tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post976602712274209096..comments2024-03-22T16:09:48.895-04:00Comments on Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: "This Bridge Should Be Illuminated"James Swanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comBlogger22125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-16496411658570495692010-08-12T17:32:03.047-04:002010-08-12T17:32:03.047-04:00EBW -- Rome favored a collegial presbyterial syste...EBW -- <i>Rome favored a collegial presbyterial system of governance...</i><br /><br />This was only at the time of the Apostles, and shortly thereafter. Of course, the role of the apostles was absolutely unique. And as the book of Acts reports, they "appointed elders in every city." In Rome, the situation was such that there were a number of identifiable congregations (Paul identified at least three or four or five "churches in their home" congregations in Romans 16.) It would seem as if these were "equals." And it is in that sense that they presided -- usually the person in whose home the church met, was the leader of the congregation. <br /><br />The letter of 1 Clement talks about "orderly ranking" (41.1), but he does not get this from the Scriptures, he models this after the Roman military.<br /><br /><i>"Let us serve as soldiers, brothers, with all seriousness under his [Christ's] faultless orders. Let us consider how the soldiers who serve under our commanders--how precisely, how readily, how obediently they execute orders. Nt all are prefects or tribunes or centurions or captains of fifty and so forth, but each in his own rank executes the orders given by the emperor and the commanders." (37:1-3)</i><br /><br />In this way, the structure of the Roman military was appropriated into the leadership of the churches at Rome at an early date. <br /><br />So these "equals" (who were equal as presbyters) evidently became a bit more ambitious, "wanting to be first." [And this is not something I made up. Hermas reports it.]John Bugayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17728044301053738095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-50900209594028224972010-08-12T16:20:39.591-04:002010-08-12T16:20:39.591-04:00Mr. Bugay,
Rome favored a collegial presbyterial...Mr. Bugay,<br /><br /> Rome favored a collegial presbyterial system of governance...<br /><br />If so, then are you arguing how it is linked to Christ and/or the Apostles ? <br />In what sense did they "preside" <br />while quarreling for status and honor ?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-70202226223181918002010-08-11T15:42:22.131-04:002010-08-11T15:42:22.131-04:00See section 54:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father...See section 54:<br /><br />http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25051995_ut-unum-sint_en.htmlJohn Bugayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17728044301053738095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-34515458605474207292010-08-11T15:37:43.341-04:002010-08-11T15:37:43.341-04:00"It was John Paul II who said the church need...<i>"It was John Paul II who said the church needed to breathe with both of its lungs. The Orthodox church being the "other lung.""</i><br /><br />What??!<br /><br />Was Pope JP II offering his own private interpretation of the Magisterial pronouncement from Vatican I??<br /><br />That's so crazy and contradictory when I have just read comments in an earlier thread that went like this:<br /><br />"Turretinfan, how about looking at what these "Catholic" authors are writing compared to promulgated doctrine. Can't be that difficult dude, and the fact that you don't understand this is troubling. It doesn't matter if they are Catholic University graduates, professors, or chaplians - or even bishops - if they are teaching things opposed to promulgated doctrine then we can't say that they are teaching the faith."<br /><br />Based on what Alexander just wrote above, isn't it logical to say that Pope JP II is not teaching the Catholic faith because he is teaching something opposed to the promulgated doctrine in Vatican I that clearly states:<br /><br /><b>"Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema."</b><br /><br />The Eastern Orthodox Church clearly denies this. By Magisterial decree, whoever denies this is anathema.<br /><br />If Pope JP II says otherwise, then he is exercising his private interpretation of infallible Magisterial teaching.<br /><br />Is this okay? Can and should Catholics exercise their own private interpretation of infallible Magisterial teaching? Is that what the Vatican II calls the "primacy of conscience" and so that means that Catholics have liberty and freedom to exercise private interpretation of Magisterium teaching just like Pope John Paul II did?<br /><br />Way to go Pope John Paul II!! Leading the way for private interpretation by Catholic laity.Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-58648621395035647272010-08-11T15:09:00.434-04:002010-08-11T15:09:00.434-04:00You gotta keep up Truth. It was John Paul II who s...You gotta keep up Truth. It was John Paul II who said the church needed to breathe with both of its lungs. The Orthodox church being the "other lung." I can find that citation for you if you like.John Bugayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17728044301053738095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-38201697030845772972010-08-11T15:07:51.179-04:002010-08-11T15:07:51.179-04:001. Maybe you're right about the Catholics, but...1. Maybe you're right about the Catholics, but from the citation that you offered, I can't say that it results that.<br /><br />2. *IF* it's true, then maybe it's because of their (and your) Anselmian satisfaction-view of Christ's Sacrifice (as propitiation by being punished by death for our sins instead of us) -- which the East does not possess, at least not as its *primary* view.The Blogger Formerly Known As Lvkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09663692507774640889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-44169190579549238392010-08-11T15:07:16.699-04:002010-08-11T15:07:16.699-04:00"Now Lvka, he is in great shape, what with hi...<i>"Now Lvka, he is in great shape, what with him being in "other lung" territory and all."</i><br /><br />Wait a minute. I thought the Roman Catholic Church claims not only both lungs, but the whole visible Body of Christ as well.<br /><br />How can Lvka be okay since he's not a member of the visible Church that Christ founded called the Roman Catholic Church?Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-31472467992767052032010-08-11T14:46:06.087-04:002010-08-11T14:46:06.087-04:00And still the argument flows!
I would spin off th...And still the argument flows!<br /><br />I would spin off these thoughts about it then.<br /><br />I would note the apostleships of both Peter and Paul and their territorial realities. Their Holy Spirit assigned territories are distinguished in the Scriptures.<br /><br />Peter's apostleship was to the Jews primarily and somewhat to the Gentiles.<br /><br />Paul's apostleship was to the Jews somewhat but primarily to the Gentiles.<br /><br />There were obvious overlaps in ministry between these two. Eating pork, anyone? :)<br /><br />I would note the territorial peculiarity then, here:<br /><br /><i>Act 16:5 So the churches were strengthened in the faith, and they increased in numbers daily. <br />Act 16:6 And they went through the region of Phrygia and Galatia, having been forbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia. <br />Act 16:7 And when they had come up to Mysia, they attempted to go into Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus did not allow them. <br />Act 16:8 So, passing by Mysia, they went down to Troas. <br />Act 16:9 And a vision appeared to Paul in the night: a man of Macedonia was standing there, urging him and saying, "Come over to Macedonia and help us." <br />Act 16:10 And when Paul had seen the vision, immediately we sought to go on into Macedonia, concluding that God had called us to preach the gospel to them.</i><br /><br />What do you see here is going on and "Who" is directing the apostolic ministry?<br /><br />Why would the Spirit and Jesus both forbid Paul from speaking the Word in Asia?<br /><br />I propose a simple answer. The Spirit gave that work of preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom in those parts of Asia to Peter.<br /><br />Consider Peter's apostleship and the "territory" where he was assigned to exercise his apostolic ministry, here:<br /><br /><b><i>1Pe 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who are elect exiles of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, <br />1Pe 1:2 according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood: May grace and peace be multiplied to you.</i></b><br /><br />This simple argument of Scripture alone establishes for me enough of an argument against the erroneous primacy/papacy/magisterium/anachronism claim of the RCC and your persistence with that claim here Lvka.<br /><br />Peter's work was to the Jews and Paul's was to the Gentile worlds of his day. I at least assume, Lvka, you accept that both of these men finished their courses assigned to them successfully?<br /><br />These two men came to a meeting of the minds, when, after a passing of time and I dare say it wasn't about Peter's "word" of Prophecy as claimed so clearly within the citation from the Vatican 1 work <b>"On the permanence of the primacy of the blessed Peter in the Roman pontiffs"</b> cited by JB, above, but as is clearly written here:<br /><br /><b>2Pe 3:15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, <br />2Pe 3:16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.</b>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-23658398420948051652010-08-11T14:38:12.243-04:002010-08-11T14:38:12.243-04:00That may be true for you guys, but for Roman Catho...That may be true for you guys, but for Roman Catholics, it's a verb.<br /><br /><i>1366 The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit:<br /><br /> [Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper "on the night when he was betrayed," [he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit.<br /><br />1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory."</i>John Bugayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17728044301053738095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-51220100619298555032010-08-11T14:33:12.892-04:002010-08-11T14:33:12.892-04:00The noun "sacrifice" refers to that whic...The noun "sacrifice" refers to that which was sacrificed: Christ's body (and blood) on the Cross of Golgotha. The Eucharist is that same sacrifice, the earthly bread and wine offered by us being united with Chrit's heavenly body and blood into one offering.The Blogger Formerly Known As Lvkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09663692507774640889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-65023336291464930672010-08-11T14:04:03.634-04:002010-08-11T14:04:03.634-04:00Now, Truth, we've been through this before, an...Now, Truth, we've been through this before, and you, as a separated brethern, being separated through no fault of your own (you being descended from those rascals who genuinely left the One True Church), cannot be excommunicated, and therefore the anathema does not apply to you.<br /><br />Now Lvka, he is in great shape, what with him being in "other lung" territory and all.<br /><br />Only former Catholics, who leave of their own volition, can really be anathematized. And I've been told by some well-meaning folks, that even I have some hope, because if I had been properly catechized, I'd have never left, and as it is, I'm invincibly ignorant. <br /><br />So don't be scaring everyone with talk of anathemas like that :-)John Bugayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17728044301053738095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-58835569808799099692010-08-11T13:38:21.626-04:002010-08-11T13:38:21.626-04:00I knowingly accept the Roman Catholic Church's...I knowingly accept the Roman Catholic Church's Magisterial pronouncement of anathema upon my soul for rejecting the teaching that Peter and his (supposed) successors have primacy and authority over the whole Church.<br /><br />Lvka, as an Eastern Orthodox, do you accept your anathema from the Roman Catholic Church's infallible Magisterium? Or were you not aware of this prior to this post by John Bugay?Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-59202378395554301362010-08-11T11:32:46.747-04:002010-08-11T11:32:46.747-04:00...Christ's once-and-for-all, flesh-and-blood ...<i>...Christ's once-and-for-all, flesh-and-blood sacrifice.... </i><br /><br />If it's "once," then maybe you can describe the mechanism by which this "once for all" sacrifice historically developed into some sort of a ubiquitous thing. Christ, after all, "sat down" -- he is no longer "sacrificing." He is sitting.John Bugayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17728044301053738095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-61652404388862684952010-08-11T10:53:38.545-04:002010-08-11T10:53:38.545-04:00"Archpriest" is a term that never really...<i>"Archpriest" is a term that never really caught on in the West. </i><br /><br /><br />It didn't exactly "catch on" in the East either: in Romanian, for instance, the "-priest" in "Arch-priest" is not the same as the Romanian word for "priest". ("Arhiereu" vs. "preot"). It's basically "Hierarch" spelled backwards: with the "-arch" coming before the "hier-". (We have the word "ierarh" as well). -- The word "preot" came from our Roman ancestors [Dacia was conquered by the Romans in around 100 AD], whereas the later two are neologisms ("recent" words) of Greek origin (borrowing).<br /><br /><br />"Sacrifice" is not the same as "sacrificing": for us, it's a noun, not a verb (HT to a <a href="http://weedon.blogspot.com/2010/06/random-thought.html" rel="nofollow">Lutheran pastor</a>), and it refers to Christ body and blood, given to us in edible form unto eternal life (John 6:53). What God does is send down His Holy Spirit to change our vegetal sacrifice (like the ones Adam and Melchisedek have offered) of bread and wine, into Christ's once-and-for-all, flesh-and-blood sacrifice.The Blogger Formerly Known As Lvkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09663692507774640889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-36722396766679663342010-08-11T09:28:46.126-04:002010-08-11T09:28:46.126-04:00Couple of things Lvka:
1. "Archpriest" ...Couple of things Lvka:<br /><br />1. "Archpriest" is a term that never really caught on in the west. <br /><br />2. Lampe goes to great lengths to show the muddle between <i>who</i> exercises <i>what responsibilities</i>. And far more than just the words get confused. <br /><br />3. You still haven't responded to the notion that Clement's use of the OT sacrificial system here is a very bad misunderstanding of the "once for all" nature of Christ's sacrifice.John Bugayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17728044301053738095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-78445417315752128462010-08-11T09:19:07.974-04:002010-08-11T09:19:07.974-04:00"Truth" = Clement used the terms priest(..."Truth" = Clement used the terms priest(s) and bishop(s) inter-changeably, AND in his parallels between OT and NT priesthood he places a great deal of empahsis on the office of the OT Archpriest.<br /><br /><br />"Half-truth" = Clement used the terms priest(s) and bishop(s) inter-changeably.The Blogger Formerly Known As Lvkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09663692507774640889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-23883341455857550762010-08-11T09:07:48.138-04:002010-08-11T09:07:48.138-04:00What "half-truths" am I presenting?What "half-truths" am I presenting?John Bugayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17728044301053738095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-13510842032404854672010-08-11T09:06:22.337-04:002010-08-11T09:06:22.337-04:00My job here is not to show you how Clement does no...My job here is not to show you how Clement does not contradict Paul, whose disciple he was, but simply to stop you from presenting half-truths about his views. <br /><br /><br />As your American witnesses swear in your American courts-of-law: to tell the truth, the WHOLE truth, and <i>nothing but</i> the truth.The Blogger Formerly Known As Lvkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09663692507774640889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-32338089347116482782010-08-11T06:11:21.681-04:002010-08-11T06:11:21.681-04:00Although, Lvka, I do have to disagree with you on ...Although, Lvka, I do have to disagree with you on Clement. Clement messed up a few things.<br /><br />Compare these quotations, the first from Hebrews, and the second from Clement:<br /><br /><i>Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said, <b>"Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired, but a body have you prepared for me; in burnt offerings and sin offerings you have taken no pleasure.</b> Then I said, 'Behold, I have come to do your will, O God, as it is written of me in the scroll of the book.'"<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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,"<br /><br />then he adds, <br /><br />"I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more."<br /><br />Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin. (Hebrews 10:5-18)</i><br /><br />Did you get that last line? "Where there is forgiveness of sins and lawless deeds, then there is no longer any offering for sin.<br /><br />Now, notice what Clement says:<br /><br /><i>Since, therefore, these things are now clear to us and we have searched into the depths of the divine knowledge, we ought to do, in order, everything that the Master has commanded us to perform at the appointed times. Now he commanded the offerings and services to be performed diligently, and not to be done carelessly or in disorder, but at designated times and occasions. Both where and by whom he wants them to be performed, he himself has determined by his supreme will, so that all things, being done devoutly and according to his good pleasure, may be acceptable to his will. <b>Those, therefore, who make their offerings at the appointed times are acceptable and blessed, for those who follow the instructions of the Master cannot go wrong. For to the high priest the proper services have been given, and to the priests the proper office has been assigned, and upon the Levites the proper ministries have been imposed.</b> The layman is bound by the layman's rules. <br /><br />Let each of you brothers, give thanks to God with your own group, maintaining a good conscience, not overstepping the designated rule of his ministry, but acting with reverence. <b>Not just anywhere, brothers, are the continual daily sacrifices offered, or the freewill offerings, or the offerings for sin and trespasses, but only in Jerusalem. And even there the offering is not made in any place, but in front of the sanctuary at the altar, the offering having first been inspected for blemishes by the high priest and the previously mentioned ministers. Those, therefore, who do any thing contrary to the duty imposed by his will will receive death as the penalty. (1 Clement 40:1-41:3)</b></i><br /><br />Hebrews is saying, "there is no longer any offering." Clement is saying, "perform the offerings and services diligently, or receive death as the penalty."<br /><br />What went wrong here? The only possibility is that Clement misunderstands what Christ has done.John Bugayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17728044301053738095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-12859212994334283732010-08-11T05:28:33.529-04:002010-08-11T05:28:33.529-04:00Yes, Lvka, the hits just keep on coming. "A p...Yes, Lvka, the hits just keep on coming. "A plurality of presbyters leads Roman Christianity." <br /><br /><i>And First Clement 44:5 clarifies who exercises episkope: the presbuteroi! A number of them, who simultaneously had episkope in Corinth, were dismissed by the Corinthians. In 47:6, 57:1 the dismissed men are called presbuteroi. In short, by presbuteroi and episkopoi 1 Clem designates the same persons. The two terms are interchangeable, as in Hermas (Vis. 3.5.1).</i><br /><br />If you and I keep agreeing on things, I may ask James Swan if he'd like to have you as a regular contributor on Beggars All!John Bugayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17728044301053738095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-26295544670097461212010-08-11T04:28:56.748-04:002010-08-11T04:28:56.748-04:00Presbyters do preside over the church. (In case yo...Presbyters do preside over the church. (In case you didn't know that..)<br /><br />And Clement does speak a great deal about the similarities between the OT and NT priesthoods, placing a lot of specific emphasis on the OT Archpriest as well. (Which does seem to imply the existence of a parallel office in the NT church).The Blogger Formerly Known As Lvkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09663692507774640889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-60953377921988455472010-08-11T04:15:23.567-04:002010-08-11T04:15:23.567-04:00When I say "recalibrated," note the vagu...When I say "recalibrated," note the vagueness of the "requirement" in this statement, "Dominus Iesus," which Ratzinger put out in 2000:<br /><br /><i> <b>The Catholic faithful are required to profess that there is an historical continuity — rooted in the apostolic succession — between the Church founded by Christ and the Catholic Church:</b> “This is the single Church of Christ... which our Saviour, after his resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care (cf. Jn 21:17), commissioning him and the other Apostles to extend and rule her (cf. Mt 28:18ff.), erected for all ages as ‘the pillar and mainstay of the truth' (1 Tim 3:15). This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in [subsistit in] the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him”. With the expression subsistit in, the Second Vatican Council sought to harmonize two doctrinal statements: on the one hand, that the Church of Christ, despite the divisions which exist among Christians, continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, and on the other hand, that “outside of her structure, many elements can be found of sanctification and truth”, that is, in those Churches and ecclesial communities which are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church. But with respect to these, it needs to be stated that “they derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.</i><br /><br />What is this "historical continuity"? We don't know. We aren't told. Whatever it was, "the faithful" are "required" to believe it though. <br /><br />http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html <br /><br />Note too that 1 Tim 3:15, which I've discussed, is continually misused as a proof-text.John Bugayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17728044301053738095noreply@blogger.com