The snare of devotion to Mary.

[Albion]

The primacy of Peter was recognized by all the faithful at the time Matthew wrote his gospel

It's amazing what people will say as though it's fact when it's anything but accurate.

and it's evident from early extant writings that a universal jurisdictional authority had been conferred on the Bishop of Rome as early as the pontifical reign of Clement (92-99 A.D.) His Epistle (1) to the Corinthians was read during Mass along with the Scriptures in the churches at Corinth. The Shepherd of Hermes (2nd century) indicates that the divine office of a bishop to communicate with all the churches on important matters of faith and discipline rested with the Bishop of Rome

That Clement tried to lead or was looked to for any number of reasons not theological is not "evidence" of primacy being accepted by "all." This is the same era when Early Church Fathers were pointing to the successors of OTHER Apostles as being the intended leader of the Church and, of course, "Primacy" does not mean Supremacy or Infallibility.

 

[Albion]

Is it so hard for you to see that there weren't any denominations in apostolic time

Uh no. That is precisely my point. There were not denominations then, ergo the idea that one denomination of later times was the church Christ founded--to the exclusion of the others--is just incorrect.

I thought the Bible might at least correct your distorted vision of the Church which has resulted from your rationalizations. The Church of England was not founded by the King of kings 1500+ years later.

Of course it was not. So we agree again. The church in England dates back to the Apostolic age.

 

[concretecamper]

The church in England dates back to the Apostolic age.

Good grief....next you will be talking about the tooth fairy!

 

[Albion]

Good grief....next you will be talking about the tooth fairy!

This is simple history, CC. It's not what they teach you in RCIA classes, I know, but there's nothing controversial about it.

For just one example, the Council of Arles in the early 300s had three bishops representing the church in Britain. For another, the Papal church in the Middle ages five times asserted, in council, that the church in England was the oldest church in the Gentile lands. Of course, the Papacy had to come up with a new story after the Pope decided to break away from the Church of England in the late 1500s.

 

[concretecamper]

1) The universal church consists of all those who have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

The Bible does not say this. Having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ is of course very important, but is not a mark of membership in His Church.

The church is the body of Christ, of which He is the head.

100% agree

2) The local church is described in Galatians 1:1-2: “Paul, an apostle … and all the brothers with me, to the churches in Galatia.” Here we see that in the province of Galatia there were many churches—what we call local churches. A Baptist church, Lutheran church, Catholic church, etc., is not the church, as in the universal church—but rather is a local church, a local body of believers. The universal church is comprised of those who belong to Christ and who have trusted Him for salvation. These members of the universal church should seek fellowship and edification in a local church.

Universal means it is open to all, not the all are part of it. Everyone indeed has the opportunity to be part of His Church.

Where in the Bible is that found?

The Church is Visible and One

Matt. 5:14, Matt. 12:25, Mark 3:25, Luke 11:17, Matt. 16:18, Matt. 16:19
John 10:16, John 17:11,21,23, John 17:9-26 John 17:21, Rom. 15:5, Rom. 16:17, 1 Cor. 1:10, Eph. 1:22-23; 5:23-32; Col. 1:18,24, Eph. 4:11-14, Eph. 4:3-5, Eph. 5:25, Eph. 5:30; Rom. 12:4-5; 1 Cor. 6:15, Phil. 1:27, Phil. 2:2, Col. 1:18, 1 Tim. 6:4, 2 Tim. 2:14, 2 Tim. 4:3, Rev. 7:9, 1 Peter 3:8, Gen. 12:2-3, Dan. 7:14, 1 Cor. 14:33

 

[concretecamper]

This is simple history, CC. It's not what they teach you in RCIA classes, I know, but there's nothing controversial about it.

For just one example, the Council of Arles in the early 300s had three bishops representing the church in Britain. For another, the Papal church in the Middle ages five times asserted, in council, that the church in England was the oldest church in the Gentile lands. Of course, the Papacy had to come up with a new story after the Pope decided to break away from the Church of England in the late 1500s.

The question you responded to referenced the Church of England. Your response said the Church in England. Of course the RCC was in England much earlier that the formation of the Church of England...but that is really not the disagreement, is it.

 

[MKJ]

The question you responded to referenced the Church of England. Your response said the Church in England. Of course the RCC was in England much earlier that the formation of the Church of England...but that is really not the disagreement, is it.

Albion is right - what he is saying is not controversial.

And I will point out - this idea that the CofE is not a continuous organization with what came before isn't something you will hear from real Catholic historians. It is pretty much the method of rather poor amateur apologetics.

No one except perhaps yourself is unclear what is meant by demoninationalism, because you are extending an organization that was fractured back into the past in a very historically inappropriate way.

The Church in England was no different than the Church in other places - it was founded in the first centuries and existed locally, but in relationship to the others, just like they all did. In those days, there was not always much contact, as people were more isolated.

What happened in the English Reformation was a schism, much like what happened with the East, and it was recognized and treated as such at the time. The people, the buildings, most of the bishops and hierarchy, carried on pretty much as they had before, but out of communion with the pope.

For goodness sake - the English Church may well have been founded before the Roman one, and it existed quite independently for years as Albion said while sending bishops and representatives where it was required.

It was under the Roman patriarch eventually, and that had significant results, but that doesn't make it somehow Roman and not English. The English Church = the Church in England. English people are English, not Roman.

It is really bizarre to have people who are ignorant of the history talking condescendingly of people finding it "so hard to see that there were no denominations" when they themselves don't seem to have a clue what the actual history was, how their own church understood it at the time, or how their own historians see it now, and inappropriately read the modern sense of the Roman Church back into the early Church period in a way no Catholic scholar ever would.

 

[MKJ]

these denominations have a distinct staring point in history and is associated with a person(s). There is no way to spin it otherwise. You may claim that they are following their view of the bible, but that is about it

Many people would argue that your denomination began to exist at the schism. And, history being what it is, that was a situation in which many persons played clear ledership roles.

The same is true of the Reformation, even generally. Yes, where one organization existed, there was a split that became two. Yes, there were inidividuals involved, though to cut it down to precise dates and single people is no more valid than in the case of the schism, as the Reformation was a movement that lasted over a significant period, more than a lifetime. But just like in the schism, both sides claimed to be in the right and the "true" church, while claiming that the other side had departed from orthodoxy.

I have no problem with substantive arguments that a group has embraced an unorthodox stance and so cannot in some sense represent the Church. I personally would argue that groups who have strayed from apostolicity have lost something essential.

But there is no way to make that argument with the "My church was here first and you are splitters" approach. It is a twisting of history, and you have to deliberately remain ignorant of what those other groups actually taught and understood about themselves.

 

[concretecamper]

Albion is right - what he is saying is not controversial.

And I will point out - this idea that the CofE is not a continuous organization with what came before isn't something you will hear from real Catholic historians. It is pretty much the method of rather poor amateur apologetics.

No one except perhaps yourself is unclear what is meant by demoninationalism, because you are extending an organization that was fractured back into the past in a very historically inappropriate way.

The Church in England was no different than the Church in other places - it was founded in the first centuries and existed locally, but in relationship to the others, just like they all did. In those days, there was not always much contact, as people were more isolated.

What happened in the English Reformation was a schism, much like what happened with the East, and it was recognized and treated as such at the time. The people, the buildings, most of the bishops and hierarchy, carried on pretty much as they had before, but out of communion with the pope.

For goodness sake - the English Church may well have been founded before the Roman one, and it existed quite independently for years as Albion said while sending bishops and representatives where it was required.

It was under the Roman patriarch eventually, and that had significant results, but that doesn't make it somehow Roman and not English. The English Church = the Church in England. English people are English, not Roman.

It is really bizarre to have people who are ignorant of the history talking condescendingly of people finding it "so hard to see that there were no denominations" when they themselves don't seem to have a clue what the actual history was, how their own church understood it at the time, or how their own historians see it now, and inappropriately read the modern sense of the Roman Church back into the early Church period in a way no Catholic scholar ever would.

There is really no historical arguments here. So claiming that "people" are ignorant of history is pointless.

When The CofE broke from the Catholic Church it ceased being part of His Church. That is a matter of history. To say anything else is spinning the facts. And while I have seen some Anglicans refer to themselves as Catholics, while flattering, it really has no basis in truth.

 

[bbbbbbb]

The primacy of Peter was recognized by all the faithful at the time Matthew wrote his gospel, and it's evident from early extant writings that a universal jurisdictional authority had been conferred on the Bishop of Rome as early as the pontifical reign of Clement (92-99 A.D.) His Epistle (1) to the Corinthians was read during Mass along with the Scriptures in the churches at Corinth. The Shepherd of Hermes (2nd century) indicates that the divine office of a bishop to communicate with all the churches on important matters of faith and discipline rested with the Bishop of Rome (a person by the name of Clement). So Catholic tradition does goes back to earliest time, notwithstanding how the present concept of the papacy has developed through the course of time and certain non-Catholic historians have attempted to rewrite history.

PAX

Do you really want to go down the path with The Shepherd of Hermes?

I will agree that the EOC is non-Catholic, but I disagree that they have not rewritten history to suit themselves, or your denomination.

 

[bbbbbbb]

You are exactly right. Jesus placed Peter in that office.



You are right again. Following Sacred Tradition is all that is required.

Perhaps next you will be telling us that Peter actually sat here -

 

[bbbbbbb]

Good grief....next you will be talking about the tooth fairy!

See my previous post for fantasy thinking.

 

[concretecamper]

Perhaps next you will be telling us that Peter actually sat here -

I am not sure....but....

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Chair of Saint Peter (Latin: Cathedra Petri), also known as the Throne of Saint Peter, is a relic conserved in St. Peter's Basilica, enclosed in a sculpted gilt bronze casing that was designed by Gian Lorenzo Bernini and executed between 1647 and 1653. The name derives from the Latin cathedra meaning chair or throne, which is used to denote the chair or seat of a bishop. The cathedra in St. Peter's Basilica was once used by the popes. Inside the Chair is a wooden throne, which, according to tradition, was used by Saint Peter. It was, however, actually a gift from Charles the Bald to Pope John VIII in 875.[1]

Not that you should believe everything on Wikipedia is accurate.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I am not sure....but....

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Chair of Saint Peter (Latin: Cathedra Petri), also known as the Throne of Saint Peter, is a relic conserved in St. Peter's Basilica, enclosed in a sculpted gilt bronze casing that was designed by Gian Lorenzo Bernini and executed between 1647 and 1653. The name derives from the Latin cathedra meaning chair or throne, which is used to denote the chair or seat of a bishop. The cathedra in St. Peter's Basilica was once used by the popes. Inside the Chair is a wooden throne, which, according to tradition, was used by Saint Peter. It was, however, actually a gift from Charles the Bald to Pope John VIII in 875.[1]

Not that you should believe everything on Wikipedia is accurate.

Yes, that is why I posted the photograph. Thanks for the information from Wikipedia.

 

[MKJ]

There is really no historical arguments here. So claiming that "people" are ignorant of history is pointless.

When The CofE broke from the Catholic Church it ceased being part of His Church. That is a matter of history. To say anything else is spinning the facts. And while I have seen some Anglicans refer to themselves as Catholics, while flattering, it really has no basis in truth.

You know, that Catholic Church does not teach that.

The Catholic Church says that the original split between the English Church and the Roman Patriarch was a schism, and that it remained so for some time, and that it was not until rather later that they, from a Catholic perspective, lost apostolicity.

If you can't wrap your head around that, you are missing something important about the teachings of your own Church, and you should probably sort that out.

The "fact" that history can speak of is a split. It can't interpret that - history cannot alone tell us which group left the other. It cannot tell us that the Lutherans were wrong and in fact left the Church, or whether the Roman hierarchy had in fact apostatized, or whether they were both out to lunch. Those are interpretations.

Most self-conscious people are able to make some kind of distinction between the facts and interpretations of them, and it is actually pretty impossible to understand facts if you don't know where interpretation comes in, and why you accept one and not another.

The Catholic Church, in my opinion, doesn't have a bad argument for its position. I don't, in the end, think it is correct, but it certainly isn't stupid, many holy and scholarly people believe it. It really doesn't suffer because we know there are different ways of looking at things that are reasonable. the only thing I think that suffers from that is people who are made uncomfortable by knowing that intelligent people can disagree about something like that.

There is a lot to be gained from really thinking about how others see things.

 

[MKJ]

There is really no historical arguments here. So claiming that "people" are ignorant of history is pointless.

When The CofE broke from the Catholic Church it ceased being part of His Church. That is a matter of history. To say anything else is spinning the facts. And while I have seen some Anglicans refer to themselves as Catholics, while flattering, it really has no basis in truth.

The "flattering" comment is also pretty puerile - lots of Churches describe themselves as catholic, or in some cases even title themselves that way as in the case of the Orthodox, but not to try and ape you. They are actually trying to describe an idea.

 

[Rhamiel]

You know, that Catholic Church does not teach that.

The Catholic Church says that the original split between the English Church and the Roman Patriarch was a schism, and that it remained so for some time, and that it was not until rather later that they, from a Catholic perspective, lost apostolicity.

If you can't wrap your head around that, you are missing something important about the teachings of your own Church, and you should probably sort that out.

The "fact" that history can speak of is a split. It can't interpret that - history cannot alone tell us which group left the other. It cannot tell us that the Lutherans were wrong and in fact left the Church, or whether the Roman hierarchy had in fact apostatized, or whether they were both out to lunch. Those are interpretations.

Most self-conscious people are able to make some kind of distinction between the facts and interpretations of them, and it is actually pretty impossible to understand facts if you don't know where interpretation comes in, and why you accept one and not another.

The Catholic Church, in my opinion, doesn't have a bad argument for its position. I don't, in the end, think it is correct, but it certainly isn't stupid, many holy and scholarly people believe it. It really doesn't suffer because we know there are different ways of looking at things that are reasonable. the only thing I think that suffers from that is people who are made uncomfortable by knowing that intelligent people can disagree about something like that.

There is a lot to be gained from really thinking about how others see things.

I believe that Pope Leo ruled that the reforms that happened under Edward VI negated the valid Holy Orders of the Church of England.

so from our POV, it did start out as a schism
but very quickly it declined from Schism to a more complete disunity

 

[justinangel]

That Clement tried to lead or was looked to for any number of reasons not theological is not "evidence" of primacy being accepted by "all." This is the same era when Early Church Fathers were pointing to the successors of OTHER Apostles as being the intended leader of the Church and, of course, "Primacy" does not mean Supremacy or Infallibility.

Would you care to quote these ECFs?

“You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force”
Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition”
Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]

“[The] judgment [concerning Athanasius] ought to have been made, not as it was, but according to the ecclesiastical canon. It behooved all of you to write us (Julius) so that the justice of it might be seen as emanating from all. … Are you ignorant that the custom has been to write first to us and then for a just decision to be passed from this place [Rome]? If, then, any such suspicion rested upon the bishop there [Athanasius of Alexandria], notice of it ought to have been written to the church here. But now, after having done as they pleased, they want to obtain our concurrence, although we never condemned him. Not thus are the constitutions of Paul, not thus the traditions of the Fathers. This is another form of procedure, and a novel practice. … What I write about this is for the common good. For what we have heard from the blessed apostle Peter, these things I signify to you”
(Pope) Julius 1, Letter on Behalf of Athanasius [A.D. 341](in Athanasius, Apology Against the Arians 20–35)

“Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod’”
Council of Ephesus: Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 431]

“As for the resolution of the bishops which is contrary to the Nicene decree, in union with your faithful piety, I declare it to be invalid and annul it by the authority of the holy apostle Peter.”
(Pope) Leo 1, Letters 110 [A.D. 445]

“Whereupon the blessed Peter, as inspired by God, and about to benefit all nations by his confession, said, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ Not undeservedly, therefore, was he pronounced blessed by the Lord, and derived from the original Rock that solidity which belonged both to his virtue and to his name [Peter]”
Ibid., The Tome of Leo [A.D. 449]

“After the reading of the foregoing epistle [The Tome of Leo], the most reverend bishops cried out: ‘This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the apostles! So we all believe! Thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo! . . . This is the true faith! Those of us who are orthodox thus believe! This is the faith of the Fathers!’”
Council of Chalcedon: Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 451]

PAX

 

[MKJ]

I believe that Pope Leo ruled that the reforms that happened under Edward VI negated the valid Holy Orders of the Church of England.

so from our POV, it did start out as a schism
but very quickly it declined from Schism to a more complete disunity

Yes, this is exactally what I meant, thank you for making it clear.

Even the Catholic understanding - interpretation - of the facts allows for the possibility of schism of that kind - that is after all how they see the situation with the East and that has been the case for over 1000 years. And there have been smaller examples as well, like the Old Catholics. If the SSPX end up splitting wholly, as seems likely at the moment, it will be a similar situation.

If that doesn't seem logical within a Catholic context, then there is something missing from the understanding of the situation. That probably should preclude instructing others.

 

[MKJ]

Proof texting the Fathers is probably no better than proof-texting the Bible. A bunch of cherry-picked quotes without reference to other interpretations, historical events, orother incidents that suggest they aren't the only perspective, isn't really helpful.

Even many Catholic scholars would not agree with you that texts like these show the kind of papal primacy that you are suggesting, or were meant to be understood in the way you are reading them. Generally, the modern understanding of the papacy is seen as a development of doctrine, not something that you can find and pluck out of the Fathers wholesale.