Peter: The first Pope? - Page 14 - ChristiansOnline.CC

michael_legna · 06-04-2008, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elisheva

I don't see you providing any references except Catholic sources.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elisheva

Quoting you from before, words to the affect that I had to use sources that you excepted. I think that's pretty arrogant.

If you want to claim to quote me then please do, but that means actually quote me, don't paraphrase me to put words into my mouth. Show me where and in what post I ever said you had to use sources I accept. I may have claimed you needed to provide sources to show where you got these ideas and I may have even held the option of not accepting those sources, but I NEVER said you had to use sources I accepted. Of course it helps to convince people if you use sources they accept but I just want people to know where others are coming from and see how weak or strong their sources are. If you think that is arrogant then I am sorry but I am not about to change in that search.

As far as my sources go I would be arrogant if I relied on just the statements of the Catholic Church as you claim - but I do not. Your accusation is patently false. I do not in any place in this thread make an appeal to the RCC as a source. I offer scriptures and then reason from them, in each and every case.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elisheva

Do a little research in Hebrew and you will see that the verses read a whole lot differant then the mistranslated versions out there.

The verses I quoted were primarily from the New Testament which was written in Greek, regardless of what your modern Jewish teachers want to claim several thousand years after the fact, so although I have studied a small amount of Hebrew no amount would aid me in interpreting or translating the word of God in this case.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elisheva

I don't doubt that your translation writes it the way you wrote it in the thread. Why, because it would have to for the Catholic doctrine to come out right. However, I couldn't resist seeing what you had to say on this one.

Yes and since it was the Church which choose the table of contents of the New Testament that makes perfect sense, but that would have been the case if they had been choosing from a set of texts in Hebrew too so your argument is null.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elisheva

Now I'll put you back on ignore.

Yeah that will last.

Darth_Bill · 03-12-2009, 08:16 AM

Just to refresh the thread.

From Mormons and Catholics » Blog Archive » National Catholic Reporter on Apostolic Succession quoting the National Catholic Review.

Quote:

In what sense is the church of today in “apostolic succession” with the church of the first century of the Christian era?
Before all else, we must reject the simplistic, mechanistic notion of apostolic succession, what some have derisively referred to as the passing-the-baton theory.
This understanding of apostolic succession, which many Catholics continue to believe, assumes that each validly ordained Catholic bishop can trace his episcopal consecration in an unbroken line back to one of the original apostles or to the apostles collectively.
Jesuit Fr. Francis Sullivan, my former professor of ecclesiology at the Pontifical Gregorian University and currently professor at Boston College, offers two reasons for opposing such a view.
First, the apostles were not bishops in the present-day meaning of the word. They were missionaries and founders of local churches. There is no evidence, nor is there likely ever to be any evidence, that any of the apostles took up permanent residence in a particular church, or diocese, as its bishop.
Second, although some local churches had pastoral leaders who were called bishops (see the Acts of the Apostles 20:17-35, especially verse 28), it remains unclear whether these “bishops” were actually appointed or ordained by the apostle Paul or by any other apostle.
“The New Testament,” Fr. Sullivan writes, “offers no support for a theory of apostolic succession that supposes the apostles appointed or ordained a bishop for each of the churches they founded.”
Nor does the Didache (”The Teaching”), an ancient book of basic instructions for Christians, contain any “suggestion that such pastoral officers would derive their authority in any way from a founding apostle.”
Pope St. Clement’s letter to the Corinthians, known as 1 Clement, written 30 years after St. Paul’s death, indicates that the church in Corinth was being led by a group of presbyters (priests), with no indication of a bishop.
Not even St. Ignatius of Antioch, who Is a major source for our knowledge of the organization of the early church, suggests that “he saw his episcopal authority as derived from the mandate Christ gave to the apostles…. He never invoked the principle of apostolic succession to explain or justify the role and authority of bishops.”
“One conclusion seems obvious,” Fr. Sullivan writes. “Neither the New Testament nor early Christian history offers support for a notion of apostolic succession as ‘an unbroken line of episcopal ordination from Christ through the apostles down through the centuries to the bishops of today.’ “

Also referenced was Sullivan's "From Apostles to Bishops" which I haven't read. I did read Eno's "Rise of the Papacy" which theologically speaking was a hoot. BTW, these guys are catholic scholars, so don't go after us LDSers.

michael_legna · 03-12-2009, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darth_Bill

Just to refresh the thread.

From Mormons and Catholics » Blog Archive » National Catholic Reporter on Apostolic Succession quoting the National Catholic Review.

Also referenced was Sullivan's "From Apostles to Bishops" which I haven't read. I did read Eno's "Rise of the Papacy" which theologically speaking was a hoot. BTW, these guys are catholic scholars, so don't go after us LDSers.

Of course these men are theologians and as such are free to speculate as long as they do not slip into teaching heresy, but their opinion is strictly their own and does not represent the position of the Church nor that of the majority of Catholic theologians and apologists. The NCR publishes articles from all sides on an issue so it is not even clear that the statements appearing in these articles have the support of the magazine let alone the Catholic Church.

Darth_Bill · 03-12-2009, 12:07 PM

>Of course these men are theologians and as such are free to speculate as long as they do not slip into teaching heresy,

Oh, I think these men are free to slip into teaching heresy anytime they want to. They might be wrong and excommunicated but they can do it. And I'm not sure this is speculation without foundation. At least, they have as much, if not more documented foundation than the RCC has counter claims. They simply state that such and such document doesn't support such and such. That doesn't mean it isn't the way it went. Lack of evidence doesn't mean evidence of lack, if that makes sense.

The documents stated do not support apostolic ordination of bishops. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, but the earliest documents don't support that position. I frankly think apostles did ordain bishops. My theological problem is that it doesn't mean bishops could ordain bishops. That is where they went astray.

michael_legna · 03-12-2009, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darth_Bill

Quote:

Originally Posted by ML

Of course these men are theologians and as such are free to speculate as long as they do not slip into teaching heresy,

Oh, I think these men are free to slip into teaching heresy anytime they want to. They might be wrong and excommunicated but they can do it.

Yeah - you know what I meant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darth_Bill

And I'm not sure this is speculation without foundation.

Never said it was without foundation. Just that it is a position held in isolation from the vast majority. Not that that is a bad thing - I just didn't want anyone to think this was an official conclusion and admission by the Catholic Church itself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darth_Bill

At least, they have as much, if not more documented foundation than the RCC has counter claims.

I think that would take a long time to prove, as there is a lot of foundation within Catholic Apologetics and Church history to support this idea - enough to convince even leading Protestant historians.

In fact the idea that Bishops today cannot trace their ordination back through to an Apostle is just plain wrong. I do not know of a single Catholic Priest who could not do it for you personally.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darth_Bill

The documents stated do not support apostolic ordination of bishops. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, but the earliest documents don't support that position.

I think they do, in fact I can think of one right off the top of my head -

Act 1:20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darth_Bill

I frankly think apostles did ordain bishops. My theological problem is that it doesn't mean bishops could ordain bishops. That is where they went astray.

Irenaeus would disagree with you and with the claims of these men, as he said - "the Tradition of the Apostles has been manifested to the universal world in the whole Church, and we can enumerate those who have been constituted bishops and successors of the Apostles up to us"
Against Heresies, 3, 3, 1 Page 7,848)

03-12-2009, 12:07 PM	#134 (permalink)
Darth_Bill Established Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Illinois Posts: 3,661	Re: Peter: The first Pope? >Of course these men are theologians and as such are free to speculate as long as they do not slip into teaching heresy, Oh, I think these men are free to slip into teaching heresy anytime they want to. They might be wrong and excommunicated but they can do it. And I'm not sure this is speculation without foundation. At least, they have as much, if not more documented foundation than the RCC has counter claims. They simply state that such and such document doesn't support such and such. That doesn't mean it isn't the way it went. Lack of evidence doesn't mean evidence of lack, if that makes sense. The documents stated do not support apostolic ordination of bishops. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, but the earliest documents don't support that position. I frankly think apostles did ordain bishops. My theological problem is that it doesn't mean bishops could ordain bishops. That is where they went astray. __________________ The OFFICIAL site of Darth Bill "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." - Einstein. All Hail the Hypnotoad!