• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Peter and the Keys, Catholicism and the Pope

Status
Not open for further replies.

WarriorAngel

I close my eyes and see you smile
Site Supporter
Apr 11, 2005
73,951
10,060
United States Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟597,590.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
This isn't off topic, but bear with me...

CJ - is anyone here arguing to say that your grandmother wore army boots?

And if no one is stating it - then you have no need to give us the truth about her shoe attire...right?

The conclusion is that since it was well known VIA ALL the writings PRIOR to the 4th Century that Rome, the Pope was the leader or was the one to whom all went for truth - then obviously they didnt need to write about it to defend it....now did they?

Just as you had no need to defend your granny prior to my alledged claim she wore army boots.

So the conclusion we draw is - that the Church didn't need to defend the position of the Pope, nor did the Church need to restate what was already a known fact.

BUT when someone tried to claim otherwise, we begin to see writings to the contrary. [which happens when time slips by and ppl want proof of what is already a fact]

The Church didnt one day set up the position of the Pope and say 'There ya go, now that looks nice..'

Anyway - as i said in my post quoting St Irenaeus, its very obvious where he points to the truth being, and that all must look to Rome for it.

But hey...this would just be logical in my opinion.

Do you counter claims if no one is offering any?
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,127
33,264
✟584,012.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
An interesting speculation, but nothing that either the Bible or history support.

In Matt 16 refer to Christ's juxtaposition of the "Kingdom of Heaven" vs. the "gates of hell." We also see this in St. Ephraem the Syrian AD 350, who writes:
By AD 350 Ephraem is reporting legend and theory thatn had gained acceptance in the more than three centuries following Christ's and Peter's time. But it's not Apostolic. It's not eyewitness. It's not even a report on what the Apostolic Church did or believed. It would be like me telling you how it was to have lived during the days of the American Revolution and you saying, "See? That proves it."

 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,127
33,264
✟584,012.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married

Excuse me, but this is not a fact. It is not well known. "All the writing" did NOT say this. If we are to have a meaningful discussion we cannot salt our contentions with supporting ideas that are simply made up for the purpose. Worse, you've already been made aware of this and went ahead with a claim that is false nonetheless.
 
Upvote 0

WarriorAngel

I close my eyes and see you smile
Site Supporter
Apr 11, 2005
73,951
10,060
United States Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟597,590.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Also CJ, have you ever posted in the past that your granny doesnt wear army boots?
Because there is no proof that she doesnt wear them unless you stated she doesnt last year in this forum.

Conclusion is??
She wears army boots?

That would be silly for you to defend her [in the past] since no one here made any claims that she ever wore them.

Wouldnt it?
 
Upvote 0

WarriorAngel

I close my eyes and see you smile
Site Supporter
Apr 11, 2005
73,951
10,060
United States Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟597,590.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private

Ever hear of an analogy?
 
Upvote 0

Trento

Senior Veteran
Apr 12, 2002
4,387
575
AZ. Between the Holy Cross river and the Saint Rit
Visit site
✟30,034.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married


Maybe some of the the scriptures are legend since they were not hammered out till the 370s
 
Upvote 0

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Site Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,549
28,532
75
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,330.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Maybe some of the the scriptures are legend since they were not hammered out till the 370s
Myths........Legends.......Beware of them!!!


Titus 1:14 No heeding to Judean myths/muqoiV <3454> and commands of men ones turning-from/apostrefomenwn <654> (5734) the Truth.

2 Timothy 4:3 For shall be a time when the being sound teaching not they shall be tolerating, but according to the own desires to selves they shall be heaping up Teachers, being tickled of them the hearing
4 And from indeed the Truth the hearing of them they shall be turning-from, upon yet the myths/muqouV <3454> shall be being turning to/ektraphsontai <1624> (5691).
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,127
33,264
✟584,012.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married


That (above) was no analogy. And the analogy which started us off didn't work because we do not conclude that she wore army boots in the absence of evidence that she did, whereas you want to prove the Pope was real and Apostolic in origin...from a lack of evidence.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,127
33,264
✟584,012.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Maybe some of the the scriptures are legend since they were not hammered out till the 370s

Fortunately, most of us know better. All the books of the Bible were written by the end of the first century. (Trying to get around the real truth by using the wording "hammered out" when you know better than to say that the scriptures were not used, available, written, etc. until 370 is creative, though.)
 
Upvote 0

CaliforniaJosiah

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Aug 6, 2005
17,496
1,568
✟229,195.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican

CJ - is anyone here arguing to say that your grandmother wore army boots?


When did I claim as dogmatic fact that she did? IF I did, then yes - the "burden of proof" would be on me to substantiate such as true. And it would be important - very important - for me to do so if such would be greatest divisive issue in Christianity.



The conclusion is that since it was well known VIA ALL the writings PRIOR to the 4th Century that Rome, the Pope was the leader or was the one to whom all went for truth - then obviously they didnt need to write about it to defend it....now did they?


1. A dogmatic fact is not simply the absense of contrary proof. You know that (and NO Catholic would EVER accept such "logic" - lol - from a Protestant!!!). Can you prove there are not 6 billion little brown creatures living on the Moon of Endor? Does that substantiate as dogmatic fact that there are? IF you are simply saying that you have no evidence, no substantiation - then say that. It doesn't mean you are wrong (nor that you'd be wrong about the 6 billion brown creatures) but it does mean that it's an unsubstantiated, unevidenced point.


2. But, at least from what NewMan99 presented (and he is a very highly esteemed Catholic Apologist very active in that ministry - although not much so at CF) that what you said is not evidence. And it's not relevant to The Catholic Papacy anyway. The Dogma of the Papacy is not that the congregations located within the City of Rome take precidence over other congregations, the dogma is that Jesus created the Office of Papacy (thus, it's been in place since at least 30 AD), that He gave the "keys" to PETER in a unique and special sense, and that ever since, whoever happens to be the bishop of the diocese of Rome (bishop - not members; discese of Rome - not church in Rome) is, by virtue of being the bishop of that specific, singular diocese, is THE Supreme, Infallible, Authoritative, powerful, lord over all Christians as the Vicar of Christ. Th topic here is not the Christians that attend congregations in the City of Rome, Italy and what is claimed for such (which I think is nothing at all). The topic here is THE PAPACY of the RCC.





So the conclusion we draw is - that the Church didn't need to defend the position of the Pope, nor did the Church need to restate what was already a known fact.


1. This is an apologetic NO Catholic would EVER accept from anyone else.

2. It could EQUALLY well be argued that no one said ANYTHING to support The Papacy of the RCC because it didn't exist and no one believed it. In fact, silence about a non-existant entity and non-held view is much more reasonable that persistent, universal, centuries-long silence about a DOGMA (a matter of highest importance) so extremely critical to the foundation of your entire ________________ (insert word you prefer for denomination - if you do).





How do you counter claims if no one is offering any?

I don't.

I just note the RCC hasn't offered anything to substantiate its claim of self for self - perhaps the single most divisive issue in all of Christianity. I just have a hunch if I (just little old me - not a huge ___________) claimed that I am the infallible, supreme, authoritative interpreter of the Scripture in my heart and the Tradition of my choosing and whatever I say is what Jesus says and you must accept it with docility because I so insist that you do - I just have a hunch (that's all, just a hunch) that you'd ask for some evidence. And if my response was: Well, show me where the ECF ever said that I wasn't? THEREFORE, they MUST have beleived that I am: Case settled, DOGMA for certain! But that's just my hunch.



Thank you!


Pax


- Josiah



.
 
Upvote 0

WarriorAngel

I close my eyes and see you smile
Site Supporter
Apr 11, 2005
73,951
10,060
United States Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟597,590.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
BUT then CJ can conclude something in absense of anything to counter it?

That's the point.

There is nothing that countered any claims that the Pope was not who we claim he is.
In fact, there is evidence that i already posted that St Irenaeus wrote that ROME is the Church with the truth.

So if no one in all the years - ever suggested the Pope didnt exist, but now CJ claims that because of the absense of anyone stating the Pope exists, that we can conclude he didnt exist.

O ic.

But since no one here ever discussed CJ's granny, then we can conclude in the absense of writing a defense, that she did wear them? Because i specifically dont recall CJ telling us last year that she did not wear them.

SO with absense, we have fact?

My point is exactly what i just showed you.
JUST because the ECF's didn't sit down and write a full discertation that the Pope existed and he was the Church leader - that we need conclude the Pope didnt exist until the 4th Century?

But why then did St Irenaeus and Eusebius give a list to the successors if they didnt exist?
OR if the Pope didnt matter????

That's what an analogy does.
It compares apples to apples and not oranges.
 
Upvote 0

Trento

Senior Veteran
Apr 12, 2002
4,387
575
AZ. Between the Holy Cross river and the Saint Rit
Visit site
✟30,034.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married


LOL If you study the Fathers and Divided into time periods, here is what the Fathers thought:
30 a.d. - 160 a.d.

Summary - The New Testament is not clearly distinguished from other Christian writings.
Gospels - Generally accepted by 130
Justin Martyr's "Gospels" contain apocryphal material
Polycarp was the first to use the four Gospels we have today.
Pauline Writings - Generally accepted by 130, though quotations from them are rarely introduced as scriptural.
Acts - Scarcely known or quoted from
Philippians, 1 Timothy - Rejected as scriptural by Justin Martyr
2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon - Rejected as scriptural by Polycarp and Justin Martyr
Hebrews - Not considered canonical by majority, and expressly rejected as scriptural by Polycarp and Justin Martyr
James - Not considered canonical, and never quoted from; expressly rejected as scriptural by Polycarp and Justin Martyr
1 Peter - Not considered canonical
2 Peter - Not considered canonical and never cited
1,2,3 John - Not considered canonical and rejected as scriptural by Justin Martyr, and partially rejected by Polycarp
Jude - Not considered canonical and rejected as scriptural by Polycarp and Justin Martyr
Revelation - not canonical and rejected as scriptural by Polycarp
Ignatius of Antioch was unaware of half the Gospels and the majority of the Pauline writings.

160 a.d.- 250 a.d.
Summary - Awareness of a Canon begins toward the end of the 2nd century. Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria were the first to use the phrase "New Testament" in the 2nd and 3rd century.
Gospels - Accepted
Acts - Gradually accepted
Pauline Writings - Accepted with certain exceptions
2 Timothy - Rejected by Clement
Philemon - Rejected by Irenaeus, Origen, Tertullian, and Clement
Hebrews - Not considered canonical until the 4th century in the West. Disputed by Origen. First accepted by Clement.
James - Not canonical. First mentioned and disputed by Origen. Rejected by Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Clement
1 Peter - Gradual acceptance. First accepted by Irenaeus and Clement
2 Peter - Not canonical. First mentioned and disputed by Origen. Rejected by Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Clement
1 John - Gradual acceptance. First accepted by Irenaeus, and rejected by Origen.
2 John - Not canonical. Disputed by Origen and rejected by Tertullian and Clement
3 John - Not canonical. Disputed by Origen and rejected by Tertullian and Clement
Jude - Gradual acceptance. Accepted by Clement and rejected by Origen.
Revelation - Gradual acceptance. First accepted by Clement and rejected by the Barococcio Canon of 206
Epistle of Barnabas - Accepted by Clement
Shepherd of Hermas - Accepted by Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, and Clement
The Didache - Accepted by Clement
The Apocalypse of Peter - accepted by Clement
The Acts of Paul - Accepted by Clement, and appears in Greek, Latin, Syriac, Armenian, and Arabic translations
Gospel of Hebrews - Accepted by Clement. Accepted by Muratorian Canon of 190 which excluded Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, and included The Apocaplypse of Peter and Wisdom of Solomon.

250 a.d. – 325 a.d.Summary - The “Catholic epistles” and Revelation are still being disputed
The “Catholic,” or general, epistles are the terms sometimes used for the letters written by James, Peter, John, and Jude. They are so called because they are addressed to Christians in general, not to any church or person in particular such as the epistles to the Corinthians, Thessalonians etc. The word "catholic" originated from Greek and then Latin words which simply meant “throughout the whole.”
Gospels, Acts, Pauline Writings - Accepted
Hebrews - Accepted in the East. Disputed and rejected in the West.
James - Disputed and rejected in the East, and rejected in the West.
1 Peter - Fairly well accepted
2 Peter - Still disputed
1 John - Fairly well accepted
2, 3 John, Jude - Still disputed
Revelation - Disputed, especially in the East. Rejected by Dionysius

Council of Nicaea (325 a.d.)
Questions canonicity of James, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, and Jude

From 325 a.d. to Council of Carthage (397 a.d.)
Summary - St. Athanasius first lists our present 27 New Testament books as such in 367 a.d. Disputes still persist concerning several books, almost right up until 397, when Canon is authoritatively closed.
Gospels, Acts, Pauline Writings, 1 Peter, 1 John - Accepted
Hebrews - Eventually accepted in West
James - Slow acceptance. Not even quoted in the West until around 350 a.d.!
2 Peter - Eventually accepted
2, 3 John, Jude - Eventually accepted
Revelation - Eventually accepted. Rejected by Cyril, John Chrysostom, Gregory Nazianzen
Epistle of Barnabas - Accepted by Codex Sinaiticus in late 4th century
Shepherd of Hermas - Accepted by Codex Sinaiticus in late 4th century. Used as a textbook for catechumens (those studying to become Christian).
1 Clement, 2 Clement - Accepted by Codex Alexandrinus in late 5th century!
 
Reactions: WarriorAngel
Upvote 0

WarriorAngel

I close my eyes and see you smile
Site Supporter
Apr 11, 2005
73,951
10,060
United States Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟597,590.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Questions:

1-IF St Irenaeus wrote the list of the successors to Peter but said it would be too lengthy to write all the successions - but the important one was from Peter - did he do so in vain because it was actually unimportant?

2-And why did he then say, the Church of Rome had the truth and all should follow it?

3-Why would anyone even know the successions WHEN requested to write them if they didn't exist?

4-AND finally, how did he even know about St Clement l knowing the Apostles [having been ordained by Peter himself] if all of that is unimportant?


Written in 175 AD

Also a list composed by Eusebius exists of the same names...
So why did two people write the same list - if there were no successors?
 
Upvote 0

Trento

Senior Veteran
Apr 12, 2002
4,387
575
AZ. Between the Holy Cross river and the Saint Rit
Visit site
✟30,034.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
 
Upvote 0

WarriorAngel

I close my eyes and see you smile
Site Supporter
Apr 11, 2005
73,951
10,060
United States Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟597,590.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Summary - St. Athanasius first lists our present 27 New Testament books as such in 367 a.d. Disputes still persist concerning several books, almost right up until 397, when Canon is authoritatively closed.



It was the CHURCH who finally choose and closed it.
But no one argues the Tradition of this acceptance as the Bible scriptures of the NT.
 
Upvote 0

WarriorAngel

I close my eyes and see you smile
Site Supporter
Apr 11, 2005
73,951
10,060
United States Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟597,590.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private

 
Upvote 0

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Site Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,549
28,532
75
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,330.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian


It was the CHURCH who finally choose and closed it.
But no one argues the Tradition of this acceptance as the Bible scriptures of the NT.
And we all appreciate that
 
Upvote 0

WarriorAngel

I close my eyes and see you smile
Site Supporter
Apr 11, 2005
73,951
10,060
United States Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟597,590.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private

This is why Isaias is very prophetic to not only Christ - but to the Church He would build.
And satan could not pervert.

He can strike at it - and does with his temptations of man. But he cannot affect the doctrines that stand the test of time.
 
Upvote 0

kenblaster5000

Regular Member
Feb 5, 2007
1,942
102
Las Vegas NV
✟25,240.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
 
Upvote 0

WarriorAngel

I close my eyes and see you smile
Site Supporter
Apr 11, 2005
73,951
10,060
United States Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟597,590.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
WHy was Peter the only one given the keys...plural?

Why didnt He just hand them to them all and state they were for everyone?

Because He made a point to handing them to Peter because He was fulfilling the prophecy of Isaias.

There are not many stewards - only one.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.