Peter and the Keys, Catholicism and the Pope

Originally Posted by TraderJack

Trento said:

Your opinion.

Click to expand...

No, the consensus of historical scholars.

Formally registered? Legally associated? How legalistic can you get? Just because the NT Church did not have formal enrollment and was not listed as a 501c non-profit organization...

Click to expand...

At least in America, where religious liberty is a Constitutional guarantee, incorporation is a replacement of Ceasar as head of the body incorporated. 501C3 Is "Tax Exempt" staus, which is what they already have by Constitutional guarantee, and in return for the privilege of applying for permission to be what you already are, you have to promise not to speak to your congregation against Public (translated "Gov.") Policy.

does not mean they there wasn't a real authoritative structure, complete with a hierarchy.

Click to expand...

Dude,... hierarchy is structure.

You don't need legalities and formal enrollments to exist as a Church with an institutional aspect and a mystical aspect.

Click to expand...

That's exactly what you purport to be in posession of: Jesus legaly handing ecclesiastical powers to disciples who in turn formaly enroll staff by ordination &/or appointment.
The mystical aspect was corralled by the institution back when they seduced the desert monks into bishoprics with the lure of consecrating power of the Eucharist, which they by then had reserved to themselves.

TraderJack said:

Canon VI confirmed an equality of jurisdiction of all Sees.

Those two councils alone repudiate any claim by the Roman bishops of Roman papal supremacy.

Click to expand...

Regarding the language of Canon VI, I contend your conclusion of the language is specious (not to mention that interpretation does not fit with the primacy of the Roman Church both before and after Nicea in 325. A good treatment by Mark Bonocore (full article):At the end of the day, one has to read into the phrase "the like" in Canon VI from Nicea to mean equality in authority, and the text neither confirms nor excludes that as the meaning. But in historical context, it can be seen that Nicea was not defining equality of authority among Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch.

At the very least, I think you have helped show that the only serious Churches to even be considered as the true Church Christ set up are the Catholic and Orthodox.

At the very least, I think you have helped show that the only serious Churches to even be considered as the true Church Christ set up are the Catholic and Orthodox.

Click to expand...

Hi Polo....Sorry bro, there can only be One True catholic Apostolic church under the headship of Jesus the Christ

CJ,

The link you provided for your definition of "denomination" doesn't work. Please just give me a short one or two sentence explanation so I know how YOU are defining it. Until we do that there is no point in continuing.

And here is a good example why defining our terms is necessary.

I said:

There were no such things as "denominations" until the Protestant Reformation. Denominationalism is your tradition and your heritage - not ours.

Click to expand...

You replied:

My respected friend, you can't have it both ways. You can't argue, "Jesus founded The Catholic Church but The Catholic Church didn't exist until 1521 when it excommunicated Luther." If Jesus founded IT, then IT had to exist - or Jesus didn't found IT.

Click to expand...

It is beyond obvious we are defining the word denomination very differently and thus talking past each other.

For...

I am not having it "both ways." My position is, and always has been, that the Catholic Church is the one and same Church founded by Christ on the Apostles which we see in the NT. It is not a denomination (using MY definition of denomination). It has NEVER been a denomination. It is not a denomination now. It will never be a denomination any more than a dog can become a cat or a rock can become a tree. By its very nature, the Catholic Church cannot ever be a denomination.

By MY definition, each of the Christian sects that followed in the wake of the Protestant Reformation are ALL denominations. The Catholic Church is not a denomination - the Orthodox Church is not a denomination. All others are.

So given that explanation re-read my statement again. I am not having it both ways because I would deny that the Catholic Church became a denomination in 1521; rather the sectarianism and division that currently scandalizes and splinters the Christian world due to denominationalism was the direct byproduct of the Reformation and is entirely a word that can only be applied to non-Catholic/non-Orthodox communions.

But because you are not defining your terms - and because you seem to insist upon imposing your definitions on terms that I use - you have basically talked past me and mischaracterized my original statement.

So once again, how do you define the term so that way we can begin to actually dialog instead of having two mutually exclusive monologs?

Thanks.

By MY definition, each of the Christian sects that followed in the wake of the Protestant Reformation are ALL denominations. The Catholic Church is not a denomination - the Orthodox Church is not a denomination. All others are

Click to expand...

Greetings Polo. I believe your definition is wrong. If there are 2 Different Churches as you just implied, then the "Protestant" have a right to call us a denomination or sect.
The RCC is listed in the same way on CF as the EO are
At least that is MY view.

Apparently --Catholics are now a "Denomination" - Page 20 - Christian Forums
Apparently --Catholics are now a "Denomination"

LittleLambofJesus said:

Hi Polo....Sorry bro, there can only be One True catholic Apostolic church under the headship of Jesus the Christ

Click to expand...

That's correct. I am only saying that within the bounds of reason, only the Catholic and Orthodox are the two that a person could narrow down as candidates. I think with a little more in depth study, obviously, that the Catholic Church headed by the Pope can be seen as the true Church. But the Orthodox certainly contains many characteristics of the ancient Church and throughout the centuries, which makes them, at the least, a reasonable Church to look at.

MrPolo said:

That's correct. I am only saying that within the bounds of reason, only the Catholic and Orthodox are the two that a person could narrow down as candidates. I think with a little more in depth study, obviously, that the Catholic Church headed by the Pope can be seen as the true Church. But the Orthodox certainly contains many characteristics of the ancient Church and throughout the centuries, which makes them, at the least, a reasonable Church to look at.

Click to expand...

We believe the RCC and Papacy strayed from the ancient apostolic Church that Jesus and the Apostles set up and why we are and will always remain in "schism" with your "church".

Is Catholicism the same Church that the Apostles set up - Christian Forums
Is Catholicism the same Church that the Apostles set up

LittleLambofJesus said:

We believe the RCC and Papacy strayed from the ancient apostolic Church that Jesus and the Apostles set up and why we are and will always remain in "schism" with your "church".

Click to expand...

Thank you for returning my compliment with this.

I think the simpler the better. Stick with the basics that way you don't have to worry about any little extras that have worked there way into Tradition. Problem is many protestant denominations are adding Tradition just like the "ancient" churches when they need to be taking it away. My opinion(today anyways)

NewMan99 said:

CJ,

The link you provided for your definition of "denomination" doesn't work.

Click to expand...

http://www.christianforums.com/t2406658

Josiah said:

From religioustolerance.com
Denomination: an established religious group, typically uniting a group of individual, local congregations into a single administrative body.


From thefreedictionary.com
Denomination: . A large group of religious congregations united under a common faith and name and organized under a single administrative and legal hierarchy.


From onlinedictionary.com
Denomination: a group of religious congregations having its own organization and often a distinctive faith

From Allwords.com
Denomination: a group of religious congregations having its own organization and a distinctive faith

Click to expand...

Rather than giving MY definition, I shared the common definition from dictionaries. Discussion followed in the thread, including by some Catholics that agreed that the RCC is a denomination. Because, you see, my respected unseparated brother, if Jesus didn't found IT than Jesus didn't found IT - and the foundation of the whole, long, chain of assumptive claims based on that falls. So, it's essential that the Catholic argues that Jesus founded the RCC denomination. One cannot argue that Jesus didn't found The Catholic Church and yet Jesus founded The Catholic Church, obviously.

I am not having it "both ways." My position is, and always has been, that the Catholic Church is the one and same Church founded by Christ on the Apostles which we see in the NT.

Click to expand...

Thank you. In one of your posts, you were sounding amazingly Protestant, lol, so I KNEW I had to be misunderstanding you.

NewMan99 said:

the sectarianism and division that currently scandalizes and splinters the Christian world due to denominationalism was the direct byproduct of the Reformation and is entirely a word that can only be applied to non-Catholic/non-Orthodox communions.

Click to expand...

Actually, I think you COULD make a bit of a case that prior to the 4th century, while there was MUCH diversity of thought (perhaps more than today), there was no denominationalism. It was largely the Roman government that created denominational, institutionalism - and it's the RCC and EO that can trace their history back to this event. A single denominational institution existed (only in the Roman Empire thus it was not catholic) but only for about a century and then that shattered. Sectarianism, division immediately tore at this Roman denomination that was largely an East/West fight. While it de facto resulted in two denominations long before, the official split was in 1054 - nearly five centuries before the Reformation.

Again, as I mentioned earlier, IF your concern is not institutional denominations (of which the RCC is perhaps the largest and best example of such) but instead that there is no "unity" then remember: the RCC has a unity with ONLY ONE: itself. Alone. Exclusively. Solely. The Catholic Church agrees with ONLY ONE: itself and no other. It's a unity of one. With one. Only. Now, what's the WORSE you could say about any of the other 34,999 denominations our Catholic brothers and sisters around here insist exists? The WORSE would be that they are EXACTLY THE SAME as The Catholic Church in this regard: they agree with only one, self. There is a unity only with self and no other (but actually, most Protestant denominations aren't as "bad" as The Catholic Church in this regard). So, what's your issue? That Catholics insist there are 35,000 denominations in the world of which The Catholic Church is the largest and probably the best example of such? OR that The Catholic Church is like too many Protestant denominations - in a unity of one: self with self?

So once again, how do you define the term so that way we can begin to actually dialog instead of having two mutually exclusive monologs?

Thanks.

Click to expand...

Sorry the original link didn't work, I do apologize; please forgive. LLOJ corrected it for you but obviously you missed that. There is MUCH else in my post that you by-passed that I hope we can discuss, too.

Friend, your frustration is obvious. Without a doubt, these ecumencial discussions are hard work - for all involved. And I agree, it can seem circular - from my perspective, it always is: self claims self to be correct so when self says self is correct then self is correct so self is correct. That, IMHO, is always how discusions with Catholics and Mormons go. BUT, we CAN work through that and make progress in mutual understanding. You and I have had discussions before - they always seemed to terminate just as some progress was on the horizon. You don't seem to always give the classic Catholic apologetic (which is interesting to me) and I have an enormous respect for your understanding and articulation of Catholicism. Your parish is blessed to have you. And I realize that Catholics all too often seem to be aware of radical evangelicalism (most converts to Catholicism are from such) and I think they aren't always aware of classic, orthodox, traditional Protestantism (which, sadly, they skipped over on their way to Catholicism). I DOUBT you and I will agree, but perhaps we'll help each other (and maybe others) understand our perspective, which was, is and ever will be my ONLY "agenda" here at CF.

Friend, it's more theological than most think. My view of Christians and the one holy catholic church - the communion of saints - the mystical union of believers means that I CAN (and do!) embrace you as my full, equal brother in Christ. No "conversion" is needed, lol. We ARE one in faith. We don't formally belong to the same congregation and nor do our congregations belong to the same denomination - but that's a separate (and mostly moot, IMHO) issue. We don't dot our "i's" or cross our "t's" in EXACTLY the same in in ALL matters (I strongly suspect you and I agree 95% of the time, sad we don't discuss our agreements here at CF, only our disagreements! All my threads ATTEMPTING to celebrate our agreements died quick deaths!). But then there has NEVER been a time in the past 2000 years when ALL Christians were in FULL agreement on ALL issues. Now, I TOO decry that lack of love/embrace among us - but this existed LONG before Luther was born. I TOO think it would be better if we had more doctrinal agreement - but such has never been the case. And, like you, I TOO believe that Truth matters. But I don't think the BEST way to seek such is for a teacher to simply demand that all accept whatever that singular teacher (person, congregation, denomination) says with docility - in fact, my study of the cults tells me that's actually quite dangerous. And, unlike most Catholics, that their denomination currently and officially is in agreement with only itself in all matters that only itself regards as good to agree upon is just not viewed by me as significant or meaningful. I WISH it was as easy as saying, "that one says he's right - so he must be!" "I'm right so when I say I'm right, I must be right - why don't you understand that!?" I embrace this whether "I" is the RCC or LDS or ME. So, it's not as easy as saying that because I have a view, I must be right - I hold myself accountable, correctable. Ah, see - it all comes back to our view of the church. Is the church ME or US? Protestants hold passionately to "Jesus and WE" whereas, IMHO, a handful of denominations insist powerfully that it's "Jesus and ME." Unlike you, I don't reject congregations or denominations because I don't reject community and accountability - and because I don't equate my congregation or denomination with the one holy catholic church/ communion of saints/ union of all believers; the church isn't ME or an IT. But, as I see it, the issue for the RCC (and a couple of other denominations that make the very same claims for self) comes from Rome and it's all about power, control, authority, lordship, and thus the issue MUST be that the church is IT so that IT can have all that power. And more importantly, so that IT can claim a chain of things that, together, make it unaccountable. Thus, these denominations MUST stress the "visible" aspects of the church, Christianity as an institutional denomination, etc. IT must establish ITself in a position so as to justify its power and unaccountability. IMHO, the RCC did this for all the RIGHT reasons: to protect the faithful from heresy, antichrists, etc. IMHO, the MOTIVE, the INTENT was valid. Unlike some of my Protestant brothers and sisters, I don't view the RCC as "sinister" in ANY sense, ever in its history. MY experience is that Catholic theologians and clergy are sincere, faith-filled men of great integrity. But, again, self declaring self to be infallible/unaccountable, right cuz self so declares doesn't ultimately protect Truth - it simply makes the whole issue impossible to investigate. Friend, IMHO, the Truth welcomes the light. Falsehood must hide in the dark, build walls of protection, walls of self-claims. What the RCC and LDS have done (for all the RIGHT reasons) doesn't protect truth (which doesn't need it), it creates a perfect venue for the protection of error. Or the least that can be said is that BOTH are equally protected in this manner. "I insist that I'm right so when I say I'm right, I'm right" may "settle" the issue for self - but it just has nothing to do with truth. Again, is the church US as Protestants insist, or is it ME as the RCC insists? See the red letter comments in my siggy....

From an earlier post:

NewMan99 said:

the Bible strictly warns us against sectarianism, division, and - by extension - denominationalism (cf. Rom 16:17, 1 Cor 1:10-13, 1 Cor 3:3, 1 Cor 11:18-19, 1 Cor 12:25, Rom 13:13, 2 Cor 12:20, Phil 2:2, Titus 3:9, Jas 3:16, 1 Tim:3-5, and 2 Pet 2:1).

Click to expand...

Some comments:

1. I do not agree that denominations are against Scripture. You are standing with the non-denoms who argue against The Catholic Church, the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, The United Methodist Church, etc. and that all congregations (all millions of them) MUST be autonomous, independent, etc. I disagree. I rather embrace community, accountability and cooperation. While I don't regard the non-denom as WRONG, my OWN view is that it's good when congregations bond together, work together, help each other, hold each other accountable, etc. I think you'll find that the great majority of Protestants AGREE with the RCC that denominations are a good thing, as opposed to a minority of Protestants that argue for autonomous non-denominationalism. But then, I'm pretty big on community and VERY uncomfortable with anything or anyone going it alone.

2. I think what the Bible is speaking of is a unity of heart and mind - not of denominations. Frankly, I doubt Jesus could care less how many congregations or denominations or colleges or monistaries there are - no more than He cares about whether Bank of America and Chase bank merge into one bank. Now, read the next point...

3. Friend (and take this with no offense because none is implied or meant), the RCC is AT LEAST as "separate" and "divided" as ANY denomination - and more than most. The reality is (and you know it, my friend), The Catholic Church is "united" with only one: itself. There is only one denomination, of the 35000 many of our Catholic friends here insist exists, with which The Catholic Church is in agreement: itself. Alone. Solely. Now, the WORSE that can be said of the other 34,999 denominations is that they are in exactly the same position in this regard as is the RCC. But actually, most are in a better position. The Catholic Church is no more "united" than any other of the 34,999 denominations - and considerably less than many. It's just the reality, no "judgment" implied. Now, I realize that the RCC is in current and official agreement with the RCC in all matters that the RCC currently regards as good for a denomination to agree upon, but then the same is true for the other 34,999 denominations, too. Same/same. So, if UNITY is what you are speaking of, then we're all in the same "boat" (well, none is a worse place in that boat than the RCC). IMHO, any finger pointed at my denomination would be at least one pointed back at your own.

But, I'm not sure what this has to do with the Archbishops' statements...

NewMan99 said:

Of course, we also believe that the Catholic Church is that same Church - but we can leave that aside for the moment.

Click to expand...

OH, BUT THAT IS THE POINT!!!!





Again, IF you are trying to say, "Jesus founded the one holy catholic church - the communion of saints - the mystical union of believers, and such still exists" then we are in agreement. But that has nothing to do with your denomination or mine - and certainly nothing to do with the subject of this thread. IF you are trying to say, "Jesus founded a movement, a community, a ministry - and those so Called and committed eventually created a myriad of institutions to assist in this - and eventually one known today as The Catholic Church was among these millions of institutions" then we aren't disagreeing with each other - but that has nothing to do with the subject of this thread.

NewMan99 said:

Formally registered? Legally associated? How legalistic can you get? Just because the NT Church did not have formal enrollment and was not listed as a 501c non-profit organization does not mean they there wasn't a real authoritative structure, complete with a hierarchy. You don't need legalities and formal enrollments to exist as a Church with an institutional aspect and a mystical aspect.[Paul to Titus] "Declare these things; exhort and rebuke with all authority. Let no one disregard you." Titus 2:15 (ESV)All authority. But Titus wasn't an apostle; he was a bishop. So there it is: a bishop holds authority from the apostles. And so the missing puzzle piece falls into place. There was an institutional structure with AUTHORITY and a hierarchy. It's in the Bible - way before 300 AD.

Click to expand...

Of course, this authority exists in all congregations and denominations. You just insist it doesn't count unless it's in your singular, particular, individual, institutional denomination. Now, friend, I know where you are going with this - for you, this has to do with Tradition and especially vis-a-vis heresy (oh how Catholicism is one HUGE ball, lol). Now, I agree - there WAS a day (long, long, ago) when disputes were handled in an ecumencial, biblical manner. I applaud that - and I WISH such were still the case. Some of us are TRYING to work toward that (it sure feels like moving the sand - one grain at at time - on the beach). I have ENDLESS posts about that. But here's what happened, CENTURIES before Luther was born - in fact, before the EO and CC excommunicated each other. Denominations limited REAL authority to itself. Institutionalism took over. And, IMHO, that wasn't the invention of Luther but of The Catholic Church, and it wasn't even primarily over heresy but a result of a power struggle between the Roman bishop and the East. I DO lament that. BUT, the point is, I have a pastor too. And a bishop. And yes, they were ordained by the ordained - all the way back to the Apostles EXACTLY as was your pastor and bishop. Friend, it's just not as easy as each denomination insisting, "But I myself alone am the sole authority - infallible and unaccountable" Not even if self claims Jesus founded self (as any conversation with a Mormon reminds us). The RCC is as "un-united" as ANY of the 35,000 denominations (worse than most). IF we are going to work this out (and I've become pretty pessimistic in my old age), we're going to have to get past the ME-ism, the institutionalism, the accountability-evading self-claims of self alone for self alone, the "just docilicly agree with ME and then we'll all agree" place where we are "at." And (sorry, but it IS my view): it's the RCC that dug this hole and got us "stuck." LONG before Luther was born. And no one seems insistant upon this, no one promotes this, even today, than does the RCC. Of course, you disagree.

NewMan99 said:

A second time he said to him, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep." John 21:16

Click to expand...

Now, my unseparated and equal brother, I do NOT question your faith here. No more than I question the Mormon's faith that "other sheep" means American Natives or that Jesus entrusted all this to His Apostle Joseph Smith. It's hard to argue issues of pure articles of faith. But we all know the "interpretation" of the RCC on this singular verse. No other but the RCC agrees with it, and it does seem pretty self-serving just on the face of it. And frankly, without a LONG,LONG chain of assumptive leaps based on this particular interpretation of self for self, it doesn't "work" anyway. I think we both know that. Again, I KNOW and appreciate the sincerity of your faith here. And I KNOW (I honestly do!) that the ENTIRE CATHOLIC CHURCH - all of it, all rests on this. I know that. So, I would be shocked if you didn't make this point right here.



I just don't have the energy, but you already know. I realize the argument that the Pope has been using for centuries now in the effort to justify all the division, power-grabs, control, etc. Sorry, but IMHO, it's totally baseless. All Jesus is telling him is to feed his sheep. It's what all pastors are to do. And it has nothing to do with Pope Benedict (wonderful man that he is) or with ANY denomination or with ANY diocese. I wish we could get past all the obsession with ME, IT, control, power, authority, lordship of men over men. Jesus said, "You know how the gentiles lord it over each other, how their men exercise authority. It shall not be so among you." Well, Christianity moved into the gentile world and..... Yes, my friend, we all know how the RCC "supports" what it has done. And I know you believe it so. I'll need to say to you what I say to my Mormon friend when we have this exact same conversation (only the names and denominations change): we're just going to have to leave it at that.


Originally Posted by NewMan99

I am not taking "the Protestant position." I am merely stating a fact. The Church we see in the New Testament lacks the division, sectarianism, and denominationalism we see today in the wake of the Protestant Reformation.
​

Some comments....


1. Again, my degree is not in early Christianity, but from what I know, never in all Christian history was there less doctrinal unity and definition than before the 4th century.


2. IMHO, it was primarily the RCC that created the division, institutionalism, denominationalism, authoritarism, etc. of which you decry. CENTURIES before Luther was born.


3. I know that the specific, singular Catholic Church is officially and currently in agreement with itself in all things it thinks good to agree on. It has a unity of one: itself with itself. Now, IF you call that "unity" then the same is true for the other 34,999 denominations our Catholic friends around here insist exist. The WORSE that can be said is that there are other denominations as "bad" in this regard as the RCC is (although most not).


4. That those 16th Century Christians failed so miserably is something I have OFTEN decried here at CF and elsewhere. PERHAPS, if the RCC had not dug itself soooooooooo deep into the pit of me-ism, insititutionalism, authoritarianism, protectionism, lordship. Perhaps if Luther had been more skilled in politics, less polemic, more patient. Perhaps if all this wasn't against a HUGE political mileau that Luther never understood and often ruled the say - MAYBE, MAYBE all it would have turned out differently. Well, Trent put the nail in that. In anycase, what is is. The RCC has continued down that path, continued to declare additional things as dogmas, continue to build wall after wall and burn down bridge after bridge. I think it's all sad. But here's where we differ: The RCC just says, "Accept all the power I claim to have and docilicly accept whatever I say, become under my control - and then we'll agree." Frankly, I'm not so sure self demanding such for self is the best way to pursue truth. And truth matters. IMHO, Luther ENCOUNTERED the problem - he didn't create it. The amazing thing is he survived to die of natural causes. Now, I don't know whether if the Reformers had handled things better would have made any difference or not - a moot question since there are no answers to "what if's." And yes, in too many ways, Protestantism tends to reflect our parent - the RCC, and we need to recognize that. But, IMHO, we aren't going to get anywhere till we get out of the hole that. IMHO, the RCC dug LONG before Luther came along (it started with Constintine). Can it be done? I doubt it. I actually fear that worse days are ahead, but that's another post for another day and thread.



I'd like to get back to the Archbishops points someday....


Pax!


- Josiah



.

MrPolo said:

Thank you for returning my compliment with this.

Click to expand...

We could always make a compliment thread

I know a lot of churches that are trying to emulate the early house churches whose only authority was the story of Jesus which was then put down into the NT and the local elders. Out of this of course evolved the need to control the growing converts was needed and the Bishop priest system was born.

MrPolo said:

Regarding the language of Canon VI, I contend your conclusion of the language is specious (not to mention that interpretation does not fit with the primacy of the Roman Church both before and after Nicea in 325.

Click to expand...

There was no such thing as "primacy of the Roman Church" as Rome later laid claim to.

A good treatment by Mark Bonocore (full article):

"Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis prevail that the Bishop of Alexandria has jurisdiction in all these, since **the like** is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise, in Antioch and the other provinces, let the churches retain their priveledges." (Nicaea, Canon 6).
​

Now, ... Here we see the "big three" one again. ...And they are spoken about as if they have always (Traditionally) been in place. Also, ... There has been much ink spilled over the phrase "the like" when refering to Rome above. Is Nicaea saying that Alexandria has local jurisdiction because Rome has similar local jurisdiction? Or, is Nicaea saying that Alexandria has jurisdiction in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis BECAUSE it is the custom of the Roman Church that Alexandria holds jurisdiction here? ...That Rome recognizes the local jurisdiction of Alexandria ...and of Antioch as well? Well, ... I say it's the latter. And, again ... See the quote from Pope Damasus:

"The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman church, which has neither stain nor blemish, nor anything like that. The second see is that of Alexandria, consecrated on behalf of the blessed Peter by Mark, his disciple and an Evangelist, who was sent to Egypt by the Apostle Peter, where he preached the word of truth and finished his glorious martyrdom. The third see is that of Antioch, which belonged to the most blessed Peter, where first he dwelled before he came to Rome, and where the name "Christians" was first applied, as to a new people." (Decree of Damasus # 3, 382 A.D.)
​

See also the Epistle of Pope Julius I (A,D. 342) ...a contemporary of Nicaea itself ...where he writes to the Byzantine court to complain about St. Athanasius and St. Marcellus when they were deposed by the Arians from their sees of Alexandria and Antioch, respectfully:

"It behoved you to write to us that thus what is just might be decreed for all. For they who suffered were bishops, and the Churches that suffered no common ones, over which the Apostles ruled in person. And why were we (the Pope) not written to concerning the Church, *****especially Alexandria*****? Or are they (the Arians) ignorant that ****this has been the custom first to write to us, and thus what is just be decreed from this place (Rome)*****? If therefore, any such suspicion fell upon the bishop there (Alexandria), it was benefitting to write to this Church (Rome)." (Julius, Ep. n. 6,21.)
​

So, again, we have Rome defending the Traditional set up. And Julius' statement that Rome has authority to give rulings over Alexandria (the 2nd See) places Canon 6 of Nicaea into its proper context. The jurisdiction of Alexandria (over Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis) was recognized by the Council ***because*** that was the custom of Rome (i.e., Peter --when at Rome --had sent his disciple Mark to preside over Alexandria, allowing that see to participate in the Petrine ministry of Rome through ties of discipleship).
​

At the end of the day, one has to read into the phrase "the like" in Canon VI from Nicea to mean equality in authority, and the text neither confirms nor excludes that as the meaning. But in historical context, it can be seen that Nicea was not defining equality of authority among Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch.

Click to expand...

Well, of course Bonocore is going to present the Roman spin on the subject.

At the very least, I think you have helped show that the only serious Churches to even be considered as the true Church Christ set up are the Catholic and Orthodox.

Click to expand...

Wrong again! You have cut and pasted Roman Catholic spin is all you have done.

Now for the facts.

The authority given to Peter was given to all the Apostles and in turn, to all believers.

1.There are no explicit references to a papacy in the earliest centuries of Christianity. Catholic apologists often suggest that a papacy is alluded to in Matthew 16, John 21, First Clement, Against Heresies, and other early documents, but all of these documents can reasonably be interpreted in non-papal ways. There are explicit references to the church offices of bishop and deacon, as well as doctrines such as Christ's deity, the Trinity, and the eucharist, but there aren't any explicit references to a papacy.

2. Many of the words and actions of the earliest Christians contradict the concept of a papacy. The disciples repeatedly argued about who was the greatest among them, even after the words of Matthew 16:18-19 were spoken (Luke 22:24). The disciples don't seem to have had any concept of Peter having been established as their ruler. Paul wrote about apostles (plural), not a Pope, being the highest order in the church (1 Corinthians 12:28). He also wrote that, in terms of apostolic authority, he was in no way inferior to any other apostle (2 Corinthians 12:11). Many events in early post-apostolic church history, such as Polycarp's disagreements with the Roman bishop Anicetus and Cyprian's disagreements with the Roman bishop Stephen, also contradict the concept of a papacy (http://members.aol.com/jasonte2/denials.htm).

3. The earliest non-Christian sources who commented on Christianity said nothing about a papacy. Though Pliny the Younger, Celsus, Lucian, and other early non-Christian sources wrote about the eucharist, Christ's deity, and other Christian doctrines, they didn't say anything about a papacy. If one man was viewed as the ruler of all Christians on earth, the "Vicar of Christ" and "Bishop of bishops", he would have been an ideal object of criticism. None of the earliest non-Christian sources seem to have any concept of a papacy, though.

4. The earliest interpretations of the scripture passages most often cited in favor of a papacy are all non-papal. Tertullian (On Modesty, 21) writes that Peter was the "rock" of Matthew 16:18 in the sense that he played a major role in founding the Christian church. He identifies the usage of the "keys" of Matthew 16:19 not as papal authority, but as the preaching of the gospel and the exercising of church discipline. Origen (Commentary on Matthew, 10-11) writes that everybody who confesses the faith Peter confessed in Matthew 16:18 is also a "rock". He emphasizes that Matthew 16:18 doesn't apply only to Peter, and he says nothing about this passage applying in any exclusive way to the bishops of Rome. Cyprian (Epistle 26) writes that all bishops, not just the bishop of Rome, are the successors of Peter, so that Matthew 16:18 applies to all of them. The Apostolical Constitutions (6:5) refers to Luke 22:32 as a passage about the faith of all Christians, and says nothing of a papacy or of this passage referring to papal infallibility. Cyril of Alexandria, John Chrysostom, Augustine, and other church fathers also interpreted Matthew 16, Luke 22, and John 21 in non-Roman-Catholic ways. Some church fathers even applied multiple interpretations to these passages of scripture, but the earliest church fathers never applied the Roman Catholic interpretations to these passages.

5. Men like Clement of Alexandria (The Stromata), Cyprian (On the Unity of the Church), and Augustine (Sermons) wrote entire treatises relating to church government and Christian doctrine without mentioning a papacy. Offices such as bishop and deacon are mentioned over and over again, councils are discussed, and the authority of scripture is referred to again and again, yet nobody in the earliest centuries of Christianity writes about papal authority. There are treatises instructing Christians on how to interpret scripture, explaining how to view doctrines like the incarnation and the Trinity, and encouraging Christians to obey bishops and other church leaders. There are no treatises devoted to a papal office, though, nor is a papacy even mentioned. For example, the influential bishop of Carthage, Cyprian, wrote a treatise on church government and unity (On the Unity of the Church) that not only doesn't mention a papacy, but even contradicts the concept.

Not only did many church fathers not see Peter as the "rock", but some, such as Jerome and Augustine, even changed their interpretation of Matthew 16:18 from time to time. This was a passage considered to be open to multiple interpretations, with the interpretation of "rock" not considered a matter of much importance. Obviously, the early church didn't see this passage as the foundation for a papal office. Origen, commenting on Matthew 16 early in the third century, reflects the early church's ignorance of the papal interpretation of the passage:
And if we too have said like Peter, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God," not as if flesh and blood had revealed it unto us, but by light from the Father in heaven having shone in our heart, we become a Peter, and to us there might be said by the Word, "Thou art Peter," etc. For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, and upon every such rock is built every word of the church, and the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God. But if you suppose upon the one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles? Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but that they shall prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect? Does not the saying previously made, "The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it," hold in regard to all and in the case of each of them? And also the saying, "Upon this rock I will build My church"? (Commentary on Matthew, 10-11)

MrPolo said:

I think with a little more in depth study, obviously, that the Catholic Church headed by the Pope can be seen as the true Church.

Click to expand...

Since you think your religion is the "one true church", then all others are false churches, and therefore not Christian, which is keeping in conformity with the "Tradition" of the Roman Catholic religion since Unam Sanctum.

At this point it is imperative to inform you that your religion is not "The Church", never has been and never will be.

Originally Posted by MrPolo

LittleLambofJesus said:

We believe the RCC and Papacy strayed from the ancient apostolic Church that Jesus and the Apostles set up and why we are and will always remain in "schism" with your "church".

Click to expand...

The facts back up your assessment.

CJ,

Thanks for the response.

Now...let's clarify a little more.

If I understand you correctly (and please correct me if I don't), you seem to be saying that prior to its legalization in the early 4th century, Christianity was a "movement" - and then after its legalization it became a "denomination".

Assuming I understand you correctly, what is it about its "legalization" that changed it from a movement to a denomination? Why would legalization make a difference?

As far a me personally, you are right that I try to avoid many of the typical apologetical arguments. Most of the people in these threads have already hashed through them before, plus they are not always the best or most effective ways to approach any given topic. I think I am somewhat unusual in that I grew up in a traditional classic Protestant (Methodist) home, but very large portions of my extended family are hard-core Evangelicals (plus my wife grew up Pentecostal). So I have been exposed to a very wide spectrum of Protestant thought...additionally...I am sincerely appreciative of my Protestant heritage and all the good things it taught me. It was as a Protestant that I first came to know and love the Lord. So my basic approach is NOT to win arguments, but rather to build bridges of understanding. Whether or not someone eventually comes to agree with my views, or me with theirs, is somewhat beside the point (but always nice when that happens) - the point is to enter into a meaningful dialog in a charitable way, providing a good example of Christian fellowship for seekers and lurkers, while learning something along the way. If that happens, then it will be an edifying experience wherein we can gain in terms of our ongoing sanctification if not also in terms of moving one step closer to grasping in a deeper way objective and Revealed Truth. All this arguing (for the sake of arguing) and debating (to feel superior to another) and trying to score points and win arguments and testosterone flexing is not what mature Christians should be doing...and that is a significant problem with a lot of Christian apologetics across the board - and, to me, that is an equal-opportunity affliction that hampers Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox alike. As for me, all I want to do is to explain my understanding of the faith, and let the Holy Spirit do the heavy lifting beyond that point. It isn't in my job description to convert others or to score points to bolster my ego. Pride is a difficult enough temptation for anyone...nobody should be going out to look for that kind of trouble. So that is my philosophy and my own personal rules of conduct I try to impose on myself. Obviously, as a human, I can err and I can break my own rules and fall into traps related to my human frailty. But overall at least I try, and I think that there are some others that do this too with varying degrees of success.

God's Peace,

NewMan

NewMan99 said:

CJ,

Thanks for the response.

Now...let's clarify a little more.

If I understand you correctly (and please correct me if I don't), you seem to be saying that prior to its legalization in the early 4th century, Christianity was a "movement" - and then after its legalization it became a "denomination".

Assuming I understand you correctly, what is it about its "legalization" that changed it from a movement to a denomination? Why would legalization make a difference?

Click to expand...

I don't think that legalization had anything to do it with, I think ROME did (just a theory - again, my degree is not in the early history of Christainity). We know precious little about Christianity before the 4th century - amazingly little. And being an illegal, persecuted, "underground" movement doesn't help - it discouraged the kinds of records, institutions, etc. that would have given us a better understanding.

Christianity is one of two large, historic world religions to be founded and begun in one culture but develop and grow in an ENTIRELY different one (Buddhism being the other). Again, no "value judgments" there, just what happened (and remember: I'm "western" too - with my roots entirely in Catholicism; I'm not Oriental Orthodox or Messiaic, so I'm embracing that - not denoucing it). As even a lay person as I knows, Rome was OBSESSED with centrality, power, authority, lordship. Things were very TOP DOWN with a LOT of stress on absolute authority and docilic obedience. Rome didn't like loose ends, "loosy-goosey," mysteries, tensions, balances. Roman Empirors wanted to know - whose in control? Who is the CO, the CEO, the Boss? What is THE dogmatic answer to this question? What is the chain of command? And so I think the "pull" was for the creation of AN institutional denomination - creating quite in its own image. Now, I disagree with you and my "non-denom" Protestant freinds that this is a bad thing and we all need to return to entirely autonomous, independent "house churches" all going it solo style. I actually think what Rome encouraged is a GOOD thing (well, organized too much like Rome, but you know that, lol). I embrace community, cooperation, accountability and THEREFORE embrace congregations and denominations. But, I suspect (that's all) that if Christ had Returned in 297 - no denomination would have existed. He would have found hundreds of thousands of Christians, thousands of congregations (all but literally a handful "house churches") a pretty loose system of governance and nearly all of that limited to the congregation. Pretty loose! No denomination; weak institutions - and none of those beyond the local congregation. Again, PART of this was because of the illegal status of the faith (I read an article about the history of the church in Communist China - made me think a LOT of the early history of Christianity). But I also think PART of it was because Christians then understood Christians as PEOPLE, not a single denominational institution in Rome's image. There was a struggle for Truth in those days (when diversity of thought was greater than it commonly is today) but not the struggle for lordship, power that developed from the 4th century on.

As far a me personally, you are right that I try to avoid many of the typical apologetical arguments.

Click to expand...

ONE of the reasons I enjoy chatting with you....

NewMan99 said:

I think I am somewhat unusual in that I grew up in a traditional classic Protestant (Methodist) home, but very large portions of my extended family are hard-core Evangelicals (plus my wife grew up Pentecostal). So I have been exposed to a very wide spectrum of Protestant thought

Click to expand...

1. MY very limited experience is that most Catholic converts come from either very liberal mainstream Protestantism or even more from very radical forms of fundamentalism/evangelicalism. Thing is, I'd FAR prefer Catholicism to those, too. In fact, I was just as kid (no comments, Bob) when I essentially LEFT a mainstream Protestant denomination FOR Catholicism. Same as you did. You need to remember that I'm the son of a Protestant minister - so there were cultural issues at work for me that made that a bit more significant, perhaps, for me (and my famility). I STILL regard myself as 95% in agreement with Catholicism, but not Catholic since I'm not a part of that institution and technically never was. If I lived in a town were my choices were a liberal Methodist church, an Assembly of God church and a Catholic Church - NO QUESTION: I'd be active at the Catholic Church (I just couldn't officially join and would be barred from the Holy Eucharist). It is THIS that makes for my "unusual" status here at CF. A lot of Lutherans and Anglicans have pretty much the same status. In another website I once was active at, the Admin/owner told me: "The worse place to be in any war is in the no-man's land; you'll be shot at from both sides and defended by neither." Over the past 10 years or so, I've been "eschorted" to the exit door of the site because I was "too Catholic" and because I was "too Protestant." Life...

...additionally...I am sincerely appreciative of my Protestant heritage and all the good things it taught me. It was as a Protestant that I first came to know and love the Lord.

Click to expand...

Me, too.

My journey (THUS FAR!!!!!!) has been a rich, deep, blessing. I regret NONE of it. I think I have an entire thread here in GT about how the CC blessed me and all the reasons I'm grateful to Her for those blessings. As you probably know (well, Debbie does for sure), I am officially on record repeatedly here for stating that I have a VERY high regard for the RCC and regard it as one of the very best denominations in the world. I regard her, her ministers and ministries as valid; I regard all the Christians in Her as my FULL, UNseparated and equal brothers and sisters in Christ; I regard nothing she teaches as heretical in the sense of being unbiblical; I probably agree with 95% of what it teaches (which my priest said was "better than most Catholics!" - lol); and I pray DAILY for God's richest blessings to Her, Her ministers and ministries and the Holy Father. Now, I know you cannot say the same about my denomination or me - and that's okay, but my views are sincere and passionate and public. MUCH of my spirituality is a DIRECT RESULT of my years in Catholicism. I'm passionately Sacramental, Liturgical and pro-life. I still HAVE to Cross myself at all the appropriate times and still occasionally pray the Rosary. My "leaving" the RCC was not a bitter one, but because I felt it the only honest option for me and I did it with great regret. But God works all for good: in Lutheranism, I'm finding the same spirituality and the same doctrines that I agreed with in Catholicism - but with the humility, community and accountability that I find important. We all have our journies....

So my basic approach is NOT to win arguments, but rather to build bridges of understanding.

Click to expand...

Me, too. So I find it frustrating that there are a FEW (occasionally in high places) that so horribly misunderstand me, at times. A source of AMAZING frustration for me. Too many make HUGE unfounded assumptions about me. I can be passionate and perhaps not as smart and articulate as you - perhaps that contributes to that.

It's mostly about RESPECT, but also an extension of my theology. Because there's no one here in GT that NEEDS to be converted, IMHO. It's also a humility thing: I don't regard myself as an infallible teacher of the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I'm just ONE tiny part of His Church - accountable, fallible, limited. I'm EMBRACING my brothers and sisters in Christ, not warring with them. I WANT to learn and be corrected - and I tend to assume (yes, I KNOW the meaning of that word) that others gave the same view of self and same "agenda." Of course, many don't.

NewMan99 said:

Whether or not someone eventually comes to agree with my views, or me with theirs, is somewhat beside the point (but always nice when that happens) - the point is to enter into a meaningful dialog in a charitable way, providing a good example of Christian fellowship for seekers and lurkers, while learning something along the way. If that happens, then it will be an edifying experience wherein we can gain in terms of our ongoing sanctification if not also in terms of moving one step closer to grasping in a deeper way objective and Revealed Truth. All this arguing (for the sake of arguing) and debating (to feel superior to another) and trying to score points and win arguments and testosterone flexing is not what mature Christians should be doing...and that is a significant problem with a lot of Christian apologetics across the board - and, to me, that is an equal-opportunity affliction that hampers Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox alike. As for me, all I want to do is to explain my understanding of the faith, and let the Holy Spirit do the heavy lifting beyond that point. It isn't in my job description to convert others or to score points to bolster my ego. Pride is a difficult enough temptation for anyone...nobody should be going out to look for that kind of trouble. So that is my philosophy and my own personal rules of conduct I try to impose on myself. Obviously, as a human, I can err and I can break my own rules and fall into traps related to my human frailty. But overall at least I try, and I think that there are some others that do this too with varying degrees of success.

Click to expand...

My veiw is similar.

Desiring people to agree with ME would require an egoism that I find unacceptable. But I'm willing to walk WITH them....

From my years in Protestantism, I learned - first hand - that misunderstandings, mischaracterizations and strawmen vis-a-vis Catholicism abound. They continue (perhaps for centuries) because Protestants assume that their protestant teachers understand Catholicism better than Catholics do. And from my years in Catholicism, I learned - first hand - that misunderstandings, mischaracterizations and strawmen vis-a-vis Protestantism abound (BTW, part of the 'problem' here is that the "Protestantism" of which it speaks - if it exists at all - is a radical, tiny sub-set of Protestantism that most Protestants reject, too). Witness the "Catholic worship Mary" and "Protestants believe the Bible floated down from heaven" type threads that abound here. We have a GREAT opportunity to get past all that because CF welcomes us to come TOGETHER, face-to-face, heart-to-heart, in frank, open, honest (and even blunt) discussions. IT'S THE ONLY WAY WE CAN UNDERSTAND EACH OTHER. You and I have had some passionate disagreements on this, I know. But I'm passionate about building bridges and encouraging these talks, I know your view about walls. Let's not "re-hash" all that (I've been eliminated from Staff so it's moot, lol).





Well, I'm hoping we can get back to the Archbishops' views on the papacy.


Thanks for the chat.


Pax


- Josiah




.