Wednesday, January 28, 2015

Even if Peter did die in Rome, it does not establish any such thing as a Papacy or Pope or even mono-episcocy


From an earlier post in the com boxes.  I have edited some of it.

John, (an Eastern Orthodox commentor) reminded us of Cyprian's statement -

Thanks for that reminder about what Cyprian wrote about "custom without truth, is an ancient error".
Very helpful and true.

"Nor ought custom, which had crept in among some, to prevent the truth from prevailing and conquering; for custom without truth is the antiquity of error."

Cyprian, Epistle 73, 9. (against Stephen, bishop of Rome)
Blogger Ken said...
All,
Even if Peter died in Rome, it does not establish any such thing as a Papacy or Pope.

There is no such thing is a Pope or Papacy in the 27 books of the NT.

Also, the earliest writings affirm that a college/plurality of elders and the office of bishop is the same office. The names of elder and bishop is interchangable in the NT and earliest writings of the early fathers.

1 Clement 42-44  ( 96 AD)  - 2 offices - 1. elders and overseers are the same and 2. deacons

Didache 15     (70 - 120 AD ?)  2 offices 1.  overseers/bishops and 2. deacons


Philippians 1:1 - 2 church offices - 1.  overseers (episcopas, bishops) and 2.  deacons

Acts 14:23 (the apostles appointed elders for each church)

Titus 1:5-7 - verse 5 - appoint elders for each city - verse 7 - elders are the same as bishop/ overseer/ episcope


Also, James Swan pointed out that the evidence for Rome is that it did not have a mono-episcopate until much later. ( I Clement, Shepherd of Hermas, Peter Lampe's book and work; John Bugay wrote a lot in this area also, both here and over at Triablogue. see at the Addendum below)

Moreover, NONE of the earliest churches had a mono-episcopate. They all had a plurality of elders at first.

Ignatius (writing around 107-117 AD, ?) is the first evidence of the mono-episcopate, and seems to be where that custom/practice started.

Acts 20:17 - called the elders of the church in Ephesus

Acts 20:28 -the elders are to shepherd (Pastor, feed and guard) the flock of God, which God has made you overseers

1 Peter 5:1-4 - Peter calls himself fellow elder
and exhorts the elders to shepherd the flock and to act as overseers.

Babylon of 1 Peter 5:13 could be a cryptic reference to Rome, or the original Babylon of the OT in Mesopotamia, or Babylon could be a metaphor for apostate Jerusalem.

It seems that Ireneaus, Tertullian, Hegessipus, and Eusebius are reading a mono-episcopate office back into the first century by their "bishops list" of only one bishop appointed by Peter or other apostles in other areas.

The big question for me is how strong is the tradition that both Peter and Paul were executed by Nero around 67 AD in Rome, Peter by being crucified upside down, and Paul by being beheaded.
Addendum:
Thanks to John Bugay for adding the passages from the Shepherd of Hermas to the early witness that each church had a plurality of elders and not a mono episcopacy until later.  The earliest church history is elders for each church.  This also proves John Henry Cardinal Newman's statement wrong, "to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant". The clear reality of the earliest church government being a college of elders proves Newman was wrong.

The elderly woman came and asked me if I had already given the little book to the elders (presbuteroi, plural). I said that I had not given it. “You have done well,” she said, “for I have words to add. So when I finish all the words they will be made known to all the elect through you. Therefore you will write two little books, and you will send one to Clement and one to Grapte. Then Clement will send it to the cities abroad, because that is his job. But Grapte will instruct the widows and orphans. But you yourself will read it to this city [Rome], along with the elders (presbuteroi) who preside (proistamenoi – plural leadership) over the church.” (Vis 2.4)

Hermas also notes that these elders fight amongs themselves over primacy (meaning no one had it), and that they, themselves "have no instruction":

Now, therefore, I say to you [tois – plural] who lead the church and occupy the seats of honor: do not be like the sorcerers. For the sorcerers carry their drugs in bottles, but you carry your drug and poison in your heart. You are calloused and do not want to cleanse your hearts and to mix your wisdom together in a clean heart, in order that you may have mercy from the great King. Watch out, therefore, children, lest these divisions of yours [among you elders] deprive you of your life. How is it that you desire to instruct God’s elect, while you yourselves have no instruction? Instruct one another, therefore, and have peace among yourselves, in order that I too may stand joyfully before the Father and give an account on behalf of all of you to your Lord.” (Vis 3.9)

Addendum 2:
Algo reminded me of an earlier link I made over to a very thorough article by Brandon Addison.  We appreciate the Roman Catholics at Called to Communion for allowing such an article there. 
The Quest for the Historical Church, by Brandon Addison

http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2014/03/the-quest-for-the-historical-church-a-protestant-assessment/

46 comments:

John Bugay said...

Hi Ken -- Don't forget about the Shepherd of Hermas:

The elderly woman came and asked me if I had already given the little book to the elders (presbuteroi, plural). I said that I had not given it. “You have done well,” she said, “for I have words to add. So when I finish all the words they will be made known to all the elect through you. Therefore you will write two little books, and you will send one to Clement and one to Grapte. Then Clement will send it to the cities abroad, because that is his job. But Grapte will instruct the widows and orphans. But you yourself will read it to this city [Rome], along with the elders (presbuteroi) who preside (proistamenoi – plural leadership) over the church.” (Vis 2.4)

Hermas also notes that these elders fight amongs themselves over primacy (meaning no one had it), and that they, themselves "have no instruction":

Now, therefore, I say to you [tois – plural] who lead the church and occupy the seats of honor: do not be like the sorcerers. For the sorcerers carry their drugs in bottles, but you carry your drug and poison in your heart. You are calloused and do not want to cleanse your hearts and to mix your wisdom together in a clean heart, in order that you may have mercy from the great King. Watch out, therefore, children, lest these divisions of yours [among you elders] deprive you of your life. How is it that you desire to instruct God’s elect, while you yourselves have no instruction? Instruct one another, therefore, and have peace among yourselves, in order that I too may stand joyfully before the Father and give an account on behalf of all of you to your Lord.” (Vis 3.9)

Ken said...

Excellent!

I am going to add that.

Algo said...

Ken.

Also related to this.

Your earlier post from Brandon Addison's work on this subject.

http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2014/03/just-in-case-you-havent-seen-this-yet.html

guy fawkes said...

Ken,

Could you articulate the difference between a priest and a Bishop?

You say the mono-episcopacy started with Ignatius. How do you know he was the first, because he is first to write about it?

Did Paul tell Timothy to be a bishop? Tell me about the laying on of hands. What does it do?

In the Bible, especially the book of Acts, was Peter a bishop? Chief bishop?

Seems like we keep having this discussion. Shall I just copy and paste from the previous discussions we have had?

guy fawkes said...

Ken,

You mentioned Orthodox John. Do recall that he admitted he did not actually believe that Peter died in the deserted and ruined city of Babylon. He said he did think Peter died in Rome. He merely wanted to oppose the Catholic position by asserting that a Nestorian Church says Peter died in Babylon. Searching sites of that Church, not one of them supports John's assertion. They only say that Peter had visited Babylon, wrote a letter, then left.
Please keep the record straight on what John actually said.

By the way, "Orthodox" John does not agree with his own Church's position on this. So we should just refer to him as just plain "John".

Plus, just plain John does not agree with the Nestorian Church on other major issues. He was only trying to oppose the Papacy and grabbing at absurd straws to do so. You discredit your own argument by appealing to his comments.

guy fawkes said...

As for James Swan's assertions, please notice that over the past couple of weeks, James has shown a tendency to make all kinds of assertions on a variety of issues,( Mary, the Jerusalem Council, Nicaea, etc. ) and when questioned, responding with cricket chirping.
James Swan's witness is as weak as just plain John's.

guy fawkes said...

Ken,
As I have argued with you before on the Papacy here and other sites, I know what I am going to say is pointless. I say it more for anyone lurking than for you.

You like to use Cyprian so I guess I will just post a bit of what the saint did say on the office of Peter and the his successors. I put asterisks around some passages you will assume proves your case. Please read what Cyprian says after those passages.
Elsewhere, I tried to explain to you the differences between power and jurisdiction ( that's why I asked you above to articulate the difference between a presbyter and and a bishop ). I see now it was of no avail. Maybe the lurkers will get it.

"If any will consider this, there is no need of a long treatise and of arguments. 'The Lord saith to Peter: 'I say unto thee that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it; to thee I will give the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and what thou shalt have bound on earth shall be bound in heaven, and what thou shalt have loosed shall be loosed in heaven.' Upon one He builds His Church, and though to all His Apostles after His resurrection He gives an equal power and says: 'As My Father hath sent Me, even so send I you: Receive the Holy Ghost, whosesoever sins you shall have remitted they shall be remitted unto them, and whosesoever sins you shall have retained they shall be retained', yet that He might make unity manifest, He disposed the origin of that unity beginning from one. *The other Apostles were indeed what Peter was, endowed with a like fellowship both of honour and of power, but the commencement proceeds from one, that the Church may be shown to be one.* This one Church the Holy Ghost in the person of the Lord designates in the Canticle of Canticles, and says, One is My Dove, My perfect one, one is she to her mother, one to her that bare her. He that holds not this unity of the Church, does he believe that he holds the Faith? He who strives against and resists the Church, is he confident that he is in the Church?


. . . bound in heaven. Upon one He builds His Church, and to the same He says after His resurrection, 'feed My sheep'.* And though to all His Apostles He gave an equal power* yet did He set up one chair, and disposed the origin and manner of unity by his authority. *The other Apostles were indeed what Peter was, but the primacy is given to Peter,* and the Church and the chair is shown to be one. And all are pastors, but the flock is shown to be one, which is fed by all the Apostles with one mind and heart. He that holds not this unity of the Church, does he think that he holds the faith? He who deserts the chair of Peter, upon whom the Church is founded, is he confident that he is in the Church?

guy fawkes said...


Ken, ( Sincere Lurkers ),

In the past I have gone to great lengths to explain to Ken about the laying on of hands in Ordination and Confirmation and what it communicates.
I have told Ken that 3 Sacraments, Baptism, Confirmation and Ordination, not only give grace ( which can be lost by sin ) but also marks the soul with a seal that can never be lost, even by sin or apostasy. I have supplied Ken with ample proofs from scripture to make my case and will happily do so again if asked by any honest seeker.

It is crucial to understand how these Sacraments work in order to fully grasp just why Cyprian was wrong in his opposition to the Papacy on the issue of rebaptism and/ or re-Ordination of the lapsed.

You can google around, check out discussions Ken and I have already had, or ask me anew and I will launch into my discourse.

guy fawkes said...

Ken,
"There is no such thing is a Pope or Papacy in the 27 books of the NT."

Ha! There most certainly is!!!! Shall we trot out the old stuff from Brittany you posted a couple months back? Or from Triabologue?

As for this nonsense about Peter not dying in Rome, ordinarily I would just ask, if not Rome, where then? Line up the claimants. There are none other than Rome. ( Forget Just Plain John's claim ).
Did Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria or Constantinople claim to house Peter's bones? Did Peter and Paul die in any of those places?

This is typical of your style Ken, Assertions upon absurd assertions, innuendo upon innuendo,doubt sown after doubt sown, nonsense followed by nonsense ( as seen in your adelphe/anepsio fiasco you keep trying to foist on us ).

How do we know Peter died in Rome? How do we know Paul did?
How do we know the Bible is historically accurate if Tradition isn't? Liars, charlatans, madmen and the gullible are no more to be trusted in what they write down than in what they say.
How do we know Christ rose from the dead? Nobody ever claimed to have actually witnessed the event. Only before and after. Before the event, we only have the witness of a guy who calls himself the "beloved Disciple" and Mary. They tell they saw Jesus die ( or seem to die ). We cannot trust the testimony of Mary because, according to you, she was a doubting, hysterical basket case on Calvary. ( I recall you appealing to Tertullian, Origen, Basil and Chrysostom here ).
After the supposed event doesn't count now that we have drawn into question Jesus actually having died.
What about the Virgin Birth? Again, we have no eye witness other than Mary. I remember you asserting the sinful ninny of a girl was prone to vain glory and bragging at Cana. As she was not a virgin in partu, nor did she remain a virgin later, ( according to you, that is ), we have no infallible way of knowing if she didn't make the whole story up just for attention,now do we?
We can't even appeal to the witness of the Holy Spirit speaking through the Bible any more than we can trust Him to speak through Sacred Tradition.

Ken, how do we know Alexander died in India? How do we know,...?

Ever hear of Richard Whately? He was a Protestant minister who wrote a spoof "proving" Napoleon never existed. Enjoy this link;
http://everything2.com/title/Proof+that+Napoleon+Bonaparte+never+existed

guy fawkes said...

Why wasn't the Shepherd of Hermas included in the canon?

Did the Apostles squabble amongst each other? Yes? Then they must not have acknowledged Jesus as boss.

EA said...

Thanks Ken, John, and Algo.

I think that a previous post from John is particularly helpful here:

http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/08/this-bridge-should-be-illuminated.html

Ken said...

Guy,
Personally, I think the "Babylon" of 1 Peter 5:13 is Rome and I don't have a problem with him being in Rome as an apostle-missionary -evangelist and I accept the early tradition of Peter and Paul being killed by Nero.

I am saying that even with that, that all still does not point to any such thing as a Papacy or even mono-episcopate.

Ken said...

Guy,
It doesn't seem like you study the Scripture passages above very deeply and notice the words elders, overseer (episcopos = overseer, bishop), and the verb for pastoring.

Ken said...

Cyprian is just quoting Matthew 16:18, etc. and saying that Peter is the first of the apostles and that he first spoke the truth that Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of the Living God, and that unity with that belief and doctrine of Christ is what all the true presbyters-bishops and churches everywhere unity.

Cyprian says he in his area and other bishops in their areas are all in unity with the doctrine and faith that Peter spoke.

Nothing about a Papacy or "bishop over all bishops" or jurisdiction of Rome over Carthage or Constantinople or Alexandria or Jerusalem or Antioch. They are equal and form the collegiate of unity around the "chair" of Peter - his faith and doctrine.

guy fawkes said...

Ken,
This would all make sense to you if you paid attention to what I have been trying to tell you about the laying on of hands/Sacraments.
The Pope is a bishop, no more or no less than any other bishop, as far has the power of the episcopacy goes.
Peter was an Apostle, as was John, Nathaniel and Judas.

I tried in vain to explain the difference between Matthew 16 and Matthew 18 to you.

Everything Cyprian said jives perfectly with Catholicism.
The only thing about him that jives with your system is the fact that he was (temporarily ) disobedient to Rome.

zipper778 said...

Thank you Ken and John for this post. It is very difficult to read history in context, but it's not impossible. Obviously there was no pope in the beginning and this evidence helps bring that to light. I will be sharing this with others who struggle to deny the papacy. There is no "both/and" on this topic.

John Bugay said...

Hi James -- In your control panel, have you simply tried marking "guy fawkes" as spam?

guy fawkes said...

Jon Bugeye,

I see your name on some Catholic blogs. You are as sweet as James' pussy cat on them and such a tiger here. Why so two faced?

guy fawkes said...

Ken,

How long before Rome, a collection of house churches presided over by a team of presbyters without a leader, would have degenerated into congregationalism? How long before those house churches would have become squabbling Protestant denominations?

EA said...

"You are as sweet as James' pussy cat on them and such a tiger here."

As opposed to "Guy" who is consistently obstreperous wherever he goes.

zipper778 said...

Great point EA guy is a hypocrit, but guy could care less. If he contradicts himself, no big deal, he'll just change the subject. If guy fawkes is what Roman Catholicism spawns then count me out.

John Bugay said...

Zipper: "guy fawkes" is typical of what I used to hear from some of the old Roman Catholics. If "my priest said it once", then that was all it took for the urban legend to become dogma.

guy fawkes said...

Bugsie,

You are an old Roman Catholic, aren't you? You haven't erased the seal you were given by the laying on of hands in Confirmation, have you? Whether in heaven or hell, it is there to stay.

Explain to Ken how it works. You know, the seals given in Baptism, Confirmation and Holy Orders.

guy fawkes said...

EA,
Obstreperous?
Irascible, pugnacious, even bellicose maybe. But obstreperous? Isn't that going a bit too far?

I think of myself as perky, spunky and even a bit sassy.

guy fawkes said...

Ken,
Cyprian also didn't mention the Virgin Birth or the two natures of Christ. So what?

guy fawkes said...

Ken,

But he way, you mentioned Ignatius as being the first to mention mono-bishops.
When did he write? 107? That late, huh? Such a late development. Ha!

Also, the fact that he didn't address his letter to the Romans to the Pope can be answered in a number of ways.
Maybe it was between popes. You know, like when Bishop Cyprian wrote to the priests of Rome for advice after Fabian was beheaded*.
* I stood in the very spot in the catacombs where Fabian met his end when the soldiers burst in while he was saying Mass. It's oh so cool to be in a Church that goes back to the time of the martyrs!

guy fawkes said...

Von Zipper,

" Obviously there was no pope in the beginning...".

No Pope in the beginning? Obviously? Obviously? The Gospels and the Book of Acts say Peter was the Pope from the beginning.

guy fawkes said...

By the way, the title of this is correct.
The papacy is proven by reading the New Testament account of Jesus' words to Peter.
Nobody ever said the papacy is true because Peter died in Rome without first establishing Peter's primacy.
Does anyone say Paul was an inspired writer because he died in Rome?

guy fawkes said...

Ken,
As you don't seem to take in what I say, talk to Bugsie. He says he was once such a zealous Catholic that he considered the priesthood. He should therefore be able to tell you in a non threatening way what I have been trying to tell you.
Ask him about Holy Orders. This should help you with your confusion over priests and Bishops in the early Church.

You see, there are priest and then there are priests. Bishops are priests too, by the way, as is the Pope.
There are priests who have faculties to say Mass but not hear Confessions. There are priests who can hear Confessions in a particular diocese or monastery but not elsewhere.

When I got married, we wanted my wife's priest cousin to preside. He was from another state and so needed to get the okay to do so.

While Bishops are the normal minister of Confirmation, the power to Confirm can be delegated to a priest which brings up the question of just what the difference between the two levels of priesthood is. Is it a matter of power or jurisdiction?

At an ordination to the priesthood, the Bishop ordains on the candidate but all the priests present also lay hands on him.
Then we have ordained deacons who can perform some Sacraments but not all.

What I am saying is, your difficulty lies in trying to distinguish between the various degrees of Holy Orders without taking everything into consideration.

guy fawkes said...

Ken,
One last comment here.

The Cardinals today are all Bishops yet some are titled Cardinal deacons and Cardinal priests. This harkens back to a time when Pope Fabian divided Rome up according to deacons, not auxiliary bishops.
In the early Roman Church, popes were selected from the deacons, not the bishops. Deacons had more prestige than presbyter who were seen as extensions of the bishops and would be elevated no higher.
The Roman clergy was further broken down into subdeacons, exorcists, acolytes, readers, porters. The offices of interpreter and even grave digger were clerical. While only Bishop. priest and deacon are Sacramental Holy Orders, this does go to show that if you are trying to make a case about the Papacy or the the Roman clergy, you really need to do your homework on just how the Church's clergy was ordered up until Vatican II simplified things.

So although elder and bishop are indeed interchangeable ( Titus 1:1-9 ) in one sense, there are some things to take into account. Simple elders do not make other elders or deacons.

As I mentioned in a previous post, Bishops have the fullness of the priesthood while simple priests do not as seen in the case of Confession and absolution of sins.
One more example of this is shown by the fact that until abortion became a widespread sin, only a bishop could grant absolution for it.
You like to reference Cyprian. Then you should know he made a special exception allowing presbyters to grant absolution to repentant heretics. Before that, only a Bishop could do so.

Good luck in making an issue about Presbyter and Episcopoi in the early Church.

eltheoldsoul said...

Why is Guy spamming the board? Jeez. If he wants to debate that, let him do it publically.

zipper778 said...

Guy feels that his religion has been wronged so guy believes that he has the right to get revenge and harass James over it. He reveals many flaws with Roman Catholicism and his arguments are nothing more then claims.

I truly feel sorry for guy. Guy, you are posting on a blog that disagrees with your religion on a fundemental level. It's not going to be easy. But you don't have to harass and seek vengence just because you have been proven to be self-contradicting and wrong many times. Other Roman Catholics who post on this blog are usually treated with respect, especially when they present evidence.

Guy, if you truly are trying to help people embrace your version of Roman Catholicism I recommend that you take a breath and start over.

It also would help if your internet handle wasn't the name of a Roman Catholic terrorist.

guy fawkes said...

Zippler,

"guy believes that he has the right to get revenge and harass James"

"seek vengence"

"terrorist."


????????????????????

Thanks for giving me all the rent free space in your head Zip, but the topic is Peter/Rome/Monarchical Episcopacy etc.
I am flattered that you would rather talk about me, my hat size, favorite color, birthday, etc. etc. but I am interested in debating Catholic/Protestant principles rather than personalities and petty nonsense.

guy fawkes said...

Old Soul,
Yes, let's debate the topic. By all means.
Do you have a ding dong thing to say on the Papacy? Nothing? No thoughts, no Bible quotes, nothing from the Fathers?
Just spamming for attention?

EA said...

"Just spamming for attention?"

An interesting question.

eltheoldsoul said...

Guy, I would have to do more research and reading. The other guys can do a better job than I. It is obvious that you are keen for a debate, but the way you are going about it now (calling people Bugseye and all that) is not winning you any audiences. The only thing you are perhaps achieving is a sense of being ignored because everybody doesn't want to hear the truth. You can think that but let me suggest something to you--you are probably deluding yourself. And if you think you are not deluding yourself and represent the pure truth, then I suggest you challenge James Swan to a public debate, where you are not able to spam or where the others here cannot "ignore" the "truth" you are presenting.

There are readers here who are probably neutral and want to see the truth for themselves and see whether Catholicism was right all along and that the Reformation was a jacked up enterprise from the begining. These people are reading for information. One thing I can assure you: your spamming and your clamor is not helping those people at all. Just a friendly suggestion, Guy.

James Swan said...

And if you think you are not deluding yourself and represent the pure truth, then I suggest you challenge James Swan to a public debate, where you are not able to spam or where the others here cannot "ignore" the "truth" you are presenting.

"Guy Fawkes" is, as far as I can tell, a cyber-troll who is very close to being banned off this blog. I could either spend hours dealing with his many comments, or I can spend the little time I have online putting together solid blog posts. A few of my recent posts took multiple hours to put together. These would not have happened had I began interacting with the myriad of comment from an anonymous person.

If "Guy Fawkes" would use his real name, and would agree to rules of debate, I would engage him on an agreed upon subject. Here's a written debate I had in the past with a similar defender of Rome:

http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2008/07/debate-did-martin-luther-mistranslate.html

Even with a debate, Mr. Fawkes is on very thin ice here.

eltheoldsoul said...

Hey James,

Well I would go for a public debate. Trolls can cheat on the net and make people look like they are winning debates.

One way to sift out the trolls from the true truth seekers is if they can engage in debate with a moderator to make sure there are no cheap tactics employed.

guy fawkes said...

James,

"Guy Fawkes" is, as far as I can tell, a cyber-troll who is very close to being banned off this blog. I could either spend hours dealing with his many comments, or I can spend the little time I have online putting together solid blog posts. A few of my recent posts took multiple hours to put together. These would not have happened had I began interacting with the myriad of comment from an anonymous person."

Shame on you dude. You spend "multiple hours" putting together posts dealing with Catholicism, Mary, the Papacy, etc. I pick your posts apart line by line and you slur me as a "cyber troll" for it.
If I am a troll, what are you? This is a blog on the internet, right? You freely choose to promote it, nobody forces you. The topic is usually *MY* is it not?
You throw down a challenge every time you post on "Romanism". I merely accept your challenge. Then you squawk "Cyber troll" just because I don't fawn all over your anti Catholic brayings like Zipper and EA do.

You don't have time for my "many comments" in response to what you say about my religion?
How about responding to just one? ONE!

Your posts are not inspired scripture. They are not works of art. Your amateurish pontifications cannot stand up to criticism and you know it or you would indeed respond rather than play possum.
Good day to you sir, Haarrrumph!

zipper778 said...

I'll bite on this on guy.

You come onto a blog and post dozens of posts and expect James to reply to at least one. I know that if I was James I would ignore you, because you truly are acting like a cyber-troll. Put yourself in James' position for once. Would you like it if someone was constantly attacking you and accusing you of things that simply aren't true (such as you baiting him to interact with you by accusing him of not interacting with Roman Catholics), and then claiming that something is so bullet proof because they have it explicitly in the Bible even when they don't?

How does that help you draw anyone into Roman Catholicism? You claim that you go unchallenged here, until you actually are. Then you complain that you don't know Koine Greek and would rather trust in someone else who knows more then you [which is the definition of group think]. Any time I see multiple posts where there is evidence given such as sources from the Bible, Koine Greek, or multiple ECF's, I know that it isn't guy.

James was even kind enough to admit that you very well could know more about Martin Luther then he does, but you prove that you know very little about Luther and his writings. You simply attack anyone who disagrees with Roman Catholicism. Which brings me to something that you just said:

"I don't fawn all over your anti Catholic brayings like Zipper and EA do."

I don't always see the point that James brings to his articles, and sometimes I see him posting things that I wouldn't. But this isn't my blog. This blog has a lot of good information here if people want to look. James does a lot of difficult research that most people (myself included) don't have time to do. So yes, I appreciate James' hard work.

Plus, what you said there guy proves just how hypocritical you have been lately. You accuse me of fawning over James, yet don't you just trust and fawn over the Roman Catholic Church? When you get backed into a corner, you either ignore those points or you simply admit that you believe what you believe because "the Church" says so. The Roman Catholic Church isn't God, yet you fawn all over it.

Anyways, unless you want to have a real debate with James, I highly doubt that he will answer any of your accusations guy.

Ken said...

Problem for you Guy, is that James and I answered your questions, many times.

When you keep repeating the same things that have already been answered, we ignore you.

When you don't read the links or even the full article, or throw in a different subject, etc. you get ignored.

When we point you to another article that we did years ago. - look at the side bar - "labels" - a lot of your questions are answered there.

When you show you don't read them, then you get ignored.

I answer you many times, sometimes I ignore you and sometimes, I just dont' have time to keep up with you if you post 6 or 10 comments in a row, and I am away from the web for a day or two, and don't see those.

Sometimes it is a matter of opinion; we believe we are correct in our assessment of Roman Catholicism, and you think you are right.

You are free to choose, of course.

guy fawkes said...

Zipper,

"How does that help you draw anyone into Roman Catholicism?"

And the same applies to you, no?

You have put this to me before.
Go back to September, when I first started posting here. Check out my irenic tone. Notice how I was received. Then notice how I ratcheted up only in proportion to the snotty way I was treated. Also notice how, I would return to my mild manner whenever a new person would join in the discussion Again, I would remain like Clark Kent as long as they were civil and turn Superman only after being insulted ( check out Orthodox John or even Kent as examples ).

Notice how non confrontational Devin Rose is on his site in response to mr. Swan and ilk.
I am not Devin Rose.
Christ did not always turn the other cheek. When he was slapped, He turned and demanded an explanation.
There is a time to be long suffering and a time when you become a door mat for the amusement of others.

Examine your own conscience Zipper. Have you been charitable to me? Or have you talked about me with EA, Brooks and Swan?

Please, get the beam out of your own eye before castigating me.

guy fawkes said...

Ken,

"Problem for you Guy, is that James and I answered your questions, many times. "

Really? Could you point out to me where James answered my repeated question ( spam? ) about his accusation of Theotkos/Mariolotry? Just calling it spam and calling me a troll does not actually answer anything, Ken.

As for you, Ken, repeatedly answering me, no way. Just asserting ad nauseaum that Mary is not a Perpetual Virgin doesn't win you a cigar. The fact that I am not buying your oft repeated arguments does not mean I am not understanding your logic. Plus, just calling me a troll does not prove Mary had other sons. Not by a long shot.
By the way, while on that topic, when are you going to get around to telling me if the relationship between Judas and James of Alphaeus was one of brother/brother or father/son? I have asked you several times and have, to date, only been answered with the thundering roar of crickets so.

David Waltz said...

Hi Ken,

I read this thread of yours on Monday, and just a few minutes ago, I published a lengthy critique (HERE) concerning a number of assertions you made on the issue of monespicopacy and it's relationship to the apostolic and early post-apostolic periods.

Hope you have the time (and interest) to check it out...


Grace and peace,

David

Chris Powell said...

Hello Folks, nice discussion. I would suggest Alastair Stewart's work "The Original Bishops: Office and Order in the First Christian Communities" which came out may 2014 by Baker Academic. He is a leading scholar of early Church order and liturgy and also does a good job on the issue of monoepiscopacy in Rome, following Brent and Lampe in seeing it flow from federation. Although it challenges the notion of Bishops and Presbyters as synonyms.

John Bugay said...

Chris Powell, thanks for the recommendation. I think I've heard about this somewhere, but it slips my mind just now.