Written by a High Continuing Anglican, assessing Roman Catholic prayers to Mary.
A couple of illustrations. Here are a couple of very ancient prayers to the Virgin Mary:
We fly to thy patronage,
O holy Mother of God;
despise not our petitions in our necessities,
but deliver us always from all dangers,
O glorious and blessed Virgin. Amen.
3rd Century; Oldest Known Prayer to Mary
Loving Mother of the Redeemer,
Gate of heaven, star of the sea,
Assist your people
who have fallen yet strive to rise again,
To the wonderment of nature you bore your Creator,
yet remained a virgin after as before,
You who received Gabriel's joyful greeting,
have pity on us, poor sinners.
Ancient Liturgy of the Hours Prayer\
Many, many more examples could be found. One would _never_ speak of asking for the prayers of a friend on earth, however godly, in those terms.
Imagine that Jones is a very godly man and that Smith is his less godly Christian friend. Smith has some problems in his life. One would never say to Smith, "Fly to Jones for refuge and ask him to deliver you from all dangers" meaning by that, "Ask Jones to pray for you." It wouldn't matter how great a person Jones was, how great a Christian, how much the passage in James could be presumed to apply to Jones. To talk about Jones in those terms would be to treat him as a superbeing or a magician, not just an especially godly man.
And all the more so if you were telling the person to do this by mental prayer, which God would convey to Jones in the form of some sort of supernaturally aided ESP.
If one asserts that the saints' knowledge of our prayers is made possible by divine miracle rather than being due to a natural power, but if all liturgical practice encourages people to *take it as a given* that they can speak from anywhere on earth to Mary or the other saints and be heard, then the term "miracle" is irrelevant to the impression given. This is a "miracle" that is always done by God and can be taken for granted in practice to be in force--they will hear your prayers. The effect of all of this is, unfortunately, very much what I felt bound to assert in the main post. I speak here as someone who once was more sympathetic to prayers for the saints.
IMO it would be better for Catholic apologists to bite the bullet. Instead of telling Protestants that it's just like asking a godly friend for prayers, which feels like a bait and switch in light of actual Catholic practice (not just of ignorant Catholics, but uniform and church-endorsed Catholic practice), it would be better just to say outright: There is an admittedly thin but bright line in Catholic theology between what we do w.r.t. * [with respect to] the saints and worship. You Protestants should just get over your squeamishness over the thinness of that line, rely on its brightness, and cross the Tiber.
We fly to thy patronage,
O holy Mother of God;
despise not our petitions in our necessities,
but deliver us always from all dangers,
O glorious and blessed Virgin. Amen.
3rd Century; Oldest Known Prayer to Mary
Loving Mother of the Redeemer,
Gate of heaven, star of the sea,
Assist your people
who have fallen yet strive to rise again,
To the wonderment of nature you bore your Creator,
yet remained a virgin after as before,
You who received Gabriel's joyful greeting,
have pity on us, poor sinners.
Ancient Liturgy of the Hours Prayer\
Many, many more examples could be found. One would _never_ speak of asking for the prayers of a friend on earth, however godly, in those terms.
Imagine that Jones is a very godly man and that Smith is his less godly Christian friend. Smith has some problems in his life. One would never say to Smith, "Fly to Jones for refuge and ask him to deliver you from all dangers" meaning by that, "Ask Jones to pray for you." It wouldn't matter how great a person Jones was, how great a Christian, how much the passage in James could be presumed to apply to Jones. To talk about Jones in those terms would be to treat him as a superbeing or a magician, not just an especially godly man.
And all the more so if you were telling the person to do this by mental prayer, which God would convey to Jones in the form of some sort of supernaturally aided ESP.
If one asserts that the saints' knowledge of our prayers is made possible by divine miracle rather than being due to a natural power, but if all liturgical practice encourages people to *take it as a given* that they can speak from anywhere on earth to Mary or the other saints and be heard, then the term "miracle" is irrelevant to the impression given. This is a "miracle" that is always done by God and can be taken for granted in practice to be in force--they will hear your prayers. The effect of all of this is, unfortunately, very much what I felt bound to assert in the main post. I speak here as someone who once was more sympathetic to prayers for the saints.
IMO it would be better for Catholic apologists to bite the bullet. Instead of telling Protestants that it's just like asking a godly friend for prayers, which feels like a bait and switch in light of actual Catholic practice (not just of ignorant Catholics, but uniform and church-endorsed Catholic practice), it would be better just to say outright: There is an admittedly thin but bright line in Catholic theology between what we do w.r.t. * [with respect to] the saints and worship. You Protestants should just get over your squeamishness over the thinness of that line, rely on its brightness, and cross the Tiber.
*[with respect to] - my addition
Posts
582 comments:
1 – 200 of 582 Newer› Newest»And see comments at triablogue
Ok, I found more info on her other blogs - that says she is a "Continuing Anglican" (they appear to be conservative and don't ordain women as pastors ) and her church is called "St. Patrick's Anglican Catholic Church". I confess I didn't look deep enough into who she is; - her other blog "What's Wrong with the World: Dispatches from the Tenth Crusade" gave me the impression she was a Roman Catholic.
As I recall, she is great against political correctness - more power to you, Lydia!
I am more impressed with her now; I am going to have to read more of her stuff more carefully.
Steve,
Indeed, Lydia is doing an excellent job of debating that RC apologist on that issue.
Ken and Steve,
I just skimmed Lydia's comments posted on Triabologue. I don't see what you guys see. Nothing impressive at all.
You don't see it because you skimmed.
You have to read carefully with thought.
Lydia and DA are going at it more (written after Steve's second report) at his blog.
I periodically update the post with new comments from Lydia.
Dave says he's trying to do "amateur exegesis." And he's successfully achieved his goal. If nothing else, his grasp of Scripture is nothing if not amateurish. Mission accomplished!
"Dave says he's trying to do 'amateur exegesis.'"
On the one hand he's written dozens of books and hundreds of articles and put himself out in the public sphere as a professional apologist. On the other hand after he comes up empty against Lydia McGrew he claims he's only trying to do amateur exegesis. I'm sure that he's being unintentionally funny.
I was impressed by the fact that Ms. McGrew appears to have the ability to pump out a lot of text rather quickly. And this text is rather cogent. I've never had the ability to pump out a massive amount of cogent text quickly(I suffer from a mild form of paralysis of analysis).
I thought perhaps she was cutting-and-pasting her own previously written materials, but I don't have the time (or rather, I'm not going to make the time) to look into it.
Regardless of the unfortunate venue her argumentation appears in, I found some her arguments very interesting.
Guy,
Read through all these and see the years of argumentation against prayers to Mary and statues of Mary and the appearance of idolatry it has given; especially for centuries to Muslims.
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2013/11/roman-catholics-continue-to-give-bad.html
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2014/08/a-truly-blasphemous-prayer-to-mary-by.html
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2014/01/marian-dogmas-began-with-fiction-and.html
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/12/muslims-quoting-coptic-and-roman.html
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2009/08/church-converted-into-mosque.html
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2009/09/witnessing-to-muslims-answering-son-of.html
Guy,
The whole thing that Lydia McGrew wrote above (A more honest way of viewing Marian Prayers) was very good and I already posted it above as a more honest way of viewing Roman Catholic prayers to Mary. Especially the examples of prayers that are much more than just asking for someone to pray for you. There is no need to repeat it all here in the combox. She won the argument with the first entry. DA did not even interact with those 2 prayers, and just wrote [gave examples of two Marian prayers] That was a subtle omission that takes the sting away and almost goes un-noticed, because those prayers and the over-the top language is exactly the point - that it is asking for much more than “please pray for me”.
Lydia wrote - "Many, many more examples could be found. One would never speak of asking for the prayers of a friend on earth, however godly, in those terms." Key - “in those terms”; she is right. that is the main point. She won the argument.
This was very subtle and nuanced, but effective from Lydia:
"Part of the difficulty here, which is almost certainly going to preclude agreement, is the very fact that I am not definitely saying that prayers to the dead saints are idolatrous. This may seem ironic, but my point is it that it is the very "fuzziness" and hence relative mildness of my critique that makes it both difficult for you to refute it decisively and also difficult for me to convince you of its justice. If I were saying that speaking to dead saints is intrinsically, by its very nature, idolatrous, then I could be refuted, and we'd be done. I could write that refutation myself, in fact. It is because I am using terms like "uncomfortably" or "too much like" and so forth that it is difficult to find common ground for disagreement–because there is an ineliminable element of subjectivism in these evaluations."
Roman Catholics hide the truth of the idolatry of it by saying, "All we are doing is asking someone else to pray for us".
Lydia showed by those examples of the prayers, and I have shown here by the prayers of Popes and bowing and praying before giant statues of Mary (see my articles above) that Marian Piety is much more than just asking her to pray for you. It looks like idolatry, and because the RC system has created thousands of distinctions (like dulia, hyperdulia, latria; and condign and congruent merit; and mortal and venial sins, and infallibility of Pope regular/general infallibility and ex cathedra infallibility, and all of those have to wait for 200 or more years to be interpreted and so there is really no such thing as “someone who can walk into the room, a living voice, and solve disunity problems” [what a joke!], etc. - they can explain away anything they want, because it is all subjective.
Lydia’s argument here is very good:
I agree with you that Rev. 6:9ff is an imprecatory prayer. Yet in your later argument you say that it portrays the martyrs "praying for us in heaven." Well, no, it just doesn't. Rev. 6:9ff portrays them as praying against the wicked, for God's judgement to fall on them, to avenge the blood of those very saints who are praying! No doubt, if God slays the wicked, that may or will help many good people on earth. (Of course, if God wipes out a city or something, that might slay a lot of good people at the same time, so the inference is only approximate!) But this verse does not picture anything *even remotely* like praying for us and our problems, much less hearing us and praying because we asked them to. If one insists on taking this verse with strict literalness, it sounds like almost a rather "selfish" prayer–it portrays these particular martyrs as knowing that their deaths have not yet been avenged on the ungodly that dwell on the earth and asking God to get on with it! The most that one can say is that this shows them as having *some* (negative) knowledge of events on the earth, but that's the most it shows.
That’s just a few examples of what I find that Lydia McGrew totally defeated DA in argumentation and logic and Scriptural truth.
Guy,
"Strongess" is a real word. Look it up in the dictionary.
What makes you think "more holy" is bad English? For instance, if a wanted to draw a contrast between what's more holy and what's less holy, how else would I do it?
Two quick observations, then I'm out:
i) At Tblog, Guy repeatedly demonstrated that he's either unable or unwilling to argue in good faith. Hence, direct interaction with him is a monumental waste of time.
ii) Lydia's comments aren't for the benefit of Catholics who blindly follow Rome. It's not intended to convince people like that. They hear, but they don't listen. Think Prov 26:12.
People like Guy don't believe in the cult of the saints because they have direct, compelling evidence for the propriety of that practice. Rather, they believe it because they believe in the authority of the Roman Magisterium to promulgate dogma. Their real reason is indirect.
Hence, it's generally a waste of time to debate specific Roman dogmas with people like Guy. That's too far downstream. Their real reasons lie upstream: the alleged authority of the Roman Magisterium. Specific Roman dogmas are merely the effect of that source. If you're going to have a debate, then debate the cause, not the effect.
Of course, both James and I have both produced voluminous critiques of the Roman Magisterium. So we don't need to reinvent the wheel.
Ken,
Do you pray? Why? I understand that John Piper does not pray that his own children be elect.
Perhaps your view of election is the problem? It seems to taint your view of the Sacraments too.
Maybe start with that.
"In those terms"? Asking a living friend or even a saint in heaven is not like praying to Mary. For instance, we don't ask one saint to pray to another saint for us. However, when the question of a certain miracle was to be attributed to the intercession of St. Joan of Arc or to Mary, it was determined that since even a saint in heaven prays to Mary, both were to be thanked for their intercession.
It seems we have two different issues here; prayers of intercession in general and prayers specifically to Mary.
As I posted quite a bit on Mary on Triabologue, I would refer you to that blog ( unless my comments have all been deleted ).
Steve,
The comparative and superlative for one syllable words is formed thusly; big, bigger, the biggest.
With longer words like "beautiful", degree is shown by beautiful, more beautiful and the most beautiful.
Two syllable words ending in Y are an exception. Crazy, funny, silly, etc. follow the one syllable rule with a change of spelling. The Y becomes an I and we say sunny, sunnier and the sunniest.
In a sentence it would look like this; Steve, you are nasty. Nastier than James or Ken. Perhaps the nastiest blog moderator on the net.
Steve,
"People like Guy don't believe in the cult of the saints because they have direct, compelling evidence for the propriety of that practice. Rather, they believe it because they believe in the authority of the Roman Magisterium to promulgate dogma. Their real reason is indirect."
This is probably the only thing you have right.
Reinvent the wheel? Ha! You don't really want to discuss the issue. I challenged you to discuss this on Triabologue and your answer was to blocked me out.
Too bad as this issue dwarfs the insignificant spelling rules you preoccupy yourself with.
"I understand that John Piper does not pray that his own children be elect."
He doesn't quote Piper.
In any case, a Calvinist can, without inconsistency, pray that God elected his children.
"It seems to taint your view of the Sacraments too."
A tendentious non sequitur.
"However, when the question of a certain miracle was to be attributed to the intercession of St. Joan of Arc or to Mary, it was determined that since even a saint in heaven prays to Mary, both were to be thanked for their intercession."
How was is determined that Joan of Arc in heaven prayed to Mary in heaven? Was a seance held to question Joan of Arc on her postmortem activities?
Reinvent the wheel? Ha! You don't really want to discuss the issue. I challenged you to discuss this on Triabologue and your answer was to blocked me out.
Guy, I see a pattern here emerging that seems to indicate to me you have a problem expressing yourself without getting in trouble with the powers that be. You mentioned a few weeks ago that the Green Baggins blog was likewise deleting your posts.
What are the possibilities, however remote or outrageous they may appear to you to be, that the problem with your comments being deleted may actually originate with the way you express yourself?
Thanks for illustrating your grade school grasp of English grammar. What an achievement!
The question is not how comparatives and superlatives are formed, but whether Lydia's usage is ungrammatical. Your comment is an exercise in misdirection.
James,
I am banned from Green Baggins for my incessant demand that they not allow a particular Calvinist troll not refer to the Catholic Eucharist as a "death wafer". Please remember that I even used a quote from you, to no avail however, in my argumentation.
I am right. They are wrong to allow such inflammatory rhetoric in light of the admonition in Hebrews 12:14 that says to "strive for peace with all men...", especially since the anti-Catholic blogger could get his point across without giving gratuitous and intentional offense.
As for Steve, read his sneering remarks to me, simply because I am Catholic. Then give him the same "fraternal correction" that you give me.
Steve,
I was merely responding to your request that I explain how we say, "holier" instead of "more holy".
You asked. I answered.
As for my grade school grasp of English, what is your level? You are the one defending "more holy" and "strongness', not me.
Guy, that was never my request. But thanks for illustrating your confusion.
The thing is Guy, Tblog is fairly liberal with allowing comments. Of what I know about Green Baggins, they allow dissenting views as well.
It's fairly common knowledge that if you walk into the Tblog den, you run the risk of finding yourself at the end of the sword of Hays. I don't envy anyone in that position.
James,
If Steve really wants to have a food fight, I would refer him to Tim Kauffman's "White Horse" blog.
Nothing but insults, slurs and stupidity there. And zero moderation.
I don't see his name appearing on C2C, or Jason Stellman's. It seems he likes to hide under the skirts of Protestant blog owners from where he can peek out and spit and stick out his tongue without fear of being called to task for his brattiness.
OK Guy, if you want to get sliced up, that's your choice.
Steve,
"In any case, a Calvinist can, without inconsistency, pray that God elected his children."
Really? Contact Piper and set him straight.
Steve,
No seance was needed. We know that God does not repent of His gifts. Mary was given a role while on earth. That same role exists in heaven.
By the way, off topic, can you say, 'Judy, Judy, Judy" for us? Oh, c'mon! Just once.
Notice that Guy still hasn't produced a direct quote from Piper to prove Guy's contention.
People like Guy don't argue in good faith. It's all drive-by shootings.
People like Guy don't believe in the cult of the saints because they have direct, compelling evidence for the propriety of that practice. Rather, they believe it because they believe in the authority of the Roman Magisterium to promulgate dogma. Their real reason is indirect.
Hence, it's generally a waste of time to debate specific Roman dogmas with people like Guy. That's too far downstream. Their real reasons lie upstream: the alleged authority of the Roman Magisterium. Specific Roman dogmas are merely the effect of that source. If you're going to have a debate, then debate the cause, not the effect.
A sound analysis as regards most of the RC apologists, which is made apparent by their recourse to arguing that an infallible magisterium is essential for the discernment of what is of God, and since "Catholic church gave you the Bible" assertion, thus she alone can be trusted to tell you what is correctly means.
As the integrity of RC teaching does not rest upon the weight of Scriptural warrant, but upon the premise of the assured veracity of Rome as the supreme authority, thus in the doctrinal realm Scripture is subjected to being a servant to support Rome as needed to, which RCs have a great deal of liberty to do in that endeavor.
As this is contrary to the basis upon which the church began, thus the church of Rome is foundationally contrary to it.
PBJ,
If you undermine the authority of the Catholic Church, you pull the rug out from under the Bible too.
Remember PBJ, on pentecost day 3,000 men were added to the Church. Not a word of the NT had even been penned yet.
( PBJ? Not to be confused with Peanut butter and jelly ).
Steve,
I am fairly certain I gave you that quote on Triabologue about 3 weeks ago. If it hasn't been purged from the site at your insistence, go find it there.
Steve,
I clicked on your Carrie Grant and read up on you. Baroque?
h son, two weeks ago it was Michel Corboz conducting, in two weeks hence, Paul McCreesh will be conducting here ( and it's his turn to pay for the adult beverages after the concert. ) I also live just a few blocks from composer Ivan Moody ( no, not the rocker ). Every August I am in Portland during the Byrd Festival and I know Dean Applegate well. Yadda yadda yadda.
Too bad you have made me an enemy for life. I am soooooo beyond you when it comes to dropping names and rubbing elbows with the musical elite. We could have been such pals if only you hadn't...
"Remember PBJ, on pentecost day 3,000 men were added to the Church. Not a word of the NT had even been penned yet."
i) And how does Guy know that? Because it's in the Bible.
ii) 3,000 people converts added to the church on Pentecost before the Roman Magisterium ever existed. So that pulls the rug out from under Roman Catholicism.
iii) What they had on Pentecost was the word of God. The apostolic kergyma was based on: (a) OT messianic prophecy; (b) firsthand knowledge of the historical Christ, and (c) inspiration.
Messianic prophecy antedates the church of Rome. Likewise, Pope Francis has no more firsthand knowledge of the historical Christ than Billy Graham. Both depend on the Gospels.
iv) At Pentecost, the Spirit did not descend on the papacy or the Roman episcopate. It didn't even single out the Apostolate. Rather, the Spirit fell on about 120 (Acts 1:15) believers comprising the nascent church.
v) Acts 2:17-18 isn't a charism for the pope or church councils. It isn't even specific to the apostles. It's a general promise that cuts across all basic demographic divisions. No lay/clerical distinction.
Guy said, If you undermine the authority of the Catholic Church, you pull the rug out from under the Bible too.
Remember PBJ, on pentecost day 3,000 men were added to the Church. Not a word of the NT had even been penned yet.
Three questions regarding your assertions and their presuppositions. Are you saying:
1. The Scriptures and the preaching in Acts 2 obtain their authority from Rome?
2. That a perpetual infallible office is essential for the correct discernment of what writings and men are of God?
3. Being the instruments and stewards of Scripture means such is the infallible authority on what it consists of and means? (Thus valid dissent is impossible, and invalidates any claim to authority, and attacking the stewards attacks Scripture)?
PBJ,
Thank you for asking!
Let me make this easy and say this;
The Bible, as a historically accurate bunch of writings ( no need to say inspired at this point ) shows Jesus going about gathering followers. Out of those followers he selects 12 men and gives them special teaching and authority. Out of those 12, Simon is chosen as chief.
Are you with me so far?
Now, Jesus says that all authority in in heaven has been given him and he then transmits that power to the Apostles commissioning them to go out to all the world. Jesus promises to be with them throughout their preaching. He assures them of success. IOW, he pronounces the Church to speak for him as the infallible spokesperson down through time. He does not write anything down or even commission anyone else to do so. Instead he said to go preach and baptize, "Do this in memory of me...", etc.
Okay, so lets do a quick little syllogism.
A. The Church is infallible.
B. Peter ( and successors ) are the final court of appeal in that Church.
Conclusion. Peter is infallible.
Without an infallible Church built upon an infallible teaching office as witness to just which writings are inspired scripture, you are left with R.C. Sproul who says, " The Bible is a non inspired list of inspired books". ( Apologies to Steve if I don't have the exact quote. And we say " a historic" rather than " an historic" ).
Okay PBJ. I would love to go into detail on any difficulties you might have with what I have written here.
Steve,
"At Pentecost, the Spirit did not descend on the papacy or the Roman episcopate."
Steve,
Open your Bible and read in Acts how Peter unilaterally decides to replace Judas. All by his lonesome, no help from his friends. Then, just as the High Priests of old did, the Apostles come to an infallible decision by lots. Remember the Urim and Thummim?
Peter then speaks for the 12 on Pentecost and opens the doors of the Church to 3,000 converts.
The Holy Spirit did not establish the Papcy on Pentecost. It already existed based on what Jesus had said.
Now go through the rest of the book of Acts and see Peter performing the first miracle,healing by his shadow, striking dead Ananias and Sapphira for lying to the Holy Spirit when they lied to the Church, speaking up for the other 11 in front of the Sanhedrin and separating from the Temple and Synagogue by pronouncing salvation only in Jesus, causing great consternation in the Church during his imprisonment, etc. etc..
Later we see it is to Peter and Peter alone that the sign of the net of clean and unclean animals is given. After this, Peter goes on to, again unilaterally, open the doors of the Church to Cornelius and the gentiles. ( He had already opened them to Samaritans ).
At the Jerusalem Council it was Peter and not Paul or James as Protestants like to say, who made the one binding for all time decision about salvation coming from the grace of Christ and not the law of circumcision. And he did so without searching the scriptures but on his own authority.
Steve, if you can't see the Petrine Office in the book of Acts, it is because you are trying hard not to.
Steve,
"And how does Guy know that? Because it's in the Bible."
Why is it in the Bible, Steve? Are you engaging in some circular reasoning now? Are you approaching the Bible, or the Book of Acts anyway, as historically accurate reading or as inspired literature? Does it matter? Can it be one without the other. Can it be both?
The Book of Acts is historically accurate. So are other books. Does one need it to be inspired in order to read that Peter was in charge on Pentecost? What if no written record had been kept, could we still have the Church, the Faith and even the Papacy?
As for Acts 2 not being a blueprint for Church councils, who said it was? Acts 15 works nicely for that.
PBJ,
What is "valid dissent" in the Church?
Let me make this easy and say this;
..he selects 12 men and gives them special teaching and authority. Out of those 12, Simon is chosen as chief...
Jesus says that all authority in in heaven has been given him and he then transmits that power to the Apostles commissioning them to go out to all the world. Jesus promises to be with them throughout their preaching.
Translates into,
"Peter is infallible." "The Church is infallible." "Peter ( and successors ) are the final court of appeal in that Church."
Without an infallible Church built upon an infallible teaching office as witness to just which writings are inspired scripture, you are left with R.C. Sproul who says, " The Bible is a non inspired list of inspired books"
I rearranged your order as the presumed infallibility of the church proceeds from that of Peter, however your conclusion does not follow from your premise.
For in fact if a perpetual infallible office is essential for the correct discernment of what writings and men are of God;
And being chosen of God and given authority to be His spokesmen, and promised God's presence and preservation translates into possessing perpetual assured infallibility, and thus invalidating any authority from those in dissent;
Then you have just invalidated the NT church, as expected.
For the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, and inheritors of promises of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation. (Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34)
"because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. (Romans 3:2) Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. (Romans 9:4-5)
And instead they followed itinerant preachers - as far as the historical magisterium that rejected them was concerned - saying (like Rome) to their leader, "By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority to do these things?" (Mark 11:28)
But who in response invoked another itinerant preacher, one who ate insects in the desert.
But whom the Messiah reproved by Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)
And the fact is that it is abundantly evidenced that Scripture was the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God.
And which testifies (Lk. 24:27,44, etc.) to writings of God being recognized and established as being so, and thus they materially provide for a canon of Scripture (as well as for reason, the church, etc.)
Thus you have both men and writings of Gd being discerned and established as such (essentially due to their unique and enduring heavenly qualities and attestation) without any perpetual infallible magisterium.
Are you with me so far?
And likewise common people correctly and assuredly discerning what those who actually are affirmed as sitting in the seat of Moses did not, and a church beginning in dissent from them based upon the weight of Scriptural evidence, contrary to the Roman model.
And in which the integrity of RC teaching rests upon the premise of the assured veracity of Rome. The Assumption is True because the One True Church® said it is, and Scripture and Tradition only assuredly consist of and mean what she says they do.
What is "valid dissent" in the Church?
Some quiet dissent by teachable souls is allowed regarding non-infallible teaching (just what is can be a matter of debate, as is whether much if any dissent is allowed) in modern times, if not under a pope like Sixtus V.
However, i was referring to any dissent being disallowed as valid to the magisterium under the premise of it being infallible.
Steve, if you can't see the Petrine Office in the book of Acts, it is because you are trying hard not to.
The issue is that Peter was the street level leader among the brethren, and who exercised a general pastoral role, but who simply is not manifest as being the first of a line of infallible popes to whom all that church looked to as being so.
The former is Scriptural, the latter is ecclesiastically-driven extrapolation, as Steve Hays shows .
And my own analysis contrasts Scriptural leadership with that of Romes.
1. Scripture does not provide evidence of any more successors after Judas, which was to maintain the number of the original foundational twelve, (Acts 1:15-25; Rv. 21:14; cf Eph. 2:20) and is the only record we have of an apostolic successor (none for James on Acts 12:2).
2. Rome never used the non-political OT Scriptural method of casting lots to elect her supposed apostolic successors, but often involved used political machinations (making God to favor Italians).
Meanwhile by the 4th century you have a pope employing the latter to seeking to gain his seat.
3. Rome's purported apostolic successors fail of both the qualifications for such (Acts 1:21,22; 1Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:11,12) and their credentials. The apostles in all things evidenced themselves to be apostles as ministers of God, (2Cor. 6:4-10; 12:12) with a holiness and abundant supernatural attestation that disqualifies purported Roman successors (or me) as being so by way of contrast.
4. Instead Rome has elected men who morally were more like Judas than Peter, before and during their reign, and thus were not worthy to even be called members.
5. Rome's definition of "unbroken succession" can also be defined as she wishes, as it has not been preserved, for it has included vacancies of up to 3 years and with rival popes, and thus with confusion as to where the one true visible church could be found.
Rome preserves her unbroken claim by invalidating any other claimants based upon the premise that her judgment for what constitutes validity must be correct. .
6. Nowhere was the church exhorted to look to Peter as its supreme infallible head, not even as a solution to its problems, and is not even mentioned after Acts 12 or among Paul's many brethren in Rm. 16, and is sparely seen in his epistles to the churches.
7. Not once in the Lord's own letters to the churches is the pope even mentioned, despite His critiques, commendations and censures.
8. Peter is not confirmed to be the rock upon which Christ built His church. For in contrast to Peter, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8)
And see Swans pages on the never-ending linguistical debate.
9. Nowhere did Peter distinctively refer to himself as like a Roman pope, as is seen as being so, but as “an apostle,” “an elder,” (1Pt. 1:1; 5:1; 2Pt. 1) and was married, (Mt. 8:14; 1Cor. 9:4) and evidently poor, (Acts 3:6) living as a guest a tanner's house (Acts 10:6: a smelly profession, thus it was by the sea) who would not let even an unsaved men bow down to him. (Acts 10:25,26) .
10. Modern research, including by Catholics , testifies against Peter being set forth as the first of a line of supreme infallible heads to whom all the church looked to from the beginning.
Why is it in the Bible, Steve? Are you engaging in some circular reasoning now? Are you approaching the Bible, or the Book of Acts anyway, as historically accurate reading or as inspired literature? Does it matter? Can it be one without the other. Can it be both?
It must be both, except under such liberal scholarship as Rome has sanctioned for decades in her NAB study Bibles, but it can be historically accurate reading without being Divinely inspired, like as a pagan can speak infallible Truth without having the purported charism infallibility Rome "infallibly" defines herself as possessing.
But the question is how are both men and writings of God recognized and established as being so? According to you, since a perpetual infallible office is essential for this, then the very texts which the NT church established its validity upon had no authority until Rome gave it to them.
Unless you want to move the goal posts.
But if even common people could recognized and have assurance of both men writings being of God even in dissent from the historical magisterium, then you have a contrary interpretive foundation than Rome.
Note that the issue is not the validity of the magisterial office, which Westminster affirmed but not as supreme over Scripture (and depending upon the weight of its attestation for its veracity), but that of one possessing (conditional, formulaic) assured veracity, but which you are assured that the Assumption it true.
Yet God often provided and preserved Truth by raising up men from without leadership and which reproved them. Accordingly this is how the church began, and Truth was preserved, while under the Roman model before the Reformation there was an almost entire abandonment of equity in ecclesiastical judgments, and severely lacking discipline in morals, and erudition in sacred literature, and reverence in divine things, so that true religion was almost extinct, and the true Church had to be sought outside the institution.
What if no written record had been kept, could we still have the Church, the Faith and even the Papacy?
If you had a Moses. Got any? It seems there were no writings before that. Before answering, think of the manner of supernatural attestation that established Him as being the man of God, and His writings as being of God, to which others were tested and established by, and whose writings the Lord and apostles appealed to.
And of the manner of credentials the apostles manifestly professed.
But in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God,... By pureness, by knowledge, by longsuffering, by kindness, by the Holy Ghost, by love unfeigned, By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left, (2 Corinthians 6:4-7)
Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds. (2 Corinthians 12:12)
"Rome preserves her unbroken claim by invalidating any other claimants based upon the premise that her judgment for what constitutes validity must be correct."
To piggyback on PBJ's comment, that's viciously circular.
"Out of those followers he selects 12 men and gives them special teaching and authority. Out of those 12, Simon is chosen as chief.
Are you with me so far?"
No, he doesn't select Peter as "chief."
"Now, Jesus says that all authority in in heaven has been given him and he then transmits that power to the Apostles commissioning them to go out to all the world."
It doesn't say he transmits "all authority in heaven" to the apostles.
"IOW, he pronounces the Church to speak for him as the infallible spokesperson down through time."
i) Needless to say, Mt 28:16-20 doesn't commission Peter and his (alleged) successors. At the very least, it applies to the Eleven. And keep in mind the 70, whom Christ commissioned earlier.
ii) Nothing in the text about an infallible church.
Moreover, Guy is doing a bait-n-switch. Peter is not the church.
"He does not write anything down or even commission anyone else to do so. Instead he said to go preach and baptize."
And how does Guy know about that? Because it was written down in Matthew's Gospel.
"'Do this in memory of me...', etc."
And how does Guy know about that? Because it was recorded in the Synoptic Gospels and 1 Corinthians. Committed to writing for posterity.
Oh, and I've responded to the Sproul quote in the past.
"The Holy Spirit did not establish the Papcy on Pentecost. It already existed based on what Jesus had said."
If you're alluding to Mt 16, that's counterbalanced by Mt 18. Sorry to rain on your party.
"Open your Bible and read in Acts how Peter unilaterally decides to replace Judas. All by his lonesome, no help from his friends."
Let's open our Bible and read what it actually says:
"15 In those days Peter stood up among the brothers (the company of persons was in all about 120) and said…23 And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also called Justus, and Matthias. 24 And they prayed and said, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen 25 to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.” 26 And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles."
Judas's replacement was selected by the 120 in attendance. The 120 nominated two candidates, one of whom was chosen by lot, after the 120 engaged in corporate prayer.
So Guy's summary of the record is systematically false.
There are several Christians who take the lead in Acts. In the early chapters, that's Peter, Stephen, Phillip, John, and James Bar-zebedee.
It's not Peter, but James the Just, who headed the mother church in Jerusalem.
And Peter is basically a placeholder until Paul's conversion. Paul quickly eclipses Peter, because Paul is far more talented.
"Later we see it is to Peter and Peter alone that the sign of the net of clean and unclean animals is given."
Peter is not the only Christian in Acts to receive visions and other special revelation.
"He had already opened them to Samaritans"
No, that would be Philip the Evangelist.
"At the Jerusalem Council it was Peter and not Paul or James as Protestants like to say, who made the one binding for all time decision about salvation coming from the grace of Christ and not the law of circumcision. And he did so without searching the scriptures but on his own authority."
Once again, this is what it actually says:
"12 And all the assembly fell silent, and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles. 13 After they finished speaking, James replied, “Brothers, listen to me. 14 Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take from them a people for his name. 15 And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written…19 Therefore my judgment is…” 22 Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas."
Not exactly a one-man show.
"Steve, if you can't see the Petrine Office in the book of Acts, it is because you are trying hard not to."
Even if, for the sake of argument, we grant that Peter is "chief," there's nothing about a Petrine *office* in Acts.
But it's true that I lack the Catholic knack for seeing things that aren't there. I haven't snorted the Catholic hallucinogens necessary to see your figments of the imagination.
Poor Guy can't follow his own argument. He alludes to a scene in Acts to disprove sola Scriptura. But, of course, he only knows about the scene in Acts because it's recorded in Scripture.
"As for Acts 2 not being a blueprint for Church councils, who said it was? Acts 15 works nicely for that. "
I appreciate your generous admission that Acts 15 is a blueprint for the Synod of Dort, the Westminster Assembly, and the The International Council on Biblical Inerrancy.
PBJ,
Okay, "VALID" dissent from the Church is not really valid considering that Christianity is a REVEALED religion.
You see, PBJ, you guys have no way of distinguishing between valid dissent and full blown schism, development of doctrine and old fashioned heresy.
Now on to address Steve's delicious comments.
Steve,
Thanks for so may yummy morsels to enjoy.
Matt 18 takes away from the Catholic understanding of Matt 16? Really?
Do we see Jesus singling out and giving the Keys to each and every Apostle?
Yes, Philip the deacon was indeed a minster of the Church when he evangelized in Samaria. But, other than Baptize, he could not confect the Eucharist or Confirm. That is why Peter and John went there. And do notice, it was Peter who dealt with Simon the Magician.
You have got to be flying high on those Protestant hallucinogens if you are merely "willing for the sake of argument" to concede Peter as chief or the Petrine in office in Acts.
Yes indeed, James, the kinsman of Jesus, was the Bishop of the Jewish city of Jerusalem. What we call the "local ordinary". He would have a place of honor in his diocese just as when Benedict came here to Lisbon he deferred to the local Bishop.
Peter was overseer over the entire Church. James' admonitions against blood, strangled meats and Levitical lines of consanguinity and such did not apply to all Christians for all time. ( I ate morcela for lunch the other day ).
Peter may not have been the only Christian to receive signs and visions, as you say, but the one Peter received is unlike any other, wouldn't you say? It did determine that gentiles could be Christians as gentiles.
Oh Stever, I did not say Peter chose Matthias unilaterally. I said that he unilaterally decided *someone* would be chosen to replace Judas. Can't you read?
And yes, Steve, I read all this in the Bible. How does that prove sola scriptura or disprove Tradition?
Enuff for the moment. Gotta check on the cat.
Steve,
Kitty is fine so we can resume your instruction. Put down the Mad Magazine and pay attention.
Let's address your assertion that Peter held a lesser place in the Church than Paul.
Paul was indeed a more prolific writer and a dynamic speaker. So what? Mother Theresa had a lot more press coverage than JPII. That didn't make her Pope.
You know Steve, we probably would not even have Paul's writings in the Bible if not for Peter's imprimatur ( 2nd Pt 3 ). Still, Peter does go on to say one must be careful when reading Paul as silly people will misinterpret certain passages to their own destruction. ( He was probably referring to Romans 3 and 4 ).
I know you want to bring up Paul's castigation of a certain "Cephas' who may or not have been Peter, to prove your point.
Even if Paul did call Peter on the carpet for hypocrisy ( not heresy ), this would only be like St. Catherine of Siena scolding the Avignon Pope.
Actually Steve, the Bible doesn't show Paul to hold any higher office or authority than Barnabas. Even the pagans saw Barnabas to be the great Jupiter and Paul only to be Mars.
You called Jerusalem the "mother church". Yes, but that did not give Jerusalem dominance. Paul and Peter were seen to be the new Romulus and Remus in the early Church. Rome had precedence not because it was the imperial city but because of Peter and Paul died there. Consider this; the other imports sees were Alexandria because Peter's secretary, Mark, established the Church there. Jerusalem because Peter had resided there before Peter moved on to Antioch. And later, Constantinople claimed to be the New Rome ( not the New Jerusalem ). They claimed the right to do so as Peter's brother, Andrew, had founded that Church. Some association with Peter was always claimed while the cities in Asia Minor where Paul preached were insignificant.
James,
I feel your stinging critique of me the other day in which you implied that I get thrown of Protestant blogs due to my caustic style should be addressed.
My rule of thumb is never to initiate the snottiness and to ratchet up only in proportion to the rudeness dealt me.
Several days ago I misspelled slight/sleight and since then Steve has decided that I am a hayseed who has never been to a little red brick school house and it is his job to deride me. Just because he is smarter ( or is it more smart? ) and more erudite ( or is it eruditer? ) than me does not make rudeness his prerogative only. Like Shylock said, "...Hath not a Catholic eyes, hath not a Catholic hands, organs dimensions, etc etc...".
I would be happy to knock off the grab ass but only if he does too.
"...we probably would not even have Paul's writings in the Bible if not for Peter's imprimatur ( 2nd Pt 3 ).
Catholic anachronism as humor.
>"Rome preserves her unbroken claim by invalidating any other claimants based upon the premise that her judgment for what constitutes validity must be correct. "<
To piggyback on PBJ's comment, that's viciously circular.
Indeed: what else is new? Being autocratic means you can do what you want.
Consistent with this, no less a neo-ultramontanist as Manning stated:
It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine....I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness. Its past is present with it, for both are one to a mind which is immutable. Primitive and modern are predicates, not of truth, but of ourselves....The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour. — Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Lord Archbishop of Westminster, “The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation,” (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227-228.
Needless to say, Mt 28:16-20 doesn't commission Peter and his (alleged) successors.
Not only does Rome apply this to here non-existent perpetual papacy, but they even go so far as disallowing any authority of anyone else but those she ordains to preach. So that (I was told) "he that rejects you rejects Me" only applies to them, not a evangelical preaching Acts 10:36-43.
So much for Mk. 9:38-40. I suppose even rocks must be ordained by Rome praise God. (Lk. 19:40)
In reality, it is the sermonettes of RC "priests" which typically lack power.
In past times, this idea of restriction even included excommunicating laity who engaged in public disputes over dogmatic or moral theology.
For what warrants excommunication by Rome in some centuries can be changed to obedience in another.
For one, RC rulers were to be excommunicated if they did not cleanse their land of heretics, while now freedom of religion is enjoined. Much to the displeasure of trad. RCs.
No, he doesn't select Peter as "chief."
Peter is the street-level leader among the 11, one of "those who seemed to be somewhat," "who seemed to be pillars," (Galatians 2:6,9)
But which was manifestly not the infallible exalted perpetual papacy, any more than the Mary of Catholicism is that of Scripture.
Steve Hays list of extrapolative steps which RCs engage in to create their papacy is worth linking to again.
As is 51 Biblical Proofs Of A Pauline Papacy by Jason Engwer (some RCs even think he was serious).
"Matt 18 takes away from the Catholic understanding of Matt 16? Really?
Do we see Jesus singling out and giving the Keys to each and every Apostle?"
You're confusing the metaphor with what the metaphor signifies. The same authority given to Peter in Mt 16 is given to local churches in Mt 18. Mt 18 needn't repeat the metaphor to repeat what it signifies. Try to learn that elementary distinction.
"Yes, Philip the deacon was indeed a minster of the Church when he evangelized in Samaria. But, other than Baptize, he could not confect the Eucharist or Confirm."
i) Peter doesn't "confect" the eucharist in Acts 8. No celebration of the eucharist in that episode. For that matter, there's nothing in the NT about reserving celebration of the eucharist for the priesthood.
ii) To speak of "confirmation" in the context of Acts 8 is anachronistic.
"That is why Peter and John went there."
Yes, both Peter and John. So you can't squeeze Petrine primacy out of your prooftext.
"And do notice, it was Peter who dealt with Simon the Magician."
And do notice, it was Paul who dealt with Bar-Jesus the false prophet (Acts 13). So by parity of argument, Acts teaches Pauline primacy.
"Yes indeed, James, the kinsman of Jesus, was the Bishop of the Jewish city of Jerusalem. What we call the 'local ordinary'. He would have a place of honor in his diocese just as when Benedict came here to Lisbon he deferred to the local Bishop. Peter was overseer over the entire Church."
You're imposing those extraneous distinctions onto the Book of Acts rather than deriving them from the Book of Acts.
Moreover, the church of Jerusalem wasn't just some local church. It was the founding church of Christendom.
"Peter may not have been the only Christian to receive signs and visions, as you say, but the one Peter received is unlike any other, wouldn't you say?"
Every vision in Acts is unique. Moreover, you're confusing the importance of a vision with the importance of a visionary, as if the former implies the latter. So your argument is illogical.
"I did not say Peter chose Matthias unilaterally. I said that he unilaterally decided *someone* would be chosen to replace Judas. Can't you read?"
Yes, you deceptively suppressed all the evidence running counter to Petrine primacy in that passage. Or is your problem that you just can't read?
"And yes, Steve, I read all this in the Bible. How does that prove sola scriptura or disprove Tradition?"
You didn't get that from tradition. You got that from Scripture alone. That's your only source of information for the details of Pentecost which you cited.
"Paul was indeed a more prolific writer and a dynamic speaker."
More to the point, Paul was a far more influential writer than Peter. More influential in Latin theology, to boot.
"You know Steve, we probably would not even have Paul's writings in the Bible if not for Peter's imprimatur ( 2nd Pt 3 )."
i) To begin with, you'd be hard-pressed to find any contemporary Catholic bishop or Catholic NT scholar who affirms the apostolic authorship of 2 Peter. It's only Protestant scholars who still defend traditional authorship.
ii) You failed to present a connecting argument to show how Peter's reference to Paul's writings had any bearing on the canonization of Paul's writings. For one thing, your appeal is circular. Unless 2 Peter is canonical, it can't attest the Pauline epistles. So your appeal presumes an extant NT canon.
"I know you want to bring up Paul's castigation of a certain 'Cephas' who may or not have been Peter, to prove your point."
If I wanted to bring that up, I would have.
"Actually Steve, the Bible doesn't show Paul to hold any higher office or authority than Barnabas."
Actually, Guy, the Bible shows Paul to be an apostle–on par with the "pillars" of Jerusalem church–James, John, and Peter.
"Yes, but that did not give Jerusalem dominance."
It was certainly dominant at the beginning.
"Paul and Peter were seen to be the new Romulus and Remus in the early Church."
And who corresponds to the wolf that suckled them?
"Rome had precedence not because it was the imperial city but because of Peter and Paul died there."
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that we grant that tradition, how does that establish Petrine primacy rather than Pauline primacy?
You then rely on various legends regarding the founding of alleged apostolic sees.
Since Mt 16:16-18 is always hovering in the background of these discussions, let's say a bit more about it:
i) Jesus singles out Peter on that occasion because Peter answered the question. Peter is often the first to speak or act.
However, that sometimes gets him into trouble because he has a tendency to say or do foolish things. He sometimes takes the lead when he should keep his mouth shut. He speaks without thinking. Blurts out the first thing that comes to mind. Acts rashly.
Indeed, in the very next pericope, Jesus accuses Peter of Satanic misunderstanding (v23).
ii) The fact that Peter is incidentally singled out on that occasion is confirmed by the fact that in Mt 18:18-20, the same authority conferred on Peter is conferred on local churches.
iii) It's not at all clear that the "rock" on which the church is built refers to Peter. In that regard, John Nolland, in his commentary, makes two significant points:
a) "There is no straightforward antecedent for taute ('this') since petra ('rock') has not been used previously" (669).
Therefore, the syntax and usage don't select for Peter as the object of the demonstrative pronoun.
b) "The very fact of the choice of different words suggests that in this case some difference of meaning is intended (petros in both places would have served better for the sense: 'You are Peter, and on this rock/stone [which you are] I will build my church')…The change of words encourages the linking of taute ('this') not to the immediately preceding Petros ('Peter'), but back via v17 to the confession of v16" (669).
iv) Apropos (iii), Robert Gundry, in his commentary (p334, 2nd ed.), has argued that this refers back to the parable in Mt 7:24-27. Jesus is quoting himself:
“Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock” (Mt 7:24).
In that event, the "rock" refers to building on the foundation Christ's teaching.
v) But even if Peter is the "rock" in both occurrences in Mt 16, these "rocky," foundational metaphors aren't confined to Peter–but include the Apostolate in general (e.g. Rev 21:14).
Steve,
"Indeed, in the very next pericope, Jesus accuses Peter of Satanic misunderstanding (v23)"/
Yeah, and He later tells that same peter with his satanic understanding to "FEED MY SHEEP".
Jesus did not change the name name of Simon Bar Jonah's profession of faith.
He changed Simon Bar Jonah's name.
If you don't believe me, check out Jn 1:42. There, Jesus changes Simon's name to "Kephas" without any profession of faith.
By the way, who else in John's Gospel has that name? Kaiphas the High priest who spoke by the power of the Holy Spirit ( infallibly ).
Yes, Peter was an apostle. He had pastoral responsibilities. So did other apostles. Indeed, one doesn't need to be an apostle to discharge pastoral duties.
Jn 21 concerns his restoration, not his elevation.
You're committing the elementary fallacy of acting as if something said about Peter is said in contrast to everyone else.
You then resort to silly concordance exegesis. Is every rock in Scripture infallible?
Notice Guy's shameless admission that he's petty, spiteful, vindictive, thin-skinned. He holds grudges. Settles scores. I guess all that Marian devotion doesn't rub off.
One of the things about Catholicism is that you don't have to be personally holy. You delegate sanctity to the "saints."
Ritualistic piety. Leaves without fruit.
Guy,
Steve just burnt all your argumentation to a crisp.
Notice Guy's shameless admission that he's petty,...I guess all that Marian devotion doesn't rub off.
Can. 1369 A person who in a public show or speech, in published writing, or in other uses of the instruments of social communication utters blasphemy, gravely injures good morals, expresses insults, or excites hatred or contempt against religion or the Church is to be punished with a just penalty. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P52.HTM
I am not sure if this cancels the indulgences i honestly suspect some RCs believe that may obtain by defending Rome, even if it is by trying to waste our time with refuted parroted polemics.
Steve,
I took me forever to find your last comment on Peter as PBJ seems to think that by cluttering up with 1000 irrelevant posts he can win an argument.
Back to our chat on Peter.
Ever notice in every list of the 12, Peter is always first? This was not because he was chosen first as Andrew was. It wasn't due to age because John is always mentioned around #4 or so.
Peter is always #1, and Judas always #12 regardless of the sequence of the other 10.
Consider this when deciding if you want to "concede for argument's sake" if Peter was boss.
One more thing for now; Jesus only spoke in 1st person plural once. He told Peter to catch a fish and find a coin in order to pay the temple tax for "us".
One more one more thing. Who walked on the water with Jesus? From whose boat did Jesus preach? After the Resurrection, Magdalene was told to go tell Peter and the others, singling out Peter, etc. etc,
Steve,
Since you deny that Peter was chief Apostle, and even subservient to Paul, maybe you could list something important that was said by Thomas? Or Philip? What about Bartholomew? Simon the Zealot must have said or done something notable if he was Peter's equal in authority, yes?
Can you give an example of Paul making a decree that binds the entire Church even unto today> You know, something on a par with Peter's decision about gentiles entering the Church without becoming Jews first.
As for those visions that you assert were so commonplace among the early Christians, tell us of Andrews' vision. Or maybe James the Less'. Or James the Greater's vision. John and James were Pillars right?
Actually Steve, Peter is mentioned almost 200 times in the NT. John is second with about 25. Some of the others are mentioned only in the lists.
My point is,
1. The Church is infallible.
2. Peter is the final court of appeal in that Church.
Therefore Peter has to have that charism in the fullness.
Ken,
Steve burnt my arguments to a crisp? Could you be a bit more specific as I don't see Steve actually engaging me on this Peter business.
Give me an example of Steve crisping me please?
Steve denies Peter had priority among the 12. You obviously agree.
Steve thinks Paul was superior to the Pope in virtue of his dynamic preaching, prolific writing and theology. None of this detracts from the papacy any more than Aquinas did during the time of Pope "who-knows'who".
Steve makes little snot-shots. Is that what you are impressed by?
I will keep arguing from the Bible. Steve can keep sniffing around for my spelling errors and failures to dot an i or cross a t.
I am sorry you are impressed by silliness rather than substance.
Ken,
Could you or Steve tell us how many of the Apostles had their names changed? ( Boanerges was not really a name change ).
You might notice that Jesus pretty much called Peter by his name " Simon" while the 11 used the title of " Peter". Jesus only called him Peter to chide him.
In the Garden of Olives, it says, " Jesus said to Peter, 'Simon are you sleeping?'"
Peter and Simon are actually juxtaposed in that passage.
Ken, once you concede that Peter held the Keys among the 12, then we can move on to demonstrate how his office was meant to succeed him down through the ages.
There is no way anyone can honestly deny Peter's office.
Steve,
The little comment of my "Marian piety" doesn't have a whole lot to do with Peter being chief among the Apostles. Since Ken is reading your remarks, you should try to stay on topic rather than deflecting. Your Marian shot makes it look like you are running scared and don't have anything to say on the Peter topic. Try to remember what we are discussing. Ken thinks highly of your profound scholarship. Don't disappoint him. He just might slip over into my camp should he realize just how shallow your arguments are.
"Could you or Steve tell us how many of the Apostles had their names changed?"
You mean like Saul becoming Paul?
"Simon the Zealot must have said or done something notable if he was Peter's equal in authority, yes?"
No, that's a non sequitur. What does that have to do with authority?
"Can you give an example of Paul making a decree that binds the entire Church even unto today"
Of course, that's a trick question, since Peter never did that.
"You know, something on a par with Peter's decision about gentiles entering the Church without becoming Jews first."
You know, that wasn't Peter's decision. That was God's decision, which he revealed to Peter and Paul alike.
"As for those visions that you assert were so commonplace among the early Christians, tell us of Andrews' vision."
Here's an idea: what about Paul's vision? You know, the one mentioned three times in Acts, where Jesus appeared to him–precipitating his conversion? That vision?
"John and James were Pillars right?"
Let's see, that would be this John: "The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, who bore witness to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw."
Last time I checked, Revelation is pretty visionary. Did you fall asleep before you made it to the last book of the NT?
"Actually Steve, Peter is mentioned almost 200 times in the NT. John is second with about 25. Some of the others are mentioned only in the lists."
Actually, Guy, Peter only wrote 2 canonical epistles whereas Paul wrote at least 13. John wrote a Gospel, three canonical epistles, and the Apocalypse.
What makes you think being named is more important than what you do?
Cont. "Ever notice in every list of the 12, Peter is always first?"
That's simpleminded. The lists have a stereotypical order because the Synoptics use duplicate lists. I guess that never occurred to you.
These are not independent lists. Counting duplicates as if they were separate lists isn't very attentive to what's going on. The order is the same because they copied the same list. Get it?
"Consider this when deciding if you want to "concede for argument's sake" if Peter was boss."
I guess I should consider that when I notice how often Mary Magdalene is named first when the women are listed? By your logic, that makes Mary Magdalene the Virgin Mary's religious superior.
Not to mention that on the first Easter, Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene first. And you've just reminded us how all-important it is to be first in line.
And not only that. Consider the prominence of Mary Magdalene on Good Friday and especially Easter, viz. Mt 27: 56,61; 28:1-10; Mk 15:40,47; 16:9-10; Lk 24:9-10; Jn 20:1-18. Mary Magdalene is the dominant female figure on Easter, whereas the Virgin Mary has no role to play whatsoever.
So Mary Magdalene easily eclipses the Virgin Mary on this crowning occasion. Mary Magdalene takes the headmost while the Virgin Mary takes the hindmost. Maybe you've been betting on the wrong horse.
"One more thing for now; Jesus only spoke in 1st person plural once. He told Peter to catch a fish and find a coin in order to pay the temple tax for 'us'."
And the relevance of that is what, exactly?
"One more one more thing. Who walked on the water with Jesus?"
You mean this?
"But when he saw the wind, he was afraid, and beginning to sink he cried out, 'Lord, save me'” (Mt 14:30).
He began to flounder because he suffered a crisis of faith. So that establishes primacy in drowning. Is that the kind of primacy you had in mind?
"My point is, 1. The Church is infallible."
An assertion in search of an argument.
"2. Peter is the final court of appeal in that Church."
Another assertion in search of an argument.
"Therefore Peter has to have that charism in the fullness."
An invalid inference from false major and minor premises. At least you don't do things in half-measures. You're consistently illogical.
Steve,
"Actually, Guy, Peter only wrote 2 canonical epistles whereas Paul wrote at least 13. John wrote a Gospel, three canonical epistles, and the Apocalypse."
Now I know you haven't been paying attention.
I already tried to tell you Thomas Aquinas wrote a bit more than the Pope did. And I don't even know the Pope's name. Yet Aquinas was not Pope. Steve.
I don't think you know a whit about what we mean by Papal Primacy.
Here is something else for you to ignore; John was still alive and living in the area when the church in Corinth appealed to Pope Clement to settle a dispute for them. Think about that Steve. An Apostle was passed over in order to consult the Bishop of Rome.
Hmmmmmmm? You don't think it was because Clement had more authority than John do you?
Steve,
You sneezed off my syllogism with this,
"An invalid inference from false major and minor premises."
The major was that the Church is infallible. You doubt it.
Time to turn out the lights ladies and gentlemen.
Steve has just shot down all assurance of anything about Christ, including His divinity.
Steve,
If I could get you take the cotton out of your ears and put it in your mouth for a few minutes, I might be able to teach you something about how this stuff all works.
We know from history, from the writings of Josephus,Pliny, the Talmud, and other sources including the New Testament that a Jew named Jesus, claiming to have been sent by God, gathered a group of followers about himself. These followers were to be persecuted under Nero and other Roman emperors.
Now, so far I haven't said anything about the NT being inspired or that Jesus was God or even claimed to be God. I have just included the NT in with some other historically accurate writings about a Jew who lived and was crucified 2,000 years ago in the eastern part of the Roman Empire.
Now, this fellow worked miracles to prove the veracity of his message. God would not do miracles to support a liar.
We know miracles do happen as we have them today in such places as Lourdes.
One doesn't have to be a Catholic to believe in the extraordinary events at Lourdes and other places.
We know that this Jesus selected an inner circle of men out of the larger group of followers and gave them special instruction. These men were in a position to have accurate information about Jesus. We also know they were trustworthy men as they were willing to die for their testimony. They were Jews who believed it wrong to lie about such matters.
I still have not said anything about the Bible being inspired.
This Jesus promised that the same powers and authority he had was to be given to the group of men he commissioned to transmit his message down through the ages.
Now Steve, we finally come to making an act of Faith. Not only is it rational to believe, but it is intellectually required.
Now we turn to that body and ask for clarification on other matters including the divinity of Jesus and the inspiration of that historically accurate NT. We believe this body when it speaks on Mary, the Sacraments, the Can of the Bible and all other doctrines.
Steve, if this body, the Church, is not trustworthy, you cannot appeal to anything, including the book she put together called the Bible.
I took me forever to find your last comment on Peter as PBJ seems to think that by cluttering up with 1000 irrelevant posts he can win an argument.
There are no irrelevant posts in response to you, who started posting about spelling with another, while it is manifest that btwn this thread and the ">other you have lost your arguments with me, having already effectively nuked the NT church, and being
refuted as to your premise for the authority of the Catholic Church,
and that Peter as the first of a line of infallible popes whom all the church looked to as their supreme exalted head.
Like the wafer, RCs imagine that can extrapolate a real body out of crumbs.
Guy,
I have not had time to read everything, but this entry by Steve is what burnt your argumentation to a crisp:
"Since Mt 16:16-18 is always hovering in the background of these discussions, let's say a bit more about it:
i) Jesus singles out Peter on that occasion because Peter answered the question. Peter is often the first to speak or act.
However, that sometimes gets him into trouble because he has a tendency to say or do foolish things. He sometimes takes the lead when he should keep his mouth shut. He speaks without thinking. Blurts out the first thing that comes to mind. Acts rashly.
Indeed, in the very next pericope, Jesus accuses Peter of Satanic misunderstanding (v23).
ii) The fact that Peter is incidentally singled out on that occasion is confirmed by the fact that in Mt 18:18-20, the same authority conferred on Peter is conferred on local churches.
iii) It's not at all clear that the "rock" on which the church is built refers to Peter. In that regard, John Nolland, in his commentary, makes two significant points:
a) "There is no straightforward antecedent for taute ('this') since petra ('rock') has not been used previously" (669).
Therefore, the syntax and usage don't select for Peter as the object of the demonstrative pronoun.
b) "The very fact of the choice of different words suggests that in this case some difference of meaning is intended (petros in both places would have served better for the sense: 'You are Peter, and on this rock/stone [which you are] I will build my church')…The change of words encourages the linking of taute ('this') not to the immediately preceding Petros ('Peter'), but back via v17 to the confession of v16" (669).
iv) Apropos (iii), Robert Gundry, in his commentary (p334, 2nd ed.), has argued that this refers back to the parable in Mt 7:24-27. Jesus is quoting himself:
“Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock” (Mt 7:24).
In that event, the "rock" refers to building on the foundation Christ's teaching.
v) But even if Peter is the "rock" in both occurrences in Mt 16, these "rocky," foundational metaphors aren't confined to Peter–but include the Apostolate in general (e.g. Rev 21:14)."
Also, Steve and John Bugay over at Triablogue, and John's articles here have dealt with the Papacy, as many of James Swan's articles here; and James White's many debates with Scott Butler, Robert Sungenis, Tim Staples, Jerry Matatics, and Mitch Pacwa have dealt with Peter and the Papacy. Also William Webster's books and articles on Peter, the Rock and the Papacy and the Matthew 16 Controversy.
Here is one of Dr. White's debates (with Robert Zins) vs. Scott Butler and Robert Sungenis.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bXdp-tteYE
James White also dealt with the Papacy issue in his book, The Roman Catholic Controversy.
And William Webster's "The Church of Rome at the Bar of History"
Ken,
I am very familiar with all of the guys, their books and their debates that you mention. I just think my side is right and yours wrong.
As for Steve, if I say that Peter had the most important vision in the NT, Steve responds with the fact that John or someone else had a vision.
If I say Peter had a name change, he mentions Paul ( who was not given a title like Peter was ).
If I say Peter was singled out in Matt 16, he responds with Matt 18.
If I say Peter walked on water, he says he started to sink when he took his eyes off Christ. He fails to mention which other Apostle walked on water and started to sink also.
It I say Peter had authority, he says...
What he fails to see is that Peter's references outweigh any one of the other Apostles. Actually, they outweigh all 11's together.
Even the Orthodox admit it. Their gripe is not about Peter being chief Apostle although their entire argument rests on a denial of the Petrine office. ( They deny succession ).
Ken, I just don't believe you are being honest. You see it, Steve sees it and the Orthodox Churches all see Peter as #1. You and Steve pretend not to.
PBJ,
You are indeed bringing up irrelevant stuff. Why would I bother discussing the issue of Traditionalist Catholics with you on a Calvinist blog?
PBJ,
"Like the wafer, RCs imagine that can extrapolate a real body out of crumbs."
This type of rhetoric is always appealed to by you dudes when you have run out of ammo.
Adios Amigo. I ain't interested in a pissing contest.
"This type of rhetoric is always appealed to by you dudes when you have run out of ammo.
Adios Amigo. I ain't interested in a pissing contest."
Typical. Unable to win any points on the merits of his arguments, he decries the lack of understanding and civility, unilaterally declares victory and departs. A pattern that seems all too familiar. Oh well.
The major was that the Church is infallible. You doubt it.
Time to turn out the lights ladies and gentlemen.Steve has just shot down all assurance of anything about Christ, including His divinity.
Once again you have invalidated the NT church, for as has been clearly shown, both men and writings of God were recognized and established as being so before Rome presumed it was essential for this.
And that the church actually began in dissent from those who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture,
and instead they followed itinerant preachers who established their Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, not the premise of perpetual assured veracity, as per Rome.
And thus it is the church of Rome that is invalidated as being the one true church, while the body of Christ perseveres, with God raising up wise men and scribes to reprove Rome and other cultic groups. Thanks be to God.
Rome for her part are akin to other elitists who presumed of themselves a superiority above that which is written, and thus dealt with common people being persuaded by the evidence for Christ thusly:
"Are ye also deceived? Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him? But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed." (John 7:47-49)
You are indeed bringing up irrelevant stuff. Why would I bother discussing the issue of Traditionalist Catholics with you on a Calvinist blog?
Why? That aside to Steve related to your premise that Rome is the supreme authority, flowing from your premise that Peter was the first of a line of supreme infallible popes.
Thus she could even excommunicate RC rulers who did not exterminate those she deems heretics, "while now freedom of religion is enjoined. Much to the displeasure of trad. RCs."
Which requirement as well as her seeming abrogation works contrary to your premise that the papacy is valid.
>"Like the wafer, RCs imagine that can extrapolate a real body out of crumbs." <
This type of rhetoric is always appealed to by you dudes when you have run out of ammo.
Adios Amigo. I ain't interested in a pissing contest.
Your type of rhetoric is always appealed to by you as it is apparent that you have run out of ammo, and thus must resort to blanks, and seeking an excuse to get out.
My analogy is sound, as is the conclusion that you have invalidated the NT church by holding than a perpetual infallible magisterium is essential for discernment and assurance of Truth, contrary to how it manifestly began. And thus you have invalidated the church of Rome from being the one true church.
EA,
Depart? I am still here. If you have something to say about the Papacy or Peter, shoot. I am up for the challenge.
I just don't care to dialogue with people who blaspheme the Eucharist. I respect a Protestant who does not hold my beliefs and may want to argue against my position from the Bible, the Fathers or logic. But I don't cotton to slurs against the Sacrament. Catholics are respectful towards Protest Communion services although we don't believe they have the Real Presence. We never belittle Protestants as "cracker and grape juice worshipers" although the internet is rife with "Bread Worshiper" and such slurs.
So, I am rather strange huh? I like to be afforded the same respect I give.
I just don't care to dialogue with people who blaspheme the Eucharist.
That a piece of bread is actually human flesh which is to be worshiped as God is offensive, pagan and blasphemous to me, so why should i endure hearing it as i do?
Yet you cannot bear to hear the Cath. Eucharist referred to as a wafer, which itself is not a bad thing, as i did not say "death wafer," as part of an analogy.
And i could provide plenty of scornful remarks by RCs about Protestantism, and as with you, immature spit balls at Protestants, but your self-righteous reaction is typical of many RCs who insist they are the victims when their specious arguments for their elitist church are irrefutably exposed for what they are, as yours to me have been.
"I already tried to tell you Thomas Aquinas wrote a bit more than the Pope did. And I don't even know the Pope's name. Yet Aquinas was not Pope. Steve."
You confuse writing "more" of something with writing Scripture. There's a qualitative as well as quantitative difference. To be a Bible writer is no small distinction. To write a Gospel is no small distinction. What makes think writing a Gospel is less important than how many times you're named in the NT?
"Here is something else for you to ignore; John was still alive and living in the area when the church in Corinth appealed to Pope Clement to settle a dispute for them."
What makes you think John was living near Corinth at the time?
BTW, that wouldn't be the first time the church of Corinth made a bad call.
"Think about that Steve. An Apostle was passed over in order to consult the Bishop of Rome. Hmmmmmmm? You don't think it was because Clement had more authority than John do you?"
Here's something else for you to ignore; Hebrews was probably written to a house-church in Rome. (Read Raymond Brown's introduction to the NT for details). If your theory of papal primacy is correct, why didn't the pope settle a church crisis under his own roof? Why did the author of Hebrews presume to intervene? Doesn't that fall under the pope's direct jurisdiction?
Think about that, Guy. The "Bishop of Rome" was passed over in order to consult an outsider ( the author of Hebrews). Hmmmmmmm? You don't think it was because author of Hebrews had more authority than the pope do you?
"The major was that the Church is infallible. You doubt it.Time to turn out the lights ladies and gentlemen.Steve has just shot down all assurance of anything about Christ, including His divinity."
Cont. Let's compare Guy's assertion to this:
"Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, 2 just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, 3 it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught (Lk 1:1-4)."
And this:
"but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name (Jn 20:31)."
And this:
"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life— 2 the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us— 3 that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. 4 And we are writing these things so that our joy may be complete (1 Jn 1:1-4)."
Notice how Luke and John affirm the sufficiency of their writings to achieve the very thing that Guy impudently denies. If Guy were living in the 1C, he'd be excommunicated from the NT church.
"We know miracles do happen as we have them today in such places as Lourdes."
Other issues to one side, reported miracles are hardly confined to Catholic circles. Lots of reported miracles in charismatic circles, some of them well-documented.
"We know that this Jesus selected an inner circle of men out of the larger group of followers and gave them special instruction. These men were in a position to have accurate information about Jesus. We also know they were trustworthy men as they were willing to die for their testimony. They were Jews who believed it wrong to lie about such matters. I still have not said anything about the Bible being inspired."
Except that you're getting all that information from the Bible.
"This Jesus promised that the same powers and authority he had was to be given to the group of men he commissioned to transmit his message down through the ages."
If you're alluding to Mt 28, it doesn't say that all his power and authority is transmitted to the apostles. What the NT does say is that Jesus rules the church and the world from heaven (e.g. Eph 1:20-22). Jesus is doing more, not less–since his Ascension.
"Now we turn to that body and ask for clarification on other matters including the divinity of Jesus and the inspiration of that historically accurate NT. We believe this body when it speaks on Mary, the Sacraments, the Can of the Bible and all other doctrines."
A Mormon would make the same claims for his church.
"Steve, if this body, the Church, is not trustworthy, you cannot appeal to anything, including the book she put together called the Bible."
So before the papacy, the Jews didn't have a Bible. The Jews couldn't appeal to the OT Scriptures.
"What he fails to see is that Peter's references outweigh any one of the other Apostles."
Do references to the Virgin Mary outweigh references to Mary Magdalene?
PBJ,
Click around to C2C, CCC, Dave A, coffeehouseinquisition, Jimmyakin, etc. etc. and find a slur against any Protestant's view of the Lord's Supper.
Copy and paste it here. Then I will eat my words.
You see PBJ, we actually say that Protestant communion services may even be occasions of grace as God is pleased with the desire to do his will. We just don't say you have the Real Presence as we do.
Most Protestants don't believe in the Real Presence anyway so that shouldn't offend you.
As for the offense you take at our doctrine, how do you feel about Lutherans? I have been to Missouri Synod services and saw the folks kneeling down to receive communion.
If anyone would be guilty of idolatrous "bread Worship" it would be them as their view says the bread remains along with Christ. Of course, they don't worship bread anymore than Catholics do as they INTEND to worship Christ.
Still, I find it interesting that Lutherans are spared the insult so generously heaped on Catholics.
Since so many of your confreres ( Check out T.Kauffman's blog ) like to hide behind their keyboards, nestled safely on the other side of cyber space, and shout out what they wouldn't dare say to any Catholics face, I prefer not to get upset by reading what they have to say. After all, I can't give an appropriate response outside of arm's reach, now can I?.
I always wonder why the Protestants who like to use their computers to mock the Eucharist as idolatry don't meander on down to the local mosque on Friday evening and preach to those folks vis a vis. I am sure they would have a spirited response to being heckled and jeered.
Peter calls himself "fellow-elder"
I Peter 5:1
ὁ συμ-πρεσβύτερος
ho sum - presbuteros
equal, not above, the other elders/pastors/teachers/bishops-overseers
Steve,
How can you be sure Luke wrote Luke and John wrote John?
You said,
"Other issues to one side, reported miracles are hardly confined to Catholic circles. Lots of reported miracles in charismatic circles, some of them well-documented."
Yes? So? Did I deny it? Augustine writes of a vestal virgin who, miraculously, carried water in a sieve to prove she had not broken her vows. God did not do the miracle to support the Roman religion. He did it to confirm the virgin's honesty.
I guess you wrote this for a reason but it is lost on me.
"Do references to the Virgin Mary outweigh references to Mary Magdalene?"
You continue,
"So before the papacy, the Jews didn't have a Bible. The Jews couldn't appeal to the OT Scriptures."
The Jews also had The Chair of Moses and the priests. They were anything but a sola scriptura people. They didn't even have a set canon until a century after Christ.
Steve, you can't prove the Bible by using the Bible. Remember, the table of contents is not inspired scripture.
Nobody who follows the guy who took the Epistle of James out of the Bible ( despite our host James Swan's attempts at damage control ) should want to lock horns with a Catholic on this issue.
Ken,
Ever read any statements by JPII? Benedict? How about the current guy in Rome?
Paul VI even called Protestant ministers his "Brothers".
Medieval popes called themselves "servants of the servants of God".
Ken,
Ever notice that it is Mark's Gospel that downplays Peter?
Why Mark's Gospel? Peter dictated to him, that's why.
The currant Pope washes his own socks.
PBJ,
"That a piece of bread is actually human flesh which is to be worshiped as God is offensive, pagan and blasphemous to me, so why should i endure hearing it as i do?"
Why? To humor me just as you humor the Pakistani guy who works at the Indian restaurant you like to eat at.
Hebrews 12, " Strive for peace with all men...".
That includes folks you disagree with. Bible Answer Man Hank H. used to say, " You've got to build a bridge before you can drive heavy equipment over it."
Your buddy Steve ain't never gonna make no headway with me. Right out of the gate, he made an enemy outa' me.
Yes, I have read the statements by modern post Vatican 2 Popes such as John Paul 2, Benedict XVI and Francis and the nicer parts of "servant of servants", etc.
But they also still officially claim to be Pontiff, infallible, Vicar of Christ, etc.
The heighth of arrogance.
Peter never did that - he said he was an apostle, servant, fellow-elder, and eyewitness of the sufferings of Christ and the resurrection.
"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctum, 1302 AD
Pope Pius IX
"I am the tradition!!"
1870 - proclaimed the infallibility doctrine.
Ignaz Von Dollinger was right:
he objected to the infallibility doctrine.
lord John Acton was right: (in response to the 1870 infallibility doctrine)
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely."
Click around to C2C, CCC, Dave A, coffeehouseinquisition, Jimmyakin, etc. etc. and find a slur against any Protestant's view of the Lord's Supper.
Copy and paste it here. Then I will eat my words.
That is easy, as it is a slur by asserting there are no valid Eucharists in Protestantism overall, as Akin himself asserts.
If my referring to the Cath Eucharist as a non corporeal wafer is a slur, then so it making it into God that is to be worshiped, ingested and and digested.
But as is typically, only what offends a RC is a valid offense.
You see PBJ, we actually say that Protestant communion services may even be occasions of grace as God is pleased with the desire to do his will.
And i never said a Cath. could not edified by what their communion services facilitates.
Most Protestants don't believe in the Real Presence anyway so that shouldn't offend you.
Perhaps is may offend you that the term actually came from Anglicans, according to one RC blogger (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/what-do-we-mean-by-the-real-presence).
As for the offense you take at our doctrine, how do you feel about Lutherans? I have been to Missouri Synod services and saw the folks kneeling down to receive communion...Of course, they don't worship bread anymore than Catholics do as they INTEND to worship Christ.
So they are not worshiping it as RCs are to do?
"all the faithful ought to show to this most holy sacrament the worship which is due to the true God, as has always been the custom of the Catholic Church. Nor is it to be adored any the less because it was instituted by Christ to be eaten." - Council of Trent, Session XIII, Decree on the Eucharist, Chap. V— Denz. 878 (1643).
Still, I find it interesting that Lutherans are spared the insult so generously heaped on Catholics.
They should be If they promoted it the "source and summit of the Christian life," by which one obtains spiritual life, and as Christ actually offering himself continually with the Mass as an atonement, "a sacrifice of propitiation, by which God is appeased and rendered propitious," as by it He "offers himself a most acceptable Victim to the eternal Father, as he did upon the Cross," "by the ministry of priests."
That's a mouthful.
Since so many of your confreres ( Check out T.Kauffman's blog ) like to hide behind their keyboards, nestled safely on the other side of cyber space, and shout out what they wouldn't dare say to any Catholics face..
Who says we or I wouldn't dare say such to any Catholics face? I would say more if they made it an issue, as cyber RCs do, and besides years of personal witnessing to RCs, by God's grace, i have even personally initiated and engaged priests over the years over their fallacious beliefs.
They do not take well to challenges, and are the ones who did not want to talk.
I always wonder why the Protestants who like to use their computers to mock the Eucharist as idolatry don't meander on down to the local mosque on Friday evening and preach to those folks vis a vis. I am sure they would have a spirited response to being heckled and jeered.
Actually last summer i went down to the local gather Jumu'ah meeting to passed out gospel tracts till i ran out of the 250 or so i had.
I could not believe it - it apparently was a weekly Fri meeting at 1.30pm and it was packed! They did not know what hit them, but thank God i was able to get basic gospel tracts in the hands of about 2/3rd i think, though a man finally did say he was going to to call the police if i did not move from off the sidewalk near the door. I told him go ahead. But as the crowd had gotten out by then and i was going to run out of tracts i left to get a few more tracts and Muslims before i completely ran out.
"Here is something else for you to ignore; John was still alive and living in the area when the church in Corinth appealed to Pope Clement to settle a dispute for them. Think about that Steve."
Here is something else for you to ignore; According to Catholic NT scholar Raymond Brown, in his NT introduction (p837), "96-120 would be a more certain time range" for the date of 1 Clement.
Was John still alive in the 2C? Think about that Guy.
And here's something else to think about. Why should I take my cue from the church of Corinth? Paul wrote at least four letters to that church to put out fires there. So it's not as if that's a very reliable compass.
"How can you be sure Luke wrote Luke and John wrote John?"
How can you be sure Clement wrote 1 Clement?
"God did not do the miracle to support the Roman religion."
So by parity of argument, even if some of the reported miracles at Lourdes really happened, God didn't perform them to support the Catholic religion. Thanks for preempting your own evidence.
"Steve, you can't prove the Bible by using the Bible."
Guy, you can't prove the papacy by using the papacy.
"Remember, the table of contents is not inspired scripture."
Where's the inspired list of infallible papal statements?
"Nobody who follows the guy who took the Epistle of James out of the Bible …"
I'm not Lutheran.
"Your buddy Steve ain't never gonna make no headway with me."
That was never my objective. You're just a foil.
One of Guy's problems is his prepackaged apologetic. He deals himself a hand from his thin pack of flashcards. He has all the stock Catholic prooftexts scribbled on his flashcards.
Problem is, we've seen this game before. We already know which cards he's holding in his hand. Catholic apologists always use and reuse the same dog-eared flashcards.
So this is not one of those suspenseful poker games like in the movies (e.g. Casino Royale, The Cincinnati Kid) where an opponent plays his winning hand, and there's a collective gasp in the room.
It's not as if we didn't see that coming. Every Catholic apologist has the same pack of flashcards. Guy may try to string it out, keeping some high cards in reserve to trump our hand, but he's recycling the same frayed arguments that he copied from other apologists.
"If I say Peter had a name change, he mentions Paul ( who was not given a title like Peter was )."
Compare this to his original challege:
"Could you or Steve tell us how many of the Apostles had their names changed?"
I rose to the challenge: Saul becomes Paul.
When, however, I kick a football right through his goalpost, Guy's response is to move the goalpost.
Now it's no longer a question of a "name" change, but being given a "title." Okay, let's kick the football through his relocated goalpost:
"Thus Joseph, who was also called by the apostles Barnabas (which means son of encouragement), a Levite, a native of Cyprus" (Acts 4:36).
"But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul…" (Acts 14:14).
"Barnabas (originally Joseph), styled an Apostle in Holy Scripture, and, like St. Paul, ranked by the Church with the Twelve, though not one of them ('St. Barnabas,' Catholic Encyclopedia)."
So the apostle Joseph was given the epithet of Barnabas ("son of encouragement"). That's a "title."
Now that I've twice paralleled one of Peter's allegedly unique distinctions, where does that
leave Guy's tattered argument?
guy fawkes
"The currant Pope washes his own socks."
So he's calling the present pontiff a fruit? Doesn't seem very respectful, if you ask me.
"How can you be sure Luke wrote Luke and John wrote John?"
Given the fact that the modern Magisterium has given its consent to Catholic Bible scholars who deny the traditional authorship of the Scriptures, Catholics now have every reason to doubt or deny that Luke wrote Luke, John wrote John, Peter wrote 1-2 Peter, John wrote 1-3 John or Revelation, Paul wrote the Pastorals and Prison Epistles, James wrote James, Isaiah wrote Isaiah wrote Isaiah, Daniel wrote Daniel, Moses wrote the Pentateuch, &c. So thanks for reminding us that Catholicism is recipe for profound uncertainty concerning the authorship of the Scriptures.
"One of Guy's problems is his prepackaged apologetic. He deals himself a hand from his thin pack of flashcards. He has all the stock Catholic prooftexts scribbled on his flashcards."
Yes, but ironically the predictable outcome is entertaining. Like the Road Runner & Coyote cartoons from my youth.
Steve,
I am calling the Pope a "fruit"?
Fruit? You mean a person with a same-sex attraction.
You see, Mr. Spralapsarian Calvinist, Jesus died for those folks you deem"fruits".
You are like the Pharisee who stood next to the publican and boasted in his superior condition ( his election ).
"Thank you Lord, for not making me a fruit like this man."
The Fruit stood in a corner beating his breast saying, " Have mercy on me Lord, a sinner".
Steve,
Now I understand why you are so nasty.
Your god, or your view of God, is nasty. We become what we love.
Your god makes men for hell. Pure and simple.
Then he arbitrarily picks a few and then sends Jesus, who isn't really necessary as you Supralpse dudes are already elect, to make that election official and to secure the damnation of all the fruits and other scumbags who are refused the grace to repent and come to faith.
You love this mean god and have morphed into being like him.
Guys,
Ever notice how after the Resurrection, Magadalene is told to "Go tell PETER and the others".
Then, upon hearing the news, Peter and John race to the tomb. When they get there, John first, he stands aside so Peter can go in a witness the empty tomb.
Oh, and excuse me Steve, let me rephrase my question. Was Saul/Paul given a title? Like the High Priest Kaiphas ( Rock ) had?
And to think, we haven't even started quoting the Fathers yet.
They can wait. I haven't finished teaching you from the Bible.
Was Paul told to feed Christ's sheep? Was he told he would strengthen the other Apostles? ( Think Lk 22 ).
The fact that he wrote more scripture than Peter means no more than any theologian out writing the Pope. Only a Bible Only person would think it does. Jesus didn't commission anyone to write. He commissioned Simon bar Jonah to be Pope.
Steve,
Thanks for not answering my question on how you know if John wrote John, Luke wrote Luke.
Ken, did you notice how Steve thinks his aggressive style makes up for his ignorance? Don't be impressed by his Carrie Grant image. CG was a fake. His hair was never mussed, his suit never wrinkled. He wasn't real.
Ken,
It would take us of topic of Peter and the Papacy but maybe later we can chew on this little morsel from Mr. Steve's bio;
" I also subscribe to a supralapsarian theodicy."
Lets save this for dessert. We can chuckle over it during brandy and cigars.
Guy,
"aggressive style" ??
And you are not aggressive ?
Guy,
I thought Steve's answer to you about Luke and John was good; it shows that the claim to have a "living voice" who can walk into the room and give us the right interpretation and certainty is a farce.
The Papal claims give you nothing.
"How can you be sure Luke wrote Luke and John wrote John?"
Given the fact that the modern Magisterium has given its consent to Catholic Bible scholars who deny the traditional authorship of the Scriptures, Catholics now have every reason to doubt or deny that Luke wrote Luke, John wrote John, Peter wrote 1-2 Peter, John wrote 1-3 John or Revelation, Paul wrote the Pastorals and Prison Epistles, James wrote James, Isaiah wrote Isaiah wrote Isaiah, Daniel wrote Daniel, Moses wrote the Pentateuch, &c. So thanks for reminding us that Catholicism is recipe for profound uncertainty concerning the authorship of the Scriptures.
In addition, the internal evidence of the texts themselves; and external evidence of early history give us sufficient certainty; with the truth of inerrancy and that God cannot lie (Titus 1:2); that all Scripture is God-breathed (2 Tim. 3:16-17); and that the Spirit would lead the apostles into all the truth. (John 14:16-18; 14:26; 15:26; 16:12-14)
And you are not aggressive ?
This is nothing much compared to the venomous diatribes of angry unreason-able atheists such as i have endured here .
The long-suffering of God is far far more than mine. As is His love, and wrath.
True, "Peace by Jesus"; those kinds of atheists and skeptics spew hate and anger and cursing all over the internet. They cannot have an honest debate or discussion without anger and cussing. A lot of the political left seems to have the same character. (not all, but a lot)
Thanks for your contributions and all.
Notice that Guy completely misses the currant=fruit joke in his "currant pope" statement.
A wildly confused statement about reprobation. I already corrected him on that point. God doesn't "simply" make people for hell. They serve a purpose in the here and now.
God doesn't first make people for hell, then change his mind and elect a "few" for salvation.
Moreover, the scope of election and redemption is conterminous. Those whom the Father elects, the Son redeemed (and the Spirit renews). Christ dies for the elect. Jesus is necessary inasmuch as election was for the purpose of redemption, and vice versa. They operate in tandem.
Given the fact that the modern Magisterium has given its consent to Catholic Bible scholars who deny the traditional authorship of the Scriptures, ..So thanks for reminding us that Catholicism is recipe for profound uncertainty concerning the authorship of the Scriptures.
Oh, you think sanctioned commentary is all RCs have reason to doubt? What about Catholic Bible commentary taught for decades which relegates stories like Adam and Eve, Jonah and the fish, the Tower of Babel, the parting of the Red Sea, Balaam and the donkey to be fables, and accounts like the conquests of Joshua to be folk tales, and questions whether Jesus Christ was actually involved in some conversations which the gospel records, and that the writers simply placed the Lord Jesus on a hill in giving the sermon on the Mount, etc.?
True, "Peace by Jesus"; those kinds of atheists and skeptics spew hate and anger and cursing all over the internet. They cannot have an honest debate or discussion without anger and cussing. A lot of the political left seems to have the same character. (not all, but a lot)
A valid observation. Some RCs seem infected by the same against Luther.
James, I like the simpler captcha (an acronym for "Completely Automated Public Turing test to tell Computers and Humans Apart") that just gives the house numbers.
sometimes i have to refresh the captcha to get a more readable one.
Steve,
Thanks for the spell check but a guy who likes Baroque music shouldn't be making jokes about who is or is not a "fruit".
"Ever notice how after the Resurrection, Magadalene [sic] is told to 'Go tell PETER and the others'".
Peter and "the others." Not just Peter.
"Then, upon hearing the news, Peter and John race to the tomb."
Yes, Peter and John. Not just Peter.
"When they get there, John first, he stands aside so Peter can go in a witness the empty tomb."
The text doesn't say John stands aside so that Peter can go inside to witness the empty tomb.
If anything, this illustrates the greater faith of John. He believes without seeing, whereas Peter needs to see before believing.
"Oh, and excuse me Steve, let me rephrase my question. Was Saul/Paul given a title? Like the High Priest Kaiphas ( Rock ) had?"
i) Notice that Guy keeps changing the question after I call his bluff. This is the second time he moved the goalpost.
ii) He assumes, without argument, that the name of the priest means "rock." Even if that were the case, what makes that a title rather than a nickname–"Rocky"?
iii) Moreover, his etymology is dubious:
The latest issue of the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus (vol. 10, 2012) leads with a large article by Richard Bauckham on evidence from ossuaries and inscriptions about the family of Caiaphas: “The Caiaphas Family,” pp. 3-31. The jump-off point in his essay is an inscription on an ossuary announced by the Israel Antiquities Authority in 2008, which reads “Marian daughter of Yeshua bar Qayafa, priest from Ma’aziah from Bet ‘Imri”. But Bauckham also includes in the scope of his discussion a larger body of references in ancient texts (NT, rabbinic, Josephus) and other artifacts that have been, and must be, considered in drawing a picture of the family connected with the name “Caiaphas”.
Bauckham contends that “Caiaphas” originated as a nickname given to an ancestral figure in the Jewish priestly clans, which then became a family name of one particular line. He proposes also that the name (“Qayafa”) comes from a word designating “the jelly or crust that forms on boiled meat,” suggesting an obvious possible derivation of the term from the temple practice of boiling meat from sacrificial offerings.
http://cscoedinburgh.wordpress.com/2012/03/28/bauckham-the-caiaphas-family/
"And to think, we haven't even started quoting the Fathers yet.
i) Having lost all the exegetical arguments from Scripture, that's his last-ditch appeal.
ii) Before you deploy an argument from authority, you must first establish the authoritative nature of your source. Otherwise, that appeal is a classic fallacy.
"Was Paul told to feed Christ's sheep?"
i) Jn 21 is not a promotion. It's a reinstatement after Peter's betrayal.
ii) Shepherding the flock is not a uniquely Petrine or even uniquely apostolic distinction. Cf. Acts 20:28; 1 Pet 5:1-2.
"Was he told he would strengthen the other Apostles? ( Think Lk 22 )."
i) "Brother" is not a synonym for "apostle." It's a stock term in Lukan usage (and NT usage generally) for Christians.
ii) As Catholic NT scholar Joseph Fitzmyer observes, in his commentary on Luke:
"Recall that in Acts 15:41; 16:5; 18:23 others beside Peter (Paul, Barnabas, Judas, Silas) are depicted in a strengthening role" (2:1426).
"Jesus didn't commission anyone to write."
Didn't Jesus commission John to write down what he saw (Rev 1:1-3)?
Steve,
"Conterminous"? C'mon Steve, you know a yokel like me can't even pronounce a big word like that let alone know how to look it up in a dictionary.
" Christ dies for the elect".
I can follow that one, Steve. But my Good Book goes further and says Christ died for all men.
I may not have the fancy book learnin' got have but I can cipher a three letter word like "ALL".
It means if I got me ten currants or ten taters or ten possums, and I eat All ten o' them, I ain't got none left.
Steve,
""Ever notice how after the Resurrection, Magadalene [sic] is told to 'Go tell PETER and the others'".
Peter and "the others." Not just Peter.
Steve, thanks. This speaks volumes about you. I feel so vindicated. My perception of you is confirmed.
In a month or two of posting on this blog, this is the most disingenuous thing I have seen.
You know Steve, when engaging in an argument on a blog like this, on matters of religion, one would hope that his opponent would be sincere and not just playing cat and mouse. One would hope truth to matter more than ego.
I wish I could say I am disappointed in you but I am not. I suspected as much ever since you first corrected my spelling mistake rather than trying to refute me from the Bible.
Arguing with you is like taking candy from a baby. I cannot believe the other Protestant guys think you are so hot.
"Steve, Thanks for not answering my question on how you know if John wrote John, Luke wrote Luke."
i) Notice that Guy ducks the question of how he knows if Clement wrote 1 Clement.
ii) I began by answering Guy on his own terms. Turning the tables on Guy. Not surprisingly, he has no counterargument.
Notice how he ducked the question about an infallible list of infallible papal statements.
He says I can't prove the Bible by using the Bible. By parity of logic, he can't prove the church fathers by using the church fathers. His arguments backfire.
iii) BTW, is it true that I can't prove the Bible by using the Bible? Take the argument from prophecy. I can use a prophecy to prove a prophecy. If it comes true, then it's true. That's not viciously circular–because events confirm or disconfirm the prediction.
iv) Guy is laboring to bootstrap the papacy. That assumes a prior authority to attest the papacy. What would that be? Not Scripture, because Guy says you must have the papacy in place to guarantee Scripture. Not the church fathers, because they have no independent authority. They aren't apostles or prophets.
v) Let's go back to Guy's question:
"How can you be sure Luke wrote Luke and John wrote John?"
vi) Suppose, for the sake of argument, that I can't be "sure." So what?
Why should I begin by stipulating an artificial standard of certainty, then ask if I can meet that self-imposed standard?
What if I can't be sure because God hasn't given Christians sufficient evidence to be sure? In that event, it's not a failure on my part if my belief in traditional authorship falls short of certainty. What if God didn't put Christians in that position? Had he wanted them to be sure, he could provide indubitable evidence.
That doesn't mean I can't be sure. I'm just discussing what would follow in case certainty is unattainable. That's only deficient if we're supposed to be sure. If God has left room for some degree of doubt, we can't do better.
Once again, I haven't conceded that we can't be sure. Just addressing Guy's tendentious way of framing the question.
vii) Can Catholics be sure of Catholicism? The case for Catholicism depends on historical evidence. At best, that falls short of certainty. Historical evidence is probable, not apodictic.
viii) Guy can't appeal to Catholic miracles, for even if they occur, he's admitted that the argument from miracles doesn't necessarily attest doctrine.
ix) Traditionally, Protestants appeal to the witness of the Spirit. The NT contains a number of statements offering spiritual assurance. Does Guy think those statements are false?
x) There's both internal and external evidence for the authorship of Scripture.
Steve,
When can we start on you being a fan of supralsp, suspla, suprlapse , oh hell!
When can we talk about you thinking God makes men for hell?
"Notice that Guy keeps changing the question after I call his bluff."
Yes, that's what happens with copy and paste apologetics.
He reminds me of a salesman who has trained to only respond to stock objections. As soon as someone asks him a question that isn't in the script, he's lost. In Guy's case he resorts to diversionary tactics.
Guy wrote:
". . . we can chuckle over it over brandy and cigars"
I prefer a Red wine, like Argentina Malbeck; and instead of cigars, I will have cheese and crackers or a nice steak.
But the discussion would be first watching the debate, then discussion over James White's debate with Mitch Pacwa on Sola Scriptura.
"I prefer a Red wine, like Argentina Malbec; and instead of cigars, I will have cheese and crackers or a nice steak."
I'll take your cigars if you don't want them!
Ken,
Couldn't you have picked an even older debate? I used to have that one on cassette tape.
By the way, priests are the worst debaters.
If you really want to enjoy a James White debate, click onto Arminian Steve Gregg's 5 day debate with James White. White has a sulky meltdown and refuses to respond at one point. I love it!
Just so you know, Steve Gregg is not a crypto-Catholic. He even has debates with Tim Staples.
Anyway, one needn't be a Catholic to dismantle Calvinism. A lot of good Protestants do the job quite nicely.
Pour yourself a sip of Port and enjoy the debate.
Steve,
""Steve, Thanks for not answering my question on how you know if John wrote John, Luke wrote Luke."
Don't turn the tables on me Steve. Answer my question. I know who wrote Clement the same way I know who wrote Luke and John. This means I don't know with 100% certainty. I never said I did know.
Steve, please don't hold my feet to the same fire I am holding yours to. You see, I am not a Sola Scriptura Protestant. What is sauce for the goose is NOT sauce for the gander on this issue.
"Suppose, for the sake of argument, that I can't be "sure." So what?"
I didn't say it was important Steve. Not for me. But it should be for you. It is just a lead in to my bigger question; how do you know Luke and John should be in the canon? Luke wasn't an Apostle was he? Yet he is canonical. Why isn't Clement canonical? He almost made in into the Bible. Why not the Didache?
What I am saying is, at some point, one must go outside of the Bible to know just which books comprise that Bible. Where do we go to know which books should be in either Old or New Testament? Not to the Bible but to an infallible extra-biblical authority.
Steve,
"Can Catholics be sure of Catholicism? The case for Catholicism depends on historical evidence.'
I answered this a couple of days ago. Have your ever read rev. Richard Whately's proof that Napoleon never existed?
"Guy can't appeal to Catholic miracles, for even if they occur, he's admitted that the argument from miracles doesn't necessarily attest doctrine."
Ever read the account of Nobel Prize winner and Nazi doctor Alexis Carrell's witness to Lourdes? I think he had to give back the prize after he said he believed in Lourdes.
" Traditionally, Protestants appeal to the witness of the Spirit. The NT contains a number of statements offering spiritual assurance. Does Guy think those statements are false?"
Yet the numerous conflicting denominations denounce each other despite claiming to have that same burning in the bosom.
"There's both internal and external evidence for the authorship of Scripture."
No doubt. But what about canonicity?
Let's say we know Luke wrote Luke. So what? He wasn't an Apostle. Nor was Mark. And why do we say inspiration ended with the death of John? Why isn't the Gospel of James canonical?
Clement's name appears in the Bible. He knew the Apostles. Why isn't he in the Bible?
WHO DECIDES? The Holy Spirit? Okay, what instrument does He use?
By the way, according to the guy who concocted JBFA, the Epistle of James has absolutely zero internal evidence. I understand there are Protestants today who still question it.
" (H)ow do you know Luke and John should be in the canon? Luke wasn't an Apostle was he? Yet he is canonical. Why isn't Clement canonical? He almost made in into the Bible. Why not the Didache?
"
Steve has addressed these questions numerous times over the years and he has thankfully made a number of links to material from Triablogue available. Hopefully this helps.
The self-witness of Scripture to the canon of Scripture
The Messiness Of The Canon
The Twenty-Seven-Book New Testament Before Athanasius
"I know who wrote Clement the same way I know who wrote Luke and John."
Notice that he dodges the question of how he knows Clement wrote 1 Clement.
Since Guy tells us that you can't use the Bible to prove the Bible, how does he prove that Clement wrote 1 Clement?
By his logic, you can't use church councils to prove church councils. You can't use the papacy to prove the papacy. You can't use church fathers to prove church fathers. So what's left in his arsenal?
"how do you know Luke and John should be in the canon? Luke wasn't an Apostle was he?"
Why should I assume that apostolicity is a necessary condition for canonicity. Isaiah was not an apostle.
"What I am saying is, at some point, one must go outside of the Bible to know just which books comprise that Bible. Where do we go to know which books should be in either Old or New Testament?"
That overlooks interextuality:
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/godscanon.html
"Not to the Bible but to an infallible extra-biblical authority."
i) You commit a category mistake by failing to distinguish between extrabiblical evidence and extrabiblical authority.
ii) Moreover, you've admitted that you don't have 100% certainty in what you believe. Hence, your "infallible extra-biblical authority" reduces to your uncertain belief in your allegedly infallible extra-biblical authority.
"I answered this a couple of days ago. Have your ever read rev. Richard Whately's proof that Napoleon never existed?"
Is that your roundabout admission that, at best, Roman Catholicism is only probably right?
Cont. "Ever read the account of Nobel Prize winner and Nazi doctor Alexis Carrell's witness to Lourdes? I think he had to give back the prize after he said he believed in Lourdes."
i) To begin with, you're changing the subject. Are you unable to follow your own argument? The question at issue wasn't, in the first place whether Catholic miracle ever happen but, even if they do happen, you admit that they don't prove Catholicism.
ii) As a matter of fact, I've read two articles on that very subject by Stanley Jaki. However, as Jaki notes, the Vatican has never vouched for those examples. So it's odd that you think I should have more confidence in those reported miracles than the Vatican.
"Yet the numerous conflicting denominations denounce each other despite claiming to have that same burning in the bosom."
So you reject what the NT says about the witness of the Spirit?
"Let's say we know Luke wrote Luke. So what? He wasn't an Apostle. Nor was Mark."
Nor was Jeremiah. Your criterion is nonsensical.
"And why do we say inspiration ended with the death of John?"
The inspiration of the NT ended for the same reason as the inspiration of the OT ended. It served its purpose.
"Why isn't the Gospel of James canonical?"
Well, for one thing, that's a mid-2C pseudonymous forgery. Given the date, it could not be authentic.
"Clement's name appears in the Bible. He knew the Apostles. Why isn't he in the Bible?"
i) I notice that you ignore Raymond Brown's statement about the dating range for 1 Clement. Funny when a Catholic apologist can't deal with Cathoiic scholarship.
ii) Ezekiel didn't know any of the apostles, yet he's in the Bible.
iii) The NT church had prophets as well as apostles. Inspiration wasn't confined to apostles.
iv) Knowing an apostle and being inspired are often two different things. Gamaliel's name appears in the Bible. He knew some of the apostles. That doesn't make him inspired.
"WHO DECIDES?"
i) Wrong question. Better question: What decides? The best available evidence decides.
ii) Keep in mind that on the eve of Trent, the church of Rome hadn't decided the scope of the canon. The Tridentine Fathers were divided. It was a split vote. Not even a majority. Just a plurality. And that was in the 16C.
"By the way, according to the guy who concocted JBFA, the Epistle of James has absolutely zero internal evidence."
Thanks for illustrating your Biblical illiteracy.
Steve,
Said that Magdalene was told to go tell "Peter and the others".
How much clearer do you want it? Peter is singled out among the Apostles.
You come back with, "yeah but she was told to tell the others too". This is so dishonest.
Then when I say that John outran Peter but deferred to him when it came to entering the tomb and being first to witness the resurrection, you said something corny about Peter having such weak faith that he needed to see while John did not due to his stronger faith.
Shame on you, Dude.
Look at the same seen in Luke. John, a.k.a. "the other disciple" isn't even mentioned. In none of the post resurrection witness is anybody but Peter mentioned by name. The Pope's witness to Jesus' resurrection is what counts.
As for the thrice mentioned, " Feed my sheep". you are wrong. Peter was asked 3 times if he loved Jesus. That took care of the three denials.
Peter's office was confirmed here.
One more thing we haven't discussed; in Galatians it says Paul went up to see the Apostles at Jerusalem but saw only James and "saw" only Peter.
The word of "saw" when applied to Peter is "istorei" which means to consult as an oracle.
Steve, get honest.
By the way, what was that hogwash you tried feeding me when I mentioned that in every list of Apostles, all 12 are in a different sequence. Not important. However, Peter is always first and Judas is always last.
Your answer was , again, dishonest mumbling and jumbling.
Steve, quit correcting my spelling. Quit being cute. It's not about us.
The truth is more important than our little egos. Principles before personalities, okay?
Steve,
What if Magdalene had been told, "Go tell Jude Thaddeus and the others". Or Andrew? Or Simon the Zealot?
You are not going to concede anything to Peter. Your Protestantism has blinded you to the obvious. What's the point of going any further?
Let's switch topics to one of your distinctive doctrines like. oh, let's say, Limited Atonement? Or Penal Substitution? Or my favorite, God making men for hell. ( I know, I know. He doesn't actually "make" people for hell. He just "passes them over" after making sure they are incapable of responding to his call ).
You know Steve ( and you too James ), given your monergistic system,. your "Doctrines of grace" that say man is just a pawn in the game, I am dying to ask you a question;
Why didn't God just cut to the chase and create men and women already in heaven or hell?
James, I know you are going to say I am being "idiotic" and my comments are unworthy of engaging with. Or I am being as disrespectful to your sovereign God's awesome decrees just like the guys on GB that slur the Eucharist. I am sorry. But could you answer my question as to why God doesn't just create you Calvinists already in heaven? You were saved from all eternity, weren't you?
Steve,
OMG!
You do have feet of clay! You wrote,
"whether Catholic miracle ever happen"
You either failed to use the indefinite article or make "miracle" a plural as "miracle" is a countable noun.
My grammar and spelling is wearing off you. Maybe my theology is too, eh? Time will tell.
"Guy said: This is so dishonest.
you said something corny
Shame on you, Dude.
you are wrong.
Steve, get honest.
what was that hogwash you tried feeding me?
dishonest mumbling and jumbling.
Quit being cute.
Your Protestantism has blinded you to the obvious. What's the point of going any further?
I know you are going to say I am being "idiotic" and my comments are unworthy of engaging with."
Guy asks an important question; What is the point of going any further with this?
I'm not going to say that Guy is beig idiotic. I will say that Guy is well on his way to being the next Art Sippo. Congrats.
Peter is singled out among the Apostles.
There really should not be debate over Peter being the leader among the 11, which i myself have affirmed, and could add to what has been said in regard to mention of Peter indicating that.
Peter was mentioned distinctly by name in 1Cor. 9:5 (as one married, so perhaps RCs do not like that one) and also in 1Co. 1:5, and as the one Paul spent 15 days with 3 years after his conversion, (Gal. 1:18) and as i had said here , "Peter was evidently the lead pastor of the first church, (Acts 5:3-9) and who later can be seen exercising a general pastoral role. (1Pt. 1:1; 5:1,2)"
"And was the first to preach to the Gentiles (outside the half-Jew and half-Gentile Samaritans), using the "keys" to the kingdom of God, by which souls enter it, (Col. 1:13) and this first to address the Acts 15 assembly."
For the issue is not that of Peter being the street level leader that he is manifest to be, but that he simply is not manifest as being the first of a line of supreme infallible popes to whom all that church looked to as being so. That is simply extrapolation, not only in the manner of leadership Peter exercised, but its perpetuation, with the contrasts being numerous . Meanwhile even RC scholars provide testimony against the idea of this papacy in the early church.
Dollinger (actually in opposition to papal infallibility) sums up what this Peter morphed into:
“The Pope’s authority is unlimited, incalculable; it can strike, as Innocent III says, wherever sin is; it can punish every one; it allows no appeal and is itself Sovereign Caprice; for the Pope carries, according to the expression of Boniface VIII, all rights in the Shrine of his breast. As he has now become infallible, he can by the use of the little word, 'orbi,' (which means that he turns himself round to the whole Church) make every rule, every doctrine, every demand, into a certain and incontestable article of Faith. No right can stand against him, no personal or corporate liberty; or as the Canonists put it -- 'The tribunal of God and of the pope is one and the same.'” - Ignaz von Dollinger, in “A Letter Addressed to the Archbishop of Munich”, 1871 (quoted in The Acton Newman Relations, by MacDougall, pp. 119 120)
While obedience is enjoined to pastoral leadership in general, (Heb. 13:17) and which was the case towards Peter as the lead pastor in the first church (Acts 5), yet normally righteous Peter is uniquely singled out as a leader to be disobeyed in Gal. 2 due to hypocrisy, and therein is just one of the 3 who "seemed to be pillars," and is listed second as one. And in all the church epistles and the rest of the the NT, Peter is never singled out as an object of universal obedience as the head of all the churches.
Nor is such obedience to him as the universal head commended or the failure to do so faulted, nor mentioned as solution to their problems, even in the Lord's critique to all the churches in Rv. 2,3. Not once is even prayer specifically for him exhorted (though he was prayed for, as others were). And which conspicuous omission, along with the manner of Petrine leadership that is recorded, is incongruous in the light of the Roman construance of Peter's leadership.
Furthermore, for Peter the "more sure word of prophecy" is Scripture, (2Pt. 1:19-21) while there is zero mention of any apostolic successors, like for the martyred James, (Acts 12:1,2) besides for Judas who was to maintain the original 12, ( Rv. 21:14) and thus only one was elected, and who was elected by the non-political, OT method of casting lots, not voting. (Acts 1:15ff)
"How much clearer do you want it? Peter is singled out among the Apostles."
For him to be "singled" out, he alone would have to be mentioned. That's what "single" means.
"Peter and the others" is plural, not singular. Sorry to have to explain that to you.
Here's an example of somebody being singled out among the apostles:
"He who saw it has borne witness—his testimony is true, and he knows that he is telling the truth—that you also may believe" (Jn 19:35).
That would be the beloved Disciple (=John).
"Then when I say that John outran Peter but deferred to him when it came to entering the tomb and being first to witness the resurrection,"
The text doesn't say he deferred to Peter. It's not as if the tomb was so small that only one person could go inside at a time.
"…you said something corny about Peter having such weak faith that he needed to see while John did not due to his stronger faith."
This is a good example of how your precommitment to Catholicism blinds you to the narrative. Just one chapter later, we have Jesus tell Thomas: “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed” (Jn 20:29).
So the Gospel itself draws that invidious contrast. You shouldn't need to see the empty tomb or the Risen Christ to believe in the Resurrection.
And, of course, most Christians will never be in that position. That's the point.
"In none of the post resurrection witness is anybody but Peter mentioned by name. The Pope's witness to Jesus' resurrection is what counts."
Once again, your Catholicism blinds you to what's staring you in the face. Mary Magdalene is a prominent named witness to the Resurrection, both in John's Gospel and the Synoptics.
"One more thing we haven't discussed; in Galatians it says Paul went up to see the Apostles at Jerusalem but saw only James and 'saw' only Peter. The word of 'saw' when applied to Peter is 'istorei' which means to consult as an oracle."
i) To begin with, you need to distinguish between Classical Greek and Koine Greek. In Classical Greek, the word could mean to interview or make inquiry of.
Even then, it's not a technical term for consulting a fortune-teller. You're committing the illegitimate totality transfer fallacy.
ii) More to the point, Paul is writing in Koine Greek, where the verb means "to visit" or "to make the acquaintance of." That's how it's defined in the standard Greek lexicon of the NT (BDAG 483). That's how it's defined by F. F. Bruce in his commentary on the Greek text of Galatians. Likewise, The Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament defines it as "to get acquainted" (2:207). I could cite additional scholarly sources.
You're running out of flashcards.
"By the way, what was that hogwash you tried feeding me when I mentioned that in every list of Apostles, all 12 are in a different sequence. Not important. However, Peter is always first and Judas is always last."
Are you illiterate or forgetful? Did I say the sequence was different? No.
i) I said these are duplicate lists. Do you just lack basic reading comprehension? Is that your problem?
ii) Also, as I noted, your appeal to who is listed first demotes the Virgin Mary, inasmuch as Mary Magdalene is often listed first.
"You are not going to concede anything to Peter."
There's nothing to concede. He was one of the apostles, period.
"What's the point of going any further?"
No one solicited your input in the first place. It's not as if you're doing us a favor.
"The truth is more important than our little egos."
No one is likely to accuse you of having a "little" ego.
Steve,
Notice what PBJ has to say.
"There really should not be debate over Peter being the leader among the 11, which i myself have affirmed, and could add to what has been said in regard to mention of Peter indicating that. "
Once you concede as much, the rest is duck soup.
Why would the 1st century Church need a Peter but not subsequent generations? Was Baptism only for the first Christians? Or for today too?
Debate PBJ on that point. I have my own arguments.
Steve,
"This is a good example of how your precommitment to Catholicism blinds you to the narrative."
Kinda' like your prcommitment to your doctrine of election.
It taints everything.
Take a lesson in honesty from PBJ.
"And why do we say inspiration ended with the death of John?"
i) Because NT scripture is based on more than inspiration. It combines inspiration with historical knowledge.
Both the OT and the NT are grounded in the principle of historical revelation. Revelation about historical events based on access to firsthand information.
ii) The NT is basically a two-part collection. Part 1 has four books documenting the life of Christ. That's the foundation.
Part 2 has a history of the church, from the Ascension to Paul's house-arrest. It covers the inauguration and establishment of the new convent community.
Within that same timeframe, we also have collections of letters to first-generation Christian churches.
Most of the letters are either by apostles (Peter, Paul, John), sometimes to the churches they personally planted, or stepbrothers of Jesus (James, Jude). There's one anonymous letter (Hebrews) by a second-generation Christian. J. Ramsey Michaels has argued that it might be by Timothy, with a Pauline postscript.
Finally, we have an extended prophecy about the future (Revelation). However, that's anchored in a founder (the Apostle John), with letters directed to churches he oversaw.
So there's a consistent pattern. Staying very close to the historical events and the historical sources. First and second generation Christianity.
iii) That's reinforced by the importance assigned to having access to firsthand information/informants (e.g. Lk 1:1-4; Jn 1:14; 19:35; 1 Jn 1:1-4; 1 Cor 15:6; Heb 2:3).
iv) Because the author of Hebrews is not an eyewitness, he combines appeal to historical testimony with supplementary miraculous confirmation (Heb 2:3-4). Already, by the second generation, the direct sources were slipping away. Historical revelation has a chronological cutoff as living memory dies with the observers. That's why it must be committed to writing for posterity.
v) The so-called Apostolic Fathers lack both the inspiration and proximity to the life of Christ to even qualify as canonical authors.
Keep in mind, too, that there's a difference between mere acquaintance or merely hearing someone and detailed historical knowledge.
Children can know their grandparents before they die. That does't mean they know much about their grandparents. They may be too young to remember much or to ask pertinent questions.
Contemporaries of the same generation are in a very different situation than contemporaries three generations apart, where the older generation is on the way out while the younger generation is on the way in. That's very limited exposure. That's hardly comparable to the situation of Mark or Luke.
"...when the church in Corinth appealed to Pope Clement to settle a dispute for them."
A few factual corrections are in order:
i) The church of Corinth didn't appeal to Clement. Rather, some deposed Corinthian elders appealed to Clement.
ii) Clement wasn't the "pope," or even the bishop of Rome. Rather, he was a presbyter in the church of Rome.
As Roman Catholic scholar Raymond Brown notes:
"The structure of one bishop presiding over the presbyters does not seem to have been established in the Roman church much before mid-2d century AD, but anachronistically Clement would be later identified as bishop," An Introduction to the New Testament, 837n9.
Couldn't you have picked an even older debate? I used to have that one on cassette tape.
It is on YouTube and Dr. White's web-site now. Dr. White's closing statement was excellent when he stacks up all the Roman Catholic books one has to read to even understand it. Nobody can; because any proof of papal Fallibility is now said to be anachronistically, "well, he wasn't speaking from the chair of Peter then," etc. your church is "whatever we say goes".
By the way, priests are the worst debaters.
If you really want to enjoy a James White debate, click onto Arminian Steve Gregg's 5 day debate with James White.
I remember that debate and listened live to it at the time. I don't remember any such way as you describe it.
White has a sulky meltdown and refuses to respond at one point. I love it!
I don't remember any such thing.
Just so you know, Steve Gregg is not a crypto-Catholic. He even has debates with Tim Staples.
Yes, I know; Steve Gregg has a good commentary/book on Revelation where he puts 4 views in columns. Very helpful. But wrong on Calvinism; but I can still appreciate his work on the book of Revelation.
Steve,
Linus, Cletus, Clement, etc. etc. in every Mass using the Roman Canon.
Steve,
"Because NT scripture is based on more than inspiration. It combines inspiration with historical knowledge."
Historical knowledge? What does that mean?
Steve, unless there is an INFALLIBLE authority outside of the Bible, you don't have any way to know what the Bible is. "Historical knowledge" is way to vague, whatever you could mean by that, to tell us anything.
Plus, history actually narrows it down for us. There were Church councils, presided over by Catholic bishops, ratified by popes, that decided which books stayed and which books didn't.
Steve,PBJ,
"Debate PBJ on that point. I have my own arguments."
Looks like you and PBJ have a serious disagreement.
Let's you guys fight.
"In none of the post resurrection witness is anybody but Peter mentioned by name. The Pope's witness to Jesus' resurrection is what counts."
More RC eisegesis, which presumes the very thing that needs to be proven, that of the Roman papacy which is extrapolated out of Peter's leadership, but which papacy is invisible in the NT.
In the gospel which your text is lifted from, it is not Peter's word that is given the most weight, but "the disciple whom Jesus loved:"
"This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true. (John 21:24)
A Roman version (hidden in tradition, which may be revealed later) says,
"Peter is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and told me to write these things: and we know that his testimony is true and infallible."
And John's modesty in not mentioning his name, but instead only referring to himself as "the other disciple, whom Jesus loved," in describing his witness of the resurrectio, while as the narrator only mentioning Peter by name, is not to be faulted or abused by RCs who use it to argue only Peter's word mattered.
Peter, consistent with to his impetuous nature and love for the Lord whom He denied, did go into the tomb first, but his testimony is not what John believed, and which he provides that we may believe, but
"Then went in also that other disciple, which came first to the sepulchre, and he saw, and believed." (John 20:8)
And in further examining the naming and function of Peter, note that Peter is never singularly called "the disciple whom Jesus loved,:" nor the one to whom the Lord commits the care of His mother, nor mentioned first or being the only one named when Paul refers to those who seemed to be pillars of the church (which examples, among many others, testifies against the Islamic argument that Rome changed the Bible).
Moreover, if being uniquely mentioned by name denotes supreme credibility and as being the supreme example, then consider that only Peter is the only one named among the apostles as one who blatantly denied the Lord (not to point fingers: most all have in some way i am confident), and as the only one not to be followed in example. (Gal. 2)
For in contrast to RCs, the Holy Spirit is quite measured and balanced in His description of men, leaving RC's,. who are given to "think of men above that which is written [no oral trad. here]" (1Co. 4:6) to engage in egregious extrapolative eisegesis, and even resorting to forgeries and propagandist history to support her papacy and deformation .
Notice what PBJ has to say.
"There really should not be debate over Peter being the leader among the 11, which i myself have affirmed, and could add to what has been said in regard to mention of Peter indicating that. "
Once you concede as much, the rest is duck soup.
Why would the 1st century Church need a Peter but not subsequent generations? Was Baptism only for the first Christians? Or for today too?
THAT is just the manner of cultic wishful thinking is extrapolative eisegesis i referred to - the assuredly infallible perpetuated Petrine papacy to whom all the church looked to as being so as her supreme head simply does not exist in Scripture, as i have already partly evidenced.
If you want more just ask. Meanwhile, here some of what RC scholars find when even the post NT church (in its path to deformation):
Klaus Schatz [Jesuit Father theologian, professor of church history at the St. George’s Philosophical and Theological School in Frankfurt] in his work, “Papal Primacy ,” pp. 1-4, finds:
“New Testament scholars agree..., The further question whether there was any notion of an enduring office beyond Peter’s lifetime, if posed in purely historical terms, should probably be answered in the negative.
That is, if we ask whether the historical Jesus, in commissioning Peter, expected him to have successors, or whether the authority of the Gospel of Matthew, writing after Peter’s death, was aware that Peter and his commission survived in the leaders of the Roman community who succeeded him, the answer in both cases is probably 'no.”
“....that does not mean that the figure and the commission of the Peter of the New Testament did not encompass the possibility, if it is projected into a Church enduring for centuries and concerned in some way to to secure its ties to its apostolic origins and to Jesus himself.
If we ask in addition whether the primitive church was aware, after Peter’s death, that his authority had passed to the next bishop of Rome, or in other words that the head of the community at Rome was now the successor of Peter, the Church’s rock and hence the subject of the promise in Matthew 16:18-19, the question, put in those terms, must certainly be given a negative answer.” (page 1-2)
If one had asked a Christian in the year 100, 200, or even 300 whether the bishop of Rome was the head of all Christians, or whether there was a supreme bishop over all the other bishops and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church, he or she would certainly have said no." (pp.1-4 )
Catholic theologian and a Jesuit priest Francis Sullivan, in his work From Apostles to Bishops (New York: The Newman Press):
I have expressed agreement with the consensus of scholars that available evidence indicates that the church of Rome was led by a college of presbyters, rather than a single bishop, for at least several decades of the second century... - From Apostles to Bishops.. (From Apostles to Bishops pp. 221,222)
More
"Debate PBJ on that point. I have my own arguments."
Looks like you and PBJ have a serious disagreement.
Let's you guys fight.
No, it is you have a real serious disagreement with the Holy Spirit, as it is you who is guilty of thinking of men far above what is written, not simply in the 1st century but perpetually, but which is not in Scripture, while there are scholars who find that even the post NT church missed the papacy RCs anachronistically read into it.
I disagree that Peter was less than the street-level leader as described, and there always are leaders in a group, but that is far different than the demigod Peter and made into, and by giving him successors.
And which infallible papacy and church you have built upon the premise that assuredly discerning what is of God vs, what is not, and preservation and transmission of Truth requires an infallible authority. Thus those who dissent from it have no authority.
But as shown in response to your affirmation, this invalidates the NT church.
More to follow. by God's grace.
"Steve, Linus, Cletus, Clement, etc. etc. in every Mass using the Roman Canon."
Which only pushes the question back a step. How do you know that the traditional list is authentic in the first place?
"Historical knowledge? What does that mean?"
It means knowledge of the past. Hope that's not too subtle for you.
"Steve, unless there is an INFALLIBLE authority outside of the Bible, you don't have any way to know what the Bible is."
Guy, unless there's an infallible authority outside the one true church, you don't have any way to know what the one true church is.
Feel free to extricate yourself from the vicious regress of your own logic.
"There were Church councils, presided over by Catholic bishops, ratified by popes, that decided which books stayed and which books didn't."
Your claim is self-refuting. Your appeal to church councils and papal ratification presupposes historical knowledge. Unless knowledge of the past (e.g. church history) is attainable, you don't even know that there were any popes or councils–much less what they said.
So you can't even begin to establish your "infallible authority outside the Bible" without granting the possibility (indeed, actuality) of historical knowledge independent of what it records or attests.
You can't cite your "infallible authority outside the Bible" to validate historical knowledge if your knowledge of your "infallible authority outside the Bible" is contingent on historical knowledge. For unless historical knowledge is already attainable, you can't rely on historical knowledge to access your "infallible authority outside the Bible."
Likewise, you can't use historical knowledge to attest your "infallible authority outside the Bible" if historical knowledge has no independent evidentiary value apart from your "infallible authority outside the Bible."
Steve, unless there is an INFALLIBLE authority outside of the Bible, you don't have any way to know what the Bible is.
You addressed Steve on but that is where we left, meaning you found an excuse not to try to extricate your position as one that just invalidated Rome, despite your assertion, "I would love to go into detail on any difficulties."
Your argument in response to my questions was that of reasoning that Without an infallible Church built upon an infallible teaching office as witness to just which writings are inspired scripture, you are left with R.C. Sproul who says, " The Bible is a non inspired list of inspired books"
But which as shown, this leaping logic is specious, as unless both writings and men of God were correctly discerned before Rome even presumed that she was essential for this, then there would be no church.
And which church, contrary to the Roman model, actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, and "unto them were committed the oracles of God, "Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises." (Romans 9:4)
And who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, and inheritors of promises of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation. (Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Is. 41:10, (Ps. 89:19--34) And with the magisterium ordained to explain meanings and settle controversies, (2Chron. 17:8,9; 19:8-10; Neh. 8:1-8; Mal 2:7; Mt. 23:2) disobedience to which in some cases could even be a capital crime. Dt. 17:8-13
But which did not mean or necessitate them possessing assuredly infallibility whenever they spoke universally on faith and morals, which gift Rome presumes she has and must have.
Yet following Roman reasoning, one could argue that this role and manner of authority necessitated them possessing assuredly infallibility, for indeed, "the decision of their Scribes..claimed the same authority as for the Biblical law. even in case of error...and they went so far as to say that he who transgressed their words deserved death.. claiming for the sage, or scribe, the power of dissolving vows." (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12087-pharisees)
Now forget about what we know now, and consider yourself a common Jew in the 1st century. Along come some (as far as the magisterium was concerned) itinerant preachers who reproved the magisterium using Scripture.
Which the historical magisterium rejects, demanding, "By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority to do these things?" (Mark 11:28)
But this itinerant Preacher responds by demanding they tell Him "the baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men? answer me." (Mk. 11:27-33) Yet John had no more sanction than He did.
Remember, all you know is the OT and your leaders. They typical RC and their leaders, under the Roman model, would reject such rebels against the historical stewards of Scripture, but the common people did what they would not for they "counted John, that he was a prophet indeed."
And rather than establishing their Truth claims upon the premise of assured veracity, extrapolated under the premise that this was necessary or promised, the NT church did so upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, (Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)
However, like RCs, the Jewish leadership invalidated any who dissented from them, essentially saying to those who follow them,
"Are ye also deceived? Have any of the rulers or of our magisterium believed on him? But this people who knoweth not the Traditions are cursed. (John 7:47-49)
I notice that when I quote passages like Lk 1:1-4, Jn 1:14, 19:35, 20:31, 21:24, 1 Jn 1:1-4, 1 Cor 15:6, & Heb 2:3 which appeal to testimonial evidence and the sufficiency of their record, you refuse to take them at their word. You respond in defiant disbelief, because it conflicts with your a priori paradigm. That makes you an infidel.
Here is one of Dr. White's debates (with Robert Zins) vs. Scott Butler and Robert Sungenis.
"The Peter Syndrome is a deadly disease rampant amongst modern Roman Catholic apologists. And it is a disease that makes you see every reference to Peter anywhere in an early father as somehow relevant to the bishop in Rome even if that father never makes that connection himself, never shows that he believes the bishop of Rome is the vicar of Christ on earth, never says that Peter's successor sit only on the sit in Rome, it doesn't matter as long as an early father says something nice about Peter, therefore he is in support of the bishop of Rome." - James R. White; http://tinubos.blogspot.com/2011/06/james-r-white-peter-syndrome.html - a review of the book Jesus, Peter & the Keys,
I likely disagree with more than a couple some things White holds, but much value his apologetics overall.
If I didn't know better I would say that Guy Fawkes is a creation of Steve's to serve up silly and fallacious arguments just so that Steve could easily destroy them.
I notice that when I quote passages like Lk 1:1-4, Jn 1:14, 19:35, 20:31, 21:24, 1 Jn 1:1-4, 1 Cor 15:6, & Heb 2:3 which appeal to testimonial evidence and the sufficiency of their record, you refuse to take them at their word. You respond in defiant disbelief, because it conflicts with your a priori paradigm.
Why should a devoted RC? The degree of warrant from Scripture, if any, is not the basis for the veracity of RC teaching, and is not even necessary for it.
As Newman states,
"...the immediate motive in the mind of a Catholic for his reception of them is, not that they are proved to him by Reason or by History, but because Revelation has declared them by means of that high ecclesiastical Magisterium which is their legitimate exponent.” — John Henry Newman, “A Letter Addressed to the Duke of Norfolk on Occasion of Mr. Gladstone's Recent Expostulation.” 8. The Vatican Council http://www.newmanreader.org/works/anglicans/volume2/gladstone/section8.html
"The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.” — Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275.
“All that we do [as must be patent enough now] is to submit our judgment and conform our beliefs to the authority Almighty God has set up on earth to teach us; this, and nothing else.” “Absolute, immediate, and unfaltering submission to the teaching of God's Church on matters of faith and morals-----this is what all must give..” —“Henry G. Graham, "What Faith Really Means", (
Doctrinally, Scripture is a mere servant to serve Rome. It supports core beliefs we concur with, but (using their interpretive liberty) while they work to wrest support from teachings which really come from tradition (like praying to angels and saints), and may even resort to argument from silence (the Bible does not forbid it), it remains a doctrine because Rome cannot be wrong in such.
Having infallibly declared herself infallible, how can she?
As long as PBJ mentions Newman, this would be a good place to make a further observation: one reason no Protestant should believe that Catholicism can be prooftexted from the church fathers is because, from the time of Newman, astute Catholics conceded that that was an exercise in futility. So they resorted to Newman's theory of development. Ratzinger has a striking discussion in his autobiography (Milestones).
Steve,
"Guy, unless there's an infallible authority outside the one true church, you don't have any way to know what the one true church is."
You must not have read what I have posted twice now about Faith being not only a reasonable response to historical facts, but that it is demanded.
You didn't check out Richard Whately
/Napoleon? It's a clever spoof written by one of you people showing how the accounts of Jesus are historically reliable. Not "infallible", just reliable. If one doubts the record on Christ, one has no business believing in the existence of Napoleon then or even Barack Obama now.
My faith on an infallible Church is reasonable, Steve.
It's early morning where I live. I see you boys have piled my plate high with flim flam while I was sleeping.
I also see an attempt to close ranks against me and undo the damage done to your position by PBJ's admission.
I also see he has made things worse for you with,
" disagree that Peter was less than the street-level leader as described, ( BY STEVE ) and there always are leaders in a group, but that is far different than the demigod Peter and made into, and by giving him successors."
PBJ agrees with the Orthodox, Armenian and Coptic Churches in schism against Rome. He also agrees with most Protestants.
You Steve, are pretending you don't see Peter as any more significant than one of "the others". You claim that peter was no more important among the 12 than Nathaniel, Philip or Simon the Zealot.
I think your nose is growing, Stever.
You are a big fat fibber more interested in winning an argument and retaining your prestige in front of James and Ken as a high powered debater or something.
Until you concede that PBJ is right on Peter standing out among the 12, lets not talk about Peter. I don't like being lied to. I don't give a ding dong about your stardom among the other Protestant bloggers.
No one answers this question for me, so I will post it here.
Are papal elections infallible?
PBJ,
Okay. Now that you honestly acknowledge the glaring testimony of the Bible that Peter had some unique role in the early Church, you and I can continue.
We see that there was some sort of hierarchical structure in the early Church, yes? There were deacons appointed to free the more important guys up for other duties, right? There were Bishops whose power and authority were transmitted by the laying on of hands, yes? James said that if someone is sick to call in some men called "elders" to anoint, lay hands on and pray over the sick, yes again? He didn't say to call in just anybody.
Jude mentions that there were men guilty of the sin of Kore. Kore's sin was usurping the priestly duty of offering a sacrifice of incense, remember? So there were certain men with priestly duties that could be usurped, right? And don't forget, Judas' "bishopric" or office was continued in Matthias ( as decreed by Peter ). I could mention more but I think it is obvious that in the early Church there were sheep and there were shepherds.
This authority structure was visible. It had to be. An invisible authority cannot guarantee oneness in doctrine and discipline. Or do you think it can? If so, look at the history of Protestantism.
Moving right along, lets talk about the Church herself being infallible. Simple logic says that if we cannot trust the Church, we cannot trust her list of books or her decrees on the Trinity or even the divinity of Christ.
Now, every member of the Church does not have the charism of infallibilty.
I would think that is a no brainer but if you want to talk about it, we can.
Peter was the head of the Shepherds. He is the one commissioned to feed and shepherd both lambs and sheep. He is the one told by Jesus in Lk22 that he would strengthen the others in times of trial. He is the spokesperson for the 12 and the decision maker.
The authority structure of the early Church was not meant to end with the 12. Church history says so. Read the Fathers.
Peter was to have successors with all the same authority as he had.
Of course you are not going to get in lockstep with me upon reading this today. But I would ask you to consider just what the alternative to my position is. What has it been?
Case in point: You and Steve can't agree on what the Bible says on authority in the early Church ( or now obviously ).
PBJ agrees with the Orthodox, Armenian and Coptic Churches in schism against Rome. He also agrees with most Protestants.
You simply mean, "a leader among equals?" And far less than they believe, as for one Scripture does not manifest more than one successor for apostles, which was to maintain the original foundational 12, and by a method Rome never used. So much for all the Italians.
Until you concede that PBJ is right on Peter standing out among the 12, lets not talk about Peter. I don't like being lied to. I don't give a ding dong about your stardom among the other Protestant bloggers.
How self righteous. Rather than being able to defend the FrankenFather Rome created for all the world to bow to, you again found something you could divert to. But both both your papacy and the wafer are inventions the NT church did not have, nor your basis for assurance of Truth.
Go read Steve's expose ' of the egregious extrapolation of Mt. 16:18 as an example of why your retreat is wise.
As long as PBJ mentions Newman, this would be a good place to make a further observation: one reason no Protestant should believe that Catholicism can be prooftexted from the church fathers is because, from the time of Newman, astute Catholics conceded that that was an exercise in futility. So they resorted to Newman's theory of development. Ratzinger has a striking discussion in his autobiography (Milestones).
You mean development of doctrine
And even EOs see the same:
Roman Catholicism, unable to show a continuity of faith and in order to justify new doctrine, erected in the last century, a theory of "doctrinal development." Following the philosophical spirit of the time (and the lead of Cardinal Henry Newman), Roman Catholic theologians began to define and teach the idea that Christ only gave us an "original deposit" of faith, a "seed," which grew and matured through the centuries. The Holy Spirit, they said, amplified the Christian Faith as the Church moved into new circumstances and acquired other needs.
Consequently, Roman Catholicism, pictures its theology as growing in stages, to higher and more clearly defined levels of knowledge. The teachings of the Fathers, as important as they are, belong to a stage or level below the theology of the Latin Middle Ages (Scholasticism), and that theology lower than the new ideas which have come after it, such as Vatican II.
All the stages are useful, all are resources; and the theologian may appeal to the Fathers, for example, but they may also be contradicted by something else, something higher or newer. On this basis, theories such as the dogmas of "papal infallibility" and "the immaculate conception" of the Virgin Mary (about which we will say more) are justifiably presented to the Faithful as necessary to their salvation. - http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/ortho_cath.html
Explorer,
Maybe it would be better to post your question on Google or even any one of the myriad Catholic blogs. This is a Calvinist blog dedicated to denying anything to do with the Papacy.
PBJ,
Scripture mentions generations of successors to the Apostles' bishoprics. Read Paul's letters to Timothy. Paul had hands laid on him, he then laid hands on Timothy and then tells Timothy to be careful about whom he should lay hands on. That is 3 right there.
Thanks, but no thanks for the link but I have had a snoot full of Steve's obfuscations.
PBJ,
Silly me! That is 4 generations,not 3.
1. The 12
2. Paul
3. Timothy
4. Those he lays hands on
Ever read Ireneus? He lists the first dozen or so popes up until his time.
"Maybe it would be better to post your question on Google or even any one of the myriad Catholic blogs. This is a Calvinist blog dedicated to denying anything to do with the Papacy."
Well do you know the answer?
Okay. Now that you honestly acknowledge the glaring testimony of the Bible that Peter had some unique role in the early Church, you and I can continue.
Wrong. I stated my position on Peter being a leader, as well as what he was not, 2 days before you tried the unwarranted "run out of ammo" tactic, which was obviously not the case.
Nor I did not say anything unique in function, but that he was the street-level leader. He had no function which others also would not exercise, while not being the first of a line of supreme infallible popes whom all the church looked as being so. That makes Rome an invisible church.
And see here (spoof) for some competition.
We see that there was some sort of hierarchical structure in the early Church, yes?.. I could mention more but I think it is obvious that in the early Church there were sheep and there were shepherds...This authority structure was visible. It had to be
Which is all you have, and is not unique to Rome, for ordination and pastoral offices were inherited from the OT (and affirmed by Westminster), and as shown, with men ordained to explain meanings and settle controversies, (2Chron. 17:8,9; 19:8-10; Neh. 8:1-8; Mal 2:7; Mt. 23:2) and judges, disobedience to which in some cases could even be a capital crime. Dt. 17:8-13
And Truth was provided, recognized, transmitted and preserved. All without an infallible magisterium.
But like Rome, they presumed of themselves above that which was written, and thus the Lord said "Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge... (Matthew 23:34)
Likewise such reproved Rome, and who did likewise to them. And presumes of herself "above that which written," and above that which apostles claimed, even perpetual assured formulaic infallibility. Under which she declares she is infallible. And which is the basis for the veracity of RC doctrine (it cannot be the weight of evidence, lest you like an evangelical) .
Yet as said, Rome utterly fails of both the qualifications (Acts 1:21,22; 1Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:11,12) and credentials of the apostles she presumes to succeed! 2 Corinthians 6:4-7;12:12)
Because of the Romish-type presumption and intractable nature of the historical Jewish magisterium, the NT began in dissent, with the veracity of its Truth claims - even her oral preaching - being established upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power - not the Romish premise (which can be substantiated) of her own assured veracity, with its presuppositions that you affirmed and i by God's grace exposed as unScriptural.
Thus, even on the basis of assurance of Truth Rome is contrary to the NT church, and so, besides other inventions, she is not to be followed any more than the Scribes and Pharisees.
Moving right along, lets talk about the Church herself being infallible. Simple logic says that if we cannot trust the Church, we cannot trust her list of books or her decrees on the Trinity or even the divinity of Christ.
Moving right along past the Stop signs that is! Simple logic says that if both men and writings of God were correctly discerned even in dissent from the stewards of Scripture who sat in the seat of Moses, and which writings and men were the basis for the church, then while the magisterial office is itself valid, an infallible one is not, but is presumptuous.
The reason you must try so hard to leap leadership into being infallible, is because one needs i assent to that premise in order to have assurance that it is!
But I would ask you to consider just what the alternative to my position is. What has it been?
It has been what it is supposed to be.
But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord will, and will know, not the speech of them which are puffed up, but the power. For the kingdom of God is not in word [self-proclamation as per Rome], but in power. (1 Corinthians 4:19-20)
Again, consider how the NT church began, with common people correctly discerning that John "was a prophet indeed," and were "sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God." (Jn. 6:69)
The basis for this was not that of historical descent, but their veracity was established, as i keep saying upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power. .
The doctrine of Christ and the supernatural attestation given Him all conflated with Scripture.
And it is abundantly evidenced that as written, as the word of God normally was, immediately or subsequently, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God.
It was under this manifest apostleship - "in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God,..by the Holy Ghost, by love unfeigned, By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left - (2 Corinthians 6:4-7) that the NT church had its limited degree of unity.
Limited because not only was it not manifest as comprehensive doctrinal unity in all we can debate now, but there were obviously divisions and problems as seen in the church epistles and letters to them. Yet in which calling them to submit to Peter's supreme final authority are absent. Acts 15 does not provide that either.
And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles. And all that believed were together, and had all things common; (Acts 2:43-44)
But thus the unity of the church was strongest under this manner of leadership, while as with Israel after Moses and Joshua, the body became more variegated under lesser powers.
Rome purports to be the solution for this, but she is so powerless yet pompous and perverse that she causes division of a necessity.
From her imagination that sprinkling an infant with water effects regeneration, thus formally justifying him by his own ("infused") holiness, thus usually culminating in become good enough once again (and atoning for sins) to enter Heaven thru her (EOs tend to reject it) purgatory, and thus RCs believing in salvation by their merit, to her separate class of sacerdotal clergy titled "priests," to praying to angels and departed saints, attributing to them Divine power, to the premise of her assured veracity - besides her laxity in discipline and liberal scholarship, and in spiritual power, then Rome is a church the is foreign to the NT.
Nor that I claim apostolic credentials, or that evangelical churches are all that the NT church is, or even what many were, but as a former RC who became born again while still a weekly mass goer, and who remained their (not much else) for 6 years as an active member, at the least I know the difference btwn the profound changes in heart and life of true regeneration, versus institutionalized religion.
Which is mainly Rome here, with her perfunctory professions or cultic devotion, and dead gospel. No wonder most RC converts testify that it is was spiritual deficiency in their Cath. church as the main reason for becoming an evangelical.
And it is by such conversions, out of a poor and contrite heart,casting all their faith upon the risen Lord Jesus, the Son sent by the Father to save them on His blood-expense and credit, that true churches have their members. Praise be to our God.
Are papal elections infallible?
The consensus is no, though some RCs will say they are, and even that the Cardinals are inspired of God (not just infallible):
With regard to those truths connected to revelation by historical necessity and which are to be held definitively, but are not able to be declared as divinely revealed, the following examples can be given: the legitimacy of the election of the Supreme Pontiff or of the celebration of an ecumenical council, the canonizations of saints (dogmatic facts), the declaration of Pope Leo XIII in the Apostolic Letter Apostolicae Curae on the invalidity of Anglican ordinations ...37
And the NCR reports,
Perhaps the classic expression of this idea belongs to none other than the outgoing pope, Benedict XVI, who as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was asked on Bavarian television in 1997 if the Holy Spirit is responsible for who gets elected. This was his response:
I would not say so, in the sense that the Holy Spirit picks out the Pope. ... I would say that the Spirit does not exactly take control of the affair, but rather like a good educator, as it were, leaves us much space, much freedom, without entirely abandoning us. Thus the Spirit's role should be understood in a much more elastic sense, not that he dictates the candidate for whom one must vote. Probably the only assurance he offers is that the thing cannot be totally ruined. d!
Then the clincher:
There are too many contrary instances of popes the Holy Spirit obviously would not have picked. - http://ncronline.org/blogs/all-things-catholic/quick-course-conclave-101
The import of this is likely dealt with on this blog, or could be.
The great canon Lawyer Gregory Hesse (who was appointed by the Pope as a theologian at a pontifical university) said that papal elections are NOT infallible. I guess there is my answer.
PBJ,
Think about this; Peter, without consulting the other 10 Apostles or the Bible decreed that someone should take Judas' bishopric.
Then He was the spokesman for the Apostles on Pentecost adding 3,000 men to the already existing Church before one word of the NT had been written.
Read the first 15 chapters of the Book of Acts. Notice all the stuff Peter did BEFORE one word of the NT was written.
BEFORE THE NT WAS WRITTEN.
Remember that when quoting passages from the Bible that don't eve address the subject we are discussing.
Explorer,
"The great canon Lawyer Gregory Hesse...".
"Great" Canon Lawyer?
Great Canon lawyers, Mr. Explorer, would encourage you not to use a Calvinist blog to learn about the Catholic Church.
( Why did I think you already had the answer up your sleeve? )
EA,
Normally I would be delighted to have been able to start your day with a good laugh.
However, loss of Faith, the Pearl of Great Price, is nothing to hee-haw about.
I think I would rather be dead than to be in your position.
Have a great day!
"Have a great day!"
Thanks!
"Peter, without consulting the other 10 Apostles or the Bible decreed that someone should take Judas' bishopric."
Another fascinating anachronism. It's really too bad that Catholic theologians and historians don't see this the same way.
Guy:
"You didn't check out Richard Whately/Napoleon? It's a clever spoof written by one of you people showing how the accounts of Jesus are historically reliable. Not 'infallible', just reliable. If one doubts the record on Christ, one has no business believing in the existence of Napoleon then or even Barack Obama now."
I wasn't asking for your amateurish summary of Whately. Anyone conversant with historical apologetics is conversant with his satire. It's a defense of testimonial evidence in the face of Hume's attack on miracles.
"My faith on an infallible Church is reasonable, Steve."
Your claim suffers from two fundamental problems:
i) You're trying to bootstrap infallibility from fallibility. All you really have is not an infallible church, but your fallible belief in an infallible church. Your uncertain belief in something certain.
Without a pump, water can't rise above its own level. Probabilities don't yield certainties.
ii) Then there's the problem of your double standard. You justify your Catholicism on (alleged) probabilities, yet you demand apodictic proof from Protestants.
But if (ex hypothesi) you can justifiably believe in Catholicism based on general reliability of testimonial evidence, then so can Protestants.
"Until you concede that PBJ is right on Peter standing out among the 12, lets not talk about Peter."
No one asked for your opinion in the first place. You invited yourself. Your absence will not be missed.
"I don't like being lied to."
Of course you do. That's why you're Catholic. Your faith is built on lies. You ask to be lied to. You pay to be lied to. And you get what you paid for.
Guy:
"And don't forget, Judas' 'bishopric'…"
That confuses NT usage with later dogmatic usage. An elementary semantic fallacy.
"I could mention more but I think it is obvious that in the early Church there were sheep and there were shepherds."
You're tilting at windmills. I don't think anyone here denies church office.
"This authority structure was visible. It had to be. An invisible authority cannot guarantee oneness in doctrine and discipline."
Unfortunately for you, apostolic succession depends on something undetectable: right intent–on the part of the officiant and ordinand alike. That's unverifiable.
"Simple logic says that if we cannot trust the Church, we cannot trust her list of books…"
It was never her "list" of books in the first place.
And I'm still waiting for Guy's infallible list of infallible papal pronouncements.
"…or her decrees on the Trinity or even the divinity of Christ."
Guy is an infidel. He explicitly denies what passages like Lk 1:1-4, Jn 20:31, and 1 Jn 1:1-4 explicitly affirm.
"Peter was the head of the Shepherds. He is the one commissioned to feed and shepherd both lambs and sheep. He is the one told by Jesus in Lk22 that he would strengthen the others in times of trial. He is the spokesperson for the 12 and the decision maker."
Guy just makes a string of groundless, tendentious assertions. One of his chronic fallacies is to infer that if something is said of Peter, then it can't be true of anyone else.
For instance, suppose Mt 16 assigns a "foundational" role to Peter, using the rocky metaphor to signify a solid foundation. Even if that's the case, the foundational imagery isn't confined to Peter: "…of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone" (2:19-20).
"Church history says so. Read the Fathers. Peter was to have successors with all the same authority as he had."
Is that what Cyprian said? Is that what Origen said? Is that what Tertullian said?
"Case in point: You and Steve can't agree on what the Bible says on authority in the early Church ( or now obviously )."
Case in point: two successive popes can't agree on Vatican II:
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2006/02/from-ratzinger-to-benedict
Steve,
"All you really have is not an infallible church, but your fallible belief in an infallible church. Your uncertain belief in something certain."
If the major and the minor of a syllogism are true, Steve, the conclusion is infallible.
I gave you my syllogism, You are just too much of a liar to concede my major and minor.
Steve,
Are you going to teach me Catholicism now?
"Unfortunately for you, apostolic succession depends on something undetectable: right intent–on the part of the officiant and ordinand alike. That's unverifiable."
Ever hear the phrase, "ex opere operato". All that needs to be intended is to "do what the Church does". IOW, one just needs to perform a religious act.
Pretty hard to muck that up.
Even Cranmer had to try hard to do that.
At best, the conclusion of a syllogism is merely valid, not infallible. You're committing a category mistake.
Moreover, the truth of your major and minor premise(s) reduces to your fallible belief in the major and minor premise.
Intent is a private psychological state. How does an outsider verify the intent of the officiant or the ordinand? You lack direct access to someone else's mental states.
Steve,
Do you trust yourself around scissors and other sharp objects?
Do you trust yourself to drive a car and operate machinery?
Do you have somebody else administer your medication to you or do you trust yourself to do it?
If you answered "YES" to one or more of the above, you really do know your mind is to be trusted on decisions of Faith, huh?
Or are you as nutty as Nietzsche got to be? Do you deny the whole is greater than one of its parts? Do you deny cause and effect?
You brayed,
"Simple logic says that if we cannot trust the Church, we cannot trust her list of books…"
It was never her "list" of books in the first place."
Oh? Was it the Holy Spirit's list Steve? Yes? Then I guess there never was any dispute over the list then, huh?
You then demanded this;
"And I'm still waiting for Guy's infallible list of infallible papal pronouncements."
Ever hear of a Denziger? It is only partial as the list is not yet complete as the Spirit hasn't finished "leading us into all truth."
You then challenge my assertion that the Church is needed to define Trinitarian and Christological doctrines with,
"Guy is an infidel. He explicitly denies what passages like Lk 1:1-4, Jn 20:31, and 1 Jn 1:1-4 explicitly affirm."
Of course, of course. It is all so clear from the perfectly perspicuous pages of the Bible that there never were any Arians, Nestorians, Mormons, Witnesses, Unitarians, Oneness Pentecostals, etc. etc.
Earlier I said that
Peter was the head of the Shepherds. He is the one commissioned to feed and shepherd both lambs and sheep. He is the one told by Jesus in Lk22 that he would strengthen the others.
and then you belched,
"Guy just makes a string of groundless, tendentious assertions."
Steve, if you own a Bible, check out Jn 21:15-17 to see my groundless, tendentious assertion.
You then assert that Peter isn't the only Rock in the Bible.
Of course not! Did I say as much? Christ is the Rock, the foundation. Peter's rockness participates in Christ's.
Do you think Catholics believe Peter is independent of Christ? You said yourself that if Peter takes his eyes off of Christ, he sinks.
Moving from dumb to dumber ( or is it "more dumb"? ), you blather against what I said about the Fathers with
"Is that what Cyprian said? Is that what Origen said? Is that what Tertullian said? "
Origin and Tertullian were never canonized as saints and some would refuse them the title of "Church Father" in case you didn't know.
As for St. Cyprian, he repented of his disobedience.
You then attempt to side step and obfuscate on the fact that you and PBJ prove no two Protestants can come to a consensus on all matters of doctrine with,
"Case in point: two successive popes can't agree on Vatican II".
I am not even going to bite on this nonsense.
For the sacrament of holy orders to be validly administered, both parties to that transaction must internally intend to do what the church does. In that event, how do you verify each link in the chain of apostolic succession? How do you know what they intended?
"you really do know your mind is to be trusted on decisions of Faith, huh?"
Do you simply lack the mental capacity to understand the question at issue? Is that your problem? As you yourself framed the issue, how do you bridge the hiatus between probability and certainty? Your fallible belief that the church is infallible?
You're not saying anything to close that gap. "Trust" falls short of your destination.
"Oh? Was it the Holy Spirit's list Steve? Yes?"
Try an intertextual "list."
"Then I guess there never was any dispute over the list then, huh?"
A non sequitur.
"Ever hear of a Denziger?"
Are you' claiming that Denziger is an infallible source?
"It is only partial as the list is not yet complete as the Spirit hasn't finished 'leading us into all truth.'"
Since you have such difficulty following simple issues, permit me to spell it out for you.
I didn't ask you for a list of (allegedly) infallible papal pronouncements, but an infallible list of (allegedly) infallible papal pronouncements. For unless the list itself infallibly lists the infallible pronouncements, you have no infallible record to distinguish fallible from infallible pronouncements. Get it?
"It is all so clear from the perfectly perspicuous pages of the Bible that there never were any Arians, Nestorians, Mormons, Witnesses, Unitarians, Oneness Pentecostals, etc. etc."
You keep demonstrating your utter contempt for what passages like Lk 1:1-4, Jn 20:31, and 1 Jn 1:1-4 assure the reader. You don't make the slightest effort to reconcile your defiant incredulity with what they claim.
You're just an infidel.
"Steve, if you own a Bible, check out Jn 21:15-17."
Since you lack basic reasoning ability, let me walk you through the process.
You make a claim.
I present a counterargument or counterexample.
At that point it is incumbent on you to either show what's wrong with my counterargument/counterexample or, failing that, to withdraw your original claim.
By contrast, your modus operandi is to repeat the same refuted claims. That doesn't advance your argument. In fact, you lose by default when you fail to rebut counterarguments or counterexamples in response to your initial claims.
Do you understand, or do you need me to take you by hand and walk you through the process a second time?
"Origin and Tertullian were never canonized as saints and some would refuse them the title of 'Church Father' in case you didn't know."
So your appeal to the church fathers is viciously circular. On the one hand you cite the church fathers to prove which church is the true church. On the other hand, you cite the church to prove which father is a true church father.
Or you able to grasp the fallacious nature of your appeal, or do you need me to explain it to you in more excruciating detail? Would pictures help?
Think about this; Peter, without consulting the other 10 Apostles or the Bible decreed that someone should take Judas' bishopric.
So in typical "moving on" style, ignoring all the signs and oncoming traffic that tell you already took a wrong turn and are headed for a different destination than you suppose, you continue to imagine that Peter's manner of leadership and usage, render him the first of a line of infallible popes to whom all the church looked to as its exalted supreme head.
Which again, is simply not there, but which is an imaginary pope, as shown.
RCs engage in this manner of wishful extrapolation in other things as well, carelessly treating Scripture as a mere servant to support Rome, imagining praying for one another here translates into bowing down before statues in praise and a from of "veneration" that somehow is not worship, attributing to the object it represents uniquely Divine power and mentally or orally beseeching such for Heavenly aid.
Here, the fact is that initiating making a choice for leadership is not new, as even Jethro, Moses' father in law did so for Moses, (Ex.18:17-23; cf. Dt. 1:13) giving sound counsel. "All by his lonesome, no help from his friends," as you say of Peter.
Yet in this case Moses himself did the choosing, while in contrast to Peter being as the Moses RCs make him out to be, he did not handpick a successor or even the candidates.
Instead the choice of candidates was corporate, And they appointed two..(Acts 1:23)
And then the choice was made by casting lots, which was not that of the high priest using the mysterious Urim and Thummim stones upon Aaron's heart, (Exo_28:29), and which you likened it to, but that of the normal and often used practice of placing something in a bag or box, representing two choices.
"The practice of casting lots occurs most often in connection with the division of the land under Joshua (Joshua chapters 14-21), a procedure that God instructed the Israelites on several times in the book of Numbers (Numbers 26:55; 33:54; 34:13; 36:2). God allowed the Israelites to cast lots in order to determine His will for a given situation (Joshua 18:6-10; 1 Chronicles 24:5,31). Various offices and functions in the temple were also determined by lot (1 Chronicles 24:5, 31; 25:8-9; 26:13-14). The sailors on Jonah's ship (Jonah 1:7) also cast lots to determine who had brought God's wrath upon their ship." (http://www.gotquestions.org/casting-lots.html)
Steve,
You keep asking me if I can read. Can you? Read my lips, all that is intended for any Sacrament is to "do what the Church does".
You then squawked,
"Do you simply lack the mental capacity to understand the question at issue? Is that your problem?"
What's the question again?
Then you asked how I "bridge" a hiatus. I don't. I bridge gaps. I don't bridge hiatuses. I take 'em.
Then you insulted me by calling me,
"A non sequitur".
You further confused me by asking if I was claiming that Denziger is an infallible source.
NO you Silly Nilly! The documents in Denziger's are what are infallible.
( Sheesh! Talk about dumb ).
You yelled at me saying,
"Since you have such difficulty following simple issues...,"
What issues?
You really got mad at me and yelled again,
"I didn't ask you for a list of (allegedly) infallible papal pronouncements, but an infallible list of (allegedly) infallible papal pronouncements. For unless the list itself infallibly lists the infallible pronouncements, you have no infallible record to distinguish fallible from infallible pronouncements. Get it?"
Oh, that old list.
Then you got really, really mad and yelled so loud your Carrie Grant hair got mussed and said,
"You keep demonstrating your utter contempt for what passages like Lk 1:1-4, Jn 20:31, and 1 Jn 1:1-4 assure the reader."
No, you pompous blowhard, I demonstrate my mutual contempt for you and your arrogant superiority.
The only nice thing you said to me was,
"You're just an infidel." ( I think you were trying to make up for calling me a non sequiter, huh? )
Then after saying something nice, you go and spoil it all by saying"
"Since you lack basic reasoning ability,...".
Then you reveal your vastknowledge of the Fathers by quoting a Montanist as a source against the Papacy!!!!!!!!
You then get nice again and say,
"Do you understand, or do you need me to take you by hand and walk you...".
After playing Bad Cop, you put on your Good Cop hat and offer to hold my hand and take me for a walk?
Are you trying to confuse me, Steve?
And no, I refuse to hold hands with any man whose favorite pass time is listening to Baroque music and is fixated on who is or is not a "fruit".
You then ask,
" do you need me to explain it to you in more excruciating detail?"
Only if it is really. really. excruciating for you.
Finally, you get nice again and ask,
"Would pictures help?"
Actually, Steve, they would. Do you have any? How about one of you playing Bach on the organ dressed in the attire of that period ?
Steve, do you want to argue the issues or do you want to throw mud? You decide and I will respond accordingly.
Then He was the spokesman for the Apostles on Pentecost adding 3,000 men to the already existing Church before one word of the NT had been written. Read the first 15 chapters of the Book of Acts.
This instrumentality hermeneutic is the same one RCs erroneously employ to make the Mary of Scripture into the almost almighty demigoddesses of Catholicism.
But the instrumentality of Peter does not translate into being either infallible or the first of a line of supreme heads. Nor was assured infallibility essential for discernment, transmission, and preservation of Truth, as shown in the light of Scripture.
Peter is not shown as being such a pope in Acts, and even in Acts 15 it is James which provides the final judgment, confirmatory of Peter who first gave counsel, and was affirmed by the testimony of Paul and Barnabas.
And there Peter's example of salvation by grace is the gospel by which souls had their heart purified by faith and regenerated, before they were baptized. (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9)
Which Paul essentially calls "my gospel" a number of times.
This, along with Peter being married and having no silver or gold in Acts 3, makes him more of a Baptist.
Moreover, reading past Acts 15 and the rest of the NT and its letters to the churches, interpretive of Mt. 16:18, Peter is not even mentioned except in two epistles (outside his own).
And as said, rather then being set forth as the supreme infallible head, he is listed second among those who ("seemed to be pillars," and is the only apostle publicly censored as his example in this case was not to be followed. (And which reading i could only find on a weekday, once, in the 3 year cycle).
And that in his own letters Peter does not set himself forth as some supreme head, and for him Scripture is the "more sure word."
Notice all the stuff Peter did BEFORE one word of the NT was written.
I have, and what you evidently fail to notice is that rather than establishing his Truth claims upon the premise of assured veracity as per PI, instead Peter is a evangelical Scripture quoting preacher to the Jews.
Meaning that while the Lord also confirmed the word with signs following, (Mk. 16:20) the word was established as being the word of God upon the Scriptures as being supreme, as the established word of God.
As as before, complimentary writings were added to the existing body of Scripture in conflation with it and its manner of attestation, with men of God being established as being so the same way.
And the Scriptural Truths of which the whole church went, "preaching the Word." (Acts 8:4)
Therefore, unlike as some RCs argue, the church began upon Scriptural substantiation, not the premise of assured veracity, which is the basis for assurance for a RC.
We thus are to look for (and be like) men today who are more like the apostles and like Ananias and Apollos, but the more we do then the more we are repelled by the imposters of Rome claiming to actually be their successors.
""Great" Canon Lawyer?"
Gregory Hesse has Doctorate in both Sacred Theology and Canon Law. I think you should not judge people before you know them better.
I have heard that for something to be a dogma, it will definitely have the unanimous consent of the fathers and that anything with the unanimous consent of the fathers will inevitably qualify as a dogma.
Is that true?
"Do you trust yourself around scissors and other sharp objects?
Do you trust yourself to drive a car and operate machinery?
Do you have somebody else administer your medication to you or do you trust yourself to do it?
If you answered "YES" to one or more of the above, you really do know your mind is to be trusted on decisions of Faith..."
I answered "Yes" to all of these questions and I also use my mind for other intellectual work, such as holding a job, managing a household, etc... including assessing theological arguments. Based on what Guy wrote above, my mind is to be trusted on decisions of Faith.
Guy has cogently made the case for Private Judgement. Nice work, Guy!
As usual, your response is hopelessly confused. A sacrament has no intentions. The question at issue is how you determinate the intention of the officiant who administers the sacrament or the ordinand who receives the sacrament. Try again.
"The documents in Denziger's are what are infallible. ( Sheesh! Talk about dumb )."
Given your response, "talk about dumb" is certainly apropos.
Since, by your own admission, Denziger is fallible, you're appealing to a fallible list of (allegedly) infallible documents. But since the source is admittedly fallible, how do you know it correctly sifts fallible from infallible documents? Try again.
"Carrie Grant hair got mussed"
Carrie is a woman's name. Cary is a man's name. Do you not know the difference between men and women?
"No, you pompous blowhard, I demonstrate my mutual contempt for you and your arrogant superiority."
So even though Luke and John say that reading their Gospels is sufficient to give the reader "certainty" about the life of Christ and saving knowledge of his person and work, you don't believe it. You think they are wrong to say that.
"Are you trying to confuse me, Steve?"
I'm afraid I can't take any credit for your confusion. You're utterly confused without any assistance from me.
"Steve, do you want to argue the issues…"
You don't know how to argue issues. You're just a tape-recorder on playback. You have one setting: repeat.
You recite your prerecorded statements. When your statements are refuted, you push rewind button and replay your original statements, ignoring the counterargments.
Steve,
Since we started out little chat on Peter, you have been more interested in belittling me personally than in discussing the topic.
If I say something like,'"Steve, WHO did Jesus walk on the water with?", you snap back, " Guy, you unlettered nincompoop! The proper way to phrase such a question is, 'With WHOM did Jesus walk upon the water?' Here on Beggars All we do not end our sentences with a preposition!"
Then you go on to say the question defies the rules of proper argumentation and so you it is unworthy of an answer by someone of your high estate.
The first rule of argument is to tell the truth.
If I say John's Gospel says "Magdalene was told to go and tell Peter and the others", that singles Peter out,
and you respond by denying it because "the others" are also mentioned, you are not being honest.
If I say the text says, "Peter and the other disciple ran to the tomb, the other one arriving first but standing aside for Peter to enter first" and that Luke's Gospel doesn't even mention the other disciple, just Peter, you respond with, " that's because Peter had so little faith he had to see with his own eyes while the others didn't", again, you are not being honest.
One more time, PBJ, one of your friends, not mine, says Peter does indeed stand out from among the other Apostles. If I am so stupid to think Peter stands out, he is stupid too, right?
Please, Mr. School Marm, my grammar and spelling are "good 'nuff for government work". Quit deflecting from what we are discussing.
Again, this is not a beauty contest between you and me.
Stop with your non-stop ego aggrandizement and constant little put downs to me as a person.
And most of all, remember we are talking matters that pertain to salvation. That means stop your lying and obfuscating rather than conceding a point your own Protestant friend readily concedes.
You are more interested in making sure Cary/Carrie is spelled correctly than in if Peter was chief among the Apostles or not.
Pathetic.
EA,
When you were a catholic, you must not have known how Catholics first approach the Bible as just another historically accurate account of a 1st century man who claimed to be from God. We do not start by asserting the Bible to be inspired or that Jesus is God.
We first prove the reasonableness of our Faith.
Once we enter into faith, then and only then, does all private judgement on matters of doctrine fall aside.
If one cannot trust their own mind, they cannot make an act of Faith.
"You are more interested in making sure Cary/Carrie is spelled correctly than in if Peter was chief among the Apostles or not. Pathetic."
You're the one who keeps interjecting irrelevant trivia into the exchange, like Cary Grant, Baroque music, &c. Try taking your own advice for a change.
Explorer,
Perhaps you should direct your questions about the unanimous consent of the Fathers to Gregory Hesse.
And you shouldn't judge me as judging Gregory Hesse. I did not question his credentials a "great" canon lawyer. I questioned why you, Mr. Explorer, would consider any canon lawyer to be "great" as you are asking about Catholicism on an anti-Catholic blog.
( James, it is fair to call BA as anti and not merely non-Catholic without giving offense, right? )
"We do not start by asserting the Bible to be inspired or that Jesus is God."
Given that, it's no wonder you've gone so far off track. It explains alot. Thanks for clearing that up.
Scripture mentions generations of successors to the Apostles' bishoprics. Read Paul's letters to Timothy. Paul had hands laid on him, he then laid hands on Timothy and then tells Timothy to be careful about whom he should lay hands on. That is 3 right there
And you get the perpetuated infallible supreme Petrine papacy out of that? Seriously, this is somewhat like someone hallucinating on drugs.
Ordination is certainly Biblical, and Reformers and Baptists etc. today practice it, but there is nothing here about infallible apostles under an infallible supreme pope begetting infallible apostles begetting..
That Rome makes the apostles she claims succession from to be something they did not claim invalidates her successors.
And Ananias is the one whom the Lord first sent Paul to, and who baptized him and laid hands on him in conveying the Spirit, but Ananias is simply described as a "devout man" and a "certain disciple."
And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God. (Acts 9:20)
And
increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ. (Acts 9:20,22)
And as shown by how God raised up men to correct the magisterium, so he can and did to Rome, and continued the church apart from her messy "unbroken" papal succession and moral and spiritual declension.
It is not historical descent that provides authenticity any more than it makes a descendant of Abraham as real Jew, (Rn. 2:28,29) but it is Abrahamic faith that does.
And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. (Matthew 3:9)
Thus He can raise up "living stones" from anywhere to build His church as He wills.
PBJ,
Was Baptism for the 1st century only? Was the Lord's Supper? As you concede that some Protestants have some sort of ordination rite, I assume you concede the hierarchical system was to continue after the death of the Apostles.
You dismiss my assertion that the Paul/Timothy thing shows succession.
Okay, what is your spin on it?
You say, "It is not historical descent that provides authenticity...He can raise up "living stones" from anywhere to build His church...".
That is not what either the Bible nor Church history shows. Authority and power were passed on by the laying on of hands and the rite was jealously guarded from corruption and abuse.
As for God being able to raise up men outside of the succession I speak of, well, they would not be able to trace themselves back to the Church Christ established. Even God cannot do that. God could not annihilate you and then recreate you. The new man may seem exactly like you but he would be a clone like being, not you.
If all the Bishops, priests and deacons were to die today, God could not raise up Bishops, priests and deacons from the rocks and set them over the SAME Church founded 2,000 years ago by Christ. It would be a different Church.
Back to the Pope's successors.
We see Judas succeeded by Matthias as Apostle and Bishop. The criteria needed for his ordination was that he had seen Jesus in the flesh. Common sense says withing a generation or so there would be no more people living who could meet this requirement. Therefore the role of Apostle was to end but not the office of Bishop as we see in the case of Paul and Timothy.
Immediately in the early Church we see Peter's line of succession recorded. He was succeeded by Linus and men after him.
We don't see the list of names for the successors of anyone else. ( Actually, Josephus says James was followed by his brother Simon as Bishop of Jerusalem. But that's it. ). Also, the great centers of authority, Jerusalem, Rome, Antioch, Alexandria and later, Constantinople, all based their claims on a connection to Peter.
PBJ, what was the rule of thumb for identifying the local Church authority in the Church? The Bishop.
And that Bishop had to be able to show his succession and be in union with the chief Bishop in Rome.
The way of determining if even a Bishop was orthodox in his teaching and was legitimate was if he held the Faith of the Bishop of Rome and was in communion with him.
Speaking of Communion, to this day, in every Mass, the priest breaks off a fragment of the Host. This is reminiscent of the days when the Bishop would break off pieces of his Host and send them to his presbyters to be used in their particular liturgies as a sign of union.
You put a false dichotomy between the spirit and the flesh. The offices of Bishop, including the one in Rome, priest and deacon must go back to the very physical Jesus.
PBJ,
"Ordination is certainly Biblical, and Reformers and Baptists etc. today practice it,"
They practice a rite that does not physically go back to Christ from whom all power flows.
The Protestants all broke the line of succession during the Reformation. Plus, as even Steven says, they lack the proper intention to do what the Church does,i.e. ordain sacrificing priests.
This includes the Anglicans with the smells and the bells and the trappings and titles. Plus they just the other day okayed women as Bishops which further wipes out ant real claim to a succession going back to Jesus.
PbJ and Steve,
Luke 24:34 says " He is risen and has appeared to Simon".
Jesus had appeared to Magdalene first. Steve says so. So why is Peter singled out here as the witness to the resurrection?
Jesus came and found all of his friends sleeping in the garden but he rebuked only Peter. Why? Because he was snoring the loudest?
Maybe the rebuke proves Peter to be the least Apostle, lower than even Judas, huh?
Steve has thrown out both Paul and John as being of more importance than Peter as they were more prolific writers.
Where do we see John exercising any authority over the others or speaking on behalf of them? When does Jesus address him as a representative of all 12?
As for Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles, remember, that mission hinged on Peter's vision of the great net.
Paul was baptized and received into the Church by the very insignificant Ananaias.
When Cornelius, the first gentile was Baptized, he was told to send for the Pope.
PBJ, you admit Peter was singled out.
Singled out for what?
PBJ,
Once supremacy is admitted, infallibility follows by necessity.
Steve sees this while you don't.
That is why he is fighting tooth and nail to deny what you have already conceded, whether you like it or not, that Peter was the chief Apostle.
The Church was given a mission by Christ that cannot fail without impugning Christ Himself.
The final court of appeal in that Church must have the same charism that the Church has.
Ever read Ireneus? He lists the first dozen or so popes up until his time.
Even finding something attributed to a so-called church "father" of successors to Peter does not make them either valid successors and infallible Roman popes.
It remains that the Peter of Scripture , like the Lord's Supper, and like Mary, is critically different than the demigod popes they morphed into in Rome.
The Roman papacy not only presumes some greater power and privileges than the supernaturally manifest apostles of God, while lacking in both their qualifications and credentials (and the greater the claim, the greater the corresponding attestation must be), but also that grossly immoral men can be valid successors to Peter, yet whom would not even be valid church members in Scripture! (1Cor. 5:11-13)
And even by the 4th c. you have a so-called successor to Peter employing a murderous mob in working to secure his seat from his rival.
On Sunday, October 1 his partisans seized the Lateran Basilica, and he was there consecrated. He then sought the help of the city prefect (the first occasion of a Pope in enlisting the civil power against his adversaries), and he promptly expelled Ursinus and his followers from Rome. Mob violence continued until October 26, when Damasus's men attacked the Liberian Basilica, where the Ursinians had sought refuge; the pagan historian Ammianus Marcellinus reports that they left 137 dead on the field....
Damasus was indefatigable in promoting the Roman primacy, frequently referring to Rome as 'the apostolic see' and ruling that the test of a creed's orthodoxy was its endorsement by the Pope....
This [false claim to] succession gave him a unique [presumptuous claim to] judicial power to bind and loose, and the assurance of this infused all his rulings on church discipline. - Kelly, J. N. D. (1989). The Oxford Dictionary of Popes. USA: Oxford University Press. pp. 32,34;
And Roman popes are even different than the claimed successors of Irenaeus.
Among others, famous Dollinger, 47 year RC historian in the 19th century, finds,
In the first three centuries, St. Irenaeus is the only writer who connects the superiority of the Roman Church with doctrine; but he places this superiority, rightly understood, only in its antiquity,... Tertullian, Cyprian, Lactantius, know nothing of special Papal prerogative, or of any higher or supreme right of deciding in matter of doctrine...
In the writings of the Greek doctors, Eusebius, St. Athanasius, St. Basil the Great, the two Gregories, and St. Epiphanius, there is not one word of any prerogatives of the Roman bishop...
St. Augustine..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...that in these seventy–five chapters there is not a single word on the necessity of communion with Rome as the centre of unity....
We have a copious literature on the Christian sects and heresies of the first six centuries.., but not a single one is reproached with rejecting the Pope’s authority in matters of faith.
..if we look at the patristic interpretation of the words of Christ to St. Peter. Of all the Fathers who interpret these passages in the Gospels (Matt. xvi.18, John xxi.17), not a single one applies them to the Roman bishops as Peter’s successors. - The Pope and the Council (Boston: Roberts, 1869), pp. 70-74; https://archive.org/stream/popeandcouncil00hubegoog/popeandcouncil00hubegoog_djvu.txt).
Finally there is Triablogue: Why Irenaeus may be dismissed as an early source for ...
I have heard that for something to be a dogma, it will definitely have the unanimous consent of the fathers and that anything with the unanimous consent of the fathers will inevitably qualify as a dogma.
Is that true?
That is an interpretation of a creed of V1,
Likewise I accept sacred scripture
according to that sense which holy mother church held and holds,
since it is her right to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy scriptures;
nor will I ever receive and interpret them except according to the unanimous consent of the fathers.
Of course, what unanimous consent of the fathers means is according to Rome, who has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.
Quite the system.
Post a Comment