Posted on 08/24/2014 3:18:46 AM PDT by markomalley
Don’t confuse the Catholics with the writings of the early church fathers. They only use them when it’s convenient for their purpose-which is seldom. :O)
Same as they do with Luther.
Yes, some good info there. I had seen that before and thought to buy the Caragounis book for it’s uniquely intense research, but it was very pricey back then. Your post reminded me and the book is now on its way. Price has come down too. :)
“it’s” should be “its.” For those who care. :]
Actually your post is incorrect. The Catechism of the Catholic Church cites extensively from the Bible [40 of the 46 Books in the Catholic OT are cited and all 27 NT books and from among the 4 Gospels, a quick survey of the data indicates every Chapter from all 4 Gospels are cited significantly] it cites extensively from every Ecumenical Council, some 15 Regional or local councils [i.e. Rome 382, Carthage 418], numerous Popes from the Patristic period, Damasus [366-384], Innocent I [402-4017], Leo I the Great [440-461], some 40 of the Church Fathers [Augustine some 85-90 times, Ambrose some 25 times, etc].
I am just clarifying the actual record, just so you know.
That the basis for your assurance of Truth is the premise of the assured veracity of Rome, thus all much be made to conform to her.
again, back to the Apostolic succession notion, nowhere in Scripture does it teach against it, although there is transitional evidence of that development in the Pauline Pastoral epistles, So you can say the NT does not teach Apostolic succession, I can just as easily retort it does not teach against it.
As if the Holy Spirit did not see it as important to record, even after James was slain. Your argument from silence is not a basis for doctrine, while the Spirit clearly instructs elders to be ordained as overseers of the church, the requirements for such, charges them as the overseers of the church, to carry on the work of the foundational apostles. (1Tim. 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-7; Acts 20:28; Eph. 2:20)
Meanwhile, the basis and credentials for apostolic authenticity (Acts 1:2,22; 1Cor. 9:2; Gal. 1:12-18; 2Cor. 6:1-10; 2Cor. 12:12) excludes Rome's (among others) claimed successors from being apostles. Even distinctively titling NT pastors as "priests" is also not seen in Scripture, but was also a latter addition.
Rather, i answered your false dilemma question, and it is you who continually have avoided answering the most fundamental question out of which premise all your argumentation flows!
The NT does not clearly state what each presbyter and deacon did at every Church. It only provides scant details.
It need not clearly state what each presbyter and deacon did at every Church, which absurd requirement is a desperate attempt to justify a critical aspect of a most cardinal doctrine but which the Scripture does not evidence, and which attempt reduces your already low view of Scripture.
With the Eucharist being the "source and summit" of the Christian faith, around which sacrament all else revolves, do you really think the Holy Spirit, who is faithful to record multitudes of notable details including the ordination and duties of OT priests, and even a whole chapter on the use of tongues in a church meeting, would not at least show or describe in Acts onward, NT pastors primary duty as being consecrating bread and wine and giving it to the multitudes, conveying spiritual and eternal life, interpretive of the gospels? When instead He shows and teaches that their main duty is to give themselves "continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word"? (Acts 6:4)
And never says a word to them about feeding the flock with anything but by preaching, setting that forth as their primary function, thus charging Timothy to "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. (2 Timothy 4:2) And not saying a word to him or others about their duty to consecrate transformed bread and wine?
And by which word they themselves are "nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine." (1Tim. 4:6) Meanwhile, in the only manifest description of the Lord's supper in the life of the NT church, (1Cor. 11:20-34 ) the Lord's Supper shows the Lord's death by the unselfish considerate manner in which the members partake of the communal meal, manifesting the love for each other Christ showed in giving Himself for the church, which thus shows their unity with the Lord and thus with each other. With failure to do so constituting a failure to recognize the church as the body of Christ, made of up many members.
Moreover, rather than the Spirit only providing scant details, if you read more of Scripture you should see there is quite a bit, from the qualifications of pastors to ordaining others, to exercising discipline, to prayer, teaching and preaching, etc. what they did, which i can show if needed. It is your distinctively titled "priests" and their primary Cath. function that is missing.
learly the Presbyters in James Letter were charged with doing more than what the presbyters were in Paul’s pastoral epistles of 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus. We have already had this discussion. Which one is normative, or does it reflect an uneven development that occurred at various apostolic Churches.
Contrary to your postulated contradiction on which one is normative , Scripture complements Scripture, and in the totality of NT church record prayer and preaching is what is normative, as all need that, which only a relative few would need intercessory prayer by pastors, which is also enjoined upon all that they may be healed by effectual fervent prayer of the righteous.
And in another contrast with Rome, what was manifestly normative was that NT pastors and apostles were married.
No I take Christ word that the Gates of hell would not prevail and the Holy Spirit would guide the Church
And God often raised up men from without the magisterium to reprove it, provide Truth and preserve faith, and thus the church as the body of Christ has been preserved, though the visible manifestation has never been perfect, as the church itself began in dissent from a magisterium which presumed of itself above that which was written. Rome has become as the gates of Hell for multitudes, but this deformation was progressive, and as now, some souls could see thru the trappings of her institutionalized nature and find Christ by faith out of a broken heart and contrite spirit, coming to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, and trust Him to save by His sinless shed blood, and so live 4 Him. Thanks be to God.
I am happy you are happy. Now run along. I have said what I said before, I reject the heresy of sola scriptura and I will not analyze Catholic Doctrine from your protestant paradigm. End of the discussion
As for 1 Timothy 3:1-7 a commentary by Chrystostem views it as an Episcopal Office. And yes, it was to continue the ministry of the Apostles who were commanded to celebrate the Eucharist, baptize in the Trinity, hear confessions and forgive sins in Christ name, etc, etc. Do you think that because the NT epistles don’t clearly give that authority to the Presbyters means that as the Apostles died all those functions stopped????????????????
http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/index.htm
As for Galatians, Chrystostem’s interpretation of the “disagreement between Peter and Paul” is consistent with Saint Jerome’s [point of another thread] and again, nothing in it are a quick summary of the other cites from the Church Fathers says Rome has no apostolic authority. Again, why is that?
http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/index.htm
Saint Chrysostem’s commentary on Titus 1:5-7 indicates that Titus was a Bishop who had jurisdiction over many others in his region, which is consistent with Catholic Ecclesiology.
Again, Chrysostem’s Homily on Acts 20, the central reason for Paul coming together was too break bread [Eucharist] so I don’t know what you are getting at
http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/index.htm
http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/index.htm
He also has a homily on Ephesians 2:20. As for your cites of 1 Cor 9:2, 2 Cor 6, 12, here is a link to the citations from the Church fathers who quoted those passages and I don’t think any of those commentaries in the Church Fathers draw the conclusions you are making regarding Rome. Why is that
http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/index.htm
http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/index.htm
So all these passages cited by the infallible authority of Daniel1212 and interpreted by your infallible opinion don’t seem to match anything I can find in the Patristic commentaries on these same scriptural passages. Again, why is that?
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
where was it personal? and while I directly asked you not to delete and earlier post where BS was used at me [again, did not offend me] and was spelled out, it seems my more subtle use of it was deleted. Why is that?
Your biases are clearly evident
Now if you have removed it, then I retract my view that you are acting in a biased manner. As of an hour ago, it was still there, and I have not gone back and seen if it was deleted. I know my post 200 was deleted several hours back.
And some do. The grammar police regularly patrol FR looking for crimes against grammar.
Post 200 wasn’t yours and wasn’t deleted.
Don’t be such a martyr. A persecution complex doesn’t wear well.
198. I now see where CULTS get THEIR rules from!
This is IT?
I get ACCUSED of of something and it is shown to be FALSE and this is ALL I get?
Golly; THAT request fell on deaf ears!
Golly; THAT request fell on deaf ears!
For the record, Catholic Interpretation of Scripture is comfortable with the 4-sense of Scripture that was used by the Fathers, so yes, a passage can have interpretations using 1, 2, 3 or all 4 of the senses of Scripture.
But, what it CAN'T 'have' is any 'interpretation' by those DAMNED Prots!
Well, Rome has never said Mary parted the red sea.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Help_of_Christians
Don't worry; like Mother Nature, who, evidently, abhors a vacuum; Mother Church will; with out FAIL; fill in any blanks needed to propagate an undocumented theological theory.
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.