Hypocritical to accept the Bible but not the Catholic Church?

[Open Heart]

This is a good example of what is called "Jesuitical casuistry". How can today's Protestants NOT be deemed heretics when they are clearly in heretical churches (as defined by the RCC)? That is extremely perverse logic. The fact of the matter is that the Canons of the Council of Trent clearly stamp those as accursed (ANATHEMA) who hold to Protestant doctrines and reject Catholic doctrines. And the Council of Trent is still authoritative for the RCC.

In order to be a heretic, you have to first have a clear understanding and belief in orthodoxy. This is not true of modern protestants, who only know protestantism.

 

[SinnerInTheHands]

LOL good joke.

It's not a joke . . . crack open a history book.

 

[Open Heart]

It's not a joke . . . crack open a history book.

I'm quite familiar with history. I'm convinced the Catholic church began at pentecost. But at any rate, we have WRITTEN record identifying the "Catholic Church" dating back to 108 AD (Ignatius letter to Smyrna).

 

[SinnerInTheHands]

I'm quite familiar with history. I'm convinced the Catholic church began at pentecost. But at any rate, we have WRITTEN record identifying the "Catholic Church" dating back to 108 AD (Ignatius letter to Smyrna).

Ignatius was referring to the church catholic, i.e. the collection of all true believers in Christ on Earth.

There wasn't a single "bishop of Rome" until after the 2nd century [rather there were numerous bishops presiding simultaneously], it wasn't until the 6th century until the Pope declared himself "supreme head" of the RCC, and it wasn't until the Second Nicean Council in 787 that the Church claimed itself supreme over all others.

 

[Albion]

I agree with some of that. It's certain that when Ignatius used the word "Catholic" he meant it in the usual way--authentic, genuine, universal in a time sense.

 

[Open Heart]

Ignatius was referring to the church catholic, i.e. the collection of all true believers in Christ on Earth.

There wasn't a single "bishop of Rome" until after the 2nd century [rather there were numerous bishops presiding simultaneously], it wasn't until the 6th century until the Pope declared himself "supreme head" of the RCC, and it wasn't until the Second Nicean Council in 787 that the Church claimed itself supreme over all others.

Google the list of Popes, and you will find popes going all the way back to Peter.

For example Clement was Pope. He wrote a letter to the church at Corinth which was OUTSIDE of the bishopric of Rome. Now how could he have stuck his nose in another bishops territory? Because he was the Pope.

The Catholic church ALWAYS claimed to be the supreme church over all heretical groups, even in the epistles of the NT.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Google the list of Popes, and you will find popes going all the way back to Peter.

For example Clement was Pope. He wrote a letter to the church at Corinth which was OUTSIDE of the bishopric of Rome. Now how could he have stuck his nose in another bishops territory? Because he was the Pope.

The Catholic church ALWAYS claimed to be the supreme church over all heretical groups, even in the epistles of the NT.

Just because somebody wrote a list of people centuries after the fact and claimed that they were Popes, hardly makes the case that the papacy existed during those lost centuries. The reality is that there is not a scintilla of evidence that these folks were actually the Pope of your church other than your church says they were.

 

[Open Heart]

Just because somebody wrote a list of people centuries after the fact and claimed that they were Popes, hardly makes the case that the papacy existed during those lost centuries. The reality is that there is not a scintilla of evidence that these folks were actually the Pope of your church other than your church says they were.

The scholarship was kept alive through the years. Just because earlier records are lost to us now, doesn't mean they didn't exist then. The truth is that you reject it because you just don't like it. It doesn't fit in with what you want to be true.

 

[Albion]

The scholarship was kept alive through the years. Just because earlier records are lost to us now, doesn't mean they didn't exist then.

We don't have any evidence that X was true or actually happened...but we ought to believe it anyway?

Maybe there's a term for that. "Pig in a poke" is probably too secular, so how about "Sacred Nontradition?"

 

[bbbbbbb]

The scholarship was kept alive through the years. Just because earlier records are lost to us now, doesn't mean they didn't exist then. The truth is that you reject it because you just don't like it. It doesn't fit in with what you want to be true.

And the truth is that you believe in it because you want it to be true because you really, really, want to have a church which is pure and infallible. However, that begs the issue. The fact remains that the "records" of the papacy in the first few centuries of Christian history are non-existant. It does seem highly peculiar that such an important institution should fail to be discussed at all by the ECF's. Instead, what we do see in their writings is a general parity among the churches. Hence, we have the early church councils where no particular church dominated nor was dogma determined by any one leader of any branch of the church.

 

[prodromos]

The scholarship was kept alive through the years. Just because earlier records are lost to us now, doesn't mean they didn't exist then. The truth is that you reject it because you just don't like it. It doesn't fit in with what you want to be true.

Just like how the Lateran councils and those of Lyons, Vienne and Constance etc. suddenly became known as 'ecumenical' councils when it suited Rome, centuries later.

 

[Albion]

And the truth is that you believe in it because you want it to be true because you really, really, want to have a church which is pure and infallible.

This indeed is what attracts people to certain denominations and keeps them loyal. It is reassuring, to put it mildly, to feel that you're aligned with something that cannot be wrong. All the complexities and gray areas are lifted from the adherent's shoulders.

The fact remains that the "records" of the papacy in the first few centuries of Christian history are non-existant.

Ironically, among the facts that we DO have is this one...

The Roman Catholic Church itself acknowledges that, when Peter died, he had not chosen a successor and had not elevated anyone to be a bishop. The townsmen of Rome sent for Linus after Peter's death and asked him to be their new shepherd. Therefore, there IS NO succession from Peter of the "passing the torch" type of Apostolic Succession that the theory of Papal Supremacy is based upon.

And this was the pattern (townsmen choosing) in Rome for the next thousand or so years until it was realized that the position of Pope was too critical for any haphazard "election" by acclamantion to determine a successor. That's why the College of Cardinals was created...to keep the choice of a successor "in house."

 

[Open Heart]

We don't have any evidence that X was true or actually happened...but we ought to believe it anyway?

Because we know that today's scholarship is based on past scholarship. We know it wasn't simply made up out of whole cloth. Records were kept. Just as we don't have 1 century manuscripts of the New Testament, but we know they existed. SAME THING.

 

[Open Heart]

The fact remains that the "records" of the papacy in the first few centuries of Christian history are non-existant.

Just as manuscripts of first century gospels and epistles are missing, yet you believe that they existed. SAME THING.

 

[Albion]

Because we know that today's scholarship is based on past scholarship.

Well, either the evidence is available or it's not. To assume, merely assume, that if it's taught today then it MUST have been based upon some evidence from the past that mysteriously vanished is really to make the institution what you place your trust in rather than the facts.

That MAY be what some people do, but if so, there's absolutely no reason for saying--in any discussion like these that we have on CF--that one believes in any non-Biblical doctrine for a reason other than that the church likes it. Usually, the speaker makes some claim that the church is correct because of Tradition or something like that, but under these circumstances, that would not make any sense.

 

[Open Heart]

Well, either the evidence is available or it's not.

Albion: either we have 1st century manuscripts of the new testament or we do not. Yet we still believe that the younger manuscripts are based upon older manuscripts. It's the same thing.

 

[Albion]

Albion: either we have 1st century manuscripts of the new testament or we do not. Yet we still believe that the younger manuscripts are based upon older manuscripts. It's the same thing.

No, it's not.

 

[Open Heart]

Unfortunately it is your view that is baloney. Edumacate yourself on Textual Criticism and then feel free to comment.
For example, we have fragments of the gospels dating back to the middle of the 2nd century, and vast numbers of fragments and manuscripts from the 3rd century onwards so we have a lot more than common sense to go by for the New Testament. With regards to there being a single bishop of Rome after Peter, we actually have evidence to the contrary, not to mention that the feast of the chair of Peter was originally the feast of the chair of Peter in Antioch, there not actually being a chair as such in Rome.

Do you think there are no records at all of these men being bishops of Rome?

 

[Rick Otto]

Do you think there are no records at all of these men being bishops of Rome?

Do think that if there were reliable records the question would persist?

 

[prodromos]

Do you think there are no records at all of these men being bishops of Rome?

From what I recall, what records there are suggest there was not just a single bishop at Rome in the beginning, but rather a number of bishops working together, which would not be unusual given the level of persecution the Church in Rome was undergoing. Its a bit harder to scatter the sheep by striking the shepherd if there is more than one shepherd.