|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/17/2008 3:44:47 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3889
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TheCatholicCrusader
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
quote:
His Church also teaches just one set of doctrines, which must be the same as those taught by the apostles (Jude 3). You do realize this sentence knocks your church right out of the running for even being included in the church which Christ established?
No, but your answer proves that you know neither what the Chutrch teaches nor what the early Church believed
And your answer, or rather lack of one, proves there is no answer to the question: "if the faith was delivered once for all according to Jude why does RC continually add to it?"
Neither does RC appear to have an answer for: Galatians 1:8 "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed."
But, the following statement does speak to both the Jude and Galatians verses concerning RC:
"It is not so much a matter of the denial of the truth, but rather such an addition to the truth that eventually it becomes a departure from it."
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/17/2008 3:47:18 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3889
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TheCatholicCrusader
Simply, the Pope is the fulfillment of the office of Prime Minister that existed in the Kindoms of David and his successors (as many things in the NT are fulfillments of their OT "types".)
"And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call My servant Eliakim the son of Helcias, and I will clothe him with thy Robe, and I will strengthen him with thy Sash, and will give thy Power (authority) into his hand; and he shall be as a FATHER (the word 'Pope' means 'Father') to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. And I will lay the Key of the House of David (the symbol of primacy) upon his shoulder; and he shall open and none shall shut; and he shall shut and none shall open. And I will fasten him as a peg in a Sure Place(the Papal Office), and he shall be for a Throne of glory to the house of his Father. And they shall hang upon him all the glory of his Fathers house, diverse kinds of vessels, every little vessel, from the vessels of cups even to every instrument of music." (Isaiah 22:20-24) RC rhetoric to be sure; but, lacking any scriptural basis. There is no evidence from Scripture that the office of priest was to be continued into the NT. In fact, we are told that it was NOT to be. We find this little tidbit of contradiction of RC's dogmas in the Book of Hebrews. Here we are told in 7:27-28 that Jesus Christ is the last High Priest. The "law" made priests necessary; but Christ fulfilled this law thereby abolishing the office of priest which, of course, would include any office of pope.
Now, for this business of Isa 22:20-24. A most extraordinary and unscriptural interpretation since it violates other passages. RC is so obviously reading into these OT verses its new modern dogmas.
These verses have absolutely nothing to do with the RC clergy. I will agree it teaches a "type" but a type of Jesus Christ never some pope. Scripture(Isa 9:6,7; Jn 5:22,23) is clear the government of the "king's house" is given by the Father to Jesus Christ - not some pope. That's part of RC's problem - its extreme arrogance.
ONLY Jesus Christ has the "Key" - didn't you guys ever get as far as the Book of Revelation?
And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth;
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/17/2008 3:49:35 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3889
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TheCatholicCrusader
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zhi
quote:
Really? Did they write down that there should be a New Testament? No.
Well, they wrote the New Testament, so by extension, yes....
No. Paul and the rest NEVER thought their letters to certain communities would be considered sacred scripture equal to (or surpassing) their scriptures. The post-apostolic Church decided that. Where do you get this stuff from?....not from the Bible, that's for sure. Of course, the Apostles knew they were writing Holy Scripture. I guess you guys never got even as far as 2Peter 3:15,16. Allow me.
15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/17/2008 8:04:06 AM
|
|
|
Mannamuncher
Posts: 2921
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline
|
Here's what a pope says about himself
and other popes, and the consequences
of not strictly adhering to #1 RC leader.
And of course some non-RC "love"...
NOSTIS ET NOBISCUM
ON THE CHURCH IN THE PONTIFICAL STATES
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS IX
DECEMBER 8, 1849
To the Archbishops and Bishops of Italy
16. All who defend the faith should aim to implant deeply in your faithful people the virtues of piety, veneration, and respect for this supreme See of Peter. Let the faithful recall the fact that Peter, Prince of Apostles is alive here and rules in his successors,[10] and that his office does not fail even in an unworthy heir.[11] Let them recall that Christ the Lord placed the impregnable foundation of his Church on this See of Peter[12] and gave to Peter himself the keys of the kingdom of Heaven.[13] Christ then prayed that his faith would not fail, and commanded Peter to strengthen his brothers in the faith.[14]Consequently the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, holds a primacy over the whole world and is the true Vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church and father and teacher of all Christians.[15]
17. Indeed one simple way to keep men professing Catholic truth is to maintain their communion with and obedience to the Roman Pontiff. For it is impossible for a man ever to reject any portion of the Catholic faith without abandoning the authority of the Roman Church. In this authority, the unalterable teaching office of this faith lives on. It was set up by the divine Redeemer and, consequently, the tradition from the Apostles has always been preserved. So it has been a common characteristic both of the ancient heretics and of the more recent Protestants -- whose disunity in all their other tenets is so great -- to attack the authority of the Apostolic See. But never at any time were they able by any artifice or exertion to make this See tolerate even a single one of their errors. For this reason the enemies of God and human society at the present time are making every attempt to tear the Italian people from their allegiance to Us and to this Holy See. They think, no doubt, that then at last, they could have the good fortune of contaminating Italy itself with their impious teaching and the plague of their novel theories.
_____________________________
Effectus non excedit virtutem suae causae [the effect cannot exceed the power of its cause]
Grace may be free, but it may not be chosen...
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/17/2008 9:00:57 AM
|
|
|
texastweet
Posts: 376
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Calling something an "old canard" doesn't make it untrue. It's in the scripture, the fact that you don't like it doesn't make it any less valid.
*sigh* So many Catholics claiming that they don't despise scripture, then so many Catholics showing otherwise.
Zhi,
You missed the point--the canard is your use of the passage to support SS, which is a standard protestant misinterpritation of that passage. The passage in no way supports your point and yet it is a standard myth used by protestants unwilling to openly examine other points of view. Here is the full explanation: Bereans?
Otis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/17/2008 11:26:26 AM
|
|
|
Zhi
Posts: 1445
Joined: 7/31/2007
Status: online
|
quote:
You missed the point--the canard is your use of the passage to support SS, which is a standard protestant misinterpritation of that passage. The passage in no way supports your point and yet it is a standard myth used by protestants unwilling to openly examine other points of view. Here is the full explanation: Bereans?
Yes, I've read something much like that before. The issue is that naysayers there use Thessalonians to refute the "noble Bereans". The thing is, though, that Thessalonian believers also believed, based on comparison with the Scripture... but, like ALWAYS happens, some people do not accept, due to the hardness of their hearts, etc. In Thessalonica, these unbelievers got violent about it.
This in no way invalidates the idea that studying Scripture is a sound basis for our faith.
So, we take a look at the three pillars listed in the article, specifically, scripture, oral tradition, and the "seat of Moses".
I've already pointed out where Jesus condemns the oral tradition of the Pharisees. Why? Because oral tradition has the same issue as a game of telephone that has an agenda... they just kept adding stuff to it that they thought was a good idea, or that would give them more power, or that would make people fall in line. Much like the Catholic magisterium, which has continually added stuff to its tradition that the original Apostles never put in there.
The Seat of Moses is an interesting thing, really, especially in the context of this discussion, as the RCC claims it relates directly to the papacy (which is the topic here, really). So, I am going to point out a few things regarding the "Seat of Moses" versus the "Seat of Peter" (which the RCC have upgraded to a throne, heh).
First off, Jesus was not terribly impressed by the Seat of Moses. It was a physical seat in the Synagogue, and Jesus rebukes them for coveting it, as He says in Luke 18:11 "Woe to you Pharisees! For you love the front seats in the synagogues". The front seat in the synagogue was, literally, the "Seat of Moses". He further yells at them for their use of the "Seat of Moses" excuse to make up more rules for the people that God never intended.
I know you're going to bring up Matthew 23:2-3 up here, but most scholars agree that Jesus is being very sarcastic in that verse... after all, He has just roundly condemned the Pharisees. Also, watch carefully what Jesus says about how his Apostles (Peter is there, too, remember that) are supposed to act...
Matthew 23:1 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 "The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. 3 So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4 They tie up heavy loads and put them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them. 5 "Everything they do is done for men to see: They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long; 6 they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; 7 they love to be greeted in the marketplaces and to have men call them 'Rabbi.' 8 "But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. 9 And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10 Nor are you to be called 'teacher,' for you have one Teacher, the Christ. 11 The greatest among you will be your servant. 12 For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
You are all brothers. Not "Peter is your boss, so listen to him".
You only have one Father, your Father in heaven. Not "make yourself a Pope and call him Holy Father".
You have one Teacher, Christ. Not Peter.
Whoever exalts himself will be humbled. Shall that include a Bishop who got too big for his britches in 1054 and demanded the others bow to his superiority? Who made himself a throne and a fancy gold hat? Who, unlike Peter who told Cornelius not to bow, insists that all who come into his presence bow before him? Who goes around demanding that all Christendom bow before his authority?
I think it does.
< Message edited by Zhi -- 7/17/2008 11:57:19 AM >
_____________________________
The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The engineer says the glass is twice as large as it needs to be.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/17/2008 2:19:06 PM
|
|
|
texastweet
Posts: 376
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
This in no way invalidates the idea that studying Scripture is a sound basis for our faith
Agree, but it doesn't support SS as well since many read and still didn't listen to Paul.
quote:
I know you're going to bring up Matthew 23:2-3 up here, but most scholars agree that Jesus is being very sarcastic in that verse
Name one that isn't an apologist. Ok, its sarcastic; the sarcastic transltion would be: "..so you must dis-obey them and don't do everything they tell you. But do what they do, for they practice what they preach." OK, that makes sense. Think about it....
Otis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/17/2008 2:44:50 PM
|
|
|
Zhi
Posts: 1445
Joined: 7/31/2007
Status: online
|
quote:
Agree, but it doesn't support SS as well since many read and still didn't listen to Paul.
SS doesn't assume that everyone who reads the Bible is automatically going to get saved, just as you wouldn't assert that everyone who hears the magisterium or looks at the Pope is automatically going to get saved. It's not magic, it doesn't convert people against their will.
quote:
I know you're going to bring up Matthew 23:2-3 up here, but most scholars agree that Jesus is being very sarcastic in that verse
Name one that isn't an apologist. Ok, its sarcastic; the sarcastic transltion would be: "..so you must dis-obey them and don't do everything they tell you. But do what they do, for they practice what they preach." OK, that makes sense. Think about it....
No, basically Jesus is saying "well, since they've set themselves up to be the great and powerful INTERPRETERS of the Law by sitting in the Seat of Moses, then OBVIOUSLY since we follow the Law we have to do EVERYTHING they say, even though even THEY don't even practice it."
This is why Jesus goes on to yell at them about specific things they tell people to do that are a direct violation of the actual Law of God but that they think they can make people do since they're speaking from "The Seat of Moses". If Jesus were being entirely serious about listening to everything the Pharisees say from the Seat of Moses and doing it, then why on earth would He then start talking about things the Pharisees say from the Seat of Moses that are WRONG?
Surely Jesus wouldn't tell His disciples to do things that are wrong in the sight of God merely because the Pharisees said it from the Seat of Moses. The Seat of Moses doesn't trump what God Himself said. Neither does Peter's Upgraded Chair.
_____________________________
The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The engineer says the glass is twice as large as it needs to be.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/17/2008 3:59:48 PM
|
|
|
texastweet
Posts: 376
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
SS doesn't assume that everyone who reads the Bible is automatically going to get saved
Ok, well then to say reading scripture is good is someone we both agree upon, but using that passage as a SS foundation is shaky ground indeed.
quote:
"well, since they've set themselves up to be the great and powerful INTERPRETERS of the Law by sitting in the Seat of Moses
The implication that they set up their own seat is not correct. "The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat." There is no indication in the wording saying they created this seat out of thin air. Jesus does not condemn the fact that there is a seat of Moses, only that the Pharisees couldn't practice what they preached and in fact were supposed to teach from said seat.
quote:
This is why Jesus goes on to yell at them about specific things they tell people to do that are a direct violation of the actual Law of God
Read it again--the pharisees make laws for the people but they don't follow them and their individual actions/showmanships are condemned and not the fact that they made laws.
One of the popes titles is "servant of the servants of Christ"..does that count?
quote:
The Seat of Moses doesn't trump what God Himself said. Neither does Peter's Upgraded Chair.
To bad Peter didn't correct Jesus when He told Peter what he binds on earth is bound in heaven....not that Peter can "correct" God, but the NT system if you will is a better version of the OT system.
Otis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/17/2008 4:41:07 PM
|
|
|
Zhi
Posts: 1445
Joined: 7/31/2007
Status: online
|
quote:
Ok, well then to say reading scripture is good is someone we both agree upon, but using that passage as a SS foundation is shaky ground indeed.
Why?
Your assertion was that everyone who reads scripture must automatically believe. Given that you don't have the same expectations out of the magesterium or the Pope, that's a very unfair assertion, and has nothing to do with SS. So, we're back to the fact that the Bereans cross-referenced what Paul was telling them with the Scripture, and that for this they were noble. Why? Because they were open minded, BUT, they were also careful to check for false doctrine using Scripture. Others are open-minded but didn't cross-check, they're not called noble, so the reason the Bereans are noble was because they were a) receptive, but also b) careful to check against God's Word to make sure Paul wasn't a heretic.
quote:
The implication that they set up their own seat is not correct. "The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat." There is no indication in the wording saying they created this seat out of thin air. Jesus does not condemn the fact that there is a seat of Moses, only that the Pharisees couldn't practice what they preached and in fact were supposed to teach from said seat.
Jesus condemns their desire to sit in it. Luke 18:11 "Woe to you Pharisees! For you love the front seats in the synagogues". (The front seat in the synagogue is the "Seat of Moses".
Incidentally, every single synagogue has at least one "Seat of Moses". It is not occupied by any one person, it's occupied by whoever's teaching at the moment. So, you're going to need more chairs, if you want to match the "Moses Seat" tradition. And a lot more Popes.
quote:
Read it again--the pharisees make laws for the people but they don't follow them and their individual actions/showmanships are condemned and not the fact that they made laws.
No, the actual rules they make are condemned.
Matthew 15:4 For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.' 5 But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,' 6 he is not to 'honor his father' with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7 You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you: 8 "'These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. 9 They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.'"
quote:
One of the popes titles is "servant of the servants of Christ"..does that count?
Much better than the semi-heretical "Holy Father", but frankly I'll believe it's taken seriously when I see it. Fewer bowing and ring-kissing requirements would be a good start.
quote:
To bad Peter didn't correct Jesus when He told Peter what he binds on earth is bound in heaven....not that Peter can "correct" God, but the NT system if you will is a better version of the OT system.
The same binding and loosing power was given to all the Apostles in Matthew 18:18. So, again, Peter is not special.
_____________________________
The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The engineer says the glass is twice as large as it needs to be.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/17/2008 4:54:40 PM
|
|
|
TheCatholicCrusader
Posts: 203
Joined: 7/10/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ps103
MODERATOR'S NOTE :: ATTENTION PLEASE
Many posts; not much pope. Please keep this thread on the topic of the OP, which is "Why do we need a pope?"
Okay. The simple answer is that if Jesus established the office, We need it. It is not our place to question. Its like, I could say, why did Jesus have to be born and grow up before He set about His work? Why not just appear - "poof" - and get on with His business? Frankly, I have no idea why. But God does what He does for a reason.
So, we must establish what the pope is and that Jesus did establish the papacy (a word I hate, by the way. English does a real dis-service to that word.)
But, since I was speaking of early Christians earlier, let me go there:
Irenaeus:
"The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus" (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189]).
Tertullian:
"[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 32:2 [A.D. 200]).
Cyprian of Carthage:
"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. ... ’ [Matt. 16:18]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. . . . If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition [A.D. 251]).
"Cornelius was made bishop by the decision of God and of his Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the applause of the people then present, by the college of venerable priests and good men, at a time when no one had been made [bishop] before him—when the place of [Pope] Fabian, which is the place of Peter, the dignity of the sacerdotal chair, was vacant. Since it has been occupied both at the will of God and with the ratified consent of all of us, whoever now wishes to become bishop must do so outside. For he cannot have ecclesiastical rank who does not hold to the unity of the Church" (Letters 55:[52]):8 [A.D. 253]).
"With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (ibid., 59:14).
Eusebius of Caesarea:
"Paul testifies that Crescens was sent to Gaul [2 Tim. 4:10], but Linus, whom he mentions in the Second Epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21] as his companion at Rome, was Peter’s successor in the episcopate of the church there, as has already been shown. Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer and fellow-soldier [Phil. 4:3]" (Church History 3:4:9–10 [A.D. 312]).
Optatus:
"You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas [‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).
Epiphanius of Salamis:
"At Rome the first apostles and bishops were Peter and Paul, then Linus, then Cletus, then Clement, the contemporary of Peter and Paul" (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 27:6 [A.D. 375]).
Jerome:
"[Pope] Stephen . . . was the blessed Peter’s twenty-second successor in the See of Rome" (Against the Luciferians 23 [A.D. 383]).
"Clement, of whom the apostle Paul writing to the Philippians says ‘With Clement and others of my fellow-workers whose names are written in the book of life,’ the fourth bishop of Rome after Peter, if indeed the second was Linus and the third Anacletus, although most of the Latins think that Clement was second after the apostle" (Lives of Illustrious Men 15 [A.D. 396]).
"Since the East, shattered as it is by the long-standing feuds, subsisting between its peoples, is bit by bit tearing into shreds the seamless vest of the Lord . . . I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church [Rome] whose faith has been praised by Paul [Rom. 1:8]. I appeal for spiritual food to the church whence I have received the garb of Christ. . . . Evil children have squandered their patrimony; you alone keep your heritage intact" (Letters 15:1 [A.D. 396]).
"I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails" (ibid., 15:2).
"The church here is split into three parts, each eager to seize me for its own. . . . Meanwhile I keep crying, ‘He that is joined to the chair of Peter is accepted by me!’ . . . Therefore, I implore your blessedness [Pope Damasus I] . . . tell me by letter with whom it is that I should communicate in Syria" (ibid., 16:2).
Ambrose of Milan:
"[T]hey [the Novatian heretics] have not the succession of Peter, who hold not the chair of Peter, which they rend by wicked schism; and this, too, they do, wickedly denying that sins can be forgiven [by the sacrament of confession] even in the Church, whereas it was said to Peter: ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven’[Matt. 16:19]" (Penance 1:7:33 [A.D. 388]).
Augustine:
"If all men throughout the world were such as you most vainly accuse them of having been, what has the chair of the Roman church done to you, in which Peter sat, and in which Anastasius sits today?" (Against the Letters of Petilani 2:118 [A.D. 402]).
"If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church’ . . . [Matt. 16:18]. Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement, Clement by Anacletus, Anacletus by Evaristus . . . " (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).
Peter Chrysologus:
"We exhort you in every respect, honorable brother, to heed obediently what has been written by the most blessed pope of the city of Rome, for blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, provides the truth of faith to those who seek it. For we, by reason of our pursuit of peace and faith, cannot try cases on the faith without the consent of the bishop of Rome" (Letters 25:2 [A.D. 449]).
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/17/2008 6:35:25 PM
|
|
|
Zhi
Posts: 1445
Joined: 7/31/2007
Status: online
|
Well, we already discussed Ireneus being scripturally wrong about the founding of the Church at Rome. But, frankly, most of those just say "hey, the first Bishop of the Church of Rome was Peter", which, okay. *shrug*
Let's look at the list I suppose.
Ireneus: Scripturally incorrect on Paul, historically unlikely to be correct on Peter regarding who founded the church at Rome, regardless, "Peter was Bishop of Rome", yay. No primary authority claim made.
Tertullian: "Peter was Bishop of Rome", yay. No primary authority claim made.
Cyprian disagrees with the RCC concept of acceptance of baptism as long as it's done in the name of the Trinity, which he argued about with the bishop of Rome at the time (Stephen). Cyprian eventually told Stephen that his authority was coordinate with, not superior to, Cyprian's own authority, which resulted in Stephen semi-excommunicating him (he broke off all contact but as far as we know, never actually excommunicated him). So, basically Cyprian believed that unity with Rome was necessary for the church, but not that the Bishop of Rome had any de facto authority over himself as Bishop of Carthage. In fact, he wrote another letter to make sure that this was clear:
"It remains, that upon this same matter each of us should bring forward what we think, judging no man, nor rejecting any one from the right of communion, if he should think differently from us (a direct allusion to Stephen). For neither does any one of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. But let all of us wait for the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only one that has the power both of preferring us in the government of His Church, and of judging us in our conduct there" (Ante-Nicene Fathers (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1995), The Seventh Council of Carthage Under Cyprian, p. 565).
Eusebius: "Peter was Bishop of Rome", yay. No primary authority claim made.
Optatus: I see you left out his subsequent list of the Roman Bishops, which he, um, got wrong, which is not really a glowing example of his great knowledge of the proto-papacy. You're also avoiding the fact that he wrote all this primarily to convince people that they had to stay connected to Rome to be part of the Church, not that the Bishop of Rome had any de facto authority over everyone else.
Epiphanius: "Peter was Bishop of Rome", yay. No primary authority claim made.
Jerome: Most of that is "Peter was Bishop of Rome", yay. The gist of it is not that the Bishop of Rome has the highest authority, but that those intending to schism off from Rome and the rest of the churches were incorrect. Jerome was a big fan of the Bishop of Rome, and it's not surprising that his personal tendency is to side with anyone of similar mind.
Ambrose of Milan: Fighter of Arianism, pretty much founder of the Marian cult, not really surprising.
Augustine: "Peter was Bishop of Rome", yay. No primaray authority claim made.
Peter Chyrsologus: It's interesting that he says "presides in his own see". Not "presides over everything" or anything like that. Of course they couldn't try cases on the faith without the consent of the bishop of Rome, they were supposed to have a council of all the bishops, Rome included.
And, as previously noted, if the primacy of the bishop of Rome had been a known and accepted fact by the entire church, there would have been no east-west schism in 1054 over the fact that a lot of bishops did not accept the primacy of the bishop of Rome. They would have taken his changes to the Nicene creed as a given (since he would have had the authority) and submitted.
But, here's some other stuff.
"If priests, deacons, and inferior clerics, complain of a sentence of their own bishop, they shall, with the consent of their bishop, have recourse to the neighboring bishops, who shall settle the dispute. If they desire to make a further appeal it must only be to their primates or to African councils. But whosoever appeals to a court on the other side of the sea [Rome] may not again be received into communion by any one in Africa." (Hefele, History of the Councils, vol. ii. sect. 119. The African General Synod, the sixteenth at Carthage in 418, Canon 17 (125). p. 461.)
"The old custom in use in Egypt, in Lybia, and in Pentapolis, should continue to exist, that is, that the Bishop of Alexandria should have jurisdiction over all these [provinces] for there is a similar relation for the Bishop of Rome. The rights which they formerly possessed must also be preserved to the Churches of Antioch, and to the other eparchies [provinces]. This is thoroughly plain, that if any one has become a bishop without the approval of the metropolitan, the great Synod commands him not to remain a bishop. But when the election has been made by all with discrimination, and in a manner conformable to the rules of the Church, if two or three oppose from pure love of contradiction, it will be carried by the majority." (Council of Nicaea, Canon vi.)
In other words, every bishop has authority over his specific see.
_____________________________
The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The engineer says the glass is twice as large as it needs to be.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/17/2008 6:48:22 PM
|
|
|
TheCatholicCrusader
Posts: 203
Joined: 7/10/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zhi
Well, we already discussed Ireneus being scripturally wrong about the founding of the Church at Rome....
You did? Thats nice. So since you discussed it, that means you're right I take it.
At any rate, the papacy has nothing to do with the "founding" of the church in Rome. It has to do with the fact that Peter was the leader of the apostles, and that his successors continue the role. Rome Shmome: The pope could pack his grip and move to Florida if he wanted to and he would still be the successor of Peter, and the See of Miami would become the Holy See.
The only reason people make a big to-do about Rome is that some morons deny Peter was ever there. But he was, his successor Linus stayed their, and it became the tradition. (Except when the popes were in France for a while, but even then, they were still the pope.)
quote:
Augustine: "Peter was Bishop of Rome", yay. No primaray authority claim made.
The authority is Biblical. Thats okay. I see you just want to go round and round and round. I am not going to try to change your mind. You go with with your opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/17/2008 7:02:16 PM
|
|
|
Zhi
Posts: 1445
Joined: 7/31/2007
Status: online
|
quote:
You did? Thats nice. So since you discussed it, that means you're right I take it.
It means if you have anything new to bring up feel free, but let's not rehash old material.
quote:
At any rate, the papacy has nothing to do with the "founding" of the church in Rome. It has to do with the fact that Peter was the leader of the apostles, and that his successors continue the role. Rome Shmome: The pope could pack his grip and move to Florida if he wanted to and he would still be the successor of Peter, and the See of Miami would become the Holy See.
The only reason people make a big to-do about Rome is that some morons deny Peter was ever there. But he was, his successor Linus stayed their, and it became the tradition. (Except when the popes were in France for a while, but even then, they were still the pope.)
Well, for a while there there were 4 Popes. So how are you sure the correct one "won"? Considering that the winner was a matter of political machinations and so forth.
So now, you have stated that merely being the Bishop of the Church of Rome (which kind of requires being based in, well, Rome) is inconsequential, the real meat of the question is whether or not someone is Peter's successor. At this point, I must refer you back to the list of really horribly depraved Popes (turn basilicas into brothels, commit incest, buy the office, etc kind of depraved) and say, why on earth would you defile the memory of Peter by claiming those people are his successors? Not to mention the Popes who got excommunicated (often post-mortem) as heretics. Surely they weren't really Peter's successors...
_____________________________
The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The engineer says the glass is twice as large as it needs to be.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/17/2008 9:10:13 PM
|
|
|
TheCatholicCrusader
Posts: 203
Joined: 7/10/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zhi
It means if you have anything new to bring up feel free, but let's not rehash old material.
Oh, I'm sorry. Are you the Moderator here? If not, I think I will post whatever information I would like to.. ...with your permission.
If you have been over this before and still have it wrong, then I think it should be "re-hashed".
quote:
Well, for a while there there were 4 Popes
Never. Only in the minds of people who want to see it that way. Did you know there are anti-popes today? There is one man who claims to be the real pope and has a real church and a website and drsses just like the pope. There are more. Does that mean there is more than one pope today? No. It just means there are whack jobs out there who make false claims, just as there have always been.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/17/2008 10:18:58 PM
|
|
|
Zhi
Posts: 1445
Joined: 7/31/2007
Status: online
|
quote:
Oh, I'm sorry. Are you the Moderator here? If not, I think I will post whatever information I would like to.. ...with your permission.
If you have been over this before and still have it wrong, then I think it should be "re-hashed".
Nope, I'm just not partial to cut-pasting my own posts like you do *shrug* But if you really are incapable of going back a page or so, here you go.
Paul specifically says that he didn't found the Roman church in Romans 15:20 It has always been my ambition to preach the gospel where Christ was not known, so that I would not be building on someone else's foundation. 21 Rather, as it is written: "Those who were not told about him will see, and those who have not heard will understand." 22 This is why I have often been hindered from coming to you. 23 But now that there is no more place for me to work in these regions, and since I have been longing for many years to see you, 24 I plan to do so when I go to Spain. I hope to visit you while passing through and to have you assist me on my journey there, after I have enjoyed your company for a while.
Peter didn't make it to Rome until, at the earliest, 12 years after Christ's death, which is a rather long time for the Gospel to have made it to Rome, considering the number of Roman Jews at Pentecost.
quote:
Never. Only in the minds of people who want to see it that way. Did you know there are anti-popes today? There is one man who claims to be the real pope and has a real church and a website and drsses just like the pope. There are more. Does that mean there is more than one pope today? No. It just means there are whack jobs out there who make false claims, just as there have always been.
Hmm. Then how do you decide which one is the real one, as the majority of them were all selected as they were supposed to be (by vote of the Cardinals) during the 1378 - 1415 fiasco?
You also haven't answered the question about the heretic popes.
_____________________________
The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The engineer says the glass is twice as large as it needs to be.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/18/2008 12:04:19 AM
|
|
|
texastweet
Posts: 376
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
In other words, every bishop has authority over his specific see.
So Zhi, who is your bishop and what "see" does he cover?
So everytime you see the word Rome in any document it must be immediately followed by a vigorous defense of the papacy even thought that isn't what the letter or document is talking about? Of course Cyprian shouldn't really care about Stephen thought in the first place right and shouldn't be waisting all this effort over a fight he eventually ends up on the wrong side of. Unless of course it was known that any new ideas must eventually pass muster with Rome.
Otis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/18/2008 12:28:40 AM
|
|
|
Zhi
Posts: 1445
Joined: 7/31/2007
Status: online
|
I'm just addressing the claim that the given list of early church documents suggest the primacy of the bishop of Rome over the entire Christian church. I didn't choose the sources *shrug*
_____________________________
The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The engineer says the glass is twice as large as it needs to be.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/18/2008 12:42:27 PM
|
|
|
Ps103
Posts: 11691
Joined: 4/16/2005
From: Here, now
Status: offline
|
MODERATOR'S NOTE :: ATTENTION PLEASE
Take the personal squabbling to pms please--if you feel you must.
Just keep it of the board.
Please do not reply to this message within the Community.
Please email Community@salemwebnetwork.com with questions, comments, or concerns.
Please do not send me PMs regarding this message.
_____________________________
Fasten your seatbelts...it's going to be a bumpy night.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/18/2008 8:45:07 PM
|
|
|
TheCatholicCrusader
Posts: 203
Joined: 7/10/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
You also haven't answered the question about the heretic popes.
It is no secret that there have been a couple of popes prone to heresy. But, NO pope ever taught heresy "Ex Cathedra": The Holy Spirit won't allow it. To understand the particulars about Papal Infallibility, go here:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp
Remember: Peter denied Christ three times, cut of a guys ear, and was a general jackass. BUT: When he put pen to papyrus for his letters, God held him "infallible" while He did. Thus, God set the precedent that a man can be held infallible when God decides it is necessary to teach something to the flock.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/19/2008 2:10:24 AM
|
|
|
Zhi
Posts: 1445
Joined: 7/31/2007
Status: online
|
quote:
It is no secret that there have been a couple of popes prone to heresy. But, NO pope ever taught heresy "Ex Cathedra": The Holy Spirit won't allow it. To understand the particulars about Papal Infallibility, go here:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp
Mmm, that's probably why the Popes pretty much never invoke ex cathedra, which is an interesting sidestep of the issue. In fact, nobody really knows what exactly has been taught ex cathedra. There's no official list, so people pretty much have to guess which ones are and aren't, which is a superb fallback position... if a la | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
