Posted on 02/12/2015 2:17:57 PM PST by NYer
>
Do you know how to answer a non Catholic Christian who challenges you about the Bible?
Knowing how everybody loves lists, here are ten things every Catholic should know about Sola Scriptura:
1. Sola Scriptura means “only Scripture”. It is the Protestant belief that the Bible is the only source for teaching on doctrine and morality.
2. Sola Scriptura was one of three “solos” the other two being Sola Fide (Faith Alone) and Sola Gratia (Grace Alone)
3. Sola Scriptura which means “Scripture Alone” cannot be found in the Bible. The closest proof text is 2 Timothy 3:16-17 “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” While this verse says Scripture is useful for these things it doesn’t say Scripture is the only source for “teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.”
4. While Protestants claim to follow Sola Scriptura, in practice they interpret the Bible according to their own denominational traditions. Presbyterians have the Bible plus Calvinism. Baptists have the Bible plus their theological opinions. Lutherans have the Bible plus the teaching of Luther etc.
5. Jesus commanded and prophesied that he would establish a church, but he nowhere commanded or prophesied that a book would be written recording his words and works. This is why Catholics say the Church came first. The Bible came second. Jesus passed his authority on through the apostles–not through a book.
6. How could sola Scriptura be the only way for people to know God when, for most of history, the majority of people could neither read nor have access to books?
7. Protestants blame Catholics for believing late, man made doctrines that the early church had never heard of, but Sola Scriptura had never been heard of before the sixteenth century. Not only can it not be proved from the Bible, but there is no trace of the doctrine of sola Scriptura anywhere in the writings of the early church. The entire edifice of Protestantism, however, is based on the foundation of sola Scriptura.
8. If the only source for teaching and moral instruction comes from the Bible how are we supposed to answer the questions that arise about things that were never heard of in Bible times? How can the Bible instruct us about important current problems like nuclear war, artificial contraception, in vitro fertilization, euthanasia, gender re-assignment or genetic modification, cloning or a whole range of other modern issues. Only a living and dynamic, Spirit filled authority can sift the facts and come up with the right teaching.
9. Sola Scriptura is linked with the idea of that the Bible is easy enough for any simple person to understand. While the basic teachings seem easy to understand it is clear that the Bible is an extremely complex document which requires the insights of theologians, Bible scholars and linguists to understand clearly. Why else would Protestant pastors be required to go to seminary before being qualified to be pastors?
10. Sola Scriptura has led to the thousands of divisions within Protestantism. Because they couldn’t agree, even from the beginning, the Protestant leaders began to split and form their own sects. How could sola Scriptura be the foundation for the church when it leads to such division? How could this division be part of Jesus command and prayer that there be “one flock and one shepherd”?
You should be able to see there why seemingly every translation renders the Greek into English as "religion."
And the Holy Spirit through James uses "religion" in a positive sense. Not "pathetic" as you phrased it. I'll go with the Holy Spirit on this one, thank you.
My original comment to NYer was in the context of her post about the eastern rite liturgy, which is "ritual worship." My use was wholly in accordance with your lexicon here.
And now V2 comes along and changes it?
How can truth change? If it changes, then it either wasn't truth before, or isn't truth now, or both.
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9): "The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium." Satis Cognitum (# 9): June 29, 1896:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_29061896_satis-cognitum_en.html
Pius 9, Quanto Conficiamur Moerore: “Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff..”
-http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quanto.htm
Pope Pius IX, Amantissimus: “There are other, almost countless, proofs drawn from the most trustworthy witnesses which clearly and openly testify with great faith, exactitude, respect and obedience that all who want to belong to the true and only Church of Christ must honor and obey this Apostolic See and Roman Pontiff." Pope Pius IX, Amantissimus (On The Care Of The Churches), Encyclical promulgated on April 8, 1862, # 3.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/P9AMANT2.HTM
Pope Pius IX (1846–1878), Encyclical Singulari Quidem March 17, 1856): “There is only one true, holy, Catholic Church, which is the Apostolic Roman Church. There is only one See founded on Peter by the word of the Lord, outside of which we cannot find either true faith or eternal salvation. He who does not have the Church for a mother cannot have God for a father, and whoever abandons the See of Peter on which the Church is established trusts falsely that he is in the Church. (On the Unity of the Catholic Church)
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9singul.htm
Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos: Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors. Did not the ancestors of those who are now entangled in the errors of Photius [the eastern “Orthodox” schismatics] and the reformers, obey the Bishop of Rome, the chief shepherd of souls?...Let none delude himself with obstinate wrangling. For life and salvation are here concerned...” Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, PTC:873) The Promotion of True Religious Unity), 11, Encyclical promulgated on January 6, 1928, #11;
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19280106_mortalium-animos_en.html
Pius XII, Humani Generis (27,28): "Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the Sources of Revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing.[6] Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation...These and like errors, it is clear, have crept in among certain of Our sons."
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html
Fourth Lateran Council (1215): "There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved."
Fifth Lateran Council: Moreover, since subjection to the Roman pontiff is necessary for salvation for all Christ's faithful, as we are taught by the testimony of both sacred scripture and the holy fathers, and as is declared by the constitution of pope Boniface VIII of happy memory, also our predecessor, which begins Unam sanctam, we therefore...renew and give our approval to that constitution... Fifth Lateran CouncilSession 11, 19 December 1516,
http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum18.htm
Pope Innocent III and Lateran Council IV: "One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved, in which the priest himself is the sacrifice, Jesus Christ, whose body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the species of bread and wine; the bread (changed) into His body by the divine power of transubstantiation, and the wine into the blood, so that to accomplish the mystery of unity we ourselves receive from His (nature) what He Himself received from ours." — Pope Innocent III and Lateran Council IV (A.D. 1215) [considered infallible by some]
Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema. — Vatican 1, Ses. 4, Cp. 1
The COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE under Pope John XXIII condemned the proposition of Wycliff that “It is not necessary for salvation to believe that the Roman church is supreme among the other churches.” [inasmuch as it would deny the primacy of the supreme pontiff over the other individual churches.] — Session 8—4 May 1415;
http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/CONSTANC.HTM
St. Thomas Aquinas: It is also shown that to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation. For Cyril says in his Thesaurus: “Therefore, brethren, if we imitate Christ so as to hear his voice remaining in the Church of Peter and so as not be puffed up by the wind of pride, lest perhaps because of our quarrelling the wily serpent drive us from paradise as once he did Eve.” And Maximus in the letter addressed to the Orientals [Greeks] says: “The Church united and established upon the rock of Peter’s confession we call according to the decree of the Savior the universal Church, wherein we must remain for the salvation of our souls and wherein loyal to his faith and confession we must obey him.” — St. Thomas Aquinas, Against the Errors of the Greeks, Pt. 2, ch. 36
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm#b38
St. Frances Xavier Cabrini: "Many Protestants have almost the same practices as we, only they do not submit to the Holy Father and attach themselves to the true Ark of Salvation. They do not want to become Catholics and unite themselves under the banner of truth wherein alone there is true salvation. Of what avail is it, children, if Protestants lead naturally pure, honest lives, yet lack the Holy Ghost? They may well say: 'We do no harm; we lead good lives'; but, if they do not enter the true fold of Christ, all their protestations are in vain." St. Frances Xavier Cabrini, "Travels", Chicago: 1944, pp. 84, 71.
St. Ambrose, "Expl. of Luke: "The Lord severed the Jewish people from His kingdom, and heretics and schismatics are also severed from the kingdom of God and from the Church. Our Lord makes it perfectly clear that every assembly of heretics and schismatics belongs not to God, but to the unclean spirit." — St. Ambrose, "Expl. of Luke", ch.7, 91-95; PL 15; SS, vol. II, p. 85, (quoted in The Apostolic Digest, by Michael Malone, Book 4: "The Book of Christians", Chapter 2: "Those Who Reject Christ's Church are Anti-Christian").http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Troy/6480/catholics/apostolic4chp2.html
Pope Boniface VIII, Bull Unam sanctam (1302): "We are compelled in virtue of our faith to believe and maintain that there is only one holy Catholic Church, and that one is apostolic. This we firmly believe and profess without qualification. Outside this Church there is no salvation and no remission of sins, the Spouse in the Canticle proclaiming: 'One is my dove, my perfect one. One is she of her mother, the chosen of her that bore her' (Canticle of Canticles 6:8); which represents the one mystical body whose head is Christ, of Christ indeed, as God. And in this, 'one Lord, one faith, one baptism' (Ephesians 4:5). Certainly Noah had one ark at the time of the flood, prefiguring one Church which perfect to one cubit having one ruler and guide, namely Noah, outside of which we read all living things were destroyed… We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff."
— Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam (Promulgated November 18, 1302) "If, therefore, the Greeks or others say that they are not committed to Peter and to his successors, they necessarily say that they are not of the sheep of Christ, since the Lord says that there is only one fold and one shepherd (Jn.10:16). Whoever, therefore, resists this authority, resists the command of God Himself. " http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/b8-unam.html
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam: “We declare, say, define, and pronounce [ex cathedra] that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” "If, therefore, the Greeks or others say that they are not committed to Peter and to his successors, they necessarily say that they are not of the sheep of Christ, since the Lord says that there is only one fold and one shepherd (Jn.10:16). Whoever, therefore, resists this authority, resists the command of God Himself. " — Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam (Promulgated November 18, 1302)
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/b8-unam.html
Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino (1441): "The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the "eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matthew 25:41), unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church."
Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence: "The sacrosanct Roman Church...firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that..not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life but will depart `into everlasting fire...unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that..no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”— Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence (Seventeenth Ecumenical Council), Cantate Domino, Bull promulgated on February 4, 1441 (Florentine style), [considered infallible by some]
So you're ok with progressive revelation?
The Pope can issue what he wishes to issue if he so decides. But the episcopate is a collegial institution and the Pope often will (and did in the two instances I referenced) work in union with the other bishops.
If the Holy Spirit is leading them, it had better be unanimous.
I'll bookmark this comment for later reference when you or someone else says that "Bible Christians" require no Magisterium because the Holy Spirit leads them. I trust you'll apply the same standard of unanimity then, right?
Iirc, there was unanimity on the doctrines themselves, just a few voices (John Henry Newman being one notable) who cautioned against issuing the formal definition at that particular point in time.
So how does this happen?
There are books and other resources out there if you're genuinely interested in knowing the times and circumstances that have led to the Church making formal definitions of doctrine. For some topics, the pithy 2-sentence answer you seem to expect isn't possible. So how does this happen?
Is the pope elected by unanimous vote or majority vote?
Maybe you'll get the point then.
Catholics try to disqualify SS because of lack of uniform or unanimous interpretation and yet when it comes to their own magisterium, they are willing to allow for non unanimity.
IOW, it doesn't HAVE to be unanimous. It's a double standard.
That's hypocrisy, plain and simple.
If Catholics and Catholicism allow for non unanimous decisions to be made by their magisterium and still consider it to be led by the Holy Spirit, then the same standards ought to be applied to EVERYONE.
Non-Catholics should not be bound by standards Catholics don't even apply to themselves.
In Post #380 I address the question of change. It's certainly a change of tone; I don't necessarily see it as a change of substance for the reasons given.
Though, tell me, if you do think there's been a change, which version do you prefer? Old or new? I get the sense with some they are disappointed they no longer get to exhibit the faux outrage at being "condemned" by the Catholic Church.
Revelation was certainly progressive from Adam onward: what Noah knew was less than what Moses knew, which was less than what the prophets knew, which was less than what the Apostles knew. At the death of the last surviving Apostle, General Revelation ended.
Now, understanding of what was revealed developed over time. All of what we now call the NT was written by the close of the century, but recognition of such as "Scripture" was by no means immediate, and the process of fixing the canon was not completed until about 380 C.E.
Similarly, the doctrine of the Trinity ("That in the unity the Godhead there are three distinct Persons, who are consubstantial, co-equal and co-eternal.") No NT writer comes close to explicitly articulating the Godhead as such, nor is such found explicitly in the earlier post-Apostolic writers. As Christological controversies arose in the 2nd to 5th centuries, the doctrine was developed and clarified.
But development of doctrine is distinct from progressive revelation.
You can accept whatever you want to accept. Your entire post and all those you quote is built on fallacy.
First of all, Appealing to the Aramaic language is expressing doubt about what the Holy Spirit chose as the words to use. NOT a good move. The Holy Spirit used the Greek language to record the intent of Jesus words and one can be assured He knew what that intent was.
Second, the words Petros and petra are NOT simply the masculine and feminine forms of the same idea. They are distinctly different in that one is a small rock as in one can move the other is an unmovable large rock as in a cliff. Putting a movable rock as the base of the "church" would be stupid rather than the unmovable and unwavering Rock which is God who says He knows of no other.
Third, it would be the ONLY reference to any man being referred to as the rock other than God compared to multiple verses referring to God being the Rock.
Fourth, the binding and loosing does NOT mean that the apostles were to make those determinations without regard to what had been bound and loosed in heaven. The Greek reads "will have been bound" and "will have been loosed". The word literally means "I am" as in already existed.
Fifth. what is this obsession Catholics have with thinking that just because some Protestant or even a group of Protestants believes something or says something it's going magically be something that makes us believe it? It's like lemmings!
It's not required to be unanimous (as even just one gadfly could hold the Church hostage indefinitely). I think it's something like a two-thirds majority.
Did you extract those quotes of a grab-bag of opinion (isolated from the contexts from which they were found) from the pages of that book yourself, or did you copy those from some RC apologetics page which had themselves extracted those portions?
You do realize that there was no sense in the earliest centuries of the Church, that Peter's own "primacy" as being first among Apostles, to whatever degree or extent, was first --- that Peter was earthly, visible head of the Church over and above all others, and second, that this primacy as it were, however it was seen to be, was an inheritable position available only to whomever it was that in later times became the bishop of the Churchat Rome?
It would be interesting to see what all of those whom were selectively quoted (in what you brought from the cherry-picking, Roman Catholic pom-pom waving book Jesus,Peter and the Keys) would have to say about the aspects of historical reality, prior to when Rome could not be dissuaded from the notion that it alone "held the keys" as it were.
Meanwhile, as for Patristic mentions of this same issue, there is the extensive (and extensively footnoted);
From there it can be seen that; seeing Peter, the man himself as "the rock" was not universal view among the early Church, and that when he was seen as the rock, much as Augustine put it, Rocky, from the Rock (which Rock is Christ) is not minus or apart from the revelation and the following confession, but still focused upon the confession also -=- according to Augustine, in the first paragraph sourced from that man, at the [immediately above] link.
There are a great many other patristic authors also, but among the earliest ones, there are non that I know of which equate Peter's own role in the early Church to be inheritable only by whomever happened to become bishop of (the city of) Rome, even as that bishop would be among those whom was representative of the wider, universal Church, whom in the first centuries, all bishops were seen as being successor to Peter, along with being successor to all of the rest of the Apostles, receiving among themselves all which had been established from Apostolic sources.
Webster also offers further commentary and discussion, including mentions of the book which you yourself quoted from. Though Webster does not address the writers, and those particular quotes from them which are in the note to which I here give reply, he does go into detail for many of the patristic authors, and also supplies extensive quotations from notable Roman Catholic historians (more noteworthy than the authors which you've brought and cited selected extract from) which support views differing from the usual RC apolgetic as to Petrine primacy equating with an unspoken Papal Supremacy belonging solely to 'Rome'.
From
TERTULLIAN (A.D. 155/160—240/250) Tertullian was born in Carthage in North Africa and practiced law before his conversion to Christianity ca. A.D. 193. As a Christian he was a prolific writer and has been called the ‘Father of Latin Christianity’. He was most likely a layman and his writings were widely read. He had a great influence upon the Church fathers of subsequent generations, especially Cyprian. He is the first of the Western fathers to comment on Matthew 16. In one of his writings Tertullian identifies the rock with the person of Peter on which the Church would be built: Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called the ‘rock on which the church should be built’ who also obtained ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ with the power of ‘loosing and binding in heaven and earth? (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), Volume III, Tertullian, Prescription Against Heretics 22).
Though Tertullian states that Peter is the rock he does not mean it in a pro–papal sense. We know this because of other comments he has made. But if we isolate this one passage it would be easy to read a pro–Roman interpretation into it. However, in other comments on Matthew 16:18–19, Tertullian explains what he means when he says that Peter is the rock on which the Church would be built: If, because the Lord has said to Peter, ‘Upon this rock I will build My Church,’ ‘to thee have I given the keys of the heavenly kingdom;’ or, ‘Whatsoever thou shalt have bound or loosed in earth, shall be bound or loosed in the heavens,’ you therefore presume that the power of binding and loosing has derived to you, that is, to every Church akin to Peter, what sort of man are you, subverting and wholly changing the manifest intention of the Lord, conferring (as that intention did) this (gift) personally upon Peter? ‘On thee,’ He says, ‘will I build My church;’ and, ‘I will give thee the keys’...and, ‘Whatsoever thou shalt have loosed or bound’...In (Peter) himself the Church was reared; that is, through (Peter) himself; (Peter) himself essayed the key; you see what key: ‘Men of Israel, let what I say sink into your ears: Jesus the Nazarene, a man destined by God for you,’ and so forth. (Peter) himself, therefore, was the first to unbar, in Christ’s baptism, the entrance to the heavenly kingdom, in which kingdom are ‘loosed’ the sins that were beforetime ‘bound;’ and those which have not been ‘loosed’ are ‘bound,’ in accordance with true salvation...(Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), Volume IV, Tertullian, On Modesty 21, p. 99).
When Tertullian says that Peter is the rock and the Church is built upon him he means that the Church is built through him as he preaches the gospel. This preaching is how Tertullian explains the meaning of the keys. They are the declarative authority for the offer of forgiveness of sins through the preaching of the gospel. If men respond to the message they are loosed from their sins. If they reject it they remain bound in their sins. In the words just preceding this quote Tertullian explicitly denies that this promise can apply to anyone but Peter and therefore he does not in any way see a Petrine primacy in this verse with successors in the bishops of Rome. The patristic scholar, Karlfried Froehlich, states that even though Tertullian teaches that Peter is the rock he does not mean this in the same sense as the Roman Catholic Church: ‘Tertullian regarded the Peter of Matthew 16:18–19 as the representative of the entire church or at least its ‘spiritual’ members.’ (Karlfried Froehlich, Saint Peter, Papal Primacy, and Exegetical Tradition, 1150-1300, pp. 13. Taken from The Religious Roles of the Papacy: Ideals and Realities, 1150-1300, ed. Christopher Ryan, Papers in Medieval Studies 8 (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1989)
It is a common practice of Roman Catholic apologists to omit part of the quotation given above by Tertullian in order to make it appear that he is a proponent of papal primacy. A prime example off this is found in a recently released Roman Catholic defense of the papacy entitled Jesus, Peter and the Keys. The authors give the following partial citation from Tertullian: I now inquire into your opinion, to see whence you usurp this right for the Church. Do you presume, because the Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven’ [Matt. 16:1819a] or ‘whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:19b] that the power of binding and loosing has thereby been handed on to you, that is, to every church akin to Peter? What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when he conferred this personally upon Peter? On you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed (Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren, David Hess, Jesus, Peter and the Keys (Santa Barbara: Queenship, 1996), pp. 216-217). When comparing this citation with the one given above it is clear that these authors have left out the last half of the quotation. The part of the quotation that is omitted defines what Tertullian means by the statement that Christ built his Church on Peter and invested him with authority. Again, what he means by these words is that Christ built his church on Peter by building it through him as he preached the gospel. This is a meaning that is clearly contrary to the Roman Catholic perspective. To omit this is to distort the teaching of Tertullian and to give the impression that he taught something he did not teach. So, though Tertullian states that Peter is the rock, he does not mean this in the same way the Roman Catholic Church does. Peter is the rock because he is the one given the privilege of being the first to open the kingdom of God to men. This is similar to the view expressed by Maximus of Tours when he says: ‘For he is called a rock because he was the first to lay the foundations of the faith among the nations' (Ancient Christian Writers (New York: Newman, 1989), The Sermons of St. Maximus of Turin, Sermon 77.1, p. 187). Not only do we see a clear denial of any belief in a papal primacy in Tertullian’s exegesis of Matthew 16, but such a denial is also seen from his practice. In his later years Tertullian separated himself from the Catholic Church to become a Montanist. He clearly did not hold to the view espoused by Vatican I that communion with the Bishop of Rome was the ultimate criterion of orthodoxy and of inclusiveness in the Church of God. There is much more at the links, far too much to present the entire offerings, but it does supply sufficient reply to the likes of the rah-rah-, go team go cheer-leading justifications for the office of papacy as that developed into being within Rome itself, clearly demonstrating that the whole mess is something of fraud that has been foisted upon the Church.
Webster demonstrates by comparisons, and delving into wider contexts for patristic fathers how the Romish cherry-picking in support for "papacy" goes -- flatly busting them, catching them in the act so to speak, including such presenters of the selectively cherry-picked assemblages of quotations in support of popish pablum as indulged in by Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren, and David Hess.
You may as well wipe any smirk off your face which you may have had when you wrote that, for the questions you pose, have already be asked and answered
Revelation was certainly progressive from Adam onward: what Noah knew was less than what Moses knew, which was less than what the prophets knew, which was less than what the Apostles knew. At the death of the last surviving Apostle, General Revelation ended.
On this I agree. At that point in the life of the church we had all we needed to know about salvation and how to be right with God through Christ.
Now, understanding of what was revealed developed over time. All of what we now call the NT was written by the close of the century, but recognition of such as "Scripture" was by no means immediate, and the process of fixing the canon was not completed until about 380 C.E.
Some might date the NT canon as being complete at 367, but for the most part we had a lot of the NT in place very early in the life of the church. Paul's writings were considered "canon" before the end of the 1st century. The four Gospels were also pretty much agreed upon by the end of the 1st century early 2nd century.
Similarly, the doctrine of the Trinity ("That in the unity the Godhead there are three distinct Persons, who are consubstantial, co-equal and co-eternal.") No NT writer comes close to explicitly articulating the Godhead as such, nor is such found explicitly in the earlier post-Apostolic writers. As Christological controversies arose in the 2nd to 5th centuries, the doctrine was developed and clarified.
An understanding of the Hebrew and Greek would have made this clear....In Genesis God said let Us.....who is the Us?
But development of doctrine is distinct from progressive revelation.
Ah, and there's the rub. Several key aspects of catholic "doctrine" have departed from Scripture. We've seen the numerous quotes from the ECFs on these topics and there is no universal agreement on the issues of the papacy, mary, and others....these two being the primary ones.
Not even the Catholic Church can supply proof of that.
>>Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy.<<
LOL ONCE mentioned amongst a group of others and not even the first mentioned. "Eubulus greeteth thee, and Pudens, and Linus, and Claudia, and all the brethren." The Catholic Church uses the excuse the Peter was often mention first when speaking of the apostles to supposedly show the Peter had primacy yet just picks a name mentioned only one time, third on a list and makes him the next pope. Not even any indication that Linus was even a deacon or anything else. What a joke.
>>Yes, ecclesiology in general and the Papacy in particular developed over the initial centuries.<<
You don't say! Made up as they made up the religion is more like it. History proves them wrong, their own church fathers show them to be wrong, and they no documented proof of what they claim and believe. It's all a bad hoax which way too many people have fallen for.
It's all made up CpnHook.
No, the Holy Spirit used θρησκεία. Men used "religion" which isn't even the primary meaning of the word. And did "religion" mean then what it does now? Or perhaps you think all people in the 1890s were homosexuals?
As soon as you can prove that all Christians are at the same stage of spiritual growth. Or perhaps you can show that any Protestant claims they are the only "church" and all must believe as they do and be subject to them. Can you show those things?
So your saying the apostles didn't teach it but the Catholic Church demands that people believe it?
I think those scholars have a better insight than some bush leaguer who shows up on the Internet claiming to know more. And, in their case, you can't accuse them of Catholic bias. Sorta really messes up your argument doesn't it?
Appealing to the Aramaic language is expressing doubt about what the Holy Spirit chose as the words to use. NOT a good move.
No, it's simply to recognize the obvious: that Jesus said Simon would be called "Cephas" and it's well-accepted by those who understand the languages of the day that the word derives from the Aramaic.
The Holy Spirit used the Greek language to record the intent of Jesus words and one can be assured He knew what that intent was.
One can be assured that the Holy Spirit knew. Just as one can have grave doubts YOU know what the Holy Spirit meant, because you're a bush-leaguer when it comes to the original languages..
What the Holy Spirit meant and what You think the HS meant are very much two different things. Or are you some infallible oracle that has the only direct line to the mind of God on this topic? You sure act like it.
They are distinctly different
Actually, not necessarily. "Petros" can mean rock. Thayer's Greek Lexicon confirms this:
See, right there. "Petros" (in Greek) means: "a stone, a rock, a ledge or a cliff."
So, yeah, even your Greek "small stone" versus "large rock" bit doesn't hold up well. "Petros" can mean "rock" as well.
Third, it would be the ONLY reference to any man being referred to as the rock other than God . .
Wrong. Abraham is referred to as "the rock" as well. Is. 51:1-2.
[W]what is this obsession Catholics have with thinking that just because some Protestant or even a group of Protestants believes something or says something it's going magically be something that makes us believe it?
If you read through their analyses, it's not just some small group. Several say "Peter is the rock" commands a wide acceptance among a host of Bible scholars.
You may not accept that, because you are determined not to accept it under any circumstance. But what these scholars do is refute any argument you make that "upon this rock" referring to Peter is just some twisted, Catholic thing. No, it's not, even if you resist accepting that view.
>>See, right there. "Petros" (in Greek) means: "a stone, a rock, a ledge or a cliff."<<
First off, I need to see the site you lifted that screen print off. It's not the Thayer's I can find.
Second, re-read all we have posted on the subject. Not one of us has said it doesn't mean rock. What we have said is that Petros is a MOVABLE rock. Petra is NOT movable rock.
>>If you read through their analyses, it's not just some small group. Several say "Peter is the rock" commands a wide acceptance among a host of Bible scholars.<<
Obviously you haven't been reading our posts on the subject. At least I hope that's the reason you post that comment.
I think you sense wrong.
It’s probably more wishful thinking on the part of the RC’s.
I don’t think there’s a born again believer on this forum who gives a rip about whether the Catholic church condemns them or not.
It's like Catholics. THey just can't wrap their minds about thinking for your self, and not group think. Being led by the Holy Spirit instead of being led by a group of men.
They think *Prots* are like them because that's all they've ever known.
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.