daniel1212:
The Muratorian Fragment does not list several books for the simple reason that the NT canon itself was in debate until the 4th century. That is a fact, so it is not surprising that the NT list drawn up at Rome in 180AD was not complete yet for the NT canon was not 100% settled. So the Church up till 200AD had not defined NT canon but it still was the Church guided by the Holy Spirit.
The text clearly states when Pius held the Chair at Rome. That is evidence that by 140 AD there was a single Bishop in Rome. That does not mean there was not one prior to that, there is no evidence to say that there is one way or the other, although the evidence does point to there being a single Bishop in Rome before then.
And you can’t show anything but argue from a Protestant polemical theoretical position 2,000 years later. I can show Saint Ireneaus listing the Bishops of Rome in his work around 175AD, he too was connected to the Apostles via is study under Saint Polycarp who new the Apostle John.
You can cite Francis Sullivan all you want, again, I know him well, he was the Doctoral advisor for Fr. Richard Mcbrien and among his positions are that he does not believe it is impossible for the Catholic Church to ordain women, he is also a dissenter on Humanae Vitae.
While I will not judge his soul, he is among the higher critics who emerged after Vatican II. His work is his work, but I question it and again, he is not saying what you are trying to get him to say. I have seen Fr. Francis cited a lot here lately on the forums, it seems he is the new celebrity Catholic who gets sited a lot.
And again, if it is his opinion that the development of Bishops in the Church was a post NT development, that does not reject that development, all that means is while there were Apostles in place, they were in charge, as they died out, they put men in place to carry on the Apostolic Faith [The Pastoral Epistles themselves attest to this, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, etc] and by the time of the death of the last Apostle John around 90-95AD, the development to Bishops running churches in major cities has taken root across the Mediterranean world. I don’t know what the Scots and Welsh, and English Presbyterians, Anglicans, and Reformed were doing at that time, but the immediate witness of the Church Fathers Clement of Rome, Saint Ignatius of Antioch, Saint Polycarp attest to the 3 tiered ministry of Bishop, Priest/Presbyter [a discussion I have already had ad nausem with you before] and Deacon.
This is not a debate about the canon.
The text clearly states when Pius held the Chair at Rome. That is evidence that by 140 AD there was a single Bishop in Rome.
And history also records a sppsd successor employing a murderous mob in seeking to obtain he office, and both records testifies to the contrast between what the Holy Spirit records in the plenary inspired Scripture versus the uninspired words of traditions.
And you can’t show anything but argue from a Protestant polemical theoretical position 2,000 years later.
That is absurd, as what i can show is how the Holy Spirit is faithful to record important events, thus the nature of Peter's leadership, and apostolic credentials, and the death of James but no successor, or manifest preparation for one in the light of Peter's impending departure, while describing the apostles as being part of the foundation which the church is built upon, and clearly instructing and recording the ordination of elders, not priests. Among other contrasts.
You can cite Francis Sullivan all you want, again,
Oh yes, bias assertion. No evidence can be accepted from conservative evangelicals that impugns Rome as they are driven by anti-Catholic bigotry, while Catholic scholarship that does the same must be dismissed or marginalized as they are liberal. I suppose even objecting to the title “Co-redemptrix” for Mary could be attacked.
They may be liberal and possible bias is to be considered, as is true of committed papists, but their arguments should be judged by their merits. Of course, Sullivan is not alone, as Paul Johnson and Klaus Schatz, among others must also be rejected or marginalized.
were Apostles in place, they were in charge, as they died out, they put men in place to carry on the Apostolic Faith
Exactly, not Romish popes.
Saint Polycarp attest to the 3 tiered ministry of Bishop, Priest/Presbyter [a discussion I have already had ad nausem with you before] and Deacon.
And it remains that this is not what Scripture teaches, with the Spirit not once titling "presbuteros" "hiereus," the exclusive word for "priest," but which was a later development due to imposed functional equivalence, and is defended by reliance upon etymological fallacy.
But while we can debate Scripture and history on and one, yet for a committed RC, this cannot be the basis for assurance of Truth, as it relies upon fallible human reasoning. For as i have said, the RC argument is that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth.
And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus those who dissent from the latter are in rebellion to God.
As long as this falsehood is your premise then further exchange becomes increasingly a problem.