Posted on 09/27/2014 11:05:41 AM PDT by Gamecock
The fundamentalist tradition is basically anti-intellectual. The very methods the early Church fathers used to select which books should be discarded and which ones included and who argued and prevailed against the early heresies were done by deep and painstaking historical inquiry, theological debates, oral tradition, and ritual, all guided by the Holy Spirit. The set of books in the Bible did not fall from the skies. The Petrine authority did not suddenly come to a screeching halt.
Thus if we you do not accept these same sources of theological inquiry (that illustrious Catholic scholars, saints and martyrs of every age as well as prominent Evangelical theologians who converted to Catholicism use to validate their beliefs) then maybe you just got to go find yourself your own Bible.
Wait a minute! Maybe you folks just did that. Freed from the constraints of Petrine authority it allows you the freewheeling license to do a David Koresh, Jim Jones or a Rev. Moon, Billy Graham, or just your very own. Get some followers and soon you can do what Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses have done.
Well actually, each of the 35, 000 sects by offering a different interpretation have indeed put out as many versions of the Bible. Some have gone out of business like the Dutch Reformed Church.
This is precisely the Biblical anarchy that follows a denial of Petrine authority. Very soon every street corner has it Foursquare Church, AME, First Chapel; First Calvary: First Baptist; First Methodist, Reformed this, Reformed that..etc etc with each of these self appointed pastors playing street theologians waving passage of “their” Bible interpretations to Opray Winfrey-type congregations like Joel Osteen and his “prosperity” gospel or Rick Warren and his circus-like born again (and again and again) baptisms.
This is the tomfoolery theology of street theologians not unlike Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
The Catholic Credo is for all times, in all places, across all continents, the one truth of Christ never changes studied by students of theology in universities across the world embracing into its fold such intellectual giants like John Henry Newman or even America’s foremost Lutheran scholar and author, the late Richard Newhaus or Francis J. Beckwith President of the Evangelical Theological Society with 2400 Protestant denominations with a Catholic calendar for all to observe on the dates for Christmas, Good Friday, Easter Sunday based on early historical research and religious tradition.
Likewise Catholics under that umbrella, but we can formally separate from the Ted Kennedy Catholics Rome counts and treats as members, while you cannot.
Jesus was no “itinerant preacher.”
He, as well as john the Baptist and all the original apostles, were indeed in the eyes of those who were the historical and stewards of Scripture as the magisterium over Israel sitting in the seat of Moses, - the very manner of position RCs invoke as the basis for requiring submission to her.
Or do you disagree (as i asked another) that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority.
And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that such is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus those who dissent from the latter are in some form of rebellion to God.
Jesus preached in the Temple with Divine authority. Hence the passage from Scripture:
He did indeed, as He established His Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, contrary to Rome, whose basis for veracity is the premise of her assured veracity. Thus Keating as quoted before, "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;
“And when he was come into the temple, there came to him, as he was teaching, the chief priests and ancients of the people, saying: By what authority dost thou these things? and who hath given thee this authority? “ Douay-Rheims Bible
Indeed, and which acted as Rome would when faced with what she sees as itinerant Preachers who reproved her by Scripture. But the Lord simply invoked the authority of another itinerant preacher!
Fundamentalists are basically anti-intellectual because they are unable to defend the whole of Scriptural text and interpretation by... the received oral tradition, ritual, practice, and Divine infallibility that empowered Peter
More haughtiness that further renders Rome to be like the Pharisee crowd:
The officers answered, Never man spake like this man. Then answered them the Pharisees, 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 7:46-49)
And in reality, tradition, history and Scripture only are and say what Rome says they are and say, regardless of evidence to the contrary.
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...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, “The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation,”
This power was absolute: “Whatsoever thou shall bind on earth…”
Which only indicts Rome as not having apostolic authority, as they will not and cannot even bind her own liberals unto supernatural judgment unto repentance, (1Cor. 50 while her "extreme unction" which is sppsd to be based upon Ja. 5 and promises healing, is most usually a precursor to death! deliver her which is main .
This is why Fundamentalists cannot explain how great theological minds have through studied debate and inquiry, assiduous research, and analysis conducted through the centuries confirmed the irrevocability of Petrine authority.
Now you are believing your own propaganda, and besides being contrary to how the church began, and the disagreement of "fathers" with Rome on some things, or lack of unity (even on Peter), you must exclude those from have engaged in assiduous research and analysis from being intellectual when they do not subscribe to the party line.
Pardon the length but the testimony of anti-intellectual RCs is that they will not read linked material that challanges ther faith, though this is only a part regarding Peter: .
• 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)
[Schatz goes on to express that he does not doubt Peter was martyred in Rome, and that Christians in the 2nd century were convinced that Vatican Hill had something to do with Peter's grave.]
"Nevertheless, concrete claims of a primacy over the whole church cannot be inferred from this conviction. 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." (page 3, top)
[Lacking such support for the modern concept of the primacy of the church of Rome with its papal jurisdiction, Schatz concludes that, “Therefore we must set aside from the outset any question such as 'was there a primacy in our sense of the word at that time?” Schatz. therefore goes on to seek support for that as a development.]
“We probably cannot say for certain that there was a bishop of Rome [in 95 AD]. It is likely that the Roman church was governed by a group of presbyters from whom there very quickly emerged a presider or ‘first among equals’ whose name was remembered and who was subsequently described as ‘bishop’ after the mid-second century.” (Schatz 4).
Schatz additionally states,
Cyprian regarded every bishop as the successor of Peter, holder of the keys to the kingdom of heaven and possessor of the power to bind and loose. For him, Peter embodied the original unity of the Church and the episcopal office, but in principle these were also present in every bishop. For Cyprian, responsibility for the whole Church and the solidarity of all bishops could also, if necessary, be turned against Rome." — Papal Primacy [Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1996], p. 20)
• Roman Catholic scholar William La Due (taught canon law at St. Francis Seminary and the Catholic University of America) on Cyprian:
....those who see in The Unity of the Catholic Church, in the light of his entire episcopal life, an articulation of the Roman primacy - as we have come to know it, or even as it has evolved especially from the latter fourth century on - are reading a meaning into Cyprian which is not there." (The Chair of Saint Peter: A History of the Papacy [Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1999], p. 39
• Catholic theologian and a Jesuit priest Francis Sullivan, in his work From Apostles to Bishops (New York: The Newman Press), examines possible mentions of “succession” from the first three centuries, and concludes from that study that,
“the episcopate [development of bishops] is a the fruit of a post New Testament development,” and cannot concur with those (interacting with Jones) who see little reason to doubt the notion that there was a single bishop in Rome through the middle of the second century:
Hence I stand with the majority of scholars who agree that one does not find evidence in the New Testament to support the theory that the apostles or their coworkers left [just] one person as “bishop” in charge of each local church...
As the reader will recall, 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...
Hence I cannot agree with Jones's judgment that there seems little reason to doubt the presence of a bishop in Rome already in the first century.
“...the evidence both from the New Testament and from such writings as I Clement, the Letter of Polycarp to the Philippians and The Shepherd of Hennas favors the view that initially the presbyters in each church, as a college, possessed all the powers needed for effective ministry. This would mean that the apostles handed on what was transmissible of their mandate as an undifferentiated whole, in which the powers that would eventually be seen as episcopal were not yet distinguished from the rest. Hence, the development of the episcopate would have meant the differentiation of ministerial powers that had previously existed in an undifferentiated state and the consequent reservation to the bishop of certain of the powers previously held collegially by the presbyters. — Francis Sullivan, in his work From Apostles to Bishops , pp. 221,222,224
The research of esteemed historian Peter Lampe* (Lutheran) also weighs against Rome:
The picture that finally emerges from Lampe’s analysis of surviving evidence is one he names ‘the fractionation of Roman Christianity’ (pp. 357–408). Not until the second half of the second century, under Anicetus, do we find compelling evidence for a monarchical episcopacy, and when it emerges, it is to manage relief shipments to dispersed Christians as well as social aid for the Roman poor (pp. 403–4). Before this period Roman Christians were ‘fractionated’ amongst dispersed house/tenement churches, each presided over by its own presbyter–bishop. This accounts for the evidence of social and theological diversity in second-century Roman Christianity, evidence of a degree of tolerance of theologically disparate groups without a single authority to regulate belief and practice, and the relatively late appearance of unambiguous representation of a single bishop over Rome. (Review of “Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries,” by Peter Lampe in Oxford’s Journal of Theological Studies, 2005)
(*Peter Lampe is a German Lutheran minister and theologian and Professor of New Testament Studies at the University of Heidelberg, whose work, “From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries,” was written in 1987 and translated to English in 2003. The Catholic historian Eamon Duffy (Irish Professor of the History of Christianity at the University of Cambridge, and former President of Magdalene College), said “all modern discussion of the issues must now start from the exhaustive and persuasive analysis by Peter Lampe” — Saints and Sinners,” “A History of the Popes,” Yale, 1997, 2001, pg. 421).
Alister Edgar McGrath, Northern Irish theologian, Anglican priest, intellectual historian, scientist, and Christian apologist, Andreas Idreos Professor in Science and Religion in the Faculty of Theology and Religion at the University of Oxford:
Although it is often suggested that the reformers had no place for tradition in their theological deliberations, this judgment is clearly incorrect. While the notion of tradition as an extra-scriptural source of revelation is excluded, the classic concept of tradition as a particular way of reading and interpreting scripture is retained. Scripture, tradition and the kerygma are regarded as essentially coinherent, and as being transmitted, propagated and safeguarded by the community of faith. There is thus a strongly communal dimension to the magisterial reformers' understanding of the interpretation of scripture, which is to be interpreted and proclaimed within an ecclesiological matrix. It must be stressed that the suggestion that the Reformation represented the triumph of individualism and the total rejection of tradition is a deliberate fiction propagated by the image-makers of the Enlightenment. —The Genesis of Doctrine: A Study in the Foundation of Doctrinal Criticism: James R. Payton, “Getting the Reformation Wrong: Correcting Some Misunderstandings”
Your reliance upon lettered intellectualism is selective, while contrary to how the church began and most its leadership. .
Sometimes I think people imagine the Apostles all had scrolls and ink with them every time Jesus spoke and that it was their copious notes that became the gospels. But we know that isn't how it worked. The Gospels were written decades after the events and were the writings of those who were eyewitnesses of what happened but who, through the leading and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, wrote the EXACT words God intended be preserved forever. So, Jesus probably DID speak to the multitudes in Aramaic or Hebrew - depending upon the audience. He may even have said some things in Greek from time to time. But, the point is that no matter what language Jesus SPOKE, what he said was written in Greek, copied, disseminated and preserved for us all.
That is why some Hebrew idioms might sound different in Greek or why a direct Aramaic phrase was written with the Greek for emphasis. It doesn't prove that we somehow lost the "originals" in a different language and we're "stuck" with Greek. Only that what we DO have is what God meant for us to have and it IS and REMAINS God's word.
...and here you are!
Credo in Deum Patrem omnipotentem;
Creatorem caeli et terrae.
Et in Jesum Christum,
Filium eius unicum, Dominum nostrum;
qui conceptus est
de Spiritu Sancto,
natus ex Maria virgine;
passus sub Pontio Pilato,
crucifixus, mortuus, et sepultus;
descendit ad inferos;
tertia die resurrexit a mortuis;
ascendit ad caelos;
sedet ad dexteram Dei Patris omnipotentis;
inde venturus est
iudicare vivos et mortuos.
Credo in Spiritum Sanctum;
sanctam ecclesiam catholicam;
sanctorum communionem;
remissionem peccatorum;
carnis resurrectionem;
vitam aeternam. Amen.
In English:
I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ,
his only Son, our Lord.
He was conceived
by the power of the Holy Spirit,
and born of the Virgin Mary,
He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
He descended into hell.
On the third day he rose again;
he ascended into heaven,
he is seated at the right hand of the Father,
he will come again
to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy Catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen
No. Israel
Thanks. Sums it all up. No need for Jeremiah Wrights, Billy Grahams, Jim Jones; Joel Osteens, Rick Warrens, Tammy Faye Bakers; or any of the other street preachers.
Can you please point me to which post (or posts) have established how the woman in Rev. 12 IS Mary?
Didn't you get the memo?
It's 50,000 now.
No; WAIT!!!
It's 80,000 now!!
You are SUCH a namedropper!
Specific?
I thought Catholicism was all about generalities...
Yes, i have been told that by RCs, while a prime thread from not long ago that illustrates the difference btwn Cath devotion to Christ versus Mary was one that was titled "The Surprising Origins of the Trinity Doctrine" that got 579 replies over a period of 5 months (most during one week), while a Cath. caucus thread "Catholic Caucus: Mary, The Power of Her Name [The Most Holy Name of the Blessed Virgin Mary]" received 406 in one day! And as you may know, caucus threads usually get about a dozen or less.
Look who has risen from the dead!
You are definitely consistent!
We’re halfway to as many as that last Mary thread!
You might recall that you and I had conversed a few weeks back about Billy Graham's reputation amongst various FR posters.
Check out posts 726, 882, 977, 1019, and 1081 on this thread, for posts that equate him together with Jeremiah Wright, Rev. Robert Schuller, David Koresh, Jim Jones, Joel Osteen, Rick Warren, Oprah Winfrey, "Reverend" Sun Yung Moon, Rev. Al Sharpton, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and Muslims.
Well I have my suspicions why...
It could be one of two reasons or both. First they could be completely in the dark on Scriptural orthodox evangelical preachers and teachers or second creating a fallacious straw man to provoke an angry or unmeasured response. Given the FR RF population I have to say it could be both.
I grew up in a VERY practicing Irish Catholic family. We did not have protestant neighbors, friends and maybe a few in school. We were acquainted with more Jews than Protestants. Billy Graham was known from TV and my parents and grand parents thought favorably of him because he preached a moral Christian life. We were taught good protestants would go to heaven like Catholics as they are baptized. But we were taught since and I quote “the protestants don’t believe in Mary they will not get the full reward as Catholics.”
Being of Irish background (my mom lived most of her youth in Ireland and grand uncles born there) the protestants were mostly seen from a political standpoint with regards to the over 700 year conflict of Catholics and Protestants shedding each other’s blood.
So given my background, I grew up with most relatives having issues mostly with the crown and not the protestant beliefs. Frankly I have wonderful respectful debates with Roman Catholics on other forums and when coming to FR thought I could expect the same. I was wrong. The Catholics here on FR are not the same kind, caring and understanding Catholics I grew up with and went to Catholic school with. I will mention one exception. That would be the poster af_vet_1981. We don’t agree on some matters but we engage as civil Christians and depart the field of debate “shaking hands.” It might be because we both were career military.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.