Dairygirl's Large/Influential Church Theory

[Guest Aluigi]

Okay, now here's the status report to date of discussions with dairygirl: she admits since the early centuries the Church in Rome has been looked to. she proposed this could be explained simply that they were the large influential church, center of the Roman Empire thus center of almost the entire known world so that's why the Bishop of Rome was looked to.

basically: she says the authority of Rome was always simply temporal, no spiritual authority

It is an interesting theory... here's my problem with it: Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon, Lateran, Lyons, Vienne, Constance, Basle, Trent

If Rome only held temporal power, how come this temporal power was not excercized to make the bishops of the world come to Rome? why would the bishop of Rome, with temporal authority only, travel to these other cities to preside over the councils. The head of the large and influential church that only held temporal authority over the rest of the Church would have centered all councils around his temporal headquarters.

there is no reason for other churches to be looking to rome for decisions because of a temporally authoritative large and influential church, especially considering that the temporal residence of this large and influential church was not the center of most of the Ecumenical Councils, the Bishop of Rome went where he didn't hold temporal authority necessarily to preside at the Ecumenical Councils, not because of the temporal power of rome but because of his perceived status as successor to St. Peter.

dairygirl only, i just want to see if this affects your position of "large and influential" but not "authoritative in teaching" in any way

[thessalonian]

If the large influential Church theory were true it would seem very odd that before Constantine they would choose Rome as the place to set up the head of this large influential Church and that they would find any takers to hold the office. Most of them were martyred. Oddly enough someone stepped up to take his place. Very odd for an office where the spirit was not dwelling.

Edited December 8, 2004 by thessalonian

[Kilroy the Ninja]

Dairygurl only please!

[Winchester]

yeah

[Donna]

Yeah!

[Donna]

Oops.

[hyperdulia again]

bump

[dairygirl4u2c]

I cannot debate this very thoroughly right now; I have so many things to do. If it's not school (which it's not right now) then it's christmas or something else!

Only a few points. I don't know you guys to think I'm just pulling all this stuff out of my you know what.

I'm not saying you guys are, but because some have. Don't get sidetracked by what large and influential means. I don't mean it was large "large".. as some have pointed out, it wasn't all that big. I just mean influential in an authoritative kind of way. I don't mean authoritative as Catholic Church kind of way but as in respectable... very respectable.

I know I've cited works from James White and someone else, and I should not have. They are not looked upon highly by Catholics when they are too opininated even to the point of brushing aside all their arguments. baby/bathwater deal.


If you guys want more information on this, try studying the conversion of John Henry Newman. You'll automatically site that as a "win" or what have you on the part of the Catholic Church, but actually he had formidable arguments against him. You should really read more about that. I hate to do what so many of you say to do and say read more, but I can't argue right now. sorry!

Here's a book that's actually academic and not so opininated as White and company. Of course all writing has bias etc etc Hopefully it helps make you guy's realize that you really need a faith that doesn't have a for sure basis. It's cool and all that you do have the faith.. but yeah I'm rambling because I know what everybody's going to say etc etc.


Author: Misner, Paul
Title: Papacy and development : Newman and the primacy of the Pope
Publish: Leiden : Brill, 1976

Of course internet's cool too for whatever you can find in addition or including that.

Edited December 17, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Guest Aluigi]

don't get sidetracked by what words actually mean? when you say "large" you don't really mean large. when you say influential, you mean authoritative. okay, um... perhaps you can provide a dairygirl to english dictionary? you admit it was considered authoritative back then. what reason was it authoritative (and how "not in an Catholic Church" way?)

it's been established that the bishop of Rome was always considered successor to St. Peter and that that was the resason cited for the authority placed in the Church at Rome; do you deny it?

it's been established that Rome had authority; do you deny it?

No evidence has come forth that Rome at that time contradicts what current Rome teaches; do you assert any evidence?

Finally,in what way is this authority you admit Rome as having "not like Catholic Church authority" or in what way does it contradict "Catholic Church" authority? Do you have any evidence?

I don't mean to be condescending or mean, but i hope you admit that what you said in your last post was confusing to say the least. you don't mean "large" when you say "large"... you don't mean "influential" when you say "influential"... do you mean "mean" when you say "mean"?

get your thoughts together, add this thread to your computer's favorites or bookmarks or whatever, and come back when you have something.

John Henry Newman was a smart man who refuted all those points for himself, but seeing as I don't own that book and already have learned a great deal about papal history both the traditions and the hard core facts (which I distinguish) from great scholars who have had their hands into the oldest documents in existence available to them in the Vatican Secret Archives. If you have a point to make from that book, post it please. I know you don't have time, but maybe just the jist of it?

[dairygirl4u2c]

okay.. large means over the course of time rome's size caused it to spread catholicism. constantine and after is where large comes in mostly.

the earliest successors to Peter were not "large". but they were influential. And when I said what I meant by that, I was just clarifying. It means very authoritative.

[quote]Finally,in what way is this authority you admit Rome as having "not like Catholic Church authority" or in what way does it contradict "Catholic Church" authority? Do you have any evidence?[/quote]

Authoritative to me: we have a bishop who succeeds Peter. Therefore he knows more about Peter and Jesus than other bishops. Therefore we should listen to him. I do not claim he's infallible though so we don't have to listen when we think he's wrong.

This does not mean that we simply go into chaos doing what we want. Of course you'd say it is. This is a philosophical difference of opinion. So let's focus on the facts.

Authoritative to you: we have a bishop who succeeds Peter. Therefore he knows more about Peter and Jesus than other bishops. Therefore we should listen to him. Especially because he's infallible.

I have as much evidence as the Catholic Church to make the claim that the bishop of rome then was not what the Catholic Church now says he was. I'd think that if what the Catholic Church said was true, they'd have more. It's a matter of logic that one cannot disprove a negative. I cannot disprove it if you were to claim that ghosts exist.

But you can prove a positive though, and you have yet to demonstrate anything adequately. Of course "adequately" is where we simply diverge.

[quote]If you have a point to make from that book, post it please. I know you don't have time, but maybe just the jist of it? of it? [/quote]
I will get back with you on this. Probably tonight.

Here is what I will leave you with for now. Newman based his conversion on "converging and convincing" arguments for the Catholic Church. He said people back then looked to rome, so we should. He acknowledged the limits of the evidence that said why they lookedt o rome but had faith that the only way to look to rome now was to be Catholic Church.

It is also important to note that he did not know about the didache if spelled correctly. They weren't found till after Newman. They showed different types of christian communicties back in teh day.

I think the Dead sea scrolls are similar in that not found til later too.

Then there's the gosples that weren't added that were known of. It's admitted by the Catholic Church that the only books that were added were what were orthodox and safe. Others might have been okay, but they couldn't not say. Now cue the constant narrowing of christianity.

If you start saying that well the Catholic Church said that they did not want to put those into the bible i'm going to explode. You're going to start arguing in circles if you do that as ironmonk does all the time. (or you can "argue" the philosophy that I said not to get sidetracked on earlier and then not bother to argue it but don't do that)

I say there's converging and convincing arguemnts against the Catholic Church based on evidence. I don't think Newman would dispute my stance.

I'll get more later.

Edited December 18, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

I have more to add, but one thing for now is that before Newman converted, he followed the Cyprianic Theory. This said that when Cyprian talks about the Catholic unity, he meant the general church more like the way I understand it. Not the way the Catholic Church does. This is significant because Cyprian is one of the few last shreds of hope thatmany RC's use to "prove" the Catholic Church. Go here:
www.catholic.com

read abotu the papacy. Read all the quotes especially before Constantine. You'll see the only person who might prove the Catholic Church is Cyprian. But what he says is ambiguous in that attempt I think. If you take Newman's old theory (this isn't just my theory as many of you think) then you really haev no definitive proofs.

Prove Cyprian was a Catholic teh way you unerstand it, and I'll become a RC again.

Edit: here are some people who went against Newman in his day. Gibbon, Fleury, and Barrow. A more modern day opponent is Hans Kung, a former high ranking bishop who became excommunicated. Please read about these gentleman.

The authors notes that Newman cited two events to demonstrate the bisop of rome's authority. Victor in the second century and Cyprian in the third.

He also notes that Polycrates did not victor. Victor did not refer to Matthew 16 Peter and the Keys text when he got in a rumble with Polycrates over the date of easter.

Stephen did refer to them, but what he meant by it is unclear according to the author. Stephen's writings are by the way gone, yet Cyprians are existing. He said that Cyprian "exhorted" Stephen not to give credence to the bishops who wanted to be part of the church but were not baptised by Cathoilcs. Of course Stephen said they should stay. The book says (not just me) that Cyprian and Firmilian did not recognize the authority of Rome in that baptism question.

The author did not want to mention Cyprians mention of the "mysterious" unity of the Church because these writigns do not talk about the papacy, only about church nity. The only reason the author mentions them is because Newman said the writings were "the mode of fulfilling and the means of securing [the papacy], its seat and its laws would be a gradual consequence of a gradual necessity." Newman said St. Paul i the bible had to struggle to gain acceptance much like the early popes did..


See, Nweman also followed the Keys theory set forth in the Old Testament as many Catholics do today. I say that Peter is only synonomous with Abraham. People claimed to be succesors to him as well.

So basically Newman had the "keys" theory and the "dormant power" theory. Newman used these all this stuff and combined it with what he thought was the proof of the fourth and fifth century culminating with Leo the Great// all of which I will later tackle.

Newman admits Papacy not that clear early on. He says this is a "concession" on his part. He said what happened was "from the first" of "a certain element at work... which for some reaon or other, did not at once show itself pon the surface of eclesiastical affairs, and of which events in the fourth centruy are the development". "This is but natural". He says that the papacy became fully apparent (tho9uht to him there all along) through gradualdevelopment.

I say it's hard to tell if this is a manmade development or God. I'd lean toward manmade based on all theevidene.

Ya know ya wonder why teh Catholic Church hasn't named this "heresy" that I'm talking about right now about development. if it has named it let me know. Probably because she does not want to draw ttention to it. I'm sure some RCs woudl agree but have different opinions about thismotif.

If you ask for quotes to prove my stances, I'll simply refer you to the www.catholic.com quotes as you all do, and tell you to read them the way I do. That will be my proof as well.

Please read about all these things or ask questions if you do not want to do that and I will actually answer them. Please respond. Thank you.

Edited December 19, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

By the way, some of these events are being added to only by explaining them in more detail. Often times the author assumes the reader knows what he is talking abotu when he says things like.. "Cyprian and Stephan controversy". If you think I am doing disjustice, please let me know. Or if you question what I added or what was said by the author, please ask and I will clarify.

From now on I will be more clear when I am adding information.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Dec 18 2004, 04:38 PM'] I have more to add, but one thing for now is that before Newman converted, he followed the Cyprianic Theory. This said that when Cyprian talks about the Catholic unity, he meant the general church more like the way I understand it. Not the way the Catholic Church does. This is significant because Cyprian is one of the few last shreds of hope thatmany RC's use to "prove" the Catholic Church. Go here:
www.catholic.com

read abotu the papacy. Read all the quotes especially before Constantine. You'll see the only person who might prove the Catholic Church is Cyprian. But what he says is ambiguous in that attempt I think. If you take Newman's old theory (this isn't just my theory as many of you think) then you really haev no definitive proofs.

Prove Cyprian was a Catholic teh way you unerstand it, and I'll become a RC again.[/quote]
Actually, the Catholic teaching on the Papacy is not founded upon Cyprian alone, that is, as if he was in some sense the originator of a theological [i]theory[/i]. That kind of view is in fact one of the problems with some researchers today, they overemphasize one person in the unfolding of a doctrine to the detriment of the entire tradition. Nevertheless, scholars now agree that both versions of Cyprian's [u]De Ecclesiae Catholicae Unitate[/u] were written by him, and that the longer version which emphasizes the Petrine office of the Pope was written first, while the shorter version is an edited copy of the longer one which he issued only after his controversy with Pope St. Stephen on baptism. Thus, Cyprian continues to be an important figure in the development of the Papal office.

However, I see another problem that needs to be addressed in this thread, because some people (Dairygirl in particular) appear to hold a position that asserts that the Papacy as it functions today must be found in the past, but this sort of anachronistic approach fails to take into account the development of doctrine over time. No Catholic is required to hold that the present day understanding of the doctrine of Papal authority was fully worked out in the 2nd or 3rd centuries, quite the contrary, Catholics hold that the innate powers of the Pope, as visible head of the Church, unfolded over time as the she grew in her understanding of all that had been revealed in Christ Jesus. Anachronistic attempts to read present day practices back into the past is doomed to failure; instead, one must remember that the Church is a living body, and that her understanding of divine revelation grows over time. Thus, all that a Catholic claims or even needs to claim, is that the doctrine of Papal primacy and infallibility is implicitly present within the tradition.

Now there is one other point that needs to be addressed, and it concerns Dairygirl's statement that:

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Dec 17 2004, 01:06 PM ']Of course all writing has bias etc etc Hopefully it helps make [b][i]you guy's realize that you really need a faith that doesn't have a for sure basis[/i][/b]. It's cool and all that you do have the faith.. but yeah I'm rambling because I know what everybody's going to say etc etc.[/quote]
What needs to be clarified is the nature of faith itself. Is faith a divine gift of grace, or is it simply a human act? If it is a divine gift of grace, it follows that it is certain, for God is its author and source, and He can neither deceive nor be deceived. Clearly, if it is simply an unaided human act, it can be in error; but divine faith is certain because it has its origin in God Himself, and in fact it [i]must [/i]be certain by definition for that very reason. To say that the faith once delivered to the saints could be mistaken is the same as attributing error to Almighty God, for He is the source of that faith.

God bless,
Todd

[dairygirl4u2c]

I think it's important to note to those who don't know that it was in Newman's time that the doctrine of infallibility was being defined. It was controversial. You all would say that only means it wasn't questioned till then.. but I thinkI'm showing that this "implicit belief" as Newman puts it doesn't necessarily hold much weight.

An edit to my second to last post. Newman followed not the old testament keys theory as I said. He follows an unfulfilled Matthew 16 theory. He thought that in the early church the seed had not grown into the tree fully.. it was an unfulfilled prophesy. THen later it became fulfilled. But no catholics since Newman have really believed that idea which makes one wonder about how much Newman had to stretch to make his conversion. I think what happened to Newman is what happend to others nowaday who convert to The Catholic Church and out of it. They actually see merit to the other posistions where they thought all along that none exists and it hits them hard. It does work both ways.


Cool, Apoth has joined the discussion! He's a smart guy.

[quote]Actually, the Catholic teaching on the Papacy is not founded upon Cyprian alone, that is, as if he was in some sense the originator of a theological theory. That kind of view is in fact one of the problems with some researchers today, they overemphasize one person in the unfolding of a doctrine to the detriment of the entire tradition.[/quote]

I only point to him because he is what many Catholics use as a last resort when their other converging arguments don't hold much weight.

Cyprian talks about this first as Apoth admits. If he wrote it second it might mean more as after the controversy he said it. Actually it doesn't matter which order he wrote it as the interpretations would be the same.

Look at what Cyprian says and does. He talks about the Chair of Peter being a source of unity. What does that mean? DOes it mean what the Catholic Church would say that it meant? That is a seed of the tree? Or would it mean what others say it meant.. that is simply a chair that is repected. Much like the Chair of Mark was respected but not as much.

Then he gets into the controversy with Stephan. According to the author of this book, Cyprian never agreed fell in line with stephan. Cyprian got along with stephen's successor but that doesn't really mean much does it if he's not following orders? It seems like Cyprian is the wife and stephan was the husband type of balance, but not with the infallible husband sense.

Let's look at the rest of what Newman wrote and ddin't write. Newman did not write about Constantine giving the churches to Sylvester after COnstantine converted. Why should we trust that Constantine was sincere when his actions didn't show it and he had so much to gain from "converting"? One less enemy that had been growing and while it's growing they would be a great use as soldiers.

A council had excommunicated Leo the Great. This seems to indicate that churches excommunicated each other yet again.

Another event regarding Leo that Newman did not write about. A group of Orientals said "Peter has spoken through Leo." But much like "Rome has spoken" by augustine that many misinterpret, Newman probably took it out of context. The Orientals agreed with Leo but did not want to acknowledge the bishop of Rome as in itself definitive. They did not even want to follow the bishop of rome. Think about it, Peter can speak through me too, and I'm not the vicar of christ with the perogatives of Peter. "Peter has spoken through Dairygirl" Actually I don't think Peter had what Catholics and other fundamentalists claim he had, but let's try to stay focused.




[quote]What needs to be clarified is the nature of faith itself. Is faith a divine gift of grace, or is it simply a human act? [/quote]

I really don't want to get sidetracked but I will ask, is all nonCatholic's faith not from God as one might imply from your writing? I don't think you'd say yes. You'd at least say that other christians faith is of God maybe partially. So coudln't it be that Catholics faith is the "other christians" relative to the true christian? I don't think we should debate this as it's so full of nuances that it deserves its own thread if you want to discuss it.


It seems that as Newman said was an "implicit belief" should have been better defined early on if you expect someone to believe that they should take the pope as infallible.

Edit: also. about the didache. It was during the bible days and a bit after. They held no priest or structure in their community. Ignatius/Clemintine did. They resemble the structureless society in Paul's community as shown in the Bible. This structure thing came later perhaps.


I would like someone to study and debate with me. Or if this ends up being a thread that drifts away, please tell me why. If you want to debate one issue at a time, please let me know on what terms you would like to debate.

Edited December 19, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

Al, also just look at the early roman church as a husband. Husbands are not infallible but they are to be respected. Or as a father etc etc.

I'm not sure how you want to debate this. I'd think that the facts would be more objective to debate than just philosophy.


Also, next I will look at Gregory the Great as he was a next milestone. The bishops between Leo and Gregory only followed Leo's lead and stressed following the bishop of rome (but not necessarily as infallible)


Does anybody see any merit to this influential church bit? I have a feeling you do. I do see merit that says that the Catholic Church coudl eb true but not evenough based on teh early evidence.

This implicit belief stuff would have been explicitly expressed beyond you should listen to the bishop of rome. What kind of "should" are we talkin about here?

Edited December 19, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c