Posted on 04/03/2013 3:43:07 PM PDT by NYer
“Call me when you actually advance arguments that you believe are authoritative and we can have a substantive discussion.”
How childish. Why should I put forward anything further when the entire basis of your argument is undone? If the Pope has no historical supremacy, then the argument you are here putting forward (that I ought to be in submission to SOMEbody as long as it isn’t GOD) is already refuted. You are therefore asking me to “submit” to someone I consider “authoritative,” even when the Roman Church has no “authority” according to its own Popes, whom you are in rebellion against!
But as to “who do I submit to,” I would liked to have had the opportunity to sit and learn from Ignatius, who died a Bishop appointed by one of the Apostles DIRECTLY. It would be something to hear from him what it is like to die a man, being eaten by lions. Much better than dying a Papist, who is eaten by his Pope.
“Nebuchadnezzer was the King of Babylon and not of Assyria”
The King of Babylon *was* the King of Assyria.
Again. You do not know your history. Score, Baruch 1, GPH 0.
Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Assyria.
“Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Assyria.”
Right, so how is he REIGNING from Nineveh? Stop spamming me with irrelevant comments and respond to the meat of my posts.
“If the Pope has no historical supremacy, then the argument you are here putting forward (that I ought to be in submission to SOMEbody as long as it isn’t GOD)”
Your argument is that the Church is divided equally between the Patriarchs of Rome, Antioch and Alexandria.
Ergo, we as Christians have a responsibility to submit ourselves to one of these three. Hence my question, “which one of these three are you in submission to?”
You turn around and say, no, I’m not in submission to any of these three - which refutes your argument right there.
You don’t believe that the Church is divided equally between the three. This whole line of inquiry is a smokescreen.
What you do believe is that you, and you alone is the primary authority and that nobody tells you what you should believe and why.
“I would liked to have had the opportunity to sit and learn from Ignatius, who died a Bishop appointed by one of the Apostles DIRECTLY. It would be something to hear from him what it is like to die a man, being eaten by lions. Much better than dying a Papist, who is eaten by his Pope.”
And you lie when you say this. You have no intention of submitting yourself to anyone. :)
As for the claims of the Catholic church, I’ll be happy to discuss this with you when you are in submission to one of the three that you have claimed that you believe are the true authority.
Because he conquered it and him reigning from Ninevah is a proclamation of his supremacy?
Then you have just nuked the church, which began in dissent from the very magisterium which sat in the seat of Moses, as they followed a holy anointed man in a hairy garment in the desert eating insects, but who preached a Scriptural message by the power of God, and reproved those so sat in magisterial authority, and claimed that God could raise up children to Abraham from stones (not the Rolling Stones).
And who pointed to another holy "renegade," an itinerant preacher from Galilee, whose authority the official magisterium rejected, (Mk. 11:28-33) and who was reproved by this Nazarene, but who established His claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the apostles and early church. (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 Scriptures He invoked in "the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms" were established as such without an assuredly infallible magisterium, but due to their Divine qualities and attestation, like as a true man of God is.
And by raising up men from without the magisterium (as important as that is) to reprove them truth was preserved, and thus the church itself began, but after the same manner it has been preserved. And at the time of the Reformation Rome certainly was worthy of reproof, and forced a separation due to her hard hearted impenitence.
“RC scholars did not see the canon as settled”
The issue of the canonicity of these books was settled by Pope Damasus and the publication of the Vulgate. Catejan confirms this to be the case.
“Thus it turns out that even the three earliest MSS or the LXX show considerable uncertainty”
Oh sure, they don’t have all the OT books. Neither do they have all the NT books either. What is significant is that they make no distinction between the two.
If, as you argue, there is a distinction made between these two sets of books, then we should see this distinction in the earliest manuscripts. We do not. Ergo, I can only conclude that there is no distinction made. At least not in the 3rd century.
Now, if your thesis were in fact correct, we would expect to see none of these books appear, and the precise list of Luther appear. We do not. Ergo, your assertion that the Catholic church added books to the canon is incorrect.
“Rome also invokes unanimous consent of the so-called church fathers when it was not unanimous”
Ohoho, you just stated that RC scholars said the issue was not settled. Now you are saying that, according to the Church, it was settled. Thank you. This is a significant admission.
“Luther’s dissent was by no means novel in scholarship.”
In rejecting the authority of the Magisterium (something Jerome did not do), it was novel.
“The latter is the issue, as you speak for yourself, while if the church had settled the canon as you suppose, then there would have been no debate among RC scholars even in Trent, regardless of your denial of it.”
Again, Catejan states the truth - that the Canon was set by Pope Damasus. Trent says the same and simply affirms that the Magisterium was in agreement. And had always been in agreement.
That some Catholic scholars like Luther were in dissent doesn’t change the truth. That Luther rejected the authority of the Magisterium doesn’t change that Luther
was in dissent.
I suggest you consult Hebrews 7, “You are a priest forever”.
“And by raising up men from without the magisterium”
That is not what Jesus did. Jesus rose up the 12 to serve as his Magisterium. :)
“Your argument is that the Church is divided equally between the Patriarchs of Rome, Antioch and Alexandria.”
Actually, my argument is that Gregory believed the western church was divided equally between the Bishops of Rome, Antioch and Alexandria. (I never said that was MY opinion.) I don’t believe it would be OK to consider Gregory as believing those THREE reigned over ALL the Bishops of the world with the quotes I supplied earlier.
It is enough, however, that it is not ONE reigning over the entire Church. And therefore, the Papacy is not something that always existed, but was an innovation.
Your argument that “Well, you still don’t AGREE with Gregory!!” is pure childishness. You don’t agree with Gregory either, but YOU are the one who claims an unbroken and eternal magisterium. Why do I have to agree with everything Gregory says when your entire premise of authority is undone by him? If the Roman Catholic church is true, then its traditions and history should be unbroken. Instead, we do not see this consistency, and you are, in fact, partaking of “anti-Christ” when you kneel to the Universal Bishop of Rome:
“In every age there have been those who considered the claims of a single bishop to supreme authority to be a sure identification of the corruption of the church, and perhaps even the work of the Antichrist. ~ Pope Gregory I (A.D. 590-604)
Now, do I believe that those three Bishops were in authority over the western church? I cannot tell you what all their doctrines were, (though even Gregory opposed Priestly forgiveness of sins) but the concept of the Primacy of Peter is also an innovation, as no such concept existed in any of the writings of Ignatius, Clement or Polycarp, who lived through the 1st century and into part of the second.
Who should I “submit” to? To Gregory who believed the innovation that Peter was First, and therefore the See of Peter had special authority over the Western Church beneath the feet of THREE Bishops? Or should I believe Ignatius, who argued that the head of the Bishop is God? Or should I believe the Apostles, who declared that the head of the Church is Christ?
If God is all sovereign over salvation, I would do better to follow Christ than any living sinner.
“Ergo, we as Christians have a responsibility to submit ourselves to one of these three.”
You’re free to do so. But since they’re all DEAD and their successors all in REBELLION, you’ll have to settle being a Protestant whose rule of faith is the scripture.
“This whole line of inquiry”
The whole basis of Papal authority is a SMOKESCREEN, I agree.
“Because he conquered it and him reigning from Ninevah is a proclamation of his supremacy?”
Because the Babylonians burned Nineveh down and because Nebuchadnezzer historically ruled from Babylon and not from any of his captured territories?
Go burn some fish guts! Maybe it’ll ward the Demons of History away from your Romish excuses.
“Actually, my argument is that Gregory believed the western church was divided equally between the Bishops of Rome, Antioch and Alexandria. (I never said that was MY opinion.) I don’t believe it would be OK to consider Gregory as believing those THREE reigned over ALL the Bishops of the world with the quotes I supplied earlier”
Thank you. Now that we’ve dispensed of that argument, we can move on.
“Papacy is not something that always existed, but was an innovation.”
If it was not always in existance, when was it created?
“but YOU are the one who claims an unbroken and eternal magisterium”
I never claimed any such thing. Not here on earth, no.
I claim that the Catholic church was founded by Jesus who gave his disciples the power to forgive sins and that he appointed Peter as the leader of the Apostles. I claim through Apostolic succession, that the Catholic church now headed by Pope Francis is an unbroken succession of bishops all the way back to St. Peter.
“you’ll have to settle being a Protestant whose rule of faith is the scripture.”
Does one submit to Das Kapital, or does one submit to Marx?
“Why do you kick against the goads?”
“we can move on.”
You can move on, right off the cliff with those spurious arguments of yours.
“If it was not always in existance, when was it created?”
Not before Gregory, that much is certain.
“I claim that the Catholic church was founded by Jesus who gave his disciples the power to forgive sins “
I like Jerome’s correction of this:
“The bishops and priests not understanding that passage, assume to themselves somewhat of the arrogance of the Pharisees, so far as to imagine that they may condemn the innocent or absolve the guilty, whereas with God, it is not the sentence of the priests, but the life of the guilty that is looked into. We read in Leviticus concerning the lepers, where they were commanded to show themselves to the priests, in order that if they had a leprosy, they might be made unclean by the priests : not that the priests made them lepers and unclean, but be cause they knew who were lepers and who were not, and could discover who were clean and who were unclean. In the same manner therefore as the priest there made a man clean or unclean, so here the bishop or priest either binds or loosens, not those who are innocent or guilty, but officially, when he has heard the nature of their sins, he knows who is to be bound and who is to be loosened. — On the 16th chap, of Mat. vol. 6.
“he appointed Peter as the leader of the Apostles. “
Nowhere does Peter claim to be the leader of the Apostles, nor is he treated as such.
For example, in Acts 15 it is James, not Peter, who presides over the council and makes the final judgment that the church embraces. It is Paul who confronts Peter “to his face,” when Peter was in error. And it is Peter who declares that all believers are rocks (stones) building up the house of Christ, with Christ as the Chief Cornerstone.
According to Romish theology, Peter should have presided over any council. Paul could not have confronted Peter as an equal. And lastly, only Peter, not the body as a whole, and not Christ, is the chief cornerstone.
And it is for that reason that Ignatius, Polycarp and Clement writing in the 1st and 2nd centuries mention no Papacy, and why several hundred years later, Gregory, in his worst heresy, is still no promoter of Roman Popery as we know it today.
What you believe or feel is irrelevant.
“Not before Gregory, that much is certain.”
So sayeth the prophet GPH?
“when he has heard the nature of their sins, he knows who is to be bound and who is to be loosened”
So you accept then that Priests can absolve sins. Thank you. I’m glad we are making progress!
“Nowhere does Peter claim to be the leader of the Apostles, nor is he treated as such.”
Yes, Jesus appoints Peter.
“And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.”
MT 16:18.
“Ignatius, Polycarp and Clement writing in the 1st and 2nd centuries mention no Papacy”
Do they mention a Bishop of Rome?
You wrote:
“It seems that your argument is that an assuredly inspired magisterium...”
No such thing nor does the Church claim any such thing. It is pathetic when anti-Catholics don’t even know what they’re arguing for or against.
“...is necessary to establish writings as Divinely inspired, and for that matter, to sanction men of God as having authority. Thus those without it are spurious.”
When you learn what the Magisterium is, get back to me.
“Let them publish the origins of their churches and unroll the catalogue of their bishops till now from the Apostles or from some bishop appointed by the Apostles, as the Smyrnaeans count from Polycarp and John, and the Romans from Clement and Peter; let heretics invent something to match this.”
Tertullian.
I’ll save you some time. ;)
“You can’t point to one source as the authority for the NT and then turn away for the OT.”
I don’t point to the Catholic church as a source of authority for either. In fact, I’m certain that I’ve disputed the authority of the Catholic church on the matter in this very thread.
If the Catholics have canonized the same NT books that the rest of Christians accept as authoritative by our own standards, then it is a happy coincidence, as far as I’m concerned. At least that is one less thing for us to disagree about.
“So you accept then that Priests can absolve sins. Thank you. I’m glad we are making progress!”
As usual, your lack of reading comprehension surfaces to annoy me. The Apostles could not absolve sins. That is something that belongs to God only. To say otherwise is to open us up to the just accusation of heresy:
Mar_2:7 Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?
The reference is to their binding and loosing, officially, as the Priests of the Old Testament did in making lepers either clean or unclean, but not that they gave them leprosy or cleansed their leprosy.
“Yes, Jesus appoints Peter.”
Tell that to James, who usurped his role in Acts 15, and Paul.
If neither of them understood it as Rome does, then the Roman view must be false.
Therefore, the rock, which is in the feminine form, must either be Peter’s confession. Or, the promise is that Peter would be the first to begin establishing the church, as he does in Acts, but not in the sense of his ruling the Church, for all Christians are called rocks of the church obedient to the Chief Cornerstone, which is Christ, not any particular man.
1Pe 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
“Do they mention a Bishop of Rome?”
Ignatius doesn’t, neither does Polycarp. In fact, Ignatius, when writing to Polycarp, calls the head of Polycarp God, and not the Pope or any Bishop of Rome. Not even in Ignatius’s letter to the church of Rome is the Bishop even mentioned. Clement mentions Peter, listing him among the other Apostles who died mightily for the faith. No primacy of the Bishop of Rome or of Peter are mentioned.
Then why do you use the exact list that the Catholic church formalized?
You ask that I submit to the Bible - but in the process you would have me submit to Catholicism.
“Catholics have canonized the same NT books that the rest of Christians accept as authoritative by our own standards”
Fine then. Why then do the Vulgates which predate Protestants have the exact same NT?
Kind of ironic to quote a man who your church declared a heretic on the subject of heresy :)
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.