Will the Pope's Pronouncement Set Ecumenism Back a Hundred Years? (Challenge to Apostolicity)

Progressive Theology ^ | July 07

[xzins]

Eudoia and Syntyche are women and they clearly are in Philippi.

“These women” can refer only to them.

_____(Silas?) should help them. Paul’s concern for them is because they labored with him in Philippi.

They contended with him ALONG WITH Clement

OR

Help them...ALONG WITH CLEMENT

Either way, Clement ends up being in Philippi.

In any case, it wouldn’t be unusual at all for a Roman to be present in Philippi and later return to Rome. It wasn’t unusual for a Roman to be in Jerusalem and later return to Rome. That was simply part of the way the empire was run.

In any case, though, Clement had great experience with Paul, so did Philippi, so did Corinth, and therefore, it was natural for Corinth to contact Clement.

[kawaii]

Hebrews basically SUGGESTS an Aaronic priest.

[blue-duncan]

Apostles were witness to the resurrected Lord. When the witnesses died, so did the office. There was nothing to pass down since the eye witness was personal and only given to those chosen by God. You had to be there.

Acts 10:39-42, “And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree: Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly; Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead. And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead.”

1 Cor. 15:4-8, “And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.”

[Petrosius]

Given what was said in Acts, I believe that Paul was speaking in an analogous sense referring to what he heard on the road to Damascus. But I will give away on the point. In any case, he did not witness the physical Resurrection since our Lord had already ascended into Heaven. All that being said, Paul was still truly an apostle, but so was Matthias by virtue of his ordination by Peter.

[Petrosius]

Apostles were witness to the resurrected Lord. When the witnesses died, so did the office. There was nothing to pass down since the eye witness was personal and only given to those chosen by God. You had to be there.

And yet Paul uses the same term, episkopos, for others that was used to describe the office of Matthias. Additionally, nowhere in the Bible does it say that their office ceases with the death of the first generation. This is purely your speculation based on a preconceive notion of the Church. I think that I will stay with the Bible, and the constant teaching of the Church, over your private opinion.

[Claud]

Well, not necessarily. Lots of people contended with Paul, and they weren’t necessarily in Philippi.

But anyway, this is a minor quibble. In looking at it more closely I’d be inclined to agree with you that the prima facie assumption would be that this Clement was in Philippi.

[P-Marlowe]

In any case, he did not witness the physical Resurrection since our Lord had already ascended into Heaven.

Then he was a liar. He said he saw the risen Lord.

1 Cor. 15:4-8, “And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.”

Do you need someone to diagram those sentences for you? Paul saw Christ in the same manner as the other Apostles. If he did not see the resurrected Christ, then he was a liar. There is no getting around it.

[blue-duncan]

“There is no indication anywhere in the Bible that a local church group could institute them of their own accord.”

Try the church at Antioch, Acts 13:1-3, “Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.”

[blue-duncan]

“And yet Paul uses the same term, episkopos, for others that was used to describe the office of Matthias.”

Right, and since Matthias was a second generation “apostle” where does it say they laid hands on him? And by the way, it was the 120 plus, that chose Matthias, since Peter is talking to all that were in the house.

[Petrosius]

Do you need someone to diagram those sentences for you? Paul saw Christ in the same manner as the other Apostles. If he did not see the resurrected Christ, then he was a liar. There is no getting around it.

Do you need a definition for "analogous"? Reread Acts and show me where it says our Lord appeared in his resurrected body. Perhaps Jesus appeared to him a second time, which I admit is possible, but he does not mention it.

But how does any of this take away from the Biblical offices of episkopos, presbuteros, and diakonos that are attested to by Paul?

[Andrew Byler]

Which brings up the Incarnation. Which is more important, the theology of Apostolic Succession or the theology of the Incarnation? The non Chalcedonian churches do not have the theology of the Incarnation the same as the Chalacedonian churches do

Both the EOC and the RCC have signed statements with all the non-Chalcedonians over these matters which proclaim they share the same faith regarding the Incarnation, and that past misunderstandings 1300-1600 years ago are no longer relevant to the situation today. The Copts, Armenians, and Syrians are not held to be followers of Eutyches, the Assyrians are not held to be followers of Nestorius. Communicatio in sacris exists among the faithful in these Churches, even if it does not yet extend to the heirarchy.

However, this merely reinforces the point that the visible divisions in the Church are the result of disagreements among the Bishops, and not at the level of the faithful, who make up the Church through profession of the same faith, reception of the same sacraments, and obedience to their immediate legitimate pastors and heirarchs.

I can't emphasize enough that the disobedience or schism or heresy of a Bishop need not have any effect at all on his flock if they simply follow the traditions they have received from those who went before them - "ut quod apostoli docuerunt, et ipsa servavit antiquitas nos quoque custodiamus" - "what the Apostles taught and what antiquity itself observed, let us also endeavour to keep" - in other words: "following the saintly fathers".

Also, the Malabar Christians didn't have the best of luck with the Portuguese Jesuits at times. They were accused of being Nestorians, and many of their books were burned. Some have not united with the Roman Catholics to this day as a result.

Rather, because of Portuguese missteps and heavyhandedness, some Malabar Christians broke off with the RCC and have not returned. The vast majority though, are in the RCC despite these problems. The Portuguese allowed colonialism and Euro/Roman-liturgical/theological-centrism to stand in the way of communion. They also caused the same problems in Ethiopia. This says more about the Colonial era Portuguese then it does about the Ethiopians or Malabarese.

[P-Marlowe]

But how does any of this take away from the Biblical offices of episkopos, presbuteros, and diakonos that are attested to by Paul?

Are you denying that Paul was the last one to see the resurrected Lord? Are you saying that he could see the Lord, but not the "resurrected Lord"? Are there two Lords?

Give it up Pet. Paul was a witness to the resurrection. The context of 1 Cor 15 leaves no other conclusion.

Either Paul saw the risen Lord or Paul is not and never was an apostle. If he did not see the risen resurrected Lord, then he was an imposter.

"For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty." (2 Peter 1:16 KJV)

Was Paul one of the "we"?

[Petrosius]

Either Paul saw the risen Lord or Paul is not and never was an apostle. If he did not see the risen resurrected Lord, then he was an imposter.

This is your definition of an apostle, not the Bible's. But I see that you are continuing to dance around the question of the nature of the Biblical offices of episkopos, presbuteros and diaconos. I guess this is only natural since your church cannot claim to posses them.

[DragoonEnNoir]

Yes, there is much to be said about the older version. I feel that way about the older Anglican Book of Common Prayer as well... much more evocative than modern usage.

Yours (Creed) has communion of saints can you clarify the meaning of that?

I've used the Nicene, and other slight variations on the Apostles Creed as well. I will read and consider the words carefully before I will recite them though. The 'saints' are those sanctified by the Holy Spirit. Those who have/will run the race to the end, bearing good fruit. The 'mature' in the faith if you will.

Might I suggest that instead of assuming what 'Protestants/Baptists' believe, you ask. You may be surprised by the answer(s).

[DragoonEnNoir]

Yes, there is much to be said about the older version. I feel that way about the older Anglican Book of Common Prayer as well... much more evocative than modern usage.

Yours (Creed) has communion of saints can you clarify the meaning of that?

I've used the Nicene, and other slight variations on the Apostles Creed as well. I will read and consider the words carefully before I will recite them though. The 'saints' are those sanctified by the Holy Spirit. Those who have/will run the race to the end, bearing good fruit. The 'mature' in the faith if you will.

Might I suggest that instead of assuming what 'Protestants/Baptists' believe, you ask. You may be surprised by the answer(s).

[xzins]

From the online Catholic Encyclopedia about Clement: Origen identifies Pope Clement with St. Paul's fellow-labourer, Phil., iv, 3, and 80 do Eusebius, Epiphanius, and Jerome -- but this Clement was probably a Philippian. In the middle of the nineteenth century it was the custom to identity the pope with the consul of 95, T. Flavius Clemens, who was martyred by his first cousin, the Emperor Domitian, at the end of his consulship. But the ancients never suggest this, and the pope is said to have lived on till the reign of Trajan. It is unlikely that he was a member of the imperial family. The continual use of the Old Testament in his Epistle has suggested to Lightfoot, Funk, Nestle, and others that he was of Jewish origin. Probably he was a freedman or son of a freedman of the emperor's household, which included thousands or tens of thousands. We know that there were Christians in the household of Nero (Phil., iv, 22). It is highly probable that the bearers of Clement's letter, Claudius Ephebus and Valerius Vito, were of this number, for the names Claudius and Valerius occur with great frequency in inscriptions among the freedmen of the Emperor Claudius (and his two predecessors of the same gens) and his wife Valeria Messalina. The two messengers are described as "faithful and prudent men, who have walked among us from youth unto old age unblameably", thus they were probably already Christians and living in Rome before the death of the Apostles about thirty years earlier. The Prefect of Rome during Nero's persecution was Titus Flavius Sabinus, elder brother of the Emperor Vespasian, and father of the martyred Clemens. Flavia Domitilla, wife of the Martyr, was a granddaughter of Vespasian, and niece of Titus and Domitian; she may have died a martyr to the rigours of her banishment The catacomb of Domitilla is shown by existing inscriptions to have been founded by her. Whether she is distinct from another Flavia Domitilla, who is styled "Virgin and Martyr", is uncertain. (See FLAVIA DOMITILLA and NEREUS AND ACHILLEUS) The consul and his wife had two sons Vespasian and Domitian, who had Quintilian for their tutor. Of their life nothing is known. The elder brother of the martyr Clemens was T. Flavius Sabinus, consul in 82, put to death by Domitian, whose sister he had married. Pope Clement is rep resented as his son in the Acts of Sts. Nereus and Achilleus, but this would make him too young to have known the Apostles.

[P-Marlowe]

This is your definition of an apostle, not the Bible's. But I see that you are continuing to dance around the question of the nature of the Biblical offices of episkopos, presbuteros and diaconos. I guess this is only natural since your church cannot claim to posses them.

The Mormons have apostles.

Who are your 12 apostles?

[P-Marlowe]

Mat 6:5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

[Alamo-Girl]

The Fuss, P-Marlowe, is that Christ says narrow is the road and Protestants insist it is as wide as it can get. Nothing is true except the "inner leading" of the Holy Spirit. With dear sisters like Alamo-Girl, you could be sactrificing babies in some Mayan ritual and claim "inner leanings of the Holy Spirit." That's what adiaireton8 had in mind when he asked her does infanticide qualify as bring led by the Spirit?

As I have testified many times already on this thread – man believes but God knows. It is not whether a man believes he is led by the Spirit but whether he actually is.

The very notion that the good tree could produce bad fruit flies in the face of Christ’s testimony in Matthew 7 that we will know the false prophet by his fruits.

Moreover, one must be very careful never to characterize the Person or works of the Holy Spirit as evil - or attribute evil deeds to His leading:

Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy [against] the [Holy] Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the [world] to come. – Matt 12:31-32

Those of us who are led by the Holy Spirit recognize our brothers and sisters in Christ. Indeed, we are dead to this world but alive with Christ in God (Col 3:3, Gal 2:20-21):

Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world. They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them. We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error. - I John 4:4-6

Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, [even] the hidden [wisdom], which God ordained before the world unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known [it], they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

But God hath revealed [them] unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ. II Cor 2:6-16

You have truly said that the road is narrow. Man cannot come to God of his own will or effort – and once he has heard the Master’s call, he must be diligent to follow Him:

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. - John 1:12-13

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me - John 10:27

Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide [is] the gate, and broad [is] the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait [is] the gate, and narrow [is] the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. – Matt 7:13-14

I assert here that the reason so many miss that narrow road is that they are not following the Shepherd but rather some other sheep or their own reasoning.

There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof [are] the ways of death. – Proverbs 14:12

Follow Him.