GK Chesterton on Protestant Logic

[simonthezealot]

You post irrelevant evasions then ignore the question.

I posted it to show that it was merely advice and soter proves that... The roman community was well developed that does NOT mean universal authority

 

[chestertonrules]

I posted it to show that it was merely advice and soter proves that... The roman community was well developed that does NOT mean universal authority

Your post proves nothing.

Clement believed they were instructions, to the point where he said:

If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him [God] through us [i.e., that you must reinstate your leaders], let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger. .


My question to you: Why did Clement feel he had authority over the Church at Corinth?

 

[chestertonrules]

Your post proves nothing.

Clement believed they were instructions, to the point where he said:

If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him [God] through us [i.e., that you must reinstate your leaders], let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger. .


My question to you: Why did Clement feel he had authority over the Church at Corinth?

Other examples of Papal authority being exercised in the first three centuries after Christ:


Pope Clement (88-97) wrote to the Church in Corinth in the year 96 to tell them to make changes in their attitudes and practices. The Early Church On-Line Encyclopedia (Ecole) Initiative, a cooperative effort on the part of Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant scholars across the Internet to establish links of early Church history, says "This letter is important because it indicates that the author was acting has the head of the Christian Church and that it was centered in Rome."
Pope Victor (189-199) ordered Easter to be celebrated throughout the world on Sunday, rather than on the 14th Nisan, whichever day of the week it happen to fall. All of the churches adopted Easter Sunday except those in Asia Minor. Pope Victor then excommunicated all the bishops in Asia Minor. While the Pope eventually relented in the excommunication, no one ever suggested that he did not have the authority.
Pope Calixtus (217-222) overruled those bishops who excommunicated for life all apostates, adulterers, and murderers, regardless of their repentance. The Pope decreed that all sinners with contrition could be absolved and received back into the Catholic Church.
After Pope Cornelius (251-253) was elected, he was faced with an antipope, Novatian, who promptly went about trying to consecrate bishops throughout the world who would be loyal to him. Naturally, this created tremendous uncertainty and confusion wherever Novatian tried to create false bishops over the heads of the legitimate bishops. This unequivocally shows the power of the Pope as the recognized leader of the worldwide Catholic Church.
Pope Stephen (254-257) removed certain bishops in Africa for heresy. Later he overruled a synod of African bishops which wanted to re-baptize lapsed Catholics returning to the faith and those converting to Catholicism from schismatic sects. The Pope made it very clear he was in charge and eventually prevailed in this matter.
Pope Dionysius (260-268) reprimanded Bishop Dionysius of Alexandria for misstatements on the Trinity. The Bishop then followed the Pope’s guidance.
Pope Sylvester (314-335) did not attend the First Council of Arles (314), thinking it unbecoming for him to leave Rome. Following Arles, the bishops there commended him for not leaving the spot "where the Apostles daily sit in judgment." He repeated this example at Nicaea, which his successors followed in the councils of Sardica (343), Rimini (359), and the Eastern ecumenical councils. At Nicaea, Pope Sylvester sent two priests as his legates, who helped preside over the sessions and who were the first to sign the cannons.
Pope Julius (337-352) decided that Athanasius, rather than Pistus, should be the Bishop of Alexandria. At the same time, he read the riot act to the Arians in Alexandria.
Because Pope Liberius (352-366) stood firm against Arianism, Emperor Constantius had him kidnapped and replaced with an antipope, Felix, who no one accepted. In captivity, the Pope was tortured until he signed a semi-Arian document, which, of course, was not valid. This episode clearly showed the vital role of the Pope in determining Catholic doctrine. The Pope returned to Rome and continued his fight for orthodoxy. He eventually succeeded in seeing many Arians come back to the Catholic Church.

 

[simonthezealot]

Other examples of Papal authority being exercised in the first three centuries after Christ:


Pope Clement (88-97) wrote to the Church in Corinth in the year 96 to tell them to make changes in their attitudes and practices. The Early Church On-Line Encyclopedia (Ecole) Initiative, a cooperative effort on the part of Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant scholars across the Internet to establish links of early Church history, says "This letter is important because it indicates that the author was acting has the head of the Christian Church and that it was centered in Rome."
Pope Victor (189-199)

Clement does speak with force. Like I said there are plenty of letters with just as much force which are not from Bishops of Rome but are not used as examples of their primacy.
Clement never once asserts the primacy of his office. He has ample opportunity, but does not.

Why did you skip a hundred years there are all kinds of writing between clement and victor? Clement's evidence is weak and then there is nothing for a full century? Funny thing is Clements view on justification is identical to methodist/reformed NOT catholic so even with him your history is so wobbly its like an elephant balancing on a paper mache tooth pick.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I posted it to show that it was merely advice and soter proves that... The roman community was well developed that does NOT mean universal authority

Perhaps the romans just feel like they replaced the Judeans.

LLOJ [I have no King but JESUS and YHWH His Father!!!!]

Matthew 22:21 They are saying unto Him, "to-Caesar". Then He is saying to them, "be rendering then to Caesar [Pope] the-things of Caesar [the Pope]; and the-things of the GOD/YHWH to the GOD/YHWH".

 

[chestertonrules]

Clement does speak with force. Like I said there are plenty of letters with just as much force which are not from Bishops of Rome but are not used as examples of their primacy.
Clement never once asserts the primacy of his office. He has ample opportunity, but does not.

Why did you skip a hundred years there are all kinds of writing between clement and victor? Clement's evidence is weak and then there is nothing for a full century? Funny thing is Clements view on justification is identical to methodist/reformed NOT catholic so even with him your history is so wobbly its like an elephant balancing on a paper mache tooth pick.

Let's see one. Let's see all the writings I'm missing which contradict my point. I'm willing to read them. So far, you've provided nothing.

It's not as if Popes need to be bossing people around, after all, we are all Catholics and doctrinal disputes are rare and usually there is no need for a referee.

Most disputes resolve themselves in local churches.

Here's another important letter. Ignatius is writing to Rome around 110 AD and he points out that Rome holds the presidency.

Later in the same letter:

[-]
You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force.

Ignatius of Antioch Letter to the Romans 1:1[-]
Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father.

 

[simonthezealot]

Ignatius of Antioch Letter to the Romans 1:1[-]
Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father.

I'd like to know whose unquestionably BAD translation this is???????Shamefully your not checking your sources!
Nearly all translations i've ever read say this...

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.v.v.html

the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, and which is worthy of God

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I'd like to know whose unquestionably BAD translation this is???????Shamefully your not checking your sources!
Nearly all translations i've ever read say this...

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.v.v.html

the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, and which is worthy of God

What language was it written in? Roman Latin or Greek?

 

[simonthezealot]

Let's see one. Let's see all the writings I'm missing which contradict my point.

Would you like me to list all the writings I know from Hermas to Irenaeus? would you promise to read through them and in detail admit that NONE of these attach universal authority to the church at rome which vat 1 claims was "KNOWN FOR ALL AGES?" WOULD YOU READ AND ADMIT IF i SHOWED YOU?

 

[simonthezealot]

What language was it written in? Roman Latin or Greek?

Greek for his 7 not considered spurious (3 or 4 syriac epistles and 3 or 4 Latin, widely accepted as spurious forgeries)

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Greek for his 7 not considered spurious (3 or 4 syriac epistles and 3 or 4 Latin, widely accepted as spurious forgeries)

I never trust the "Latins"..

In fact, Luther was given honorary mention on this Hebrew study site

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/1_update.html

"If I were younger I would want to learn this language [i.e. Hebrew], for without it one can never properly understand the Holy Scripture…. For that reason they have said correctly: 'The Jews drink out of the original spring, The Greeks drink out of the stream flowing out of the stream, The Latins, however, out of the puddle.'"
--Martin Luther (1483-1546)

 

[christianmomof3]

But what's wrong with candles?

they are very inflamitory
actually, nothing is wrong with candles in and of themselves - but their purposes for being used in some ceremonies may not be according to the Lord

 

[chestertonrules]

I'd like to know whose unquestionably BAD translation this is???????Shamefully your not checking your sources!
Nearly all translations i've ever read say this...

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.v.v.html

the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, and which is worthy of God

What difference does it make to the central point I was trying to make?

 

[chestertonrules]

Would you like me to list all the writings I know from Hermas to Irenaeus? would you promise to read through them and in detail admit that NONE of these attach universal authority to the church at rome which vat 1 claims was "KNOWN FOR ALL AGES?" WOULD YOU READ AND ADMIT IF i SHOWED YOU?

Just show me one that makes your point.

Is it really so hard, or are you required to filibuster in order to obscure you lack of information?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Just show me one that makes your point.

Is it really so hard, or are you required to filibuster in order to obscure you lack of information?

If that isn't the pot calling the kettle.
Just another Roman papacy propaganda thread anyway. Bye Bye.

LLOJ [hops off another eternal "merry-go-round"]

 

[racer]

What is any man who has been in the real outer world, for instance, to make of the everlasting cry that Catholic traditions are condemned by the Bible? It indicates a jumble of topsy-turvy tests and tail-foremost arguments, of which I never could at any time see the sense. The ordinary sensible sceptic or pagan is standing in the street (in the supreme character of the man in the street) and he sees a procession go by of the priests of some strange cult, carrying their object of worship under a canopy, some of them wearing high head-dresses and carrying symbolical staffs, others carrying scrolls and sacred records, others carrying sacred images and lighted candles before them, others sacred relics in caskets or cases, and so on. I can understand the spectator saying, “This is all hocus-pocus”; I can even understand him, in moments of irritation, breaking up the procession, throwing down the images, tearing up the scrolls, dancing on the priests and anything else that might express that general view. I can understand his saying, “Your croziers are bosh, your candles are bosh, your statues and scrolls and relics and all the rest of it are bosh.” But in what conceivable frame of mind does he rush in to select one particular scroll of the scriptures of this one particular group (a scroll which had always belonged to them and been a part of their hocus-pocus, if it was hocus-pocus); why in the world should the man in the street say that one particular scroll was not bosh, but was the one and only truth by which all the other things were to be condemned? Why should it not be as superstitious to worship the scrolls as the statues, of that one particular procession? Why should it not be as reasonable to preserve the statues as the scrolls, by the tenets of that particular creed? To say to the priests, “Your statues and scrolls are condemned by our common sense,” is sensible. To say, “Your statues are condemned by your scrolls, and we are going to worship one part of your procession and wreck the rest,” is not sensible from any standpoint, least of all that of the man in the street.

From : The Catholic Church and Conversion, by G.K. Chesterton

Sorry, but your tirade about Protestant logic makes absolutely no sense to me . . . perhaps as a Catholic, it is your desire to present any logic that is not in agreement with yours as a chaotic mess!

 

[racer]

I acknowledge no such thing.

Stick to the facts and your arguments will at least have a chance of persuasion!

He is sticking to the facts. Do you dispute his citation of Dionysius?

 

[simonthezealot]

Just show me one that makes your point.

Is it really so hard, or are you required to filibuster in order to obscure you lack of information?

I'll talk slower...
there is nothing for 170 years after Christ suggesting universal authority for Rome.

Your asking me to contradict something that is
non-existant

 

[racer]

What difference does it make to the central point I was trying to make?

What was your central point? Oh . . . that protestants are illogical and confused beings?

 

[tz620q]

What is any man who has been in the real outer world, for instance, to make of the everlasting cry that Catholic traditions are condemned by the Bible? It indicates a jumble of topsy-turvy tests and tail-foremost arguments, of which I never could at any time see the sense. The ordinary sensible sceptic or pagan is standing in the street (in the supreme character of the man in the street) and he sees a procession go by of the priests of some strange cult, carrying their object of worship under a canopy, some of them wearing high head-dresses and carrying symbolical staffs, others carrying scrolls and sacred records, others carrying sacred images and lighted candles before them, others sacred relics in caskets or cases, and so on. I can understand the spectator saying, “This is all hocus-pocus”; I can even understand him, in moments of irritation, breaking up the procession, throwing down the images, tearing up the scrolls, dancing on the priests and anything else that might express that general view. I can understand his saying, “Your croziers are bosh, your candles are bosh, your statues and scrolls and relics and all the rest of it are bosh.” But in what conceivable frame of mind does he rush in to select one particular scroll of the scriptures of this one particular group (a scroll which had always belonged to them and been a part of their hocus-pocus, if it was hocus-pocus); why in the world should the man in the street say that one particular scroll was not bosh, but was the one and only truth by which all the other things were to be condemned? Why should it not be as superstitious to worship the scrolls as the statues, of that one particular procession? Why should it not be as reasonable to preserve the statues as the scrolls, by the tenets of that particular creed? To say to the priests, “Your statues and scrolls are condemned by our common sense,” is sensible. To say, “Your statues are condemned by your scrolls, and we are going to worship one part of your procession and wreck the rest,” is not sensible from any standpoint, least of all that of the man in the street.

From : The Catholic Church and Conversion, by G.K. Chesterton

While I enjoy Chesterton, especially his wit, I don't think this is one of his best. It is based on there being an intrinsic logic to the procession that is either accepted in totality or rejected in totality. Human nature is never so logical. We pick and choose what fancies us every day of our lives and few of us care a fig for how logical our choices are within someone elses' framework.