Skip to comments.Let the Bible be “entrusted” to the faithful
Posted on 04/12/2013 5:10:48 PM PDT by markomalley
click here to read article
This is true and worse. Which results in more disagreements among RCs.
Then you must reject the Apocrypha.
Thanks for posting this. I subscribe but had not seen the latest.
Yes, and worse in England. They had much to unlearn from Rome and the worldly means she conformed to. A recent RC here even affirmed the use of torture and death against theological dissenters. But left the thread after being challenged on it.
Moreover, the texts that are invoked in trying to support this tradition apply to more than the apostles.
Few remember the Salem witch trials were called to a halt, not by the govt, but by the Church.
“Basic Bible Interpretation...”
...results in absolute accuracy when it comes from the Holy Spirit. And you are correct...it has nothing to do with ‘Tradition’.
That all said, there may be many applications of Scripture, the written Word of God, but there is only one ‘interpretation’...That one interpretation does not come from any man, nor from any group of men, nor from ‘tradition’, but from God, via His Holy Spirit, speaking to us.
Klaus Schatz [Jesuit Father theologian, professor of church history at the St. Georges Philosophical and Theological School in Frankfurt] on Priesthood, Canon, and the Development of Doctrine in his work, Papal Primacy:
. if we ask in addition whether the primitive church was aware, after Peters death, that his authority had passed to the next bishop of Rome, or in other words that the head of the community at Rome was now the successor of Peter, the Churchs rock and hence the subject of the promise in Matthew 16:18-19, the question, put in those terms, must certainly be given a negative answer.
"If one had asked a Christian in the year 100, 200, or even 300 whether the bishop of Rome was the head of all Christians, or whether there was a supreme bishop over all the other bishops and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church, he or she would certainly have said no." (pages 1-3)
Before the second half of the second century there was in Rome no monarchical episcopacy for the circles mutually bound in fellowship. Peter Lampe's extensive work, "From Paul to Valentinus," chapter 41, pages 397
Self-consciously, the popes began to model their actions and their style as Christian leaders on the procedures of the Roman state. Eamon Duffy notes (Saints and Sinners, ©2001 edition)
The New Testament contains no explicit record of a transmission of Peter's leadership; nor is the transmission of apostolic authority in general very clear. Furthermore, the Petrine texts were subjected to differing interpretations as early as the time of the Church Fathers. - http://www.prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/arcic/doc/e_arcic_authority2.html
The late Catholic priest and major Biblical scholar Raymond Brown (twice appointed to Pontifical Biblical Commission) states,
The claims of various sees to descend from particular members of the Twelve are highly dubious. It is interesting that the most serious of these is the claim of the bishops of Rome to descend from Peter, the one member of the Twelve who was almost a missionary apostle in the Pauline sense a confirmation of our contention that whatever succession there was from apostleship to episcopate, it was primarily in reference to the Puauline tyupe of apostleship, not that of the Twelve. (Priest and Bishop, Biblical Reflections, Nihil Obstat, Imprimatur, 1970, pg 72.)
The Catholic historian Paul Johnson (educated at the Jesuit independent school Stonyhurst College, and at Magdalen College, Oxford, author of over 40 books and a conservative popular historian,) writes in his 1976 work, History of Christianity :
Eusebius presents the lists as evidence that orthodoxy had a continuous tradition from the earliest times in all the great Episcopal sees and that all the heretical movements were subsequent aberrations from the mainline of Christianity.
Looking behind the lists, however, a different picture emerges. In Edessa, on the edge of the Syrian desert, the proofs of the early establishment of Christianity were forgeries, almost certainly manufactured under Bishop Kune, the first orthodox Bishop.
In Egypt, Orthodoxy was not established until the time of Bishop Demetrius, 189-231, who set up a number of other sees and manufactured a genealogical tree for his own bishopric of Alexandria, which traces the foundation through ten mythical predecessors back to Mark, and so to Peter and Jesus.
Even in Antioch, where both Peter and Paul had been active, there seems to have been confusion until the end of the second century. Antioch completely lost their list; When Eusebiuss chief source for his Episcopal lists, Julius Africanus, tried to compile one for Antioch, he found only six names to cover the same period of time as twelve in Rome and ten in Alexandria. http://reformation500.wordpress.com/2010/01/14/historical-literature-on-the-earliest-papacy/
Eusebius, while invaluable, also only sincerely believed and recorded as fact (Church History I.13) the Legend of Abgar, a story of a correspondence between the Lord and the local potentate at Edessa. Relative to this, Lightfoot writes of him, A far more serious drawback to his value as a historian is the loose and uncritical spirit in which he sometimes deals with his materials. This shows itself in diverse ways. He is not always to be trusted in his discrimination of genuine and spurious documents.
Roger Collins ((M.A., D. Litt., F.R.Hist.S., F.S.A. Scot., English medievalist at Edinburgh), writing of the Symmachan forgeries, describes these pro-Roman enhancements to history:
So too would the spurious historical texts written anonymously or ascribed to earlier authors that are known collectively as the Symmachan forgeries. This was the first occasion on which the Roman church had revisited its own history, in particular the third and fourth centuries, in search of precedents. That these were largely invented does not negate the significance of the process...
Some of the periods in question, such as the pontificates of Sylvester and Liberius (352-366), were already being seen more through the prism of legend than that of history, and in the Middle Ages texts were often forged because their authors were convinced of the truth of what they contained. Their faked documents provided tangible evidence of what was already believed true...
It is no coincidence that the first systematic works of papal history appear at the very time the Roman churchs past was being reinvented for polemical purposes. (Collins, Keepers of the Keys of Heaven, pp 80-82).
Also from Johnson,
With Cyprian, then, the freedom preached by Paul and based on the power of Christian truth was removed from the ordinary members of the Church, it was retained only by the bishops, through whom the Holy Spirit still worked, who were collectively delegated to represent the totality of Church members. They were given wide powers of discretion, subject always to the traditional and attested truth of the Church and the scriptures. They were rulers, operating and interpreting a law. With Bishop Cyprian, the analogy with secular government came to seem very close. But of course it lacked one element: the emperor figure or supreme priest
There is no evidence that Rome exploited this text [Mt. 16:18] to assert its primacy before about 250 and then, interestingly enough, in conflict with the aggressive episcopalian Cyprian but what is clear is that in the second half of the second century, and no doubt in response to Marcions Pauline heresy the first heresy Rome itself had experienced Paul was eliminated from any connection with the Rome episcopate and the office was firmly attached to Peter alone
The Church survived, and steadily penetrated all ranks of society over a huge area, by avoiding or absorbing extremes, by compromise, by developing an urbane temperament and erecting secular-type structures to preserve its unity and conduct its business. There was in consequence a loss of spirituality or, as Paul would have put it, of freedom (A History of Christianity, by Paul Johnson, see pp. 51- 61, 63. [transcribed using OCR software])
Ratzinger asserted, Even stated, we are fairly certain today that, while the Fathers were not Roman Catholics as the thirteenth or nineteenth century world would have understood the term, they were, nonetheless, Catholic, (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology: Building Stones for a Fundamental Theology, trans. Sister Mary Frances McCarthy, Theolgische Prinzipienlehre ]San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1987], p. 141.)
A very good website, thank you for the link!
Historical facts can stand on their own.
So how long do you plan on living in the Old Testament times?
What was your prior FR screen name?
“So how long do you plan on living in the Old Testament times?”
You forget our roles. I’m the salvation by grace through faith guy, and you’re the guy who thinks salvation is through carnal ordinances and personal works.
Thank God. You may be edified by these as well:
Saint Paul had assurance; who are you to go against the word of God?
Me? Your verses refer to those whom God has chosen. It does not call out anyone in particular for certain. Paul speaks at great length throughout his Epistles about faith and hope.
1 Corinthians: 12 For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. 13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.
No certainty there. Faith. Hope. Love. So I ask again, how does GPH have certainty, while calling on the name of Paul, yet Paul does not have certainty?
The Catholic Church began there, true.
Indeed, too bad the Roman church isnt the Catholic church. It just has Romanists in it, who dont even hold the same beliefs as Popes like Gregory, or Bishops like Augustine, and many others, whom they claim as forebears.
Piffle. Those who talk about the "Roman" church or "Romanists" and so on say a lot of mush like this that really doesn't mean anything. Augustine contributed much, but at one point in his life, he drifted into heresy. I don't hold those heretical beliefs, if that's what you mean.
And to which Gregory (Gregorius) are you referring? There were 16. If you are referring to Gregory the Great, are you alluding to the creation of the Pre Tridentine Mass? If so, does that mean that with my fondness of the Tridentine Mass, you would claim that I don't hold the same beliefs as him?
Sorry to disappoint, but this is like the Undertaker fighting Danny DeVito.
I have not been posting overly much of late. Time and circumstance have been pressing on me.
God has no grandchildren. Only children. Every true believer is related directly to Him. Baptized by the Spirit into His Body, included as part of His Bride, included in the universal communion of the saints, immediately.
However, one must realize that if one does not enter into the relationship with God fully, or for selfish purposes, or walks away from it, then one effectively divorces God. St Paul is very clear on this - it is a lifetime commitment, not a one shot deal.
The believer who comes to Christ in a jungle or desert, who comes to entrust himself to Christ for salvation today, is part of His Church, though he is the first generation. Every true believer is the first generation. Where two or more are gathered for prayer and worship, His Body, His Bride, His Church is there. As such it ALL begins with HIM. It ALL ends with HIM. Its ALL for His glory. EVERY church that is comprised of true believers was begins at the same time in history - directly attached to HIM.
Now, you're qualifying things. True believers? How many churches are comprised entirely of true believers? When you wander the mall and see a church of Joe in one of the storefronts, and look inside and see what? What's in there? The preacher has what credentials? What theological training? What ensures that he (don't get me started on female preachers) holds Christian beliefs?
Having said all that, it is great to see you :-)
You are most kind; thank you. I miss posting to the extent that I formerly did; perhaps I have contributed at least something.
He was the author of the Athanasian Creed (Link), a basic statement of the Catholic faith (as he says in its first line)(tip'o'the hat to the Orthodox as well); he defended the Incarnation and the Trinity; thus he was a contributor to the Sacred Tradition.
Very much so. His creed is the most definitive Christian Creed. And, as you have very well pointed out, he was a most orthodox Catholic and promulgated the Faith very very well.