Dairygirl's Large/Influential Church Theory

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Dec 19 2004, 12:57 PM'][. . .] Cool, Apoth has joined the discussion! He's a smart guy.

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. [. . .][/quote]
You are confusing Cyprian's witness to the tradition with his later pettiness in rejecting the tradition when a decision of the Pope (St. Stephen) didn't go his way. In other words, all that his edited version of [u]De Ecclesiae Catholicae Unitate[/u] reveals is the stubbornness of his own personal character in not accepting the decision of Pope. But his rejection of St. Stephen's teaching in no way undermines his original witness to the papal tradition, and in fact it can be argued that it strengthens it, because he had to attack the earlier tradition, which he himself had accepted, in order to promote his novel teaching on baptism.

Once again you are falling into anachronistic readings, because it doesn't matter whether or not Cyprian fully understood the nature of the Petrine primacy, clearly he didn't, but the teaching is implicitly present within his writings, whether you want to admit it or not. You are confusing the doctrine itself, with the comprehension of the doctrine by the members of the Church at any given moment in time.

The development of doctrine is an organic reality, and so like a baby, who contains within himself all the potencies that will bring him to full manhood, so too the Church contains all of the potencies that will eventually come to fruition over time as she matures in her understanding of all that has been revealed in Christ. But for this to occur it is not required that every person in the Church understand what is happening as it is happening, nor do they have to assent explicitly to what will later be defined before it has actually been defined, because their acceptance of divine revelation, which contains these implicity potencies, is sufficient for the time in which they live. This is true of every doctrine (e.g. the Trinity, the Incarnation, etc.), and not simply of the doctrine of the Papal primacy of jurisdiction and infallibility.

So even though it is true that Cyprian never accepted Pope St. Stephen's teaching on baptism, the Church as a whole did, for both East and West even to this day accept it, and that witnesses to the primacy of the Pope, whether you like to admit it or not.

God bless,
Todd

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Dec 19 2004, 12:57 PM'] [quote name='Apotheoun' date='Dec 19 2004, 06:25 AM']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. [/quote]
The reason I brought up this related issue, is that some of your comments indicate that you have a Pelagian understanding of the nature of the act of faith. The idea that one cannot know the doctrines of the Church with certainty, or as you say "for sure," is problematic, because it fails to take into account the reality of faith as a gift of God's grace, and not merely as a human act performed by man's own energy. Faith is certain, and this holds for each particular doctrine, because God, who can neither deceive nor be deceived, has revealed the truth in Christ.

Divine faith is by definition certain, for faith and doubt cannot subsist in a being at the same time.

God bless,
Todd

[dairygirl4u2c]

I'm not sure why you think I think that faith is an act of man.

But I have some questions regarding what you said.
[quote]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 must 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.[/quote]

I'm not sure what you mean by certain. Do you mean they are not doubting or they can only have a sure faith if they have faith in the truth?

[quote]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[/quote]

First, would God give certitude/faith to someone who is not christian? If he did, wouldn't that be an error according to you? (I may be misunderstanding you)

Also, I'm not saying it was mistaken, I'm saying the Catholic Church misinterprets past events.
I still think we should look to Rome, but not if it's going to go into error and claim to be the true church etc.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Dec 19 2004, 02:18 PM'] I'm not sure why you think I think that faith is an act of man.
[/quote]
It is an act of God and man, but the fact that it is an act empowered by God's energy makes it certain, one can have no doubts, for faith and doubt cannot exist at the same time in a man.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]fact it can be argued that it strengthens it, because he had to attack the earlier tradition, which he himself had accepted, in order to promote his novel teaching on baptism.[/quote]

I don't think he was attacking the earlier tradition. I think the fact that he dissented supplements the theory Cyprianic Theory that Newman initially held.

You think he was attacking the earlier tradition and that he was a stubborn bishop giong against his preiously accepted tradition.

If you want to discuss the philosophies he miht have held in my position or your position, I am willing to do such. I say this because you seem to automatically not accept my position as not making sense. (unless you agree it could be true?)

Otherwise, I think we'll have to agree to disagree to this.

Furthermore, overall, I think we should discuss specific events more.
[quote]Anachronistic attempts to read present day practices back into the past is doomed to failure[/quote]
I know that everyone says to back up what you say with evidence, and I'd say the same. It seems that you're just saying a bunch of stuff without evidence. I think you're reading past events based on a modern day Catholic notion of infalliblity. I know that you acknowlege it wasn't in full form, but I think that it wasn't even there at all as infallible.

Edited December 19, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Dec 19 2004, 02:18 PM']But I have some questions regarding what you said.
[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Dec 19 2004, 06:25 AM']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 must 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.[/quote]
I'm not sure what you mean by certain. Do you mean they are not doubting or they can only have a sure faith if they have faith in the truth?[/quote]
By [i]certain[/i], I mean that one cannot have any doubts whatsoever in assenting to the truths of the faith, because in doubting one would be doubting God and not man, and that would be a sin. A man accepts the doctrines of the faith, not because they make sense to him as purely rational propositions; rather, he accepts them simply because God has revealed them.

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Dec 19 2004, 02:18 PM'][quote name='Apotheoun' date='Dec 19 2004, 06:25 AM']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.[/quote]
First, would God give certitude/faith to someone who is not christian? If he did, wouldn't that be an error according to you? (I may be misunderstanding you)[/quote]
Divine faith is Christian faith. Now could a person who is invincibly ignorant of Christ and His Church make an act of divine faith? Yes, that is possible, for it must always be borne in mind that Christ alone is the savior of humanity, and so anyone who is saved is saved by Him, that is, by His grace which necessarily flows to humanity through His holy Catholic Church.

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Dec 19 2004, 02:18 PM']Also, I'm not saying it was mistaken, I'm saying the Catholic Church misinterprets past events.
I still think we should look to Rome, but not if it's going to go into error and claim to be the true church etc.[/quote]
So far you haven't proven that the Church of Rome, as you call it, is in error; but your own statements about the nature of faith are problematic, because you appear to be advocating a form of the Pelagian heresy. Moreover, if the Catholic Church is not the true Church, which one is? Only the Catholic Church goes back to the very beginning of the Christian era. Certainly none of the Reformation Churches qualifies, for they don't even believe many of the doctrines held as sacred during the first 1,500 years of the Church's existence. There is no way that one can claim that the Lutheran doctrines of [i]sola fide[/i] and [i]sola scriptura[/i] are ancient beliefs of the Church, because no one prior to 1517 AD accepted them.

God bless,
Todd

[dairygirl4u2c]

bump

[dairygirl4u2c]

this was an interesting thread.

it strikes at the heart of my beefs with the CC. (this and the "no salvation outside..." seeming contradiction but that's beside hte point)

any new ideas?

Edited October 23, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[mortify]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1407819' date='Oct 23 2007, 09:46 AM']this was an interesting thread.

it strikes at the heart of my beefs with the CC. this and the "no salvation outside..." seeming contradiction.

any new ideas?[/quote]

There was a whole thread revisiting the dogma of no salvation outside of the Church, many contributed heavily to it. Perhaps you could clearly explain point by point what beefs you have.

God bless

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]if you look at all those early church writings, even the ones from clement, and read them in the spirit of a unifying church, not necessarily in any way infallible, you'll see a different way to interpret history. ie just a unifying and persuasive authority.

the only possibly convincing quotes are from firmilian and cyprian. firmilian was not a believer, but in fact a non-believer in the autority of rome. cyprian... there's the cyprianic theory that said that the church was suppose to be one, but that doesn't necessarily imply what catholics say it does. i do know cardinal newman talks about the cyprianic theory briefly in that sense before he became catholic. see the next set of quotes for the context.

Newman said the alternative unifying thory is a formidable belief. he said the chruch grew like an acorn tree. whether it grew through God's power into what it is now, or by man's power, he said early history could be interpreted either way. the reason he was saying this is because people were dissing the chuch because the early text is so ambiguos, and he wanted them to realize the organic nature of the church: even if it were true, it's not gonna just spring up; if you were Peter, you wouldn't just say hey i'm infallible, watch out; it's be more natural (if it were true, i'm sure he had a time coming to grips with what it was... and i'm not even sure, even if the chruch is true,, whether he would have to even know (or did know) the extent of his power) Newman was resistant of hte first vaitcan council to vote yea on infallibilty because of ehse historical difficulties, as he put it, even though he himself believed in it. he was afraid of how outsiders would take the catholic church.

when i look at the question of whether hte orthodox broke away or who did. i see it exemplified by the pope steven (or was it victor?) controversy where the guy said said to the pope who excommunicated his people "in excommunicating us from you, you've excommunicated yourself from all". again, it goes back to how you take the pope's assertion to excommunicate. (remember too that many of the bishops back then were called "pope") it's all a matter of perspective.

lastly, not only could the dissenters at vatican I dissent, the orthodox can remain separate precisely because this ambiguity. it's not that they aren't aware of the quotes you provide from catholic.com.....[/quote]

[quote]Here's Victor and Stephen info, two most notable events early on...


Though Victor tried to change the stance of the churches of Asia Minor, and though he threatened to break fellowship with them if they didn’t change their stance, they ignored his threats. The church father and church historian Eusebius, in his church history (5:24), records part of a letter written to Victor by Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus. Polycrates explains that he and other church leaders will maintain their stance on the celebration of Easter, and that they aren’t intimidated by Victor’s threats:
"I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord, and have met with the brethren throughout the world, and have gone through every Holy Scripture, am not affrighted by terrifying words. For those greater than I have said ‘we ought to obey God rather than man.’ "


As to Stephen and the rebaptism controvery with Firmilian and Cyprian:
I (Firmilian) am justly indignant at this so open and manifest folly of Stephen, that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid, should introduce many other rocks and establish new buildings of many churches; maintaining that there is baptism in them by his authority (Epistle 74.17).
How great sin have you (Stephen) heaped up for yourself, when you cut yourself off from so many flocks! For it is yourself that you have cut off. Do not deceive yourself, since he is really the schismatic who has made himself an apostate from the communion of ecclesiastical unity. For while you think that all may be excommunicated by you, you have excommunicated yourself alone from all (Epistle 74.24).[/quote]

Edited October 23, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

well i guess i'm just looking for hte "obviouslyists" to show why the CC is obviously true, and that only a mad man, and the orthodox i guess..... could see differently. or for hte more rational people who think it's pretty clear but aren't obviouslyists.

Edited October 23, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

or if an obviouslyist would say it's not obviously one way or the other, i think i'd be smitten.

[mortify]

(sorry about that, a glitch)

Edited October 24, 2007 by mortify

[mortify]

Well, what are your arguments against it, and how do you interpret the verses that support it?

[dairygirl4u2c]

the way i look at it. if "no salvation outside..." looks like a contradictoin, and there's no evidence from that time to back it up, i'd tend to defer to it bseing a contradiction, unless there's other evidence.

cue the early history stuff of this thread. even that stuff is not as clear as i'd think it'd be if the CC is true. cue all those quotes in my past post.

so all in all, it appears the CC contradicted, and insufficient evidence aside from that to say otehrwise.

as to the Peter verses etc. there are many ways to interpret them. why would i assume the CC's version is correct given the historical evidence as i just described? one way is to say that it was peter's confession of faith. one way is to say that Peter was simply given a role in a relationship, much like a pastor/priest. they are a leader, but not in an infallible sense. if this were the case, the role might have simply been for them as a group, as groups need leaders, but not beyond them, necessarily. or, if it was intended to go beyond them, then the CC excommunicated itself with all its claims, from the orthodox and others. (this is how it isn't whacked to say the church departed from where it was suppose to go. the pope would simply be in error from his true role, but he can still be respected etc. if you want to make that argument, as i'd suspect the orthodox might. )
it's easy to see how the CC could have grown man made into what it is now. cue newman's comments on development.

Edited October 24, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c