Thursday, September 09, 2010

Life after the Return to Rome

A couple more comments from the Called to Communion thread:

Francis Beckwith (#5) said: John, to whom are you going to file your grievance in order to remedy this great historical wrong, a wrong that extended over the entirety of Christendom from (if you’re right) the 3rd century until the 16th?

This was right out of the box, and to some degree it is a fair question. We Protestants do have grievances not with the entire process of church history (although after Constantine that notion picked up some steam) -- but with small, and in some cases not-so-small things. For example, as I've written about in the past (and intend to write more about in the future), T.F. Torrance has done an analysis of the word and concept of "grace," as it's articulated in the New Testament, and as it is picked up in the Apostolic Fathers, and Clement, for one, holds to a doctrine of grace that misses the point of "grace" in the New Testament.
Clement definitely thinks of charis as referring to a gift of God without which the Christian would not be able to attain to love or salvation. But there is little doubt that this is held along with the idea of merit before God; for grace is given to those who perform the commandments of God, and who are worthy. He may use the language of election and justification, but the essentially Greek idea of the unqualified freedom of choice is a natural axiom in his thoughts, and entails a doctrine of "works" as Paul would have said. In all His dealings with men, God is regarded as merciful; but the ground for the Salvation He gives is double: faith and ... [ellipses in original].

Clement "thinks of God's mercy as directed only toward the pious" (55)
It's almost as if he's adopted Pelagianism before Pelagius.

Also, Clement pretty much flatly contradicts the writer of Hebrews:
When he said above, "You have neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings" (these are offered according to the law), then he added, "Behold, I have come to do your will." He does away with the first in order to establish the second. And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.

And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us; for after saying,
"This is the covenant that I will make with them
after those days, declares the Lord:
I will put my laws on their hearts,
and write them on their minds,"

then he adds,

"I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more."


Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin. (Hebrews 10)
And now here is Clement, using some of the same language, though in an opposite sense:
These things therefore being manifest to us, and since we look into the depths of the divine knowledge, it behoves us to do all things in [their proper] order, which the Lord has commanded us to perform at stated times. He has enjoined offerings [to be presented] and service to be performed [to Him], and that not thoughtlessly or irregularly, but at the appointed times and hours. Where and by whom He desires these things to be done, He Himself has fixed by His own supreme will, in order that all things being piously done according to His good pleasure, may be acceptable to Him. Those, therefore, who present their offerings at the appointed times, are accepted and blessed; for inasmuch as they follow the laws of the Lord, they sin not. For his own peculiar services are assigned to the high priest, and their own proper place is prescribed to the priests, and their own special ministrations devolve on the Levites. The layman is bound by the laws that pertain to laymen.

Let every one of you, brethren, give thanks to God in his own order, living in all good conscience, with becoming gravity, and not going beyond the rule of the ministry prescribed to him. Not in every place, brethren, are the daily sacrifices offered, or the peace-offerings, or the sin-offerings and the trespass-offerings, but in Jerusalem only. And even there they are not offered in any place, but only at the altar before the temple, that which is offered being first carefully examined by the high priest and the ministers already mentioned. Those, therefore, who do anything beyond that which is agreeable to His will, are punished with death. You see, brethren, that the greater the knowledge that has been vouchsafed to us, the greater also is the danger to which we are exposed. (1 Clement 40, 41)
Without going into a thorough analysis of these passages, it's clear to see that there's just a different understanding of what Christ's sacrifice has accomplished, and what it really meant for Him to have "sat down at the right hand of God," where "there is no longer any offering for sin."

Is this a part of the "great historical wrong" that Beckwith posits? It certainly looks serious.

Beckwith #5: The hoodwinking was so clever, so sublime, so sophisticated, and so diabolical that it developed in such a way as to fit seamlessly with the Church, its doctrinal development, its liturgy, its councils, and its declarations on the canonicity of Scripture. The deception was so well done–by the Enemy, of course–that it displays an elegance that makes it seem to be, in retrospect, just how one would expect the Church to have developed.

I noted in my comments that my view of how the early church began to go wrong required more nuance than he was allowing for here, ("sarcasm is the protest of people who are weak"), and I posted this link and offered to clarify if he didn't feel as if he wanted to go to a link. There was not very much at all, by the way, that could be described as "seamless" in early church history.

Francis Beckwith #9: I think Michael makes a good point. Take the quote he reproduces above:

(Citing Michael Liccone): “Rome’s exegesis of Matthew 16 and its historically developed claim to authoritative primacy in the Christian world simply cannot be demonstrated and sustained from Scripture itself. This claim is surely one of the great hoaxes foisted upon professing Christendom, upon which false base rests the whole papal sacerdotal system.”

I would add to Mike’s excellent point the observation that the quote is not only an almost textbook case of crass question- begging its assertion about the “Christendom” is more incredible than the exegesis it claims cannot be sustained. Here’s what I mean: who precisely did the foisting and why was it so relatively easy to accomplish? The ecumenical councils of the first five centuries–including all its bishops–were all duped. But by whom and for what insidious purpose? Even the Eastern Churches, though rejecting the Catholic claims of the papacy, maintain some view of petrine primacy (i.e., first among equals). So, even those who were uneasy about Rome’s claims about the papacy shared with Rome the belief in petrine primacy as well as apostolic succession and the visible Church as the means by which grace is given through the sacraments.

I responded to his apparent factual misunderstanding and also the notion about orthodox views not being the "divine institution" that Rome requires.

But note, again, the bolded selection: It was the Roman bishops themselves, in their quest to aggrandize themselves, that did the "duping". This wasn't an intentional thing -- it was more a case of "arguing among themselves as to who was greatest." It was a case of Roman bishops being invited to a banquet, then taking the highest seat when such a thing was not offered to them. But the characterization of "duping" -- that is a straw man, and someone with his academic credentials should know about this sort of thing.

But he goes further.

Beckwith #9: The scope and depth of the conspiracy is global and virtually unopposed. And we are supposed to, in light of this, abandon the universal and visible church because some Reformed writer happens to draw our attention to the fact that the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16 has its detractors and thus we cannot conclusively prove from the text petrine primacy. But this Cartesian skepticism cuts both ways, since one can find among even the Reformed disagreements on justification and the passages in Scripture employed by partisans on all sides (e.g, Wright v. Piper). The problem with scorched Earth apologetics is that you may “win” the argument but there’s no Earth left on which to revel in your victory.

So now he accelerates the "duping" language into a full-blown conspiracy theory.

In the first place, the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16 is clearly opposed. Read the responses of Cyprian and Firmilian to Stephen, for example. It is opposed in a most strenuous way.

It's simply not the case that "the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16 has its detractors." It is the case that "the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16" had not a single advocate until the 250's, when Steven decided that he could use it to, what, somehow claim some greater authority than others thought that he had.

But again, note the bolded selection. The "conspiracy theory" has becomes "scorched earth."

An academic with Beckwith's credentials should have no problem debunking my thesis, if indeed it can be debunked. As I noted:
I assure you this is not “scorched earth.” Because I can show you examples of how the “critical historical scholarship” which is seemingly doing great damage (hence your use of “scorched earth” terminology) is actually confirming very important elements about the life of Christ. I can live with that, and I believe that the entire church will be better off with that understanding in place.
So far as I can tell, Francis Beckwith did not show up again.

* * *

I'm pointing these things out to note that his argumentation here did not align itself with his academic credentials. Although, I've always noted a certain screechiness when he interacts with, say, the folks at Triablogue. But here, the screechiness takes on a shrill and unbecoming level.

One of the benefits of being an old guy is that you've just plain seen things with your own eyes that others may not have been aware of. In one important respect, I've traveled the path that Beckwith has followed and advertised: I grew up as a cradle Catholic; left for one reason or another, and then I "Returned to Rome" and even resided there quite happily for a time.

But the Holy Spirit is not one to give up on people. And there did come a time when the unease grew, over having to say "black" when my eye saw white. This unease was strikingly apparent at Mass, when I would receive communion, and I was not getting the good touchy-feely sentiments of having just received "the Body of Christ." Watching people bow to statues of Mary made me cringe. It was Christ himself who drove me out of the Roman church -- over time, to be sure, but the drive was persistent.

Some Catholics might think that this is just a "dark night of the soul." That they can just put up with it and put up with it and then it will go away. I would not be surprised if not only Beckwith, but more than a few of the Called to Communion guys, over time, experience this sort of thing. These are individuals who claimed to once have been Reformed; they claimed to know the Scriptures.

If indeed they once did know the Scriptures, the Scriptures will not let go of them. The choice, then, is, "is this really a "dark night of the soul?" Or is it the very Holy Spirit of God calling upon you to repent and return to receive his free grace?

Nobody really knows what's going on inside Francis Beckwith to generate the very un-academic responses he gave here. But I can say from personal experience that to "Return to Rome" isn't necessarily to live happily ever after.

118 comments:

Dozie said...

If this is a cry for help; I pray it comes soon.

John Bugay said...

Who said anything about a "cry for help"?

Blogahon said...

John,

It is the case that "the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16" had not a single advocate until the 250's.

Maybe you could quote a church father prior to AD 250 that exegetes Matthew 16:18 in a way that excludes the Catholic interpretation?

Matthew Bellisario said...

John, quite simply it is you and your pretended "reformers" against every historic apostolic church in existence. They all have apostolic succession, the Prots don't. They all have a priesthood and a sacrifice in which Jesus is present in both of his natures, the Prots don't. They all have the rest of the Sacraments, or Sacred Mysteries, including extreme unction, holy orders, confirmation, and confession, the Prots don't. They all properly give the worship that is due to God alone, while giving veneration to those whom God has glorified, the Prots don't. Everything listed here is maintained by any Church that can reasonably prove it has existed since apostolic times.

Unfortunately for you and your Prot lineage, it maintains little to nothing from the early church. Beyond paying lip service to Sacred Scripture, making it seem as if you are somehow like them, what else can you offer that resembles anything of the early Church? The answer is absolutely nothing, and you are nothing more than two faced when it comes to claiming Sacred Scripture as your own. You parrot the words of Sacred Scripture with one face, yet with your other face you vomit out blasphemy and reject what it means. If there ever was a perfect substitute for the pagan God of Janus, it is the those who call themselves Protestant.

Blogahon said...

Matthew,

Lets just focus on John's presuppositions shall we?

I asked him Maybe you could quote a church father prior to AD 250 that exegetes Matthew 16:18 in a way that excludes the Catholic interpretation?

Unless he is arguing from silence, again, than he should be able to prove that the Reformed exegesis of Matthew 16:18 was the original interpretation of the Church fathers and that the Catholic view really was an AD 250 invention.

Next we'll ask John what year the following doctrines were explicitly taught by the church fathers:

1) Sola Fide
2) Sola Scriptura
3) Succession is merely related to doctrine
4) Only two sacraments

Etc etc...

Hopefully all of those (and others) appear before AD 250!

John Bugay said...

Sean, you might say that no bombastic claim is challenged until it is made. If it had been accepted at this time, there would be no precedent for the challenge. Instead, both Cyprian and Firmilian, bishops in the so-called succession. If Stephen's claim were widely accepted at the time, they would not have opposed it. As it is, you have to attribute bad motives to them.

Matthew Bellisario said...

Bugay says, "If it had been accepted at this time, there would be no precedent for the challenge."

That is simply not true. That is like saying no one believed Jesus was God, and the Arians challenged it, so it was not accepted at the time of the Arian heresy. Are you going to make that claim Bugay? Is this what you are saying?

Blogahon said...

John,

Again, prior to AD 250 which church fathers taught an interpretation of Matthew 16:18 that was opposed to the Catholic interpretation?

Remember, you are the one who is trying to score points by asserting that in AD 250 the interpretation of Peter as the rock is some kind of 'fictive construction.'

Blogahon said...

Note how I am asking you to prove a positive, not a negative. So the deflection that you used the other day won't suffice.

John Bugay said...

Sean:Again, prior to AD 250 which church fathers taught an interpretation of Matthew 16:18 that was opposed to the Catholic interpretation?

First, I didn't deflect anything. You made a nonsensical request.

Second, who did teach that Bishop of Rome = Peter? (That is, after all, the heart of "the Catholic interpretation. If you disagree with that definition, let me know). But who, up to this point, did teach it? Nobody.

Ask yourself, which scenario here would be more natural?

(a) Nobody believes the Bishop of Rome somehow has the mantle of Peter. Then someone claims he has it. People not expecting it would go apoplectic, as happened with Cyprian and Firmilian, two bishops "in the succession"

(b) Everybody respects the bishop of Rome as having "petrine" authority. Cyprian and Firmilian respond strongly and negatively when a bishop of Rome claims such authority. [In this case, you have to charge Cyprian, who soon became a martyr, with less-than-pure motives. -- not just "being mistaken," because he is in the succession, but outright insubordination.]

Matthew Bellisario: Bugay says, "If it had been accepted at this time, there would be no precedent for the challenge."

MB: That is simply not true. That is like saying no one believed Jesus was God, and the Arians challenged it, so it was not accepted at the time of the Arian heresy. Are you going to make that claim Bugay? Is this what you are saying?


You've got the parallel thing out of place.

Bishops think all bishops are equal.
Bishop of Rome makes false claim to authority.
Bishops go apoplectic. (Cyprian and Firmilian).


or

Everyone believes Jesus is God
Arius says "there was a time when he was not
Bishops still go apoplectic (Alexander and Athanasius)

Ask yourself, "what did they know, and when did they know it? Arius's charges were just as out-of-step with the mainstream as were Stephen's.

Blogahon said...

John,

So, you can't name a single father that taught the Reformed interpretation of Matthew 16:18 prior to AD 250?

That figures.

But, it should make everybody wonder why John boasts this about the Catholic interpretation if the same exact criticism applies to the Reformed position?

This is what Francis Beckwith called 'scortched earth' apologetics. If the same exact tactic were pointed at your own belief system it looks even worse.

John Bugay said...

Sean, I can name lots of fathers who held that the rock was Peter's confession, or that every Christian eas "the rock." That is not the point. They did not sit around weighing 16th century theology bs their own.

You have to ask instead, what did they actually believe at the time? In Cyprian's time, was there or was there not a pope with universal jurisdiction over the whole church. It is a yes or no question. And Cyprian and Firmillian said no.

The answer to that question is extremely important in understanding the leadership structure of the church at the time. It's like a computer. Binary choices in a string. If Cyprian and Firmilian said no, then you go on to the nest choice. Such as, "did Cyprian view any bishop as having authority over other bishops " and the answer to that is "no" as well. Important clues to understanding early church polity.

Tim Enloe said...

John, I haven't read everything you've been writing on this subject, but what I've seen, including this post, is very good and helpful. Thanks!

As a scholar myself, it's really fascinating to me to see all these pop-apologists complaining that you can't cite a source on Point A without also accepting his view of Point B, and since Point B materially attacks the Christian Faith in a way that you yourself would not accept, you should not accept his view of Point A.

This is just absurd, and shows the lack of critical thinking ability in the pop-apologetics community. Of course you can cite a scholar on Point A without accepting his view of Point B - it's called weighing arguments. Pop-apologists operate with a goofy, uncritical standard that is really a double standard. When scholarship supports them, they love it ("All these Protestant scholars admit that Peter was the Rock! Why don't you?"). Yet when scholarship contradicts them ("The papacy relied on forgeries for many centuries, and this materially affects its claims to sovereignty in the Church"), they darkly suspect it - and anyone who relies upon it.

The simple fact of the matter is that sober historical inquiry, a discipline given to us by thoroughly committed Christians in the Renaissance, has never been the friend of many of Rome's dogmatic claims, but has in fact demonstrated that the "historical" support for her dogmatic claims is weak, suspect, or else very easily and quite reasonably challengable. If you're a papalist, it's pretty hard to grapple soberly with Lorenzo Valla, or even Erasmus - both good Catholics - and still maintain that your doctrines have "historical" support, so lots of modern Catholics don't even try to grapple with them. They just dismiss them by a specious and really quite intellectually childish appeal to having a superior "faith."

It's just a lot of hand-waving, and it makes you glad to be, as my friend Peter Escalante says, a Protestant since as a Protestant you can face history "with your eyes open" instead of following Belloc's childish dictum, "Always hold the hand of nurse, for fear of finding something worse."

dtking said...

Romanist So, you can't name a single father that taught the Reformed interpretation of Matthew 16:18 prior to AD 250?

That figures.


This is the typical Romanist tactic of attempting to shift the burden of proof for his own claim. He knows he cannot make good his own claim.

Cardinal Congar can answer for his fellow Romanist: Application of the principle is difficult, at least at a certain level. In regard to individual texts of Scripture total patristic consensus is unnecessary: quite often, that which is appealed to as sufficient for dogmatic points does not go beyond what is encountered in the interpretation of many texts. But it does sometimes happen that some Fathers understood a passage in a way which does not agree with later Church teaching. One example: the interpretation of Peter’s confession in Matthew 16.16-19. Except at Rome, this passage was not applied by the Fathers to the papal primacy; they worked out exegesis at the level of their own ecclesiological thought, more anthropological and spiritual than judicial. . . . Historical documentation is at the factual level; it must leave room for a judgement made not in the light of the documentary evidence alone, but of the Church's faith. Yves M.-J. Congar, Tradition and Traditions: An Historical and a Theological Essay (London: Burns & Oats, 1966), pp. 398-399.

Congar indicates that we’re to accept Rome’s word on Rome’s word.

And Cardinal Congar goes on to insist on this principle even more clearly when he states; “It is the Church, not the Fathers, the consensus of the Church in submission to its Saviour which is the sufficient rule of our Christianity.” Yves M.-J. Congar, Tradition and Traditions: An Historical and a Theological Essay (London: Burns & Oats, 1966), p. 399. This is sola Roma with a vengeance. And I think that the cardinal has a much better understanding of church history than Beckwith.

That is what figures. :)

John Bugay said...

Tim, I genuinely appreciate your perspective here.

John Bugay said...

David, the method that Congar outlines is basically the same one that Ratzinger used in Called to Communion. He paid some lip service to "exegesis," then basically said that the "base memory" of the church overrules exegesis.

dtking said...

John,

I am convinced that the "base memory" of the church which overrules exegesis amounts to a form of Gnosticism.

As G. W. H. Lampe (the author of the Greek Patristic Lexicon) observed: "In Gnosticism, therefore, we encounter for the first time the idea of unwritten tradition as an authority for doctrine. Unlike orthodox tradition, it is neither the raw material, as it were, of what is to become Scripture, nor the explication of what is contained in Scripture. It is wholly independent of Scripture and is even superior to it, since only in the light of the tradition can Scripture be understood. Doctrine and practice alike are founded upon it. It claims to be apostolic tradition, handed down in succession from the apostles. The Gnostic theory was reasonable enough, given the doctrinal principles of the movement. Having denied the historical basis of the gospel, the Gnostics seek to reinterpret it in alien terms with the aid of a spurious tradition. A similar theory of tradition, however, adopted from different motives, is by no means unknown today." Quoted from his essay in F. W. Dillistone, ed. Scripture and Tradition (London: Lutterworth Press, 1955), p. 41.

Toon makes a similar observation...

Peter Toon: Later in the history of the Church a need was felt to supplement Scripture by teaching from Tradition and this is the ‘supplementary view’. Gnostics adopted this position in the second century and it was the commonly held view in Roman Catholicism from the sixteenth to the nineteenth century. Peter Toon, Evangelical Theology 1833-1856: A Response to Tractarianism (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1979), p. 138.

Jennie said...

Matthew Bellisario,
If the protestant gentlemen can type out 'Roman Catholic' or 'Romanist', can't you type out 'Protestant'?

John Bugay said...

Jennie, we view Matthew's bellicosity as an admission of the weakness of his own position, coupled with a lack of maturity to deal with it.

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

FYI, there is a 4-part review of Dr. Beckwith's book "Return to Rome" on aomin.org.

Here's the first part:

http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=4121

Blogahon said...

Pastor David T King,

This is the typical Romanist tactic of attempting to shift the burden of proof for his own claim.

I am not the one claiming anything in this thread. John Bugay is the one claiming things. As such, the burden of proof is on him.

Here is a claim he made in this post:

It's simply not the case that "the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16 has its detractors." It is the case that "the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16" had not a single advocate until the 250's.

I am taking that assertion and asking John Bugay (and now you) to apply that critical outlook towards your exegesis of Mathew 16;18.

If, according to John Bugay, the emergence of explicit exegesis of Matthew 16:18 towards the Catholic view point did not arise until AD 250 and if, according to John Bugay, this is problematic to the Catholic view point that surely the Reformed exegesis would not be exposed to the same criticism.

Maybe you, being a ‘Genevaist’ can help explain this to us?

Constantine said...

Hi John,

Thanks for commenting on Dr. Beckwith’s “contribution” at CtC.

It was very odd that he introduced 4th, 5th and 6th century councils as an answer to a question about the 1st century. Apparently he thinks that people can’t be fooled by Rome for an extended period. Of course, he has to then deal with the Donation of Constantine. That forgery was proclaimed as official by Pope Leo IX three hundred years after its originiation. Must have been a lot of little green men in the Vatican in those days!

Lorenzo Valla’s expose of the forgery was put on the list of forbidden books 760 years after the Donation’s origin. What a subtle, sublime, and universal conspiracy don’t you think?

Of course, if the Roman church could do that for nearly 800 years after the 8th century, it is incumbent upon our estimable Dr. Beckwith to explain why it could not have perpetrated the papacy as well.

Peace.

Constantine said...

Hi John,

Keep up the good work. I echo Tim’s comments and am grateful for them.

Sean asks,

Maybe you could quote a church father prior to AD 250 that exegetes Matthew 16:18 in a way that excludes the Catholic interpretation?

The real question is what exactly is THE Catholic interpretation? If by that he means the dogmatic proclamation of Vatican I, then according to an archbishop of the church and former Catholic seminary professor there are AT LEAST 68 Early Church Fathers who deviate from the “official Catholic position”:

"Archbishop Kenrick of St. Louis, in his speech prepared for, but not delivered in, the Vatican Council, and published at Naples in 1870, declares that Roman Catholics cannot establish the Petrine privilege from Scripture, because of the clause in the Creed of Pius IV, binding them to interpret Scripture only according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers. And he adds that there are five different patristic interpretations of St. Matt. 16:18: (1) That St. Peter is the Rock, taught by seventeen Fathers; (2) that the whole Apostolic College is the Rock, represented by Peter as its chief, taught by eight; (3) that St. Peter's faith is the Rock, taught by forty-four; (4) that Christ is the Rock, taught by sixteen; (5) that the Rock is the whole body of the faithful. Several who teach (x) and (2) also teach (3) and (4), and so the Archbishop sums up thus: "If we are bound to follow the greater number of Fathers in this matter, then we must hold for certain that the word Petra means not Peter professing the faith, but the faith professed by Peter". - Friedrich, Docum. ad illust. Conc. Vat. I. pp. 185-246."

So the point is that of the 85 ECF’s cited with distinct positions, only 17 had what can be called the “official Catholic position”!

The far easier task becomes naming those ECF’s who would still be in communion with Rome!

In modern times, Yves Cardinal Congar, one of the architects of the next Vatican Council has this take on Matthew 16:

“ Peter received the title of rock (Kepha) primarily because of his confession of Christ, Son of the Living God (Mt. 16:16-19).”
Congar, Yves. The Meaning of Tradition. San Francisco. Ignatius Press, 2004.P. 64

A Cardinal of the church, a member of the Magisterium which cannot err in matters of faith and morals sides with the 80% of ECF’s who take a position contrary to Romes!

The papacy of today is clearly a modern invention, unknown in its present form until very recent history.


Peace

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

Tim Enloe's comment above probably deserves its own post!

Blogahon said...

Tim Enloe:

this is called weighing the evidence.

And that is called 'begging the question.'

I wrote this last night and it applies to your answer:

1) John knows that there are other scholars that disagree with the scholars that he is citing (or at least scholars that come to very different conclusions.) This is pointed out on the Called to Communion thread.

2) John also knows that standing on these scholars is a difficult place to stand because these same scholars come to conclusions about history that John cannot, as a Reformed Christian, accept. One such example is the authorship of the epistles.

Ask John if he believes that Paul wrote the 2nd Timothy. Then compare his response to Peter Lampe’s assessment of that question.

3) I know of no Christians that base their faith and believe doctrines on whether or not a modern historian gives enough corroboration.

4) I know for a fact that many 1st century historians that are highly regarded have concluded things about the early church that would make any good Christian cringe.

So, if all things are equal, I would like to know on what basis many of you reject the historical conclusions of guys like Bart Ehrman?

If we are just supposed to capitulate to Lampe’s conclusions that are based on pure speculation than what gives you the right to disagree with Ehrman?

5) In the end John does not realize the implications of his own apologetic method. As Francis Beckwith rightly concluded: "The problem with scorched Earth apologetics is that you may “win” the argument but there’s no Earth left on which to revel in your victory."


John's answer, that he is just 'testing everything' and your answer, that he is just 'weighing the evidence' is merely begging the question.

Four years ago I 'tested everything' and 'weighed the evidence' and as a result (and by the Grace of God) came into full communion with the Christ's church.

John Bugay said...

Sean -- it is simply not the case that I am making a claim about no bishop of Rome. I am making a counter claim, to challenge Rome's own boastful claims why do you require proof from me, but no counter- proof from Rome?

As it is, you are the one being inconsistent here.

dtking said...

I am not the one claiming anything in this thread. John Bugay is the one claiming things. As such, the burden of proof is on him.

Inevitably, it goes right over the Romanist's head that it is his and others' claim to which Mr. Bugay is responding. The Roman position is always long on claims and always short on substance. Cardinal Congar agrees with Mr. Bugay.

Maybe you, being a ‘Genevaist’ can help explain this to us?

Genevaist? That aside, I already have - The Reformed position is unanimous in that not a single word is offered in Matthew 16:18 about any successors to Peter. We agree with the vast majority of the patristic witness regarding Matthew 16. Rome's witness is the one that rejects the patristic witness. In other words, Rome's position is not the catholic position. I'm happy to help you out with this. :)

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

It's so much better to have an unmoderated blog.

The give-and-take is faster, more real-time, more interactive.

And the complaint that so much spam compels moderation, I haven't seen that much.

Protestant blogs not only have better content, better arguments, better rhetoric, but they're also better because they're unmoderated which results in better comments because there's no ham-fisted moderator holding up and delaying or deleting comments.

John Bugay said...

John Bugay has called me names countless times.

I have never called you names.

What I have done is to point out (with extensive documentation) all the instances you've been cited for misrepresenting peoples' positions.

There is a difference.

natamllc said...

While Nero continues fiddling!

John: First, I didn't deflect anything. You made a nonsensical request.

You have uncovered all the earth covering Sean's bunker with that one claim! Sadly, he does not as yet, realize it!

Now, what is the solution for the pollution that is contained within it, his bunker where he hunkers down with his buddies Matt, Dozie, Brian and there thread?

Hmmmmmmmmm?

I know the solution for our Reformed pollution is "absolution"!

Their absolution brings the soul Christ bled for back down to earth just where the devil wants the game to be played out by them!

Why?

Well, because the Devil defeated Adam in the Garden. This is the only ground upon which the devils can take a stand and defeat the Saints! This too is a part of the predestination of the Saints on earth!

Notice as you do, I suppose, that in order for you to become a Saint within the RCC system, you have to undo yourself before a human institution inaugurated by men!

Notice as you do, I suppose, that in order for you to become "Who" you are first before the foundation of the world, a Saint, within the God ordained process of reformation long started before Christ's birth and suffering and death and resurrection, that Martin Luther, John Calvin and others of that era reclaimed for themselves too, as their own identity; and when we reiterate it to the offense of others too, including the RCC, all we need do is turn to God and repent and receive from Them the forgiveness for our sins and from this place of communion we naturally bear the fruits of repentance! This new and living Way is far less onerous than the religious practices of self made religion.

These guys know they stand on thin ice. Don't kid yourself. As I read some of your commentors responses in here, I suppose, the ice thins even more under them!

When these guys fall through that thin icy foundation, sand shifts, ice sheets or just plain hot air advice, then they will, as we, rejoice in the Truth we declare:

"The Lord Reigns"!

With the caliber of substance you bring forth in this one debate with Sean, I can imagine you hearing these words of a fine First Century Brother deep within your heart, had you been there when this debate was being debated back then:::>

1Ti 6:11 But as for you, O man of God, flee these things. Pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, steadfastness, gentleness.
1Ti 6:12 Fight the good fight of the faith. Take hold of the eternal life to which you were called and about which you made the good confession in the presence of many witnesses.
1Ti 6:13 I charge you in the presence of God, who gives life to all things, and of Christ Jesus, who in his testimony before Pontius Pilate made the good confession,
1Ti 6:14 to keep the commandment unstained and free from reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ,
1Ti 6:15 which he will display at the proper time--he who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords,
1Ti 6:16 who alone has immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see. To him be honor and eternal dominion. Amen.


Onward Christian Soldier! Weary not in well doing for in due season you shall reap even where you have not sown! :)

John Bugay said...

Natamllc, I did not realize you were a poet! But I do suspect that some of these guys do realize the extent of the thin ice they are on.

Blogahon said...

We agree with the vast majority of the patristic witness regarding Matthew 16. Rome's witness is the one that rejects the patristic witness.

Keep dreaming. The Genevaist violence to the fathers is obvious.

John,

I remember you calling me a liar. That is a name, and a completely unsubstantiated claim. (You have never been able to cite a single lie.)

Also, in a thread about Scott Hahn's book you called him a 'leech' and a 'liar.'

I am going to take your bellicosity as an admission of the weakness of your position, coupled with a lack of maturity to deal with it.

Blogahon said...

Tim,

this is called weighing the evidence.

And that is called 'begging the question.'

I wrote this last night and it applies to your answer:

1) John knows that there are other scholars that disagree with the scholars that he is citing (or at least scholars that come to very different conclusions.) This is pointed out on the Called to Communion thread.

2) John also knows that standing on these scholars is a difficult place to stand because these same scholars come to conclusions about history that John cannot, as a Reformed Christian, accept. One such example is the authorship of the epistles.

Ask John if he believes that Paul wrote the 2nd Timothy. Then compare his response to Peter Lampe’s assessment of that question.

3) I know of no Christians that base their faith and believe doctrines on whether or not a modern historian gives enough corroboration.

4) I know for a fact that many 1st century historians that are highly regarded have concluded things about the early church that would make any good Christian cringe.

So, if all things are equal, I would like to know on what basis many of you reject the historical conclusions of guys like Bart Ehrman?

If we are just supposed to capitulate to Lampe’s conclusions that are based on pure speculation than what gives you the right to disagree with Ehrman?

5) In the end John does not realize the implications of his own apologetic method. As Francis Beckwith rightly concluded: "The problem with scorched Earth apologetics is that you may “win” the argument but there’s no Earth left on which to revel in your victory."


John's answer, that he is just 'testing everything' and your answer, that he is just 'weighing the evidence' is merely begging the question.

Four years ago I 'tested everything' and 'weighed the evidence' and as a result (and by the Grace of God) came into full communion with the Christ's church.

Blogahon said...

John,

You said, "It is simply not the case that I am making a claim about no bishop of Rome. I am making a counter claim, to challenge Rome's own boastful claims why do you require proof from me, but no counter- proof from Rome? "

And you are not offering any evidence for your counter claim.

See here.

In that thread you claimed that, “there is overwhelming historical evidence that there was no successor.”

Bryan then asked you for that evidence and then you said, “you are asking to prove a negative. That is the kind of trickery that should be beneath someone who expresses such good intentions as you do.”

Again, if you don’t want to be asked for evidence than perhaps you should not claim that there is 'tons of evidence.'

Nata - At this point I honestly wonder if you are following the conversation. It looks more like you are content to merely 'atta boy' John no matter how much he equivocates.

Read what I just quoted. Are you honestly going to accept that it is ok to claim 'tons of evidence' of but fail to reproduce any?

Speaking of being content - I am content with what I've said in this conversation. I am content with the fact that all of John's arguments are built a handful of scholars that stroke his presuppositions.

Cont'

Blogahon said...

I'll close with responded to Tim:

this is called weighing the evidence.

And that is called 'begging the question.'

I wrote this last night and it applies to your answer:

1) John knows that there are other scholars that disagree with the scholars that he is citing (or at least scholars that come to very different conclusions.) This is pointed out on the Called to Communion thread.

2) John also knows that standing on these scholars is a difficult place to stand because these same scholars come to conclusions about history that John cannot, as a Reformed Christian, accept. One such example is the authorship of the epistles.

Ask John if he believes that Paul wrote the 2nd Timothy. Then compare his response to Peter Lampe’s assessment of that question.

3) I know of no Christians that base their faith and believe doctrines on whether or not a modern historian gives enough corroboration.

4) I know for a fact that many 1st century historians that are highly regarded have concluded things about the early church that would make any good Christian cringe.

So, if all things are equal, I would like to know on what basis many of you reject the historical conclusions of guys like Bart Ehrman?

If we are just supposed to capitulate to Lampe’s conclusions that are based on pure speculation than what gives you the right to disagree with Ehrman?

Blogahon said...

5) In the end John does not realize the implications of his own apologetic method. As Francis Beckwith rightly concluded: "The problem with scorched Earth apologetics is that you may “win” the argument but there’s no Earth left on which to revel in your victory."

John's answer, that he is just 'testing everything' and your answer, that he is just 'weighing the evidence' is merely begging the question.

Four years ago I 'tested everything' and 'weighed the evidence' and as a result (and by the Grace of God) came into full communion with the Christ's church.

dtking said...

Keep dreaming. The Genevaist violence to the fathers is obvious.

I'm not the one dreaming on. Unlike yourself, we can document our claims, http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/fathersmt16.html

Thanks for more of the same, empty rhetoric.

Tim Enloe said...

Again, I haven't read all of this in its context, but assuming that Dr. Beckwith's remarks are being represented justly, yes, it is a sad case of the argumentation not matching the academic credentials.

It is not necessary, contra Beckwith, to imagine that the papacy was some dark, demonic conspiracy aimed deliberately at deceiving others. Such is the "Jack Chick" type of quasi-Protestant argument, but it need form no part of a really informed Protestant take on the papacy.

All that is necessary to understand the papacy is a good understanding of its original sociocultural context: the Roman Empire of the Late Antique period. While there is no denying that some popes were evil men, the institution as a whole was simply a natural, man-made outgrowth of the concept of "imitation of the Empire" (imitatio imperii), a concept which actually appears in exactly those words in later Carolingian writers who were consciously attempting to model the government of the Visible Church on the old Roman imperial form of government.

This is neither a conspiracy nor a consciously evil deception nor a metaphysically necessary "development" from some imagined universal-abstract "esse" of "the Church." It is merely an example of human beings being human beings, using what is most familiar to them without always thinking through its long-range logical and practical (and of course, exegetical) implications.

Much of so-called "Protestantism" is, in fact, Jack Chick-like. I worry sometimes that people who too eagerly quote rhetorically vituperative passages from our old doctors (e.g., "Those damned-dog Romanists hide their lies under a bushel so that their deeds of darkness will not be exposed," etc.) are ultimately doing us a disservice by activating the Catholic convert ability to whine about being persecuted by irrational bigots.

Nevertheless, contra Beckwith and all using that mode of argument, Protestant theology is actually extremely politically sophisticated, and in the best of the old doctors - most of whom haven't been read by us for centuries because we gave up learning Latin - deployed rather substantial theological-political arguments against the papalists. It's the sort of stuff pop-apologists can't and won't read, because it takes too much time to understand it. But it's there for those who look, and it's far more compelling than any Bellisario or any Beckwith has yet to show a competence to deal with.

John Bugay said...

Sean, I'm happy for folks to see the context in which I wrote about Hahn:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f85/initial-impressions-scott-hahn-work-ratzinger-55983/

Blogahon said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
John Bugay said...

I would like to know on what basis many of you reject the historical conclusions of guys like Bart Ehrman?

Kostenberger and Kruger say this about him:

Ehrman has taken a very different approach [with regard to "unresolved variants," for example]. For him, the quest for the original text is of an "all or nothing" endeavor. [Sound familiar?] Either we know the wording of the original text with absolute certainty (meaning we have the autographs, or perfect copies of the autographs), or we can have no confidence at all in the wording of the original text. Unfortunately, this requirement of absolute certainty sets up a false dichotomy that is foreign to the study of history. As historians, we are not forced to choose between knowing everything or knowing nothing—there are degrees of assurance that can be attained even though some things are still unknown. This false dichotomy allows Ehrman to draw conclusions that are vastly out of proportion with the actual historical evidence. Although his overall claim is relatively indisputable (that the New Testament manuscripts are not perfect but contain a variety of scribal variations), his sweeping conclusions simply do not follow that the text of the New Testament is unreliable and unknowable. We can have reliable manuscripts without having perfect manuscripts. But it is precisely this distinction that Ehrman's "all or nothing" methodology does not allow him to make."

So you might say that Ehrman asks people to "swallow the whole pig," and accept his conclusions, when such conclusions are not really warranted at all.

Sort of like that seamless Roman doctrine.

John Bugay said...

Sean, you don't get to come here and be insulting to our guests.

Blogahon said...

DT King,

Maybe we should follow John Bugay's lead and examine the scholarship of the question of Peter and Matthew 16:18?

Jesus now sums up Peter's significance in a name, Peter...It describes not so much Peter's character (he did not prove to be 'rock-like' in terms of stability or reliability), but his function, as the foundation-stone of Jesus' church. The feminine word for 'rock', 'petra', is necessarily changed to the masculine 'petros' (stone) to give a man's name, but the word-play is unmistakable (and in Aramaic would be even more so, as the same form 'kepha' would occur in both places). It is only Protestant overreaction to the Roman Catholic claim...that what is here said of Peter applies also to the later bishops of Rome, that has led some to claim that the 'rock' here is not Peter at all but the faith which he has just confessed. The word-play, and the whole structure of the passage, demands that this verse is every bit as much Jesus' declaration about Peter as v.16 was Peter's declaration about Jesus...It is to Peter, not to his confession, that the rock metaphor is applied...Peter is to be the foundation-stone of Jesus' new community...which will last forever.

R.T. France; in Morris, Leon, General editor, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press / Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1985, vol. 1: Matthew, 254, 256)

More scholarship, mostly Protestant confirming the same.

Seriously, I have a life to get back to and have wasted too much of my day(s) off here.

Let me know if we ever get to discussing actual evidence.

Blogahon said...

Dave.

And honestly that was about as docile an 'insult' as possible. But, if I did insult anybody - I apologize.

Seriously though. I have a life to get back to and need to use my last couple of days off doing the things we crazy Catholics do...like worshiping idols and self mortification.

John Bugay said...

Sean, what do you think of the response to Ehrman. You at one point seemed highly interested in that.

natamllc said...

Sean,

need it be said of me? I am not the historian nor the scholar in here!

I am the Sola Scriptura guy!

If it doesn't square with there it ain't here! There!

I will cite three historical persons, two of which are there and the other guy, the Big One, is both here and there!

Each of them dealt with the question you keep asking during the First Century! Is it suppose to be different in this Century?

Here's Luke, Paul and Jesus, all refutations of yours and your man made slick false slimy challenge to cite historical evidences that Matthew 16:18 is solely the crown of the Apostle Peter:

Act 14:1 Now at Iconium they entered together into the Jewish synagogue and spoke in such a way that a great number of both Jews and Greeks believed.
Act 14:2 But the unbelieving Jews stirred up the Gentiles and poisoned their minds against the brothers.
Act 14:3 So they remained for a long time, speaking boldly for the Lord, who bore witness to the word of his grace, granting signs and wonders to be done by their hands.
Act 14:4 But the people of the city were divided; some sided with the Jews and some with the apostles.


As you can see, those folks were throttled with evidences as we! And, ironically or not, we here today with our evidences have not changed the outcome of the game plan one iota! The devils will not change nor repent! Their fate is certain sealed with the Word of God, Who is our Eternal Life!!

As then, so it is today, a bit different in this way, that there is your crowd siding with your crowd, one of many religious practices worldwide, and our crowd, who still side with those First Century Apostles, Elders, Brethren who began this predetermined Royal Priesthood with Christ as our High Priest of this order! There has never been a change or a succession of this order! The RCC certainly has done well to muddy the water so it is not clearly understood! She will pay dearly for that as will all false religions!

Now, go figure, if you want too and repent so you too can bring forth the fruits of repentance He offers you!

Was I unkind to you Sean? Did I name call?

If you believe it, I repent gladly and will let Pastor King guide me in a sinner's prayer in here so you can realize the Joy we have within when we repent and receive forgiveness when we wander away from the Truth!

He is here!

He is Lord!

He reigns!

1Ch 16:31 Let the heavens be glad, and let the earth rejoice, and let them say among the nations, "The LORD reigns!"

Blogahon said...

John,

OK...last response today and for a while...

I completely agree that Bart Erhman's approach is deeply flawed, but so is Lampe's in many respect albeit in different ways. I hope to demonstrate this on CtC soon.

Lastly Tim Enloe,

You are at University of Dallas?

That is a very good Catholic university, but you already know that. I have a friend that is a Phd candidate (English) that started at UD a Reformed Protestant and was just received into the church last Easter. His conversion was remarkable - he was drawn to the Holy Eucharist which is 24 hours exposed on the UD chapel.

I will pray for your time there.

dtking said...

In spite of all the complaining, Webster's evidence concerning the patristic exegesis of Matthew 16 matches the observation of Cardinal Congar, whom I think is in a much better position to judge the witness of this exegetical tradition than Mr. Steve Ray.

Blogahon said...

Ok last comment, for real, only because DT King deserves a response.

In spite of all the complaining, Webster's evidence concerning the patristic exegesis of Matthew 16 matches the observation of Cardinal Congar, whom I think is in a much better position to judge the witness of this exegetical tradition than Mr. Steve Ray.

Steve Ray's book addresses how different fathers offered different interpretations - this is not disputed. But the fact remains that many fathers interpreted Peter as the rock and that this was the gradual consensus. However, even now, we can say that the 'rock' is also Peter's confession and it does not do violence to Peter being the rock.

The reason is that many of the fathers who did not account Peter as the rock, per se, held that the Petrine office A) Had a successor and B) that this office was of eminent importance.

Take Augustine for example. He early on identified Peter as the rock but later offered Peter's confession of the rock, if I am not mistaken. However, all along he never wavered about the succession of the Petrine office and its importance among the other Sees.

"I am held in the communion of the Catholic Church by...and by the succession of bishops from the very seat of Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection commended His sheep to be fed up to the present episcopate."

Augustine, Against the Letter of Mani, 5 (A.D. 395).

“Carthage was also near the countries over the sea, and distinguished by illustrious renown, so that it had a bishop of more than ordinary influence, who could afford to disregard a number of conspiring enemies because he saw himself joined by letters of communion to the Roman Church, in which the supremacy of an apostolic chair has always flourished.”

Augustine, To Glorius et.al, Epistle 43:7 (A.D. 397).


So, when William Webster asserts that at the end of his life Augustine did not consider the best exegesis of Matthew 16:18 to be that Peter is the rock, it makes no difference to Augustine's ecclesiology which includes apostolic succession through Peter's seat.

Matthew Bellisario said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
dtking said...

So, when William Webster asserts that at the end of his life Augustine did not consider the best exegesis of Matthew 16:18 to be that Peter is the rock, it makes no difference to Augustine's ecclesiology which includes apostolic succession through Peter's seat.

This is no where close to Augustine embracing a Roman primacy of jurisdiction, which he denied in practice via the councils of Councils Carthage & Milevis in the summer of 416. Thus the affirmation of apostolic succession on the part of Augustine does not prove, does not favor the papacy. In short, Augustine was no papist.

As Johann Joseph Ignaz von Döllinger observed, "St. Augustine has written more on the Church, its unity and authority, than all the other Fathers put together. Yet, from all his numerous works, filling ten folios, only one sentence, in one letter, can be quoted, where he says that the principality of the Apostolic Chair has always been in Rome,—which could, of course, be said then with equal truth of Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria. Any reader of his Pastoral Letter to the separated Donatists on the Unity of the Church, must find it inexplicable, on the Jesuit theory, that in these seventy-five chapters there is not a single word on the necessity of communion with Rome as the centre of unity. He urges all sorts of arguments to show that the Donatists are bound to return to the Church, but of the Papal Chair, as one of them, he knows nothing." See Janus, The Pope and the Council, trans. from the German, 2nd ed. (London: Rivingtons, 1869), pp. 88-89.

Apostolic succession does not equal the papacy.

Matthew Bellisario said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
natamllc said...

Pastor King,

I have a question for you and don't want to ask it publicly, yet!

Can you email me?

Matthew Bellisario said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Tim Enloe said...

Blogahon,

I am presently awaiting the final approval of my Master's thesis at UD, and then I will be done with the program there. For the record, let me say that yes, it is a very fine institution (despite its Catholic bias, ha ha), and I have learned much of immense value there. I would not undo my time there for the world.

Let me also say for the record that UD has some very fine Catholic scholars on its faculty, and I would in no way demean their presentations and defenses of their Catholic faith. They are far superior to, and far more intellectually humble than, the gigabytes of emotion-driven, uncritical drivel put forth by most of the self-appointed and utterly unregulated "apologists" on the Internet. I took a course in Christology from a Cistercian father there - one of the best theology classes I have ever had, and the man himself was one of the most charitable, learned Christian men I have ever had the privilege to study under.

and I only wish there were more Protestant universities that focused in depth on the humanities as UD does. The humanities are what made the Reformers, and the deeper I get into the humanities, the more I respect and value the Reformation. Despite my high praise for my teachers and the institution as a place of academic rigor, there is no need to pray on my account; UD has not made me Catholic, nor made me even wish to be.

Jae said...

I really couldn't pass this one, it's so hilarious that it belongs to "dreamland of Alice in the Wonderland". No pun intended.

DT King said, "Rome's witness is the one that rejects the patristic witness".

Yup, protestant churches today are the genuine witnesses to historical patristic father's witness which have been saturated with writings of beliefs and practices such as these:

The Eucharistic Mass where the bread and wine becomes the True Flesh and Blood of Christ. (Writings by Iraneus together with Polycarp were disciples of John the Evangelist himself - one of the original 12 Apostles - amazing!)

The 7 Sacraments of anointing of the sick, Eucharist, confession, confirmation, baptism etc.

The Apostolic Succession and the petrine primacy of Peter.

Mostly if not all belonged to the holy ordination of priests and bishops themselves performing the Holy Liturgy and Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Yup, without a doubt - patristic fathers were protestants alright!

dtking said...

I really couldn't pass this one, it's so hilarious that it belongs to "dreamland of Alice in the Wonderland". No pun intended.

Give my regards to the cheshire cat while you're there. :)

Blogahon said...

DT King.

Not surprisingly their is disagreement from the scholars on your last point. JND Kelly disagrees for one thing.

Tim Enloe,

Are the Catholics you've encountered at UD, at least some of them, Christians?

Andrew said...

Blogahon asked: "Maybe you could quote a church father prior to AD 250 that exegetes Matthew 16:18 in a way that excludes the Catholic interpretation?"


Tertullian posthumously responds: "If, because the Lord has said to Peter, 'upon this rock I will build my Church, to thee I have given the keys of the heavenly kingdom;' or, 'Whatsoever thou shalt have bound or loosed in earth, shall be bound or loosed in the heavens,' you therefore presume that the power of binding and loosing has derived to you, that is, to every church akin to Peter, what sort of man are you, subverting subverting and wholly changing the manifest intention of the Lord, conferring (as that intention did) this gift personally upon Peter? 'On thee' he says, 'will I build my Church;' and, 'I will give thee the keys'...and, 'whatsoever thou shalt have loosed or bound'...In (Peter) himself the Church was reared; that is, through (Peter) himself; Peter himself essayed the key; you see what key: 'Men of Israel, let what I say sink into your ears: Jesus the Nazarene, a man destined by God for you....' Peter himself, therefore, was the first to unbar, in Christ's baptism, the entrance into the heavenly kingdom, in which kingdom are 'loosed' the sins that were before time 'bound;' and those which have not been 'loosed' are 'bound,' in accordance with true salvation."

Okay Blogahon, time to interact with Mr. Bugay's arguments.

dtking said...

JND Kelly disagrees for one thing.

What reference to Kelly do you have in mind, and specifically what are his words? Why not do us the favor of quoting and referencing him?

Jae said...

@ dtKing,

Thanks and I will send your greetings even to the queen.


Johann Joseph Ignaz von Döllinger -

A German priest and historian. Ex-communicated by his archbishop.

Appealing to the "catholic scholar of the day" again....hmmmm, one question pastor since you have an affinity with the guy, do you also agree with his writings against mixed-marriages and protestant leaders? Do you agree with Mr. Dollinger about the Eucharist and the doctrine of True Presence?

Similarly, Mr. John Bugay's appeal to the work of Lampe to support his claim but the odd part is Lampe also had denied the inspiration of 2nd Timothy, probably Mr. Bugay also agrees with that too!

Or do you only agree with the your "scholars" as long as it fits your theology against the Catholic Church?

Geez, it's like me quoting Charles Russell (founder of Jehovah's) refuting reformed theology because he was a baptist pastor during his life.

Nice impartial scholarly job guys!

dtking said...

Appealing to the "catholic scholar of the day" again....hmmmm, one question pastor since you have an affinity with the guy, do you also agree with his writings against mixed-marriages and protestant leaders? Do you agree with Mr. Dollinger about the Eucharist and the doctrine of True Presence?

Hmmm indeed, agreement with someone on one point does not demand agreement with someone on all points. But I do understand from experience how such things pass right over the mindset of Roman apologists.

Döllinger refused to commit intellectual suicide with respect to the novel view of the papacy because he knew church history too well.

Tim Enloe said...

Blogahon, I believe I called the Cistercian father I took Christology from a Christian. This is not the place for a debate on the meaning of the word "Christian," but suffice it to say that I believe the Scriptures teach that the term, like the term "Israel," has more than one meaning. The term "Christian" may or may not be synonymous in any particular case with the terms "elect person" and "saved person." "Election" itself means different things in Scripture, since as Jesus said, "I have chosen twelve of you, but one of you is a devil."

Externally speaking, in terms of outward identification with Christ and His cause, all Catholics are "Christians." Internally speaking, I do not know whether they are saved, and I do not try to find out. As Deuteronomy 28:28 says, the secret things belong to God but the things revealed belong to us. I do not presume to judge hearts, which I cannot see. I leave that eternally important business to God.

That is all I will say on this subject. I have some reason to believe that this is something of a hot button with some folks here, and to spend more time upon it will only detract attention from the actual point of John's post. No doubt no one wants to pursue rabbit trails.

John Francis said...

Döllinger refused to commit intellectual suicide with respect to the novel view of the papacy because he knew church history too well.

No doubt David will not attribute the same to Döllinger's position on other Church teachings. When Döllinger agrees with David, then he is intellectually honest.

Jae said...

dtKing said, "Döllinger refused to commit intellectual suicide with respect to the novel view of the papacy because he knew church history too well."

Well, then do you agree with him about the True Presence of Christ in both species of bread and wine which he expounded based on church history as well without committing intellectual suicide?

dtking said...

No doubt David will not attribute the same to Döllinger's position on other Church teachings. When Döllinger agrees with David, then he is intellectually honest.

This simply underscores my point about the mindset of Roman apologists. Döllinger's field was church history, and he knew it well. It is a non sequitur that he was necessarily an expert on "other church teachings" or that I think he is intellectually dishonest when I disagree with him.

John Francis said...

David:

Your comment though raises the question that if he, as a historian, was unable to hold to a belief contrary to true history so as not to commit intellectual suicide, would this not also apply to transubstantiation which in your view was a novelty? Or do you also believe in transubstantiation? Deflecting the question doesn't help your case.

dtking said...

Well, then do you agree with him about the True Presence of Christ in both species of bread and wine which he expounded based on church history as well without committing intellectual suicide?

I'll answer this question only if you first answer a question I have, because it demonstrates the erroneous mindset you're employing. My question is this - Do you agree with Pope Gelasius I on the Eucharist when he denied the concept of transubstantiation?

Gelasius, Bishop of Rome (492-496): Surely the sacrament we take of the Lord’s body and blood is a divine thing, on account of which, and by the same we are made partakers of the divine nature; and yet the substance of the bread and wine does not cease to be. And certainly the image and similitude of Christ’s body and blood are celebrated in the action of the mysteries. (Tractatus de duabus naturis 14 [PL Sup.-III. 773]) See Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 3 Vols., trans. George Musgrave Giger and ed. James T. Dennison (Phillipsburg: reprinted by Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1992), Vol. 3, p. 479 (XVIII.xxvi.xx).
Latin text: Certe sacramenta, quae sumimus, corporis et sanguinis Christi divina res est, propter quod et per eadem divinae efficimur consortes naturae; et tamen esse non desinit substantia vel natura panis et vini. Et certe imago et similitudo corporis et sanguinis Christi in actione mysteriorum celebrantur. Jacques Paul Migne, Patrologiae Latinae, Tractatus de duabis naturis Adversus Eutychen et Nestorium 14, PL Supplementum III, Part 2:733 (Paris: Editions Garnier Freres, 1964).

As a Jesuit scholar, Edward J. Kilmartin, S.J., pointed out: "According to Gelasius, the sacraments of the Eucharist communicate the grace of the principal mystery. His main concern, however, is to stress, as did Theodoret, the fact that after the consecration the elements remain what they were before the consecration." Edward J. Kilmartin, S.J., “The Eucharistic Theology of Pope Gelasius I: A Nontridentine View” in Studia Patristica, Vol. XXIX (Leuven: Peeters, 1997), p. 288.

dtking said...

Well, then do you agree with him about the True Presence of Christ in both species of bread and wine which he expounded based on church history as well without committing intellectual suicide?

I'll answer this question only if you first answer a question I have, because it demonstrates the erroneous mindset you're employing. My question is this - Do you agree with Pope Gelasius I on the Eucharist when he denied the concept of transubstantiation?

Gelasius, Bishop of Rome (492-496): Surely the sacrament we take of the Lord’s body and blood is a divine thing, on account of which, and by the same we are made partakers of the divine nature; and yet the substance of the bread and wine does not cease to be. And certainly the image and similitude of Christ’s body and blood are celebrated in the action of the mysteries. (Tractatus de duabus naturis 14 [PL Sup.-III. 773]) See Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 3 Vols., trans. George Musgrave Giger and ed. James T. Dennison (Phillipsburg: reprinted by Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1992), Vol. 3, p. 479 (XVIII.xxvi.xx).
Latin text: Certe sacramenta, quae sumimus, corporis et sanguinis Christi divina res est, propter quod et per eadem divinae efficimur consortes naturae; et tamen esse non desinit substantia vel natura panis et vini. Et certe imago et similitudo corporis et sanguinis Christi in actione mysteriorum celebrantur. Jacques Paul Migne, Patrologiae Latinae, Tractatus de duabis naturis Adversus Eutychen et Nestorium 14, PL Supplementum III, Part 2:733 (Paris: Editions Garnier Freres, 1964).

dtking said...

cont.

As a Jesuit scholar, Edward J. Kilmartin, S.J., pointed out: "According to Gelasius, the sacraments of the Eucharist communicate the grace of the principal mystery. His main concern, however, is to stress, as did Theodoret, the fact that after the consecration the elements remain what they were before the consecration." Edward J. Kilmartin, S.J., “The Eucharistic Theology of Pope Gelasius I: A Nontridentine View” in Studia Patristica, Vol. XXIX (Leuven: Peeters, 1997), p. 288.

dtking said...

...would this not also apply to transubstantiation which in your view was a novelty? Or do you also believe in transubstantiation? Deflecting the question doesn't help your case.

OK, I'll offer you the same question I just offered the previous poster with respect to Gelasius I. Please be sure not to deflect the question :)

Constantine said...

I count about a dozen ECF's in Sean's "dreaming" link, assuming the interpretations are legit.

But what happened to the other 70? Did they have nothing to say about this "universal teaching" that the church has always held?

I always find it amusing to see Augustine quoted in this regard for if it were true that he was a papalist, the Pelagianism would be orthodoxy. Wasn't it Augustine who had to appeal to the secular Emperor Honorius to keep Pope Zosimus from plunging the church into an "irreformable" error?

At any rate, true Catholic scholars have quite a different opinion:

“Peter was a figure of central importance among the disciples of the Lord…Nevertheless, the terms primacy…and jurisdiction…are probably best avoided when describing Peter’s role in the New Testament. They are postbiblical, indeed, canonical, terms.”

Fr. Richard P. McBrien, M.A., S.T.D. Crowley-O'Brien Professor of Theology, University of Notre Dame

...and regarding succession....

“The study of the history of the Roman primacy has shown that Catholics must resign themselves to the fact that the New Testament does not support claims for Peter’s position of primacy, nor for succession to that position, nor for papal infallibility Consequently, no historical foundation exists in the New Testament to justify the papal primacy. The concept of this primacy is, rather, a theological justification of a factual situation which had come about earlier and for other reasons.” ”

Dr. Karl Heinz-Ohlig. Professor of Religious Studies and the History of Christianity at the University of Saarland, Germany.

Peace.

Constantine said...

Hi John,

Keep up the good work. I echo Tim’s comments and am grateful for them.

Sean asks,

Maybe you could quote a church father prior to AD 250 that exegetes Matthew 16:18 in a way that excludes the Catholic interpretation?

The real question is what exactly is THE Catholic interpretation? If by that he means the dogmatic proclamation of Vatican I, then according to an archbishop of the church and former Catholic seminary professor there are AT LEAST 68 Early Church Fathers who deviate from the “official Catholic position”:

"Archbishop Kenrick of St. Louis, in his speech prepared for, but not delivered in, the Vatican Council, and published at Naples in 1870, declares that Roman Catholics cannot establish the Petrine privilege from Scripture, because of the clause in the Creed of Pius IV, binding them to interpret Scripture only according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers. And he adds that there are five different patristic interpretations of St. Matt. 16:18: (1) That St. Peter is the Rock, taught by seventeen Fathers; (2) that the whole Apostolic College is the Rock, represented by Peter as its chief, taught by eight; (3) that St. Peter's faith is the Rock, taught by forty-four; (4) that Christ is the Rock, taught by sixteen; (5) that the Rock is the whole body of the faithful. Several who teach (x) and (2) also teach (3) and (4), and so the Archbishop sums up thus: "If we are bound to follow the greater number of Fathers in this matter, then we must hold for certain that the word Petra means not Peter professing the faith, but the faith professed by Peter". - Friedrich, Docum. ad illust. Conc. Vat. I. pp. 185-246."

So the point is that of the 85 ECF’s cited with distinct positions, only 17 had what can be called the “official Catholic position”!

The far easier task becomes naming those ECF’s who would still be in communion with Rome!

In modern times, Yves Cardinal Congar, one of the architects of the next Vatican Council has this take on Matthew 16:

“ Peter received the title of rock (Kepha) primarily because of his confession of Christ, Son of the Living God (Mt. 16:16-19).”
Congar, Yves. The Meaning of Tradition. San Francisco. Ignatius Press, 2004.P. 64

A Cardinal of the church, a member of the Magisterium which cannot err in matters of faith and morals sides with the 80% of ECF’s who take a position contrary to Romes!

The papacy of today is clearly a modern invention, unknown in its present form until very recent history.


Peace

Jae said...

@ dtKing said, "because it demonstrates the erroneous mindset you're employing"

What I'm doing is just to save your integrity...well if you insist then forgive me for the bluntness:

So dtking, you're basically stating that you are only going to trust Hollinger as far as he agrees with your positions against Catholic Church and as long as it benefits and agrees with you, then they are "intellectually honest". It's a very pleasant and convenient system for you to follow well I'm not surprised at all, nothing new to prots. Unfortunately, your little system that you set up for yourself to determine what is true and what is not true is in itself untruthful and dishonest.

You have proven that today with words coming from your own mouth.

Ps about your question on Pope Gelasius I here is my answer:

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/faq.htm

John Francis said...

OK, I'll offer you the same question I just offered the previous poster with respect to Gelasius I. Please be sure not to deflect the question :)

David, why do I need to account for a private letter written by Pope Gelasius which isn't even directly addressing the Eucharist , but the Christological Mystery of the two Natures of Christ? Are you going to waste our time going through every individual member of the Church since it's foundation in order to account what is their private belief (as you might mistakenly understand them)? It is one thing to look at promulgated doctrine, but I'm not interested in rehashing every single private belief by every single individual.

Can you answer my question now? You claim that, as a historian, Döllinger didn't want to commit intellectual suicide by affirming the papacy, would you go on to say that he just didn't give care when it came to other "novel" doctrines?

John Francis said...

Constantine:

If Fr. Richard P. McBrien is a true Catholic Scholar, who believes in very little of Catholicism, what do you make of Fr. John Hardon? Are only dissidents true Catholic Scholars in your view?

John Francis said...

Constantine:

Do you agree with Ohlig here:

Ohlig and Puin's research propounds that according to the evidence of Arab coinage and the inscription in the Dome of the Rock in the late 7th century with the letters MHMT and the term muhammad meaning "the revered" or "the praiseworthy" bear Christian symbols such as crosses, suggesting that the term Muhammad was a Christian honorific title referring to Jesus, as in the hymn of the mass ("praise be to he that comes...")

Jae said...

@ dtKing said, "because it demonstrates the erroneous mindset you're employing"

What I'm doing is just to save your integrity...well if you insist then forgive me for the bluntness:

So dtking, you're basically stating that you are only going to trust Hollinger as far as he agrees with your positions against Catholic Church and as long as it benefits and agrees with you, then they are "intellectually honest". It's a very pleasant and convenient system for you to follow well I'm not surprised at all, nothing new to prots. Unfortunately, your little system that you set up for yourself to determine what is true and what is not true is in itself untruthful and dishonest.

You have proven that today with words coming from your own mouth.

Ps about your question on Pope Gelasius I here is my answer:

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/faq.htm

John Francis said...

Wasn't it Augustine who had to appeal to the secular Emperor Honorius to keep Pope Zosimus from plunging the church into an "irreformable" error?

I suggest that you listen to the debate on the papacy between James White and Dr. Robert Sungenis. The good Dr. did a most excellent job explaining the historical record to James White.

I believe that they will be debating again. Exciting!

dtking said...

David, why do I need to account for a private letter written by Pope Gelasius...

It wasn't a private letter, as the citation indicates.

Thus, given your overt double-standard, I have no compulsion to respond to your question, which I've already pointed out is a non sequitur.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

dtking said...

What I'm doing is just to save your integrity...

How noble of you, but it doesn't need your saving. :)

Here's the best your friend can offer on Gelasius at that web site to which you directed me - "At worst, Pope Gelasius was simply incorrect in his Eucharistic theology. I tend to believe the Pope was somewhere in the middle." Somewhere in the middle? Well, I guess that means Gelasius was somewhere between correct and incorrect with respect to his teaching on the eucharist. But I'll side with Kilmartin on Gelasius' view. Does that mean I have to agree with Kilmartin on everything? :)

So, playing the same game of sophistry, I suppose this means that Döllinger could be, depending on the matter in question, somewhere between correct and incorrect.

Now, I doubt that meets with your approval, but that's how you play the game. :)

John Francis said...

It wasn't a private letter, as the citation indicates.

Thus, given your overt double-standard, I have no compulsion to respond to your question, which I've already pointed out is a non sequitur.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.


David, I should not be faulted because you chose to misinterpret the letter. Since you quoted one Jesuit, allow me to quote another.

Aloys Grillmeier S.J. wrote concerning this letter: We ought not guage his conception against the Tridentine teaching of transubstantiation. (Christ in Christian Tradition)

If you like hijacking some comment and forcing it to mean something other than what the author wrote in its full context, then I likewise have no compulsion to respond to your questions. If this helps you find an easy way to avoid facing your blatant avoidance of interacting with your prior comments, then enjoy.

John Francis said...

David the issue isn't that you have to accept everything a person says if you accept that one thing he says. The issue is that you demonstrate zero reasoning for dismissing the other things the person says. The only consistancy you have demonstrated, is that you and John accept anything the scholar of your chosing says that coincides with your prior bias.

John Francis said...

David, I should not be faulted because you chose to misinterpret the letter. Since you quoted one Jesuit, allow me to quote another.

Aloys Grillmeier S.J. wrote concerning this letter: We ought not guage his conception against the Tridentine teaching of transubstantiation. (Christ in Christian Tradition)

If you like hijacking some comment and forcing it to mean something other than what the author wrote in its full context, then I likewise have no compulsion to respond to your questions. If this helps you find an easy way to avoid facing your blatant avoidance of interacting with your prior comments, then enjoy.

John Francis said...

Does anyone here have this same problem with disappearing comments on WordPress? I've been considering starting a blog, but Blogger seems to have many problems

John Francis said...

Apparently Blogger is eating comments.


David, I should not be faulted because you chose to misinterpret the letter. Since you quoted one Jesuit, allow me to quote another.

Aloys Grillmeier S.J. wrote concerning this letter: We ought not guage his conception against the Tridentine teaching of transubstantiation. (Christ in Christian Tradition)

If you like hijacking some comment and forcing it to mean something other than what the author wrote in its full context, then I likewise have no compulsion to respond to your questions. If this helps you find an easy way to avoid facing your blatant avoidance of interacting with your prior comments, then enjoy

John Francis said...

Since you quoted one Jesuit, allow me to quote another.

Aloys Grillmeier S.J. wrote concerning this letter: We ought not guage his conception against the Tridentine teaching of transubstantiation. (Christ in Christian Tradition)

David, I should not be faulted because you chose to misinterpret the letter. If you like hijacking some comment and forcing it to mean something other than what the author wrote in its full context, then I likewise have no compulsion to respond to your questions. If this helps you find an easy way to avoid facing your blatant avoidance of interacting with your prior comments, then enjoy.

John Francis said...

Since you quoted one Jesuit, allow me to quote another.

Aloys Grillmeier S.J. wrote concerning this letter: We ought not guage his conception against the Tridentine teaching of transubstantiation. (Christ in Christian Tradition)


David, I should not be faulted because you chose to misinterpret the letter. If you like hijacking some comment and forcing it to mean something other than what the author wrote in its full context, then I likewise have no compulsion to respond to your questions. If this helps you find an easy way to avoid facing your blatant avoidance of interacting with your prior comments, then enjoy.

John Francis said...

Since you quoted one Jesuit, allow me to quote another.

Aloys Grillmeier S.J. wrote concerning this letter: We ought not guage his conception against the Tridentine teaching of transubstantiation. (Christ in Christian Tradition)

John Francis said...

Thus, given your overt double-standard, I should not be faulted because you chose to misinterpret the letter.

dtking said...

The issue is that you demonstrate zero reasoning for dismissing the other things the person says. The only consistancy you have demonstrated, is that you and John accept anything the scholar of your chosing says that coincides with your prior bias.

No, that is not what you originally suggested. Go back and read your own post. Now, you're offering a presumption in the absence of any proof.

Simply because I happen to agree with this or that scholar does not entail that I am doing so on the basis of a prior bias. That has not been demonstrated.

Here is the presumption with which you began, and for which you demonstrated no proof-> "No doubt David will not attribute the same to Döllinger's position on other Church teachings. When Döllinger agrees with David, then he is intellectually honest."

That was your presumption from the outset, so you'll have to pardon me if I fail to find any sympathy with your complaint. I think your bias was the one that was stated overtly from the very first post you directed to me.

But if you're going to complain about bias, there is, to be sure, plenty of that to go around for us all in any of these disagreements. You know, sort of like the way you dismissed my question with respect to Gelasius, and called his tract a private letter?

What I have discovered in dealing with Roman apologists is that you are long on questions and presumption, and quite thin on providing answers when your own biases are called into question.

The points on which I find agreement with Congar, Döllinger, Kilmartin, etc. with respect to patristic evidence - are matters which I have studied for myself. It is impossible in this medium to provide all the evidence as to why I agree with this or that scholar, and if reversed, my demand for such from you would be met with disapproval.

But again, if you want to ascribe bias to me, I recommend you to search for plenty of that in yourself.

natamllc said...

JF,

I will wade in here and respond to this that you wrote above:

The only consistancy you have demonstrated, is that you and John accept anything the scholar of your chosing says that coincides with your prior bias.

Those two can type and think and chew gum at the same time so I won't attempt the impossible!

One thing I think you fail to understand about "their prior bias" is they also happen to have the Word of God in support of their claims while you don't.

As long as you can keep the debate centered in areas like you guys do, your process will keep coming up lame.

After all Jesus did share some wisdom about building one's prior bias on The Rock and not wind driven shifting sand!

The Rock=Christ, suffered, rose the third day and is still being proclaimed that in Him is repentance and the forgiveness of sins.

The wind driven shifting sand=the man made magisterium/papacy/infallibility/extra unsound doctrines not found in the Faith once delivered to the Saints.

John Francis said...

As I have said David, you have not demonstrated any ability to explain your absorption of one conclusion from the author of your chosing, and simultaneously reject his conclusions on other topics in which he uses the same means at aquiring both. In your mind, in one instance, he is intellectually honest. In another instance, he is not intellectually honest. In both cases you can neither demonstrate why we should assent to his conclusions, or why we shouldn't. This is further complicated when other scholars are presented which conflict with the outcome of the scholar of your chosing. In the end, you simply engage in special pleading for us to just agree with whichever "scholar" happens to fall in line with your biased beliefs. I seriously doub't you have studied the material in any critical sense. I have seen this many times from protestants.

John Francis said...

One thing I think you fail to understand about "their prior bias" is they also happen to have the Word of God in support of their claims while you don't.

More special pleading.

I'll grant you that in the protestant reductionist historical method, they really and trully do believe that they have the Word of God.

dtking said...

Aloys Grillmeier S.J. wrote concerning this letter: We ought not guage his conception against the Tridentine teaching of transubstantiation. (Christ in Christian Tradition)

OK, now, should I presume to suggest that you are inconsistent for not demonstrating why you agree with Grillmeier over and against Kilmartin's assessment of the same? I think the point is made.

As far as Gelasius' tract goes, I think that his denial of the concept of transubstantiation could not have been stated any clearer. And when any Roman apologist (or scholar for that matter) attempts to rehabilitate an ancient witness due to a bias based upon some felt need to reconcile him with later church teaching, I don't take such an effort seriously.

Just because I haven't disclosed the reasons, based upon personal research, for agreeing with this or that scholar, doesn't mean I have none. But that was your presumption from the outset, and it's why I find no sympathy with your complaint.

John Francis said...

David it might be easier for you to grasp the context of the letter in a step by step fashion.

Have you even read the letter?

Can you tell me what the context was?

Do you believe that Gelasius was giving a lecture on the Eucharist?

natamllc said...

JF,

ok,

please uncover the Scriptural basis, referrals, for Mariology, the Magisterium, The assumption of Mary, her immaculate conception, papal succession and other asunder dogmas and edicts of the infallible Roman Catholic Church.

Let's deal with these issues with First Century Writers of the Faith Once Deliver To The Saints seeing the Salvation is common as is the Faith.

Let's not use special pleadings for any of these topics, ok?

Let's just get down to bedrock Holy Spirit inspired Biblical foundations of Truth.

And while you are at it, please explain why Christ Himself, Who is the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End, did not open those earliest Disciples understanding up to these doctrines when He was doing this:

Luk 24:36 As they were talking about these things, Jesus himself stood among them, and said to them, "Peace to you!"
Luk 24:37 But they were startled and frightened and thought they saw a spirit.
Luk 24:38 And he said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts?
Luk 24:39 See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have."
Luk 24:40 And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet.
Luk 24:41 And while they still disbelieved for joy and were marveling, he said to them, "Have you anything here to eat?"
Luk 24:42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish,
Luk 24:43 and he took it and ate before them.
Luk 24:44 Then he said to them, "These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled."
Luk 24:45 Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures,
Luk 24:46 and said to them, "Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead,
Luk 24:47 and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.
Luk 24:48 You are witnesses of these things.
Luk 24:49 And behold, I am sending the promise of my Father upon you. But stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high."

John Francis said...

N:

Why should I when I believe that Revelation wasn't confined to just the written Word? You must have me confused with a protestor.

Turretinfan said...

"David it might be easier for you to grasp the context of the letter in a step by step fashion."

I have yet to see any indication that any additional grasping of the context would change anything. This is the part where, if you believe the context is significant, you bring it up, explain its relevance, and so forth.

Turretinfan said...

Sean Patrick wrote: "DT King is notorious on the internet about this and has been called out by other Protestants for it. John Bugay has called me names countless times. "

What a silly lie to make here, where people can easily call him out about it.

-TurretinFan

Turretinfan said...

"So, you can't name a single father that taught the Reformed interpretation of Matthew 16:18 prior to AD 250?"

I guess it depends what you mean by "the Reformed interpretation."

Cyprian of Carthage, writing before his death in 258 denied that the passage taught that Peter had any higher authority than the other apostles ("And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power" ... "Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power" - Treatise 1).

- TurretinFan

Turretinfan said...

MB wrote: "John, quite simply it is you and your pretended "reformers" against every historic apostolic church in existence. They all have apostolic succession, the Prots don't. ... Everything listed here is maintained by any Church that can reasonably prove it has existed since apostolic times.

Unfortunately for you and your Prot lineage, it maintains little to nothing from the early church."

What's amusing is that next to nothing in Romanism comes from the apostles, including all the things he's listed that "Prots" don't have. We don't have them, because the apostles themselves didn't have them.

-TuretinFan

Jae said...

@ TurretinFan said, " What's amusing is that next to nothing in Romanism comes from the apostles, including all the things he's listed that "Prots" don't have. We don't have them, because the apostles themselves didn't have them."

Well, we could say them to you too. What's amusing is that next to nothing in Protestantism comes from the apostles. They NEVER taught, NEVER have Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura.We don't have them, because the apostles themselves didn't have them.

The only thing that is clear now, do we lean on the teachings of the men who were closest and had heard the Apostles themselves? viz. Iraneus, Polycarp etc. - OR - men who were 1,517 years later?

dtking said...

… it might be easier for you to grasp the context of the letter in a step by step fashion.

Sir, it might be easier for you to grasp the import of this periscope from Gelasius in a step by step fashion. 1) Whether one has read the document, an ancient witness can, as all of us, make a point about a doctrine regardless of 2) whether that doctrine is the main focus with which he is dealing, and 3) it need not be a lecture on the subject of that doctrine in order for him to articulate in concise terms his view of that doctrine. That ought to be simple enough for you to grasp.

As Kilmartin observes in the concluding remarks of his article, he sums up the inconsistency of Gelasius’ teaching with that of Trent on the eucharist in this manner…

Edward J. Kilmartin, S.J.: The teaching of Gelasius on the subject of the sacraments of the Eucharist has often been explained as being in line with the teaching of the Council of Trent. But, as a matter of fact, Trent rejected it on two counts. In canon 1 of the thirteenth Session (1551), the council taught that the Eucharist not only signifies but contains ‘the totum Christum’. The explanation of Gelasius does not include, and indeed seems explicitly to exclude, a doctrime of the somatic real presence of the ‘whole Christ’. Secondly, Canon 2 stresses the patristic notion of ‘conversion. To avoid the notion of the union of the substance of bread and wine with the substance of the humanity of Christ. This concept was already found in the list of propositions attributed to Reflormers formulated in 1547: ‘There is in the Eucharist indeed the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, but with the substance of bread and wine, so that there is no transubstantiation, but a hypostatic union of the humanity and the substance of bread and wine’. Canon 2 was formulated precisely to avoid the idea that a rigid parallel exists between the unique hypostatic union of Logos and humanity and the sacrament of the Eucharist. But precisely this viewpoint is central to the Eucharistic theology of Pope Gelasius. Edward J. Kilmartin, S.J., “The Eucharistic Theology of Pope Gelasius I: A Nontridentine View” in Studia Patristica, Vol. XXIX (Leuven: Peeters, 1997), p. 288.

Now, if you have some Gnostic insight to offer besides something you’ve read in a book offering one sentence from Grillmeier in a footnote, we’re all waiting with baited breath to see it, because virtually every work I’ve read dealing with the eucharist has called attention to the inconsistency of Gelasius’ view with later Roman teaching on transubstantiation. So go for it! :)

John Francis said...

I have yet to see any indication that any additional grasping of the context would change anything. This is the part where, if you believe the context is significant, you bring it up, explain its relevance, and so forth.

Do you even know what the context was? Your buddy David doesn't seem to get it.

Like I've said, Gelasius was discussing the two natures of Christ, and made an analogy to the Eucharist in order to support his argument. He was not developing a teaching on the Eucharist. Granted, his analogy was faulty, but a responsible intellect would not jump the gun and turn his analogy into a full-fledged systematic teaching. I've seen this tendency numerous times. Both protestants and some liberal catholics grab at a comment, yank it out of context, and then create a full-fledged teaching based on very little. If it can happen today with Pope Benedict's writings by protestants and liberal catholics, then it can surely happen to someone's writings of 1500 years ago.

Based on a little research, I've noticed that David has a 3 volume habit of doing this sort of thing.

John Bugay said...

John Francis, you need to lay off the personal comments.

John Francis said...

I just want to reiterate that it is important not to isolate a particular passage from the entire text, especially an analogy which will always be a bit of a stretch, and then go from there to fancifully creating an entire system of belief. The anachronism of protestantism does this time and again. They pretend like their method of historical research, whichever one tickles the fancy of the Reformed professors of the day, can deliver historical knowledge with scientific certainty. This is positively false. Anyone who has done any serious historical research should know that the approach has some sever limitations.

In Galasius case, it is clear that he didn't have a Reformed view of the Eucharist when we look at everything we know about him. I'm sure that David wouldn't say that he did, but what is interesting is that not only does David want to make a Gelasius theology on the Eucharist out of a mere analogy, but David doesn't want to have to examine his beliefs in light of what we do know about the Eucharistic sacrifice of the Early Church. So we must force certain conclusions into some things, but entirely ignore others. I don't find that responsible in the least.

Turretinfan said...

John Francis,

Why does an analogy become a "mere analogy" when it demonstrates that Gelasius did not accept the later innovation of transubstantiation?

-TurretinFan

Constantine said...

Are only dissidents true Catholic Scholars in your view?

Is O’Brien a dissident? Has he been disciplined by his ordinary or been censured by Notre Dame? Have his factual claims been disproven? Or does dissident merely mean one who disagrees with the reactionary right in the modern Roman church?

Ohlig’s Islamic scholarship is off topic.

I suggest that you listen to the debate on the papacy between James White and Dr. Robert Sungenis. The good Dr. did a most excellent job explaining the historical record to James White.

Are you telling me that Sungenis refutes the fact that Pope Zosimus was a Pelagian? Interesting.

Does anyone here have this same problem with disappearing comments on WordPress?

No. But blogger seems a little sketchy lately. It appears that some comments don’t take immediately so I find myself posted twice. I try to delete the dupe expeditiously, but apologize for them anyway.

Peace.

Turretinfan said...

"Do you even know what the context was? Your buddy David doesn't seem to get it."

Actually, what you fail to get is that your view of the Eucharist is quasi-Eutychian. You interpret "body" and "blood" as though it were mixed or blended with the divinity of Christ, and you deny his true humanity by giving his humanity properties that are properly only of divinity.

So, the fact that this comment is from a tract against the Eutychian heresy is quite appropriate.

- TurretinFan

John Francis said...

Constantine, it's McBrien not O'Brien.

Read here

http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=6710

Constantine said...

If Fr. Richard P. McBrien is a true Catholic Scholar, who believes in very little of Catholicism, what do you make of Fr. John Hardon? Are only dissidents true Catholic Scholars in your view?

I suggest that you listen to the debate on the papacy between James White and Dr. Robert Sungenis. The good Dr. did a most excellent job explaining the historical record to James White.


I’m sorry to have missed this on my first pass, but it is very telling.

Richard McBrien is a Catholic in good standing with the Church whose works have not been censured – as far as I can tell and I will gladly retract this if it is incorrect.

But Sungenis, on the other hand, has run afoul of the bishop of San Bernardino and the Archbishop of St. Louis (who has since been promoted to the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts and the Congregation for the Clergy in the Vatican). Burke is the hero to the sort of right wing, ultra-orthodox sort we seem to have over represented here.

So here is the ironic question for Mr. Francis:

“Are only dissidents true Catholic Scholars in your view?”

Peace.

natamllc said...

John Francis: They pretend like their method of historical research, whichever one tickles the fancy of the Reformed professors of the day, can deliver historical knowledge with scientific certainty.

Here's what I find remarkable about that statement, that assertion and raises a suspicion in my mind as to you and your walk of faith, whether or not it is man made or Divinely inspired, that Faith once delivered to the Saints:

Hab 2:4 "Behold, his soul is puffed up; it is not upright within him, but the righteous shall live by his faith.

John Francis said...

Actually, what you fail to get is that your view of the Eucharist is quasi-Eutychian. You interpret "body" and "blood" as though it were mixed or blended with the divinity of Christ, and you deny his true humanity by giving his humanity properties that are properly only of divinity.

So, the fact that this comment is from a tract against the Eutychian heresy is quite appropriate.


Sir,

Are you sure that this is the argument you want to make? There isn't any further qualifications you want to make? I'll give you time to think about it before I correct you.

dtking said...

I just want to reiterate that Do you even know what the context was? Your buddy David doesn't seem to get it.

No, I get it, it's just that the context has not been overlooked, as you allege. It has become a irrelevant point unless you can prove the larger context makes any difference.

...but what is interesting is that not only does David want to make a Gelasius theology on the Eucharist out of a mere analogy, but David doesn't want to have to examine his beliefs in light of what we do know about the Eucharistic sacrifice of the Early Church.

Read Kelly's survey, there was no one view of the eucharist in the early church. You're babbling on and on about less and less.

Based on a little research, I've noticed that David has a 3 volume habit of doing this sort of thing.

Another assertion without proof. I think we're getting the drift. You see, the Romanist's tactic is to employ endless questions and skepticism as if those constitute an apologetic in the face of not having to present any positive proof for his position. I understand the approach.

Turretinfan said...

"Are you sure that this is the argument you want to make? There isn't any further qualifications you want to make? I'll give you time to think about it before I correct you."

I'll be happy to add this qualification: Gelasius referred to the Eutychians as pretending to refute Nestorius. I suspect he'd have similar words for you and your errors - even if your errors are not precisely the same as those of Eutychianism or Nestorianism.

- TurretinFan

Constantine said...

John Francis:

Sure enough, McBrien it is. Sorry for the typo.

But to more substantive matters, between McBrien and Sungenis, from a Catholic perspective, who is the dissident?

Peace.

natamllc said...

John Francis: ".... but David doesn't want to have to examine his beliefs in light of what we do know about the Eucharistic sacrifice of the Early Church."

Me: Here again we have one introducing the waters of man hoping it will be as the "hypostasis", ah, hypostatic union of Christ, the Son of Adam, the Son of God, with His Beloved Bride, Who He will joyously wed on that day predetermined, those taken out of every generation of world history for just a Wedding as it is!

Rev 22:17 The Spirit and the Bride say, "Come." And let the one who hears say, "Come." And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who desires take the water of life without price.


Does human water and God's Spirit mix the way John Francis' RCC wants us to believe it does?

Maybe they should rethink the idea of the imputation of the Righteousness of Christ with the predetermined and adopted sons of men, the True Sons of God, known before the foundation of the world, instead of their off erred idea and doctrine of infusion of the Righteousness of Christ upon men of the world as a "pick me up" additional emulsifier to their self-righteousness before God in this world of men?

What do you think?

What I think is what the Word of God, that has been written by the Holy Spirit through chosen men during the First Century, teaches, here:

Eph 2:5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ--by grace you have been saved--

Col 2:13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses,