Peter and the Keys, Catholicism and the Pope

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Attested by Eusebius


"The ecclesiastical history of Eusebius Pamphilus

ECCLESIASTICAL fflSTORY. 101

CHAPTER XVI.

The Epistle of Clement

Of this Clement there is one epistle extant, acknowledged as
genuine, of considerable length and of great merit, which he
wrote in the name of the church at Rome, to that of Corinth, at
the time when there was a dissension in the latter. This we know to have been publicly read for common benefit, in most of
the churches, both in former times and in our own ; and that at
the time mentioned a sedition did take place at Corinth, is abund-
antly attested by Hegesippus.

1. You didn't give a date for this work by the one, Eusebius Pamphilus

2. Your snippet says NOTHING whatsoever about Clement being any Pope or being regarded as such. Nor does it offer a single thing to support (or even to address the 4 distinctive aspects of the Papacy as our friend and brother, NewMan99, so designated - thus nothing to do with the papacy at all.




.

 

[WarriorAngel]

CJ - St Ireneaus listed Clement l as a successor to Peter.
Which is who we call the Pope.

Hope that clarifies it for ya.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Yes - my claim (contrary to what CJ says about my claim) is that Jesus founded the Church and commissioned Peter for a special ministry...and this ministry developed through time. It did not "evolve" - it did not just pop up out of the blue - it has existed since Peter even though its style changed as the needs of the Church changed.

1. I'd rather you addressed me about what I said....

2. IF you are now saying that the Papacy of the RC ____________ developed ("steps toward") then, ironcially, you are now agreeing with the Protestant position and with what I theorized and you so much objected to and was going to prove was not the case.

3. You have the 4 distinctives of the Papacy (not I), and you stated that Jesus created such (during His earthly ministry - thus in or before 30 AD or so). Thus, for your statement to have credence, it needs to be reveals that such existed in 30 AD or before. To say that "the first evidence of even a first step toward comes 60 years AFTER the end of His earthly public ministry" is to not supply the evidence that Jesus created the Papacy as YOU defined in or before 30 AD.

4. You seem to stumble much over words; "steps toward" or "eventually became" or "developed into" are all essentially the same thing to me. The point is: Your claim is that the Papacy (again, with the 4 points YOU stated define such) were in place in 30 AD or before and that Jesus establsihed such - and that's what you promised to document. I honestly don't think all your effort was intended to reveal your point incorrect and the Protestant point valid: That there is no evidence of the Papacy (even as YOU define such) in the first century and that this idea developed withing your specific ________________ quite gradually - and there is zero connection to Jesus or the Apostles in such that can be substantiated. In fact, I have kept your posts in a file on my computer FOR THIS PURPOSE: so that I can reveal that the Protestant position is, it seems, well documented by history - even as presented by an esteemed professional Catholic apologist. IMHO, you have very well documented that there was no concept of the Papacy for a considerable time - longer, frankly, that I would have thought. And it really doesn't become recognizable as such well into the 6th century - and even then, not so clearly. I'm rather surprised by how clear it is that all this Papacy was unknown to the early church - or at least so the known evidence suggests.


I appreciate all your effort! I'm sorry you choose to stop all discussions with me before I responded to your "witnesses" and that you are so very offended by my term "denomination" (in spite of post 473 - and your reply in 474 ) and think I'm defending purposeful offensive slurs (in spite of what you know I said in in post 597 ). You KNOW the esteem I have for you and how I embrace you (and we've seen how you've spoken of and to me). I honestly and humbly think that if you read my posts, all your anger at me and all the offense and determination not to respond would have been avoided - I'm truly sad about that. You KNOW my view of the Catholic Church - it's a matter of frequent and public record here at CF (and has been for years). You KNOW how much I celebrate and affirm the concept of Christian community (and thus congregations and denominations); you KNOW that I specific said that I'm defending NO ONE who said ANYTHING, so all the things you've said at me and your anger and such makes me very sad. IF there's anything we can do about that, let me know (assuming you care).




.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

CJ - St Ireneaus listed Clement l as a successor to Peter

Thank you. Would you give the quote (reference and with date)? Actually, the quote NewMan99 gave listed the church in Rome as having been once pastored as Peter AND PAUL - with no reference whatsoever to any keys or SURPREME infallible authority or lordship over all Chrsitians everywhere. Just that Peter and PAUL were once teachers in that congregation (a point few Protestants contest but entirely moot to the issue before us).

And I'm a successor to Betty. She had my job before me (and none before her). She was instrumental in hiring me. What can I therefore claim as a result of such, that I'm a successor to Betty? I'm sure you see my point....



What we are addressing are the 4 distinctives of the Papacy as NewMan99 gave. THAT is the papacy. Now, he claims Jesus created such (during His earthly ministry - meaning in or before 30 AD or so). The SUPREME, infallible, powerful, authoritative lord over all Christians BECAUSE he is the specific, singular bishop of the diocese of Rome and thus has the "keys" Jesus gave to Peter (exclusively). THAT is what is claimed. Now, the question before us is singular: Does the historic record affirm that? OR is the Protestant position better affirmed by history: That the concept of the Papacy in the RCC is not evidenced in the first centiury at all (much less to Jesus during His earthly ministry), but that slowly, graduately, "steps toward," the concept developed in your denomination - toward these 4 things that are the Papacy. Now, the historian that NewMan99 so praises says that in 90 AD, we have the "first step TOWARD such an understanding" (meaning, no known step before that - which NewMan99 affirmed is the case). But, actually, we all saw that Clement wasn't even a "first step toward" it. Now, in the Sixth Century, NewMan99 has some good stuff! But isn't that affirming the Protestant position and showing the Catholic one to be unsubstantiated? It seems so to me.


From my perspective, the history NewMan99 so graciously shared with us reveals the RCC claim entirely baseless, but gives some credence to the Protestant position that there's no known evidence for the Papacy from the days of Jesus and the Apostles, but that it developed in "steps toward" that understanding over centuries. What NewMan99 make pretty clear to me is that it started very late. In this tread, I just shared my THEORY (nothing more than that) that it may have been associated with the legalization in the early 4th century; his historical evidence actually gives some credence to that. In any case, he offered NOTHING for even a FIRST STEP TOWARD such a concept until SIXTY YEARS after the ministry of Jesus, when only John would have been alive (yet) - and admits he has NOTHING before that, and what he has from that point is not only (IMHO) entirely moot but, as the Orthodox here noted, MAY actually reveal "first step toward" the ORTHODOX understanding (not the Papacy).


I KNOW, from being involved with Protestant and Catholic (and Mormon) apologists, that what NewMan99 offered would not be regarded as much if it had been offered by a Protantant, LDS or any other non-RCC person. Now, does that matter? Well, if we were talking about DOGMAS such as the Assumption of Mary or the DOGMA of Transubstantiation - maybe not. But this one - the RCC Papacy - is probably the most central dividing issue in all of Christianity, and has been for centuries before Luther was born. I don't know how much of an issue it was in the first split in the Roman denomination (451, as I recall) since there may well have not been any Papacy yet. But I know it was the major issue in the East/West divide that finally resulted in 1054. And a major issue in 1521. From what at least one Orthodox told me, perhaps the single largest issue still today. Since it is such a HUGE and historic divide, perhaps the largest single issue that prevents unity, it seems to ME it's an issue of considerable importance - perhaps the #1 issue. That ALONE suggests a level of substantiation highest of all, not that leaves the RCC position essentially baseless/unsubstantiated and the other positions rather well substantiated - that doesn't advance the RCC cause. This is perhaps the # 1 issue of divide among the world's Christians. One denomination insists on all this: whether it's true seems relevant to me - in terms of unity. IMHO.


Now, one more point: NO ONE questions the sincerity of those who believe all this. NO ONE is questioning the article of faith. And I will respect the faith of my Catholic brothers and sisters to the exact same degree that they respect mine; their denomination to the exact same degree they respect mine, etc. The issue is not: Is this believed? The issue is: is it true. The task of an apologist (like NewMan99) is to show that it is true in compelling and convincing ways. IMHO, he actually gave credence to the Protestant position and nothing to the Catholic one. He will, of course, disagree - but I laid it all out in my post - even though he said he would not discuss my replies.



Thank you, my brother!


Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Actually - St Irenaeus was genuis in adding to the fact not only did Rome contain the succession of the Prince of the Apostles, Peter, but also adding in the Apostle who taught the Gentiles - Paul.
So in a way - the two converging into the Chair only makes the Chair of Peter more significant.

Because the umpteen hundred quotes i have on the Pope BUT also the fact the most versed Apostle Paul.

However; St Irenaeus lived around the time of 175 AD when he wrote. He was born about 130 AD and was a disciple under St Polycarp who was a Bishop thru St John the Apostle and his friend.


So ya want me to do the leg work eh?
Ok fine..

The two authorities presuppose the following list: (1) Peter, xxv; (2) Linus, xii; (3) Anencletus [Cletus], xii; (4) Clement, ix; (5) Evarestus, viii; (6) Alexander, x; (7) Sixtus, x; (8) Telesophorus, xi; (9) Hyginus, iv; (10) Pius, xv; (11) Anicetus, xi;, (12) Soter, viii; (13) Eleutherius, xv; (14) Victor, x; (15) Zephyrinus, xviii; (16) Callistus, v; (17) Urban, viii; (18) Pontian, v (Harnack, "Chronologie", I, 152).

St Irenaeus writes [pay attention BECAUSE he states] in the 1st paragraph here that St Peter's line is VERY significant compared to the other's.


2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spoke with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.

4. But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true.

CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.3 (St. Irenaeus)

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

So ya want me to do the leg work eh?

Sure. (Not sure how what you gave in your post has any relevance, but thank you).

What I'd suggest is first to define EXACTLY what is the Catholic Papacy? You might want to review the 4 points that our Catholic brother and professional apologist gave. I'll permit you to define EXACTLY what it is, so that we're talking specificly about the Papacy.

Then, of course, you are invited to share the historic evidence for that specific PAPACY from 30 AD (actually, I think I allowed NewMan99 to 65 AD even though that eliminates the whole foundational arguement of created by Jesus).

If you end up doing as NewMan99 did, showing NOTHING until 90 AD at the earliest (and even that EXTREMELY faint and questionable - and probably more supportive of the Orthodox view than the Papacy), but rather evidencing something very slowly developing, step-by-step, TOWARD a concept of the Papacy, within your denomination, not becoming historically evident until well after legalization - they you will actually undermine the Catholic position (and make it baseless; well, unsubstantiated) and give solid credence to the Protestant position.


Thank you!


Pax


- Josiah




.

 

[Standing Up]

In pp 59 and 63 Clement said it would be a sin to "disobey Him through us", to "become obedient to the words written by us and through the Holy Spirit". I hear Mt 16:19 in that ... "whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." - you just hear "advice"?

Surely you don't think that just because Clement was trying to throw his weight around or build his reputation by sounding off in this way...that this means it is to be taken as literally correct or was accepted by the Church as something uniquely authorized by Christ, do you? You wouldn't say that about the comments of most other religious leaders in the past, but here it's supposed to be a "given."

Clements letter was accepted by the church at Corinth, read in their liturgy as part of their canon for centuries, and circulated widely. Ultimately it didn't make it into the universal canon but sometimes I wonder where we'd be if it did Which is not to say I consider it scripture - I don't.

Clement of Rome who associates the factual resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ with his assertion of fact of the mythical Phoenix. Do you skip that part? Heliopolis means what? Egypt and Alexandria? Do you really want that as scripture? Wait, it is read as liturgy?

See The Phoenix thread for more info.

You know, maybe I'm not sure what liturgy is? NewMan99 says liturgical as if it's not so meaningful. Comments anyone?

 

[NewMan99]

1. I'd rather you addressed me about what I said...

And I'd rather that you not defend or rationalize the use of religious slurs that are the equivalent of the "n" word.

2. IF you are now saying that the Papacy of the RC ____________ developed ("steps toward") then, ironcially, you are now agreeing with the Protestant position and with what I theorized and you so much objected to and was going to prove was not the case.

The STYLE developed. The nature of the office itself did not. The Protestant position is that the Papacy started out of NOTHING and then developed from there. The Catholic position is that the Papacy was founded by Christ on Peter and his successors, and developed from there.

3. You have the 4 distinctives of the Papacy (not I), and you stated that Jesus created such (during His earthly ministry - thus in or before 30 AD or so).

I never enumerated them. There are likely more than 4.

Thus, for your statement to have credence, it needs to be reveals that such existed in 30 AD or before.

Whatever. For it to be true - it just has to be True - regardless of how you or I perceive it.

To say that "the first evidence of even a first step toward comes 60 years AFTER the end of His earthly public ministry" is to not supply the evidence that Jesus created the Papacy as YOU defined in or before 30 AD.

I never once said that. What a shock you would insert words in my mouth. I said it was the first KNOWN HISTORICAL evidence above and beyond the BIBLICAL evidence. Furthermore, ALL of the historical evidence from the Early Church supports the claims that the Church of Rome exercised universal jurisdiction on matters of unity and orthodoxy - and the reasons given BY THEM - those who KNEW THE APOSTLES PERSONALLY - were pretty explicitly related to the Petrine ministry. Deny it all you want, for some people no amount of evidence will suffice. St. Peter himself could sit next to you and you would find a way to argue with him.

4. You seem to stumble much over words; "steps toward" or "eventually became" or "developed into" are all essentially the same thing to me.

Words mean something. It is your incorrect, illogical, and inconsistent use of them that "stumbled" the conversation.

The point is: Your claim is that the Papacy (again, with the 4 points YOU stated define such) were in place in 30 AD or before and that Jesus establsihed such - and that's what you promised to document.

Nope. Never promised that. I don't even know what 4 points you are referring to. What I promised was to illustrate that the Apostlic Era Church considered the Church of Rome to have universal jurisdiction on matters of unity and orthodoxy. I also promised to show that the people who knew the Apostles (and their disciples) would not only speak of the authority of the Church of Rome, but would cite its Petrine minstry as a reason for their obedience.

I honestly don't think all your effort was intended to reveal your point incorrect and the Protestant point valid: That there is no evidence of the Papacy (even as YOU define such) in the first century and that this idea developed withing your specific ________________ quite gradually - and there is zero connection to Jesus or the Apostles in such that can be substantiated.

For some no amount of evidence will suffice.

In fact, I have kept your posts in a file on my computer FOR THIS PURPOSE: so that I can reveal that the Protestant position is, it seems, well documented by history - even as presented by an esteemed professional Catholic apologist.

Reveal it to whom? You do not have my permission to use it except for your own personal purposes.

IMHO, you have very well documented that there was no concept of the Papacy for a considerable time - longer, frankly, that I would have thought.

Of course, to a 21 year old anything longer than a month is a long time. For crying out loud, Clement was a CO-WORKER to BOTH Peter and Paul - and exercised his authority over the Corinthians WHILE the Apostle John was still alive. I don't know how much more current you would want it. You can't get any earlier than the Apostlic era, unless you want to go back to the Old Covenant.

Again...for some no amount of evidence will suffice.

And it really doesn't become recognizable as such well into the 6th century - and even then, not so clearly.

What do you mean by "as such"...you mean where a guy sits on a throne wearing a pointy hat? And what do you mean by "not so clearly"? I guess the LITERALLY dozens of citations I have quoted throughout this thread from the early Church ALL speaking of the Petrine office and authority of the Bishop of Rome don't mean much. Deny. Deny. Deny. Whatever.

I'm rather surprised by how clear it is that all this Papacy was unknown to the early church - or at least so the known evidence suggests.

I cited FIVE Fathers from the APOSTOLIC ERA. ALL FIVE of them (three of whom PERSONALLY knew the Apostles) refer to the authority of Rome and ACT consistently as if the Church of Rome is, indeed, authoritative.

If the papacy was "unknown" - then WHY did Clement presume to command the Corinthians to end their schism and obey their elders - all at a time when the Corinthians had their own presbyters? And WHY would the Corinthians not only APPEAL to Clement in the first place (when an Apostle was living nearby), but then OBEY him later?

If the papacy was unknown, then WHY would Ignatius say that the Church of Rome TAUGHT the other Churches? And why would he say that Rome "presides in the chief place"???

Why is it always the Roman Church instructing and teaching other churches and NEVER the other way around?

If the papacy was unknown, then why would Polycarp travel all the way to Rome as an 85 year old man to PLEAD with the Bishop of Rome? Why didn't the Churches in Asia just do what they wanted to do without caring what the Bishop of Rome had to say?

And so on and on and on and on and on...

For some no amount of evidence will suffice.

I appreciate all your effort! I'm sorry you choose to stop all discussions with me before I responded to your "witnesses" and that you are so very offended by my term "denomination"

I was not upset you used the term. I was upset you continued to use it even after I repeatedly asked you to stop. This is compounded by the fact you have been made aware of this issue by numerous Catholics in numerous threads for years.

(in spite of post 473 - and your reply in 474 ) and think I'm defending purposeful offensive slurs (in spite of what you know I said in in post 597 ).

Whatever. You rationalized the use of the word Romish, etc... Spin it any way you want to. If you did not want to defend it, then you would CONDEMN its usage here at CF (we expect it at places like CARM...I have read your posts over there - at least in the past - so you are well aware of how often these words are used by rabid anti-Catholics), and not "explain" to me that its root word is "Rome" (DUH!) and that I am being hyper-sensitive. Do you also tell people of color to not be hyper-sensitive about the "n" word since it is really just a another word with a legit usage? Standing Up has acted infinitely more charitible in this than you have - and he is the one who first used the word.

You KNOW the esteem I have for you and how I embrace you (and we've seen how you've spoken of and to me). I honestly and humbly think that if you read my posts, all your anger at me and all the offense and determination not to respond would have been avoided - I'm truly sad about that.

No CJ, I don't know the esteem you have for me. Your platitudes are empty. Words mean something - but actions speak louder than words.

You KNOW my view of the Catholic Church - it's a matter of frequent and public record here at CF (and has been for years).

Yes - I am well aware of your view of the LDS...oops...I mean the Catholic Church. Same diff, right?

You KNOW how much I celebrate and affirm the concept of Christian community (and thus congregations and denominations); you KNOW that I specific said that I'm defending NO ONE who said ANYTHING, so all the things you've said at me and your anger and such makes me very sad. IF there's anything we can do about that, let me know (assuming you care).

It's very simple, Josiah. Walk the walk. Don't just talk the talk. Condemn the use of religious slurs, don't rationalize them or try to justify them.

 

[Standing Up]

Attested by Eusebius


"The ecclesiastical history of Eusebius Pamphilus

ECCLESIASTICAL fflSTORY. 101

CHAPTER XVI.

The Epistle of Clement

Of this Clement there is one epistle extant, acknowledged as
genuine, of considerable length and of great merit, which he
wrote in the name of the church at Rome, to that of Corinth, at
the time when there was a dissension in the latter. This we
know to have been publicly read for common benefit, in most of
the churches, both in former times and in our own ; and that at
the time mentioned a sedition did take place at Corinth, is abund-
antly attested by Hegesippus.

Thanks for the input, but let's keep it accurate. Here's Clements opening phrase, which as I pointed out before, doesn't help the RCC claim, but please, let's assume we want truth above all else.

The church of God which sojourns at Rome, to the church of God sojourning at Corinth, to them that are called and sanctified by the will of God, through our Lord Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, from Almighty God through Jesus Christ, be multiplied.

The first phrase certainly sounds equal. The church of God at Rome to the church of God at Corinth. That's it. That's all. There's nothing more to be gleaned. You called, I answered. We're equals.

BUT, there is this with which you should grapple from the same so-called Pope Clement. This sounds off to me:

"Let us consider that wonderful sign [of the resurrection] which takes place in eastern lands, that is, in Arabia and the countries round about. There is a certain bird which is called a phœnix. This is the only one of its kind, and lives five hundred years. And when the time of its dissolution draws near that it must die, it builds itself a nest of frankincense, and myrrh, and other spices, into which, when the time is fulfilled, it enters and dies. But as the flesh decays a certain kind of worm is produced, which, being nourished by the juices of the deed bird, brings forth feathers. Then, when it has acquired strength, it takes up that nest in which are the bones of its parent, and bearing these it passes from the land of Arabia into Egypt, to the city called Heliopolis. And, in open day, flying in the sight of all men, it places them on the altar of the sun, and having done this, hastens back to its former abode. The priests then inspect the registers of the dates, and find that it has returned exactly as the five hundredth year was completed."

No comment necessary. A different thread again.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.


Dear NewMan99,

Thank you for reversing your refusal to speak with me about your "witnesses"; I deeply appreciate that.

I'd rather that you not defend or rationalize the use of religious slurs that are the equivalent of the "n" word.

Here's what I posted, as you well know:

Yes, I DO avoid terms that I'm AWARE are offensive, and I think that should always be the case. I don't speak of anyone as being non-catholic or apostate or separated or outside the church, for example - nothing that could imply that they are not fully Christian. In fact, I try to include that I regard them as my brother/sister, equally a part of the church, unseparated, etc. And, I, as you know, I'm VERY much on public record that I regard the RC _________ as good and valid and that I hold such in very high esteem - thankful for all the rich blessings I received there; that I regard its ministers and ministries as valid; that I regard nothing it officially teaches as unbiblical; that I regard all believers in it as my FULL and UNseparated and EQUAL brothers and sisters in Christ and fully members of the one holy catholic church - the communion of saints; that I pray passionately, fervently and daily for God's richest blessings to it, its ministers and ministries and its Holy Father. I'm on record here at CF for all that - and have been for approaching 4 years. And you know that. ALL of that. So, clearly, I'm on record for saying affirming things about your ___________, things I don't think you'd publicly state about me or my _________________.


Friend, brother and respected Catholic apologist, I haven't defended anyone or anything. I've ONLY said that we should not ASSUME offense with a hyper-sensitivity and radical Political Correctness; and I've suggested that sometimes, questionable things might be best to regard as your Catechism tells us to do - by placing the best construction on things in Christian charity: and moving on.

I refer you to post # 473 (and your reply in 474).


.

Friend, IMHO, you are illustrating the point I'm trying to make: here as in post # 473 and 474. And earlier when you took offensive when I referred to the Bishop of Rome as such.

Friend, we all know that anyone CAN take offense at ANYTHING - and some will. While I never have, still don't and never will defend the purposeful use of offensive language - by a Catholic, Protestant, LDS or any other - and you WELL KNOW THAT - my point is that nor should hyper-sensitivity and run-away Political Correctness CREATE offense where none is implied (such as in seeing me defend calling African Americans by the "n" word when you KNOW I never remotely suggested any such thing, etc, etc.). You KNOW I NEVER defended using using the "n" word!!! You KNOW I never defended using offensive language - I specifically, expressly said the exact opposite - and yet you.....

And brother, some things are just more important, IMHO, than getting all upset over a varient of a word you yourself use with no reason to believe such was meant to be offensive. You CHOSE to be offended over a varient of a word you yourself use. No one MADE you feel angry, offended and all the rest of things you said. But we just seem to be of different spirits here. IMHO, the pursuit of truth, understanding, and unity means that following your Catechisms' instruction about putting the best construction on things, applying some Christian charity, maybe just letting it "pass" for the sake of something more important is a good thing. THAT is the point I made, and I'm 100% sure you know that. We disagree, it seems on the wisdom of that, I realize.

My equal and unseparated brother in Christ, one of my frustrations about CF is this propensity (particularly among our Catholic brothers and sisters) of totally ignoring what is actually said and then getting all offended over the opposite which is not said; getting all offended over the opposite of what is said. And when it is noted that's not what was said and certainly not what was meant - no matter, the offensive is passionately embraced anyway and it seems such is used to terminate the discussion (which is the truly sad part). It use to be even worse than it is now. It just makes our conversations a lot harder than they are already - and this is already hard enough without that! I've allowed HORRIBLE things posted to me, about me, in PM's and otherwise, to just go. Unreported, typically without comment. Because of charity and what I learned from your Catechism but more importantly, because there is something here MORE IMPORTANT than my personal hyper-sensitivity.


You KNOW my view of the Catholic Church - it's a matter of frequent and public record here at CF (and has been for years). You KNOW how much I celebrate and affirm the concept of Christian community (and thus congregations and denominations); you KNOW that I specific said that I'm defending NO ONE who said ANYTHING, so all the things you've said at me and your anger and such makes me very sad. IF there's anything we can do about that, let me know (assuming you care).

IF you are now saying that the Papacy of the RC ____________ developed ("steps toward") then, ironcially, you are now agreeing with the Protestant position and with what I theorized and you so much objected to and was going to prove was not the case.

The STYLE developed. The nature of the office itself did not.

Okay, but the "witnesses" you brought forward did nothing to evidence that. In fact, until the 4th century, they said nothing about the Papacy at all - at least as you defined it. And you admitted that you have NOTHING at all before 90 AD, and as we've all seen, what you had from 90 AD is AT MOST "the first step toward" and understanding of the Catholic Papacy - and IMHO, is entirely moot to the Catholic Papacy and in the opinion of our Orthodox brothers and sisters, reveals an early embrace of the Orthodox understanding rather than of the CAtholic Papacy. IMHO, what you had from some 150 years after the claimed event was no better. What you had from the 6th century, however, seemed pretty clear at least for one or two aspects of the Papacy.

The Protestant position is that the Papacy started out of NOTHING and then developed from there.

Not that I'm aware of. The Protestant position is that there is no evidence that the 4 distinctives you presented are not evidenced. Rather, it seems this was a concept that developed AFTER Christ and the Apostles. I don't think anyone knows when "the first step toward" this concept happened (hard to pinpoint "first steps" when something is so developmental/evolutionary) - but the documentation you supplied tells me it was likely in the 4th century, that's when the "first step toward" the office of the Catholic Pope probably first happened; you've convinced me there's nothing to evidence it from earlier than that.

Whatever. For it to be true - it just has to be True - regardless of how you or I perceive it.

Certainly, as the LDS believer would say of Jesus' founding of His Church here as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Now, would you agree that such DID happen because the LDS person says for it to be true, it just has to be true?

Friend, NO ONE (least of all me!!!!!!) has questioned ANYONE's faith here! I KNOW you firmly believe all this - and that such is important to you! And I deeply respect and honor that! NO ONE EVER has questioned anyone's faith here, least of all me (nor you of me)!!!!!! We're not talking about what is believed, the issue YOU raise is whether it is historically factual and evidenced. An apologist is one who defends, who relates the correctness of things. He is not an evangelist who has the simplier tast of simply saying what is believed. Millions of people believe we are visited by aliens from outter space - no one questions that such is believed, nor that such is sincere. It's another question whether we are being so visited. YOU said you'd supply the historical evidence, documentation, proof, witnesses of the specific Catholic Papacy. I allowed YOU to define that papacy. You did (perhaps you are now saying you had more than the 4 things you mentioned in this thread). The things is, you didn't evidence any of the 4 things (at least before the 4th century, MUCH LESS all 4 so that you evidenced the Papacy (and not just an aspect of such). IMHO, what you very well evidenced is the Protestant position: That there's no evidence that Jesus founded this, no evidence that any Apostle knew anything of it, that this was an developmental/evolutionary thing that happened over some centuries (in a sense, is STILL developing) within your specific ________________________. Everything you shared seems to confirm that, and you admitted that you have NOTHING before 90 AD - and we all saw that even that was pretty moot.

Now, does that mean you are wrong? OF COURSE NOT!!!! No one would remotely suggest that. Only what I said WAY BACK in this thread: this is an unsubstantiated article of faith of one _________________ for it itself.

ALL of the historical evidence from the Early Church supports the claims that the Church of Rome exercised universal jurisdiction on matters of unity and orthodoxy - and the reasons given BY THEM - those who KNEW THE APOSTLES PERSONALLY - were pretty explicitly related to the Petrine ministry. Deny it all you want, for some people no amount of evidence will suffice. St. Peter himself could sit next to you and you would find a way to argue with him.

Friend, clearly you didn't evidence that. Nor did you define the Papacy as simply "the Church in Rome exercised universal juristiction on matters of unity and orthodoxy" - indeed, that has nothing to do with the Bishop of the Diocese of Rome, that would have to do with the congregation in Rome. What you showed is that Christians respected each other, not infrequently sought the wisdom and advise of each other, and at times took such. How does that evidence that they regarded whoever happened to be the Bishop of the diocese in Rome to be the SUPREME, infallible, authoritative, powerful, lord over all BECAUSE he is the bishop of that specific, singular diocese and ERGO has the keys that Jesus have to Peter? See, it doesn't. Friend, IMHO, you are trying to connect "dots" that don't even exist. Now, I can understand how one who ASSUMES the dogma all true can impute all that into the snippets you offered (a kind of retroactive eisegesis) but any objective, natural reading of what you supplied obviously doesn't so much as remotely imply the Papacy - at least not for the quotes before the 4th century. I think that's obvious.

In fact, I have kept your posts in a file on my computer FOR THIS PURPOSE: so that I can reveal that the Protestant position is, it seems, well documented by history - even as presented by an esteemed professional Catholic apologist.

Reveal it to whom? You do not have my permission to use it except for your own personal purposes.

Oh, I won't quote YOU, just the "witnesses" you presented. They rather powerfully make the Protestant point.

I don't know how much more current you would want it. You can't get any earlier than the Apostlic era, unless you want to go back to the Old Covenant.

You claim was that Jesus created the office. And you do not claim that Jesus came back to do so, but did so during His earthly ministry. Since most place His death/resurrection no later than 30 AD, that would mean 30 AD or before. Now, if you are going to historically verify and document that Jesus personally did this in or before 30 AD, then historically - you need to get pretty close to 30 AD. 551 AD is not too close. 90 AD is 60 years. Now, friend, I have been FAR, FAR easier on you than the Catholic apologists where on the LDS believers in my conversation there: The LDS brought newpaper articles (not owned or written by LDS believers) from within 10 years of events, describing such - and it was rejected as too late. We have the LDS being legally incorporated within 25 years of the supposed founding and yet Catholics insisted that 25 years is too great a span to suggest a connection. And yet, you insist that 60 years is so amazingly close. And what's interesting, is Clement said NOTHING about Jesus giving anything to Peter, NOTHING about the bishop of Rome being infallible, NOTHING about that singular bishop having the "keys", NOTHING about that singular bishop being supreme, NOTHING about that bishop having all the power and lordship - in fact, he sayings nothing about anything about your Pope at all. He was asked for his counsel, he gave it, I guess it was taken. Friend, it happens a million times every day among Christians. It doesn't mean that they are all Popes and it certainly doesn't mean that Jesus created such in 30 AD. Again, I can see how a believer can retroactively "see" his faith at least being implied (however stunningly faint), but any objective, natural reading would note what I did: it's not there. Anymore than a LDS believer in 1970 talking about a nice plate therefore means that Joseph Smith found those plates in 1820 (that would jsut be 150 years removed - most of your quotes were more distant than that). Again, I'm NOT ASSUMING anything - nor would you (as an Apologist) want me to. I read what you quoted. And noted what was actually said. And that such had nothing to do with the Catholic Papacy as I permitted you to define. I think it's obvious.

What do you mean by "as such"...

As you defined the office. I just quoted you.

Saying, "but there was a congregation in Rome!!!!!!" is nice (and no one disputes it) it jsut has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the Catholic Papacy, giving evidence that a congregation existed doesn't mean that all understood that whoever happens to be the bishop of the specific diocese of Rome uniquely has the "keys" of Peter and is THEREBY the SUPREME, infallible, powerful, authoritative, lord over all, AND that Jesus created that office during His earthly ministry. I hope you can see the disconnect there. Recall, very early in our discussion, I advised you not to try to evidence things no one disputes (such as there was congregation in Rome or that Peter and Paul were so associated) or things that are moot to the issue of the specific Catholic Papacy - which is why I wanted you to define specificly WHAT that office is, which you did. And then I posted: Evidence that THAT has existed from at least 30 AD. IMHO, what you evidence is that there is zero substantiation for it. In fact, it sure appears that the office developed/evolved over a very long time - likely well after the first century - after the end of Jesus' ministry and the death of the Apostles.

I cited FIVE Fathers from the APOSTOLIC ERA. ALL FIVE of them (three of whom PERSONALLY knew the Apostles) refer to the authority of Rome and ACT consistently as if the Church of Rome is, indeed, authoritative.

You quoted 5 men - none of whom knew Jesus or could have been witnesses to the event under review, thus not "witnesses" at all (although you chose to all them that). NONE of them (well, at least before the 4th Century) said anything about the singular Bishop of the diocese of Rome having the "keys" of Peter in a unique sense and THEREFORE being the SURPREME, infallible, authoritative, powerful one over all. NOTHING to the Papacy at all. And that's what this thread is about - the PAPACY. And that's what we've been talking about - the PAPACY.

WHY would the Corinthians not only APPEAL to Clement in the first place (when an Apostle was living nearby), but then OBEY him later?

1. Questions are not historic evidence; you promise evidence - not unanswered questions.

2. I don't know. A good possibility would be because they loved and esteemed Clement. As I posted, I have OFTEN sought the advise and counsel of one I respected - and taken it. Ask my mother and father. Ask some here at CF. It doesn't mean I regard such to be the bishop of the diocese of Rome, to have an office created by Jesus, to have the keys of Peter in some unique special sense, that THEREFORE they are infallible, powerful, lording over all, SURPREME over all other Christians. I think you are making some HUGE leaps. Now, your guess seems POSSIBLE but then thousands of other guesses are posssible too.

If the papacy was unknown, then WHY would Ignatius say that the Church of Rome TAUGHT the other Churches?

1. The topic is not the members of the congregation in Rome (there are now hundreds of them, I presume), the topic is the PAPACY - as you defined such.

2. My Dad has taught - people, congregations. Does that mean he is the Bishop of Rome, the ONE who has the "keys" of Peter in some unique, special sense, infallible, powerful and lord over all, etc., etc. Friend, read what is said! I KNOW you want it to say SOOOOOOOOOO much more, and I understand that, but just read the words that are there. It's what we do as we look at evidence. I think you may be pumping HUGE amount of assumptions.

3. Anyone can ask questions. It doesn't mean that their answer is historical documentation.

If the papacy was unknown, then why would Polycarp travel all the way to Rome as an 85 year old man to PLEAD with the Bishop of Rome?

1. I responded to all these points in my post; I wish you had read that.

2. If the Papacy was in place all those many, many, many decades AFTER the supposed founding by Jesus, then why didn't Polycarp docilicly accept the Pope's view? Isn't the singular bishop of that particular diocese suppose to be the infallible one, SURPREME above all, authoritative? And if all the other Bishops just agreed docilitic with Rome, when why to this day does the East not celebrate Easter when the bishop in Rome does?

3. I suppose anyone can ask a dozen questions - none of which gives an ounce of evidence or history, even if one 'answers' one's own questions. But I gave a prefectly reasonable senario. The bishops had a view of when to celebrate Easter, but there was one who was out of synch. Desiring a consensus, this bishop travels all the way to Rome to TRY to bring that singular bishop into line. Did he fail or succeed?

You KNOW my view of the Catholic Church - it's a matter of frequent and public record here at CF (and has been for years).

Yes - I am well aware of your view of the LDS

Really? I don't recall sharing it. What is it?

THIS is my view of the RCC, as has been stated here repeatedly for well over 4 years. I regard The Catholic Church to be valid and good and hold it in very high esteem, and I am forever grateful for the many blessings I received during my journey there. I regard its ministers and ministries to be valid. I regard nothing it officially teaches to be unbiblical. I regard all believers in it to be my full, unseparated and equal brothers and sisters in Christ. I pray daily and fervently for God's richest blessings to it, its ministers and ministries and Holy Father. I have furthermore often stated that I agree with the RCC perhaps 95% of the time, and in much of the remaining 5%, it is not that I disagree but only that I cannot dogmatically state that I agree. Now, Bob, will you state the same about The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod? If not, then who is being more embracing of the other?

You KNOW how much I celebrate and affirm the concept of Christian community (and thus congregations and denominations); you KNOW that I specific said that I'm defending NO ONE who said ANYTHING, so all the things you've said at me and your anger and such makes me very sad. IF there's anything we can do about that, let me know (assuming you care).

It's very simple, Josiah. Walk the walk. Don't just talk the talk. Condemn the use of religious slurs, don't rationalize them or try to justify them.

1. Then quote me where I used religious slurs rather than commonly used terms that I defined in POSITIVE ways. Quote me where I used the "n" word for African American or "f" word for gay. Walk the walk, Bob.


2. What part of, "I haven't defended anyone or anything" is unclear to you, my brother? That's what I'm talking about; taking what is actually said - ignoring that, substituting the exact opposite of what is said, and then condemning me for that. It really hurts conversations, and relationships.





.

 

[NewMan99]

You know, maybe I'm not sure what liturgy is? NewMan99 says liturgical as if it's not so meaningful. Comments anyone?

Liturgy is very meaningful - but it is not the same thing as doctrine.

Liturgy simply refers to the rites and rituals. Liturgical elements are rich with meaning, symbols, and theological import. But they are the outward expressions, not the inner realities. They are HOW and WHEN we express our beliefs but the liturgy itself is not necessarily WHAT we believe.

Different city-churches back during the early Church developed different rites to express their own particular devotions/theological outlook. Every Church DREW their liturgies from the SAME Apostolic deposit of faith. It just depended which aspect of the faith they wanted to emphasize.

So different city-churches developed different "liturgical calendars". In other words, each one "scheduled" their own Feast Days where they would celebrate or commemorate different saints or different events from salvation history. Eventually (sooner rather than later) SOME Feast Days were observed universally. One of the first of these was Easter. ALL Churches observed the Resurrection of the Lord from very early times. That comes from our shared Apostolic deposit of faith, and all Christians agree that Jesus died and rose and thereby Redeemed us and made salvation possible. But some city-churches, drawing from the Johnine tradition, celebrated this Feast Day on the 14th day of Nisan drawn from the Jewish calendar - which could fall on ANY day of the week, whereas other city-churches preferred to observe the Feast Day on a Sunday since that was the day that Our Lord arose...and they felt it was more fitting to remember the Resurrection on a Sunday as a SIGN of the New Covenant - and THIS tradition was handed down by Peter and Paul through the primarily Gentile Christian Church (and so it was not as centered on the Jewish calendar as the Johnine tradition). Now both expressions...both liturgical traditions...reflected Christian Truths related to, and drawn from, the events of the Passion and Resurrection of our Lord. It was merely a question of which aspects of that Truth one wished to emphasize on that particular Feast Day. Both were equally valid, equally Apostolic, and equally Truthful. But they were different and distinct LITURGICALLY since the Rites themselves were slightly different and they were observed on different days on the liturgical calendar.

But since they are merely outward expressions of what we believe they are not as important as the beliefs themselves. Sure they are important, especially since some expressions are more effective than others of conveying the Truths of the faith. But the inner Truths are the most important thing of all. A beautiful expression of falsehood rings rather hollow, doesn't it?

But in the Easter controversy, the two Popes involved were persuaded that following the Jewish calendar in the Johnine tradition DID NOT deny any aspect of the Apostolic Deposit of Faith. That particular tradition did not express any heresies in any way. In fact, it had a venerable and Apostolic heritage. However, since the Johnine tradition lacked the dimension of a Sunday observance as a sign of the New Covenant, it was believed that the Roman tradition (drawn from Peter and Paul) was a fuller expression of Christian theology and Truth. And that was why the Popes wanted universal observance of the Feast Day on the same day - as a sign of unity. We already observed it universally, but not together and not focusing on the same aspects of the faith. However, since the Johnine tradition did not violate any theological/doctrinal Truths, the Popes were persuaded to "give in" to the Asians. It wasn't worth it to divide the Church over a *liturgical* matter that did not involve or deny doctrinal Truths.

 

[NewMan99]

CJ,

If you want me to believe you are sincere, then join me in condemning all religious slurs. Do not presume to tell me how I should feel, or accuse me of being "PC" or hyper-sensitive. Don't imply I should just accept the slurs or shouldn't speak up.

Join me in condemning them.

Otherwise, you should just quit while you are behind. You will only make it worse.

 

[Albion]

Clements letter was accepted by the church at Corinth, read in their liturgy as part of their canon for centuries, and circulated widely.

None of which makes him a Pope. That's the critical point, not that the bishop of Rome was influential and thought of himself as important. He may even have had good advice, but he doesn't refer to himself as though he were a Pope, note.

The bishop of Rome is going to be influential for being 1) in the Capitol city of the Empire, 2) the bishop of the largest and wealthiest diocese in the Christian world, and 3) the bishop of the city made famous for having had both Paul and Peter live part of their lives there. This does not make the bishop a Pope in any way.

 

[Albion]

CJ - St Ireneaus listed Clement l as a successor to Peter.
Which is who we call the Pope.

Hope that clarifies it for ya.

So's my bishop a successor to Peter.

 

[Standing Up]

NewMan99 wrote: "Why is it always the Roman Church instructing and teaching other churches and NEVER the other way around?

If the papacy was unknown, then why would Polycarp travel all the way to Rome as an 85 year old man to PLEAD with the Bishop of Rome? Why didn't the Churches in Asia just do what they wanted to do without caring what the Bishop of Rome had to say? "

It is an interesting distinction the two traditions that keep coming up from among those early writers. One was Rome; one was the Quartodecimans.

Polycarp went to Rome to correct it. Here's Irenaeus from a fragment, making your same point of Clement and Corinth with Polycarp and the churches:

Polycarp having thus received [information] from the eye-witnesses of the Word of life, would recount them all in harmony with the Scriptures. These things, through, God's mercy which was upon me, I then listened to attentively, and treasured them up not on paper, but in my heart; and I am continually, by God's grace, revolving these things accurately in my mind. And I can bear witness before God, that if that blessed and apostolical presbyter had heard any such thing, he would have cried out, and stopped his ears, exclaiming as he was wont to do: O good God, for what times have You reserved me, that I should endure these things? And he would have fled from the very spot where, sitting or standing, he had heard such words. This fact, too, can be made clear, from his Epistles which he despatched, whether to the neighbouring Churches to confirm them, or to certain of the brethren, admonishing and exhorting them.

Also to contrast the two traditions, here's from JB Lightfoot:

Clement of Rome, there is good reason to believe, was a Hellenist Jew [94:1]; he must have been brought up in a familiar acquaintance with the Old Testament Scriptures. On the other hand Polycarp, as we have already seen, was probably the son of Christian parents; at all events he was educated from his earliest childhood in the knowledge of the Gospel; he had grown up in the society of Apostles and Apostolic men. This contrast of education makes itself apparent in the writings of the two Fathers. Though there are clear indications in Clement that he was acquainted with many of the Apostolic Epistles, yet his quotations are chiefly taken from the Old Testament. Again and again he cites continuous passages, and argues from them at length. But with Polycarp the case is different. The New Testament has exchanged places with the Old, at least so far as practical use is concerned. Notwithstanding its brevity, Polycarp's Epistle contains decisive coincidences with or references to between thirty and forty passages in the New Testament [94:2]. On the other hand, with the single exception of four words from the apocryphal book of Tobit [94:3], there is no quotation taken immediately from the Old Testament. Elsewhere indeed he cites the words of Ps. iv. 4, but these are evidently quoted from St Paul, and not directly from the Psalmist, as his context shows [95

The argument was made elsewhere that Polycarp was keeping to the Old and Clement to the New. The facts appear just the opposite. Interesting!

 

[Rick Otto]

Liturgy is the practice of the faith.
Faith & Morals.

 

[sempervirens]

BUT, there is this with which you should grapple from the same so-called Pope Clement. This sounds off to me:

...There is a certain bird which is called a phœnix.

No comment necessary. A different thread again.

And the Catholic and Orthodox have a dragon in their bible (Daniel 14) Perhaps the fable of the phoenix was one of the reasons it didn't make it the cut as scripture - I don't know - but if the concern is but wait isn't the pope supposed to be infallible -no popes make mistakes all the time and it has a narrow applicability that doesn't apply in this case (save that for another thread perhaps). I did some looking around and found this blog post helpful:

The Phoenix in the Judeo-Christian Tradition - Canterbury Tales by Taylor Marshall

Most people are somewhat familiar with the mythical animal of the phoenix. If you've seen or read Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, you are familiar with the red bird that engulfs itself in flames only "to rise again from the ashes." In fact the term "to rise again from the ashes" is historical reference to the legend of the phoenix.

Several years ago I was reading 1 Clement and I was alarmed that St. Clement (the fourth pope) seemed to believe that the phoenix was a real animal. Moreover, St. Clement uses the phoenix as a sign of Christ's resurrection.

Let us consider that wonderful sign [of the resurrection] which takes place in eastern lands, that is, in Arabia and the countries round about. There is a certain bird which is called a phoenix. This is the only one of its kind, and lives five hundred years. And when the time of its dissolution draws near that it must die, it builds itself a nest of frankincense, and myrrh, and other spices, into which, when the time is fulfilled, it enters and dies. But as the flesh decays a certain kind of worm is produced, which, being nourished by the juices of the deed bird, brings forth feathers. Then, when it has acquired strength, it takes up that nest in which are the bones of its parent, and bearing these it passes from the land of Arabia into Egypt, to the city called Heliopolis. And, in open day, flying in the sight of all men, it places them on the altar of the sun, and having done this, hastens back to its former abode. The priests then inspect the registers of the dates, and find that it has returned exactly as the five hundredth year was completed. (1 Clement 25)​

Was Clement nuts or was he speaking from a valid tradition?

As it turns out, the tale of the phoenix is actually found in the Bible's oldest book - the book of Job. Job 29:18 reads,

Then I said: 'I shall die with my nest, and I shall multiply my days as the phoenix.'​

Clement's idea that the phoenix dies and its nest and the returns for a length of days has its origin here.

The Hebrew translation is debated. The Hebrew word chol is typically translated in one of three different ways:

1. sand
2. phoenix, as in the mythical bird
3. palm tree​

In nearly every context, the Hebrew word chol means "sand." We should expect then that to be the Jewish interpretation. But instead, the post-Christian rabbis have almost unanimously interpreted the passage in Job as referring to the mythical bird, the phoenix. The midrashic document the Genesis Rabba or Bereshit Rabba (19:5) explains that Eve “gave the cattle, beasts, and birds to eat of [the forbidden fruit]. All obeyed her and ate thereof, except a certain bird named chol, as it is written, “Then I said: I shall die with my nest, and I shall multiply my days as the chol.” (Job 29:18). The Genesis Rabba was composed no later than A.D. 450. From this point on, Jewish rabbinical scholars (e.g. Rashi) simply assume that Job 29:18 is speaking of the phoenix bird that is able to rise from the ashes. In fact, if you consult almost any Jewish translation of Job, you will find that Job 29:18 has been translated as referring to the "phoenix" and not "sand."

The Septuagint oddly presents the Hebrew word chol as with the Greek word phoinikos, which technically refers to the palm tree. Yet it is very close to the Greek word phoinix or "phoenix." Some believe that the original word of Job 29:18 in the Septuagint tradition was in fact "phoenix." It is difficult to understand how a Hebrew word meaning "sand" came to be translated as phoinikos or "palm tree." Given the prevalence of the Jewish tradition of the phoenix reading, I think that the original text likely read phoinix or "phoenix" and that early on it was later corrected by a sober copyist as phoinikos or "palm tree" so as to avoid a rather embarrassing interpretation that Job believed that a bird died in its nest and rose again.

So it goes like this. Job 29:18 originally had an obscure reference to Job dying in "his nest" and then multiply his days "like sand." Probably through Hellenic influence, the mythical idea of the phoenix was read into the passage. The idea of death and new life in the context of "death and rebirth in the nest" was just to juicy to leave alone after readers new about the mythical tradition of the phoenix bird. Thus, the Septuagint translated the passage as referring to the "phoenix" and not "sand." Then later the Septuagint passage was mistakenly corrected, not by returning to the "sand" translation but by altering the word toward an entirely new concept - that of the "palm tree" or phoinikos.

In case you're interested, St. Jerome later translated the term in Latin as palma or "palm tree." I wonder if he looked at the Hebrew or not.

St. Clement in 1 Clement likely had Job 29:18 in mind because he quotes Job just after describing his chapter on the phoenix (25). He does not quote the Job 29:18 passage directly, but still Clement quotes Job to prove the long expected hope of the resurrection. It is not surprising then to conclude that St. Clement's phoenix sermon illustration for the resurrection of the dead also has its origins in Job.

 

[Andrian]

Who resurrected this thread? I remember this thread since my last time I was around. oh my my..... lol....

 

[Albion]

NewMan99 wrote: "Why is it always the Roman Church instructing and teaching other churches and NEVER the other way around?

All that a comment like that one proves is that he doesn't know much about Christian church history. For example, the Roman Catholic Church of today conducts Mass in the language of the people; it allows women readers; it has instituted congregational singing; it offers the bread AND the wine to the communcants. NONE of that was allowed in the RCC until recently, and ALL OF IT was picked up by the Roman Church from the Protestant churches! Those were, in fact, cardinal points in the Reformation's protests against the policies of the Church of Rome.

If the papacy was unknown, then why would Polycarp travel all the way to Rome as an 85 year old man to PLEAD with the Bishop of Rome? Why didn't the Churches in Asia just do what they wanted to do without caring what the Bishop of Rome had to say? "

It's nothing unusual--today or at that time--for some bishops to be more highly respected than others. Often it depended less on the men themselves and more on the city of their residency. Rome is naturally going to be more imposing than some city in eastern Anatolia. None of that means that anyone had any idea of a Pope.

 

[Standing Up]

Liturgy is very meaningful - but it is not the same thing as doctrine.

Liturgy simply refers to the rites and rituals. Liturgical elements are rich with meaning, symbols, and theological import. But they are the outward expressions, not the inner realities. They are HOW and WHEN we express our beliefs but the liturgy itself is not necessarily WHAT we believe.

Different city-churches back during the early Church developed different rites to express their own particular devotions/theological outlook. Every Church DREW their liturgies from the SAME Apostolic deposit of faith. It just depended which aspect of the faith they wanted to emphasize.

So different city-churches developed different "liturgical calendars". In other words, each one "scheduled" their own Feast Days where they would celebrate or commemorate different saints or different events from salvation history. Eventually (sooner rather than later) SOME Feast Days were observed universally. One of the first of these was Easter. ALL Churches observed the Resurrection of the Lord from very early times. That comes from our shared Apostolic deposit of faith, and all Christians agree that Jesus died and rose and thereby Redeemed us and made salvation possible. But some city-churches, drawing from the Johnine tradition, celebrated this Feast Day on the 14th day of Nisan drawn from the Jewish calendar - which could fall on ANY day of the week, whereas other city-churches preferred to observe the Feast Day on a Sunday since that was the day that Our Lord arose...and they felt it was more fitting to remember the Resurrection on a Sunday as a SIGN of the New Covenant - and THIS tradition was handed down by Peter and Paul through the primarily Gentile Christian Church (and so it was not as centered on the Jewish calendar as the Johnine tradition). Now both expressions...both liturgical traditions...reflected Christian Truths related to, and drawn from, the events of the Passion and Resurrection of our Lord. It was merely a question of which aspects of that Truth one wished to emphasize on that particular Feast Day. Both were equally valid, equally Apostolic, and equally Truthful. But they were different and distinct LITURGICALLY since the Rites themselves were slightly different and they were observed on different days on the liturgical calendar.

Thanks for clarifying liturgy. I thought that was it. Liturgy reflects doctrine. RickOtto--liturgy is the practice of the faith (doctrine).

I know what you're saying, one emphasized death and one resurrection (odd reversal of things shown by the RCC and Protestant crosses now, hmmm, wonder what happened there). Anyway, your comments still go back to the as yet still but not for lack of trying to get a response thereto unspoken assumption. The Quartodecimans and Scripture say Christ died on the 14th. Rome says He rose on the third day Sunday. SO, what day is the 14th assumed to be in that one singular never to be repeated year that our Lord died?

But since they are merely outward expressions of what we believe they are not as important as the beliefs themselves. Sure they are important, especially since some expressions are more effective than others of conveying the Truths of the faith. But the inner Truths are the most important thing of all. A beautiful expression of falsehood rings rather hollow, doesn't it?

But in the Easter controversy, the two Popes involved were persuaded that following the Jewish calendar in the Johnine tradition DID NOT deny any aspect of the Apostolic Deposit of Faith. That particular tradition did not express any heresies in any way. In fact, it had a venerable and Apostolic heritage. However, since the Johnine tradition lacked the dimension of a Sunday observance as a sign of the New Covenant, it was believed that the Roman tradition (drawn from Peter and Paul) was a fuller expression of Christian theology and Truth. And that was why the Popes wanted universal observance of the Feast Day on the same day - as a sign of unity. We already observed it universally, but not together and not focusing on the same aspects of the faith. However, since the Johnine tradition did not violate any theological/doctrinal Truths, the Popes were persuaded to "give in" to the Asians. It wasn't worth it to divide the Church over a *liturgical* matter that did not involve or deny doctrinal Truths.

That sounds wonderful, but it rings hollow to me. It may to you as well, if we can get to the unspoken assumption and unwind from there. Liturgy reflected the doctrinal dispute that we may eventually get to.

Paul too taught the same thing at Ephesus that he did at Rome. Peter taught the same as did the other eleven. You will have to search elsewhere for an explanation of the two competing traditions. Lightfoot mentions that Clement may have been a Hellenized Jew and Polycarp a gentile.

As to Sunday, there's at least three significant liturgies lost over the last 1800 years we'll bring back.