The New Testament: In Medio Ecclesiae

Catholic Faith ^ | Jan 2001 | Thomas Storck

[OLD REGGIE]

You can come up with all of the conspiracy theories you choose... The Greek text reads: Ὅπου ἂν φανῇ ὁ ἐπίσκοπος, ἐκεῖ τὸ πλῆθος ἔστω· ὥσπερ ὅπου ἂν ᾖ Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς ἐκεῖ ἡ καθολικὴ ἐκκλησία. Read it for yourself.

How in the world would you know? The "original" doesn't exist.

[OLD REGGIE]

I went back and checked in the Catholic Encyclopedia, and the statement from St. Ignatius is from one of the non-spurious Epistles (though a list of spurious ones is given, the Epistle to the Smyrnaeans is not one among them).

A more careful reading of the Catholic Encyclopedia might have suggested to you that none of the letters could be considered reliable.

"It contains the seven genuine and six spurious letters, but even the genuine epistles were greatly interpolated to lend weight to the personal views of its author. For this reason they are incapable of bearing witness to the original form...".

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“You can bluster all you want but there is no proof whatsoever the “originals” ever existed.”

There then is also no evidence whatsoever that the NT gospel “originals” ever existed either. All we have are copies of copies of copies.

“The copies which do exist, both the “long recension” and the “short recension” were made hundreds of years after the death of Ignatius.”

Again, much like the gospel books we have - at least as agreed on by most scholars.

“You have nothing going,except wishful thinking, for your claims.”

No, actually I have history, archeology and the Church to bolster the truth. You have the claims. We have Christianity in its fullness.

[adiaireton8]

The true church didn't go along with this.

So where was the "true church" for 1500 years? (Or did the gates of hell prevail against it?)

-A8

[adiaireton8]

You can bluster all you want but there is no proof whatsoever the "originals" ever existed. The copies which do exist, both the "long recension" and the "short recension" were made hundreds of years after the death of Ignatius.

You have just dimissed the entire Old Testament and almost all the New Testament.

-A8

[OLD REGGIE]

Nope. I saw St. Peter’s bones. They are underneath St. Peter’s basilica right where they were always claimed to be. Even the wall writings give credence to that. You might want to read Walsh’s book on the bones of St. Peter.

And you know you saw Peter's bones? How? What proof?

[OLD REGGIE]

How do you know how tall St. Peter was?

Well, if you add his second skull kept at the Church Of The Lateran, he was over 6' tall.

[OLD REGGIE]

Whine all you like, but what proof do you have that St. Peter is buried on the Mount of Olives as you claimed?

I agree Uncle Chip has no more proof as to the location of Peter's bones than you do. None!

[OLD REGGIE]

When did you get this crazy idea? We don't even think of the pope as a prophet. He is known as the successor of Peter, the vicar (which is best translated as "deputy.")of Christ. His role is that of Peter, but without Peter's personal charisma. In any case, he is but a man.

Tell it to him:

The Reunion of Christendom Encyclical Letter Præclara Gratulationis Publicæ of Pope Leo XIII

JUNE 20, 1894.

"But since We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty . . ."

[OLD REGGIE]

There then is also no evidence whatsoever that the NT gospel “originals” ever existed either. All we have are copies of copies of copies.

You have an Ecumenical Council which established the authenticity of the Bible. What Council ruled on the letters of Ignatius?

Again, much like the gospel books we have - at least as agreed on by most scholars.

Not true, but even if it were, what Council or Pope acting Ex Cathedra made this "infallible" judgement?

No, actually I have history, archeology and the Church to bolster the truth. You have the claims. We have Christianity in its fullness.

You do not have the Church. The "Church" has not acted upon the veracity of the letters.

You have wishful thinking and imagination, nothing else.

[Uncle Chip]

Whine all you like, but what proof do you have that St. Peter is buried on the Mount of Olives as you claimed?

Who's whining??? I'm enjoying this.

See if you can find a copy of a book called: Gli Scavi del Dominus Flevit printed in 1958 at the Tipografia del PP. Francescani, in Jerusalem. It was written by P.B. Bagatti and J.T. Milik, both Roman Catholic priests and archeologists, who discovered ossuaries in a burial cave under the grounds of their monastery there. One of those is inscribed with Simon Bar Jona's name on it and has bones in it of a man in his early 80's and over 6 feet tall dated to be around 70 AD. Roman Catholic priests wouldn't lie, would they???

[OLD REGGIE]

You have just dimissed the entire Old Testament and almost all the New Testament.

At the risk of being admonished by the Moderator, that is an absolutely stupid statement.

[Diego1618]

I agree with Uncle Chip that these discussions are great fun, and I always enjoy reading the comments from both of you.

It is difficult for me to understand the mystique of Catholicism and how some folks are drawn to it. The traditions, the superstitions and the lack of any Biblical basis of fact causes me to wonder.....what is their ulterior motive? These folks are not stupid! Surely they can see the deception of their theology.

I generally don’t get involved with them much any more because it is a futile effort....it’s fun...but futile. There is some reason they believe the way they do....and it is impossible for me to understand how anyone could believe that tripe. Any argument they wish to offer in defense of their beliefs can usually be shredded to bits with just a few scriptures and it’s almost boring to deal with them on this level.

Common ground is very elusive with these folks as scripture is twisted to justify their doctrine or simply ignored altogether in favor of tradition. Peter ever being in Rome is the silliest, inane idea ever emanating from their storehouse of false doctrine. But....when you build your organization on a foundation of Simon “Pater” Magus it is understandable why they twist it. Everyone knows he was there....and what he did while he was there.

[adiaireton8]

That is exactly the sort of circumstantial evidence James Cameron used to show that Jesus had a son.

-A8

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“And you know you saw Peter’s bones? How? What proof?”

Already mentioned in the thread.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“You have an Ecumenical Council which established the authenticity of the Bible. What Council ruled on the letters of Ignatius?”

Since you don’t believe in ecumenical councils (e.g. Trent) your question is pointless.

“Not true, but even if it were, what Council or Pope acting Ex Cathedra made this “infallible” judgement?”

Why would that even be necessary?

“You do not have the Church. The “Church” has not acted upon the veracity of the letters.”

We do have the Church. The Church doesn’t have to act upon the “veracity” of the letters and you wouldn’t believe it anyway. You don’t honor ecumenical councils.

“You have wishful thinking and imagination, nothing else.”

No, again, I have the Church, history and the archeology. You have nothing.

[Uncle Chip]

That is exactly the sort of circumstantial evidence James Cameron used to show that Jesus had a son.

And yet 100 times more "circumstantial" evidence than the Vatican has for its discredited Peter bones.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“Catholic priests wouldn’t lie, would they???”

Even if they told the truth it is meaningless since, as demonstrated with the infamous James ossuary box, there are many of these floating around, passed off as genuine, and even if genuine according to name they are not genuine according to name’s sake.

Also, if you knew about this old story you would know the following: 1) Fr. Bellarmino Bagatti first published a report of the supposed find in Liber Annuus III, (1953) pages 149-184. 2) Fr. Milik then took the report and published it at greater length five years later as Gli Scavi del Dominus Flevit. 3) In that book, Milik wrote that, “The reading proposed in Liber Annuus III, p. 162 (Hebrew text) remains possible, but other possibilities for it can equally be proposed...” 4) You might want to look here before you start posting things about an italian book written from an article, neither of which you’ve read: http://www.uhl.ac/blog/?cat=3

[Uncle Chip]

Even if they told the truth it is meaningless since, as demonstrated with the infamous James ossuary box, there are many of these floating around, passed off as genuine, and even if genuine according to name they are not genuine according to name’s sake.

These artifacts are under the control of the Israeli Antiquities Authority which is able to discern between genuine and fakes ---- something that the magisterium in the Vatican seems incapable of with all of its Peter bones floating around. And the Israelis know how to read Hebrew inscriptions on ossuaries quite well ---

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“These artifacts are under the control of the Israeli Antiquities Authority which is able to discern between genuine and fakes ——”

Maybe they do, maybe they don’t. You seem to be missing the point, however. The box may be genuine according to name, but not according to name’s sake. In other words, the box may really have belonged to a man named Simon Bar Jonah. That doesn’t mean it belonged to Simon Peter.

“... something that the magisterium in the Vatican seems incapable of with all of its Peter bones floating around.”

There are no “all of its Peter bones” floating around.

“And the Israelis know how to read Hebrew inscriptions on ossuaries quite well -—”

So do others. Also, you are staking your claim on the conclusions of a Catholic priest who knew Hebrew and not any Israeli. Did you forget that already?