Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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 authorityYou post irrelevant evasions then ignore the question.
Your post proves nothing.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
Other examples of Papal authority being exercised in the first three centuries after Christ: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?
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.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)
Perhaps the romans just feel like they replaced the Judeans.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
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.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.
I'd like to know whose unquestionably BAD translation this is???????Shamefully your not checking your sources!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.
What language was it written in? Roman Latin or Greek?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
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?Let's see one. Let's see all the writings I'm missing which contradict my point.
Greek for his 7 not considered spurious (3 or 4 syriac epistles and 3 or 4 Latin, widely accepted as spurious forgeries)What language was it written in? Roman Latin or Greek?
I never trust the "Latins"..Greek for his 7 not considered spurious (3 or 4 syriac epistles and 3 or 4 Latin, widely accepted as spurious forgeries)
they are very inflamitoryBut what's wrong with candles?
What difference does it make to the central point I was trying to make?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
Just show me one that makes your 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?
If that isn't the pot calling the kettle.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?
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!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
He is sticking to the facts. Do you dispute his citation of Dionysius?I acknowledge no such thing.
Stick to the facts and your arguments will at least have a chance of persuasion!
I'll talk slower...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?
What was your central point? Oh . . . that protestants are illogical and confused beings?What difference does it make to the central point I was trying to make?
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.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
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?