Posted on 10/21/2006 4:52:03 AM PDT by NYer
I hope you will give my previous posts some thought and respond to their entirety.
I'll be away from the computer for the rest of the day. I hope to read some thought provoking posts from you when I return.
Blessings,
Chris
Godliness can be perceived by observation, to those who know what godliness is, just as we can determine that a person is virtuous by observing their behavior. But [divine] inspiration can be assured only if the person's claims agree with the teachings of the Apostles and their ordained successors. If the allegedly 'inspired' person's teachings contradict the doctrine of the Church, then they are not of God. It is the Church (i.e. the Apostles and the bishops in Apostolic succession from them) that determine what is orthodoxy and what is heresy. The promise of the "charism of truth" is to the Apostles and their ordained successors, and to us only through them.
-A8
HEHEHEHE .. why did this make me laugh coming from you? *smile*
Good Morning everyone!
Simon Peter . . . after having been bishop of the church of Antioch and having preached to the Dispersion ---the believers in the circumcision, in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia --- pushed on to Rome in the second year of Claudius to overthrow Simon Magus, and held the sacerdotal chair there for twenty-five years until the last, that is the fourteenth year of Nero.
Does the Magisterium of the RCC stand by this statement or was Jerome mistaken, not just once but on many points?
BTW ---- You were the one who told me to read the "Fathers" and so I'm doing it. What you might not like is that I am reading the writings of the "Fathers" with the same critical mind that you are reading the Scriptures, right?
What do you think the Apostles did? (Acts 8:26-40) What do you think Christ did for the Apostles? (Luke 24:13-35) What do you think the teachers the Apostles appointed, the bishops, did for the church? (2 Tm 2:2) And why does Scripture say we are to obey those human authorities placed over the church by God? (Heb 13:17)
You are still working within the 'sola scriptura' mindset, as shown by your requesting scripural proof for every claim, and assuming to yourself the authority to interpret Scripture so as to contradict the teaching of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. If you study Church history, you will see that 'sola scriptura' is an historical novely invented 1500 years after Christ. The first thing to see is that 'sola scriptura' was not a part of the Church Christ founded. This alone shows that it is a heresy, one that is at the root of the fragmentation of Christ's body into 20,000+ sects over the last five hundred years. The Bible has its authority in virtue of the authority of those who wrote it, and the authority of those who determined its contents (i.e. the canon). Otherwise, why not make your own canon?? Put _Chicken Soup for the Soul_ in your own, personally customized and individualized 'Bible' if you wish. Since the Scriptures have their authority from the Magesterium, the authoritative *interpretation* of the Scriptures also belongs to the Magesterium. You seem to be trying to take the authority of the Scriptures while rejecting the authority of the Magesterium by which the Scripture receives its authority and its content (i.e. the canon). That is the sort of gnosticism that plucks Scripture out of thin air, ripping it out of its historical context, treating it as if it fell directly from heaven, ignoring its historical and ecclesiastical origins.
-A8
And why did you write this, if not to disparage me?
-A8
No.
Does the Magisterium of the RCC stand by this statement or was Jerome mistaken, not just once but on many points?
I don't know the answer to this question. As far as I know the precise length of Peter's bishopric in Rome is not a matter of Catholic doctrine or dogma.
You were the one who told me to read the "Fathers" and so I'm doing it.
Excellent.
What you might not like is that I am reading the writings of the "Fathers" with the same critical mind that you are reading the Scriptures, right?
That does not seem to be a charitable comment, for it assumes that I read the Scripture with a "critical" or skeptical mindset. And nothing could be further from the truth.
-A8
Babylon had been in ruins for 200 years at that point. It was a minor caravan stop, nothing more. The Chaldean (Iraqi) Christians today look to St. Thomas as their founder, not St. Peter.
There's abundant archaeological evidence that Peter died and was buried in Rome. When you find a 1st C. tomb with a bunch of Christian symbols scratched on it and "Peter is here" written in Greek, Occam's razor says that's probably Peter's tomb. And that's exactly what exists beneath the high altar of St. Peter's.
Indeed, God the Father has revealed Himself in several ways - in Jesus Christ first by whom for for whom all that is "is" (Col 1) - in the indwelling Spirit - in the Scriptures - and in the Creation (Psalms 19, Romans 1:20).
To take one piece of the fourth revelation and elevate it on par with the first revelation makes no sense to me.
We run into this phenomenon of assuming a greater knowledge domain from a smaller observer vantage point all the time on science threads where the correspondent insists that randomness exists and yet one cannot say that randomness exists in a system unless he knows what the system “is.”
My testimony is that God alone is Truth. Reality exists according to His will – His direct will or His permissive will. There is nothing else of which anything can be made but His will. He is the uncaused cause of "all that there is." (Genesis to Revelation)
In my epistemology, looking for Truth anywhere except in Him leads to error. Putting confidence in material things of any kind leads to error. Putting confidence in other men leads to error.
Thus my personal epistemology is as follows:
2. Theological knowledge, indirect revelation: I believe in a revelation experienced by another; i.e., Scripture is confirmed to me by the indwelling Spirit.
Caveat: Many Christians of good conscience are quite comfortable relying on the doctrines and traditions of faithful spiritual leaders, but I personally eschew the doctrines and traditions of all men (Mark 7:7) which includes all mortal interpretations of Scriptures, whether by the Pope, Calvin, Arminius, Billy Graham, Joseph Smith, or whomever. The mortal scribes (Paul, John, Peter, Daniel, Moses, Isaiah, David, etc.) do not fall in this category to me since the actual author is the Spirit Himself and He authenticates the Scriptures personally by His indwelling. Thus I make a hard distinction between the Living Word of God and mere musings — such as the geocentricity interpretations of the early church or any of my own similar musings.
3. Logical conclusion: I can prove the Pythagorean theorem is valid and true.
4. Evidence/Historical fact, uninterpreted: I have verifiable evidence Reagan was once President.
5. Sensory perception of something external to me: I see my dog is lying at my feet.
6. Personal memory: I recall I had breakfast this morning.
7. Prediction from scientific theory: I calculate there will be a partial solar eclipse this week.
8. Trust in a Mentor: I trust this particular person to always tell me the truth, therefore I know …
9. Internal emotional state: I feel I’m happy, or I have empathy, compassion or sympathy for you.
10. Evidence/Historical fact, interpreted: I conclude from the fossil evidence in the geologic record that …
11. Determined facts: I accept something as fact because of a consensus determination by others, positive (affirmation) or negative (veto); i.e., I trust that these fact finders collectively know what they are talking about.
12. Imaginings: I imagine how things ought to have been in the Schiavo case.
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. – John 16:13
In my view, the differences between us usually boil down to either (a) a believer’s epistemology or (b) his emphasis within the revealed words of God – whether the emphasis is on a particular apostle, a particular gift of the Spirit, election or free will, etc.
I confess that I relate much more to the apostle John than to any other apostle - and to the church of Philadelphia than to any other church in Rev 2-3.
Good question and it should be pursued. There is very little in the writings of the early church fathers regarding Peter being in Rome.
The real question is: "Why didn't Jerome and Eusebius check with Scriptures that they were supposed to be cannonizing. Perhaps instead of cannonizing, and retranslating it, they should have just read it and believed it, and thrown those myths from the apocryphal literature and debatable sources into the Tiber.
This is why it is fallacious to put the writings of the patriarchs on the same level as Scripture. They can't always be trusted ---- not so with Scripture. When they disagree, it is wise to go with Scripture. When they disagree, too often the Magisterium of the RCC have chosen to go with the patriarchal writings and misled themselves and others.
Since Jerome is and was one of the greatest Scripture scholars who ever lived, and you most certainly aren't, the hubris of this statement is just truly incredible.
It makes about as much sense as accusing Einstein of ignoring basic mechanics in formulating his theory of relativity.
But the question becomes, do they actually disagree with scripture. Remember that none of the Pauline epistles was "written for posterity," it was written to a specific group and there would be no reason to explain facts that they already knew to be true. And even a century or two later they would be known fact (if I wrote you a letter today about the Founding Fathers and the Declaration of Independence, you would know that I meant Adams, Franklin, Jefferson, etc.).
The notion that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James and Jude just sat down one day and decided to write the New Testament is wrong, we all know and agree on that. However, the theory of "sola scriptura" would necessitate just such an arrangement. They didn't sit down afterwards and make sure everything was in there, in fact John specifically states at the end of the Gospel that things were omitted.
The simple fact remains that tradition has ALWAYS had Peter in Rome, this was NEVER questioned for well over fifteen centuries. It became important when Protestants needed everything possible to discredit the Pope.
Imagine a die with 100,000 sides. You get one roll. Would you bet your life on landing on 56,433? And yet, you seem to be willing to bet your eternal life that you indeed have the Spirit and the truth, even though thousands upon thousands of other persons claim think that they too have the Spirit and the truth, and yet disagree with you.
-A8
Not true. There was a thriving Jewish community that there that never returned to Israel. They had the Babylonian Talmud, a Jewish school at Pembeditha, . . . I believe Philo and Josephus wrote of the substantial size of the Jewish community there.
Peter was the Apostle to the Jews and went where the Jews were in abundance --- Jerusalem, Asia Minor, Babylon. Meanwhile Jews had been ordered out of Rome by Emperor Claudius and Peter being a Jew and not a Roman citizen, would have been personna non grata there.
Let's be even clearer. Millions of people have been killed and many more probably will be killed by people who are doing nothing more than following the dictates of a "spirit" that visited Muhammad in a cave.
Then explain how Peter could be the Bishop of Rome from 42 to 67 AD and still appear before Herod in 44 AD according to those Acts of the Apostles that Jerome had in his hands at the time. Did he not trust Luke? Who did he consider more trustworthy: Luke or Eusebius or his own imagination?
-A8
As evidenced by the fact that they crucified him upside down.
This is an example of being an uncharitable interpreter. Luke does not use the term "44 AD". Nor does Luke say anything that requires us to think that Peter appeared before Herod in 44 AD. Peter's imprisonment under Herod (and release by the angel) is thought to have occurred in 42 AD.
-A8
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.