term, ______________________ (which you won't permit because you find very great personal insult and disgust by it). "Church" is a very broad term that is defined quite differently among us (I even use the term in several different ways). Thus, it is almost unavoidable that what I post will be misunderstood - and as you seem to be aware, precision is suggested in our discussions. When I used the word ___________________, I did so in the precise theological meaning of it because I'm NOT talking about the communion of saints or the oikos or Body of God or the mystical union of believers - I'm not even talking about people or Christians. And I don't mean a local congregation/assembly of people in a given place/time or the institutions which they may create. I'm speaking of the intercongregational institution as the term ______________________ refers. When the Pope speaks (officially), he does not speak as a Christian (and thus one tiny part, one small voice of the catholic church) - he speaks for his ________________________. When his ___________________ offically declares a dogma, it is the ______________________ doing that: it doesn't mean the communion of saints is doing that or that each of those with a vote at the meeting are doing that, the _______________________ is doing that. Friend, as you know, even posting The Catholic Church leads to great (and often severe) misinterpretations - since some use that as the proper name of a __________________, others as the true visible aspect of the church catholc, the communion of saints - so we're talking about two different things, and thus not comunicating.

Friend, for reasons you never explained, you find GREAT personal offensive, insult and disgust in this "slur" and so, for some 40 pages, I've been typically posting to you with a _________________________ since I don't know of a theological term that is a substitute for it. I'm SURE this causes confusion for all who read my posts to you, and makes my posts less communicative - but I SOMEHOW need to be able to post without causing the whole discussion to suddenly divert into pages of personal rebukes to and about me. Frankly, my brother, I don't want to talk about me. I'm a 21 year old NOBOBY and I think everyone else is even LESS interested in talking about me than I am, so I reallly want to help you keep the discussion on the topic and away from me and your feelings about me - I'm sure you see my point. Sometimes we just gotta do what we just gotta do - because all this is more important than me. INFINITELY more important.

Now, my brother, it is POSSIBLE that as I post to you, I MAY forget (for a second) whom I'm replying to and your enormous issue here - and type the word by accident. That happened about 50 pages ago and BOY did I live to regret it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It could happen again. Perhaps, rather than again resurrecting strong, personal rebukes of me about issuings slugs and causing you such great disgust at me, maybe you'd consider a friendly PM to me, just to remind me? I'd be glad to edit the post, delete the insulting slur, and put in a _______________________. In posting to OTHERS, I will continue to use the theological precise term. Would that be acceptable to you? I pray so. Perhaps you have another suggestion?


Moving on (again).......

CJ,

It was just a suggestion. I still don't understand why it would not work in most cases. But whatever...

All that being said...

I NEVER ONCE SAID that the word "denomination" is a SLUR. I said "Romish" is. Several times. LISTEN.

And I never said - or at least I never intended to say - that I was offended or disgusted by the word "denomination," per se. I was upset at your personal ACTIONS when you continued to use it knowing all along that I object to your continual imposition of your definition on my words. THAT was what upset me. There's a difference. I have explained this to you several times - you still do not begin to understand what actually upset me - you still bring up something that did not upset me - so nevermind. It is no use.

I regret giving you a suggestion...let's just go back to your __________. To me it seems silly when there are plenty of acceptable words you can use, but if it keeps us from getting crosswise again...so be it.

 

[WarriorAngel]

WarriorAngel -





Want I find NOT to be acceptable is to regard self as infallible/unaccountable if self alone agrees with self alone. You are the one who stressed that the CC agrees with itself, and placed some significance on such. I simply pointed out that the LDS agrees with itself, too. Every denomination does. The interesting thing is the RCC ONLY agrees with ITSELF only - having a unity with one - itself. Now, if you find some significance in that, please let us know what it is.

Curiously, then why do you observe what your heirarchy tell you if you think it is not the truth?
Infallibility leads to teaching the absolute truths.

But here is something CJ, how does the Lord make a profession of the gates of hell NOT prevailing, but accepts that the doctrines will be mutilated? Thereby not carrying the truth onwards for all generations.

I dont see how you can possibly think that the Lord cannot ensure His doctrines remain from being immutable.

'O ye of little faith...'
And yet, when we put 100% faith into what Jesus said, we are called arrogant?

The Popes do not envy this position.
Why?
Because their are rendered the account of our souls, and judged more strictly.

YA think they want that on their shoulders?
O - yea, thats right, the keys were carried on the shoulders - so yea, its a heavy burden to account for an entire Church.

Quote me where I EVER suggested that the Pope does not or should not have authority over The Catholic Church.

What is the topic now in this thread is the biblical and/or historical substantiation for the Dogma of The Catholic Papacy, which is regarded by the RCC as a matter of objective fact, of highest importance and greatest certainty; is largely the foundational and keystone dogma of it; and is perhaps the single most divisive teaching in all of Christianity.

Actually the single most divisive thing in Christianity is refusal to accept the authority of the Pope.

Then of course once ppl render to God what is God's - they will understand that the Pope doesnt desire his position as i said b4...and still must account for the souls.

It's a diversion, but IMHO, accepting only the authority one sees in the mirror is not an acceptance of authority - it's simply the imposition of self. But that's another issue for another day and thread, let's keep on topic here. And, friend, AGAIN, I'm NOT stating, implying or remotely suggesting that the Dogma of the Catholic Papacy is false - that's not a position for me to take. It is the RCC's dogmatic insistance as a matter of objective fact that it is TRUE - thus the "burden of proof" lies solely and singularly with the RCC.

The burden of proof has already been prooven in history but as long as you say 'I will proove them wrong' you will continue to not understand us when we present the history in its entirety.

Who ever remotely suggested that it did?

What I said is just because the RCC officially and currently agrees with itself alone in all areas where itself alone thinks it good to agree carries no more significance than the fact that the LDS officially and currently agrees with itself alone in all areas where itself along thinks it good to agree. Now, IF you think the reality that the LDS alone agrees with the LDS alone carries no significance whatsoever, then you must agree that the reality that the RCC alone agrees with the RCC alone also carries no significance.



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah




.

Actually this is what you said...

So, if your apologetic is that Truth is wherever self alone agrees with self alone, then you must accept that the LDS is just as correct as the RCC is - and I doubt you do; thus you reject the very apologetic you are using.

 

[JimfromOhio]

Flesh's desire for territorial claims, this is how I see this thread about. Church is spiritual.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Curiously, then why do you observe what your heirarchy tell you if you think it is not the truth?
Infallibility leads to teaching the absolute truths.

Lost me; what in the world does that have to do with dogmatic confirmation of the objective fact of The Catholic Papacy?

And friend, the only denomination known to me that requires all to accept with docility whatever it itself alone claims and says is the RCC (CCC 87), so I'm pretty lost there, too.

But here is something CJ, how does the Lord make a profession of the gates of hell NOT prevailing, but accepts that the doctrines will be mutilated? Thereby not carrying the truth onwards for all generations.

Because Jesus never promised that to the RCC or any other denomination, and because "gates" are defensive - and as far as I can tell, hell has not yet stopped Christianity. Gates have nothing to do with infallibility/unaccountability.

And I'm lost as to what that has to do with confirmation of the Dogma of The Catholic Papacy - which is what we're discussing.

I dont see how you can possibly think that the Lord cannot ensure His doctrines remain from being immutable.

With God ALL THINGS are possible. But that doesn't mean that all things are true. Is it POSSIBLE that Jupiter is made of Cheddar Cheese, does that mean it is a dogmatic fact of objective fact and of the highest importance that THEREFORE Jupiter IS made of Cheddar Cheese?

And, friend, NO ONE in this thread (well, at least not me or known to me) has suggested that the RCC is wrong about anything, I don't know WHY you desire to turn this thread into something anti-Catholic, especially you being a fairly high ranking Staffer. The issue is singular: The confirmation for the Dogma of The Catholic Papacy. Since it's dogma, since it's a matter of objective fact, a matter of highest certainty - there should be evidence of such; and THAT is the issue of this thread. PLEASE, I ask of you once again, PLEASE don't work to try to turn this into an anti-Catholic thread and discussion.

And yet, when we put 100% faith into what Jesus said, we are called arrogant?

I now have SEVERAL request of you in this thread to quote me; all have been ignored. Quote me where I said that CAtholics are arrogant?

Actually the single most divisive thing in Christianity is refusal to accept the authority of the Pope.

Well, there you are. So this dogma of one denomination is the one most divisive dogma in all of Christianity. THAT, in addition to being a dogma, in addition to being proclaimed an "objective fact," to being "a matter of highest certainty" all suggest some proof. THAT is the issue we're discussing - the RCC's proof for the claim it itself makes for it itself alone. What's 'ya got?

The burden of proof has already been prooven in history

No. The things our friend and respected Catholic Apologist quoted rather well substantiates the Protestant position - as we all saw. Now he's going another path, but I've yet to study that. I will.

So, if your apologetic is that Truth is wherever self alone agrees with self alone, then you must accept that the LDS is just as correct as the RCC is - and I doubt you do; thus you reject the very apologetic you are using.

Yes; I reject your apologetic. And I even think you reject your own apologetic - if you didn't, then, as I pointed out, you'd be required to accept that the LDS is correct - and as I pointed out, I doubt you do. So, either your apologetic is to be rejected OR you must conclude the LDS is as correct as the RCC is. As I noted, I reject the apologetic. Which do you reject?


Maybe you'd like to focus on the discussion here: the confirmation for the Dogma of The Catholic Papacy? I hope so.





.