The Church - Ekklesia - Built On Peter.

[mustbenothing]

(Previous) You're still committing that core fallacy of assuming that the fact that since the Roman Catholic Church of today has the same name as it did quite a while ago, and it shares a robust political connection with the true Church historically, that it must be equivalent to the Church that Christ built. However, if we say that the mark of a true Church is a place in which the Word and Sacrament are faithfully present, your entire argument falls.

(dUSt) That's assuming that you believe that the Catholic Church doesn't present the Word and Sacraments faithfully. Despite all your claims of proving the Church wrong, I've yet to see an argument come from you that does that.

(Me) Actually, you would have to show that today's Catholic Church presents the Word and Sacraments faithfully, and no other group does. If we use the definition I offered above, and a Lutheran parish faithfully presents the Word and Sacraments, then that Lutheran parish is part of the Church, even though it does not acknowledge any authority of the Vatican over it.

(dUSt) Your other points regarding the inability to prove that the Catholic Church is the true Church are meaningless. How do you prove that the Presbyterian Church is the true Church?

(Me) I do not claim that the Presbyterian church is identical to the true Church.

(dUSt) Apostolic succession is key here. The Catholic Church has it. Protestant churches do not.

(Me) There is no reason to think that Catholic Church claims of apostolic succession are valid unless you already accept that the Catholic Church has infallible teaching authority.

(dUSt) You can say "the true church is the one that presents the Word faithfully" all you want, but without a solid, physical, visible, and historical foundation, it comes down to your personal interpretation of what you believe "faithful presentation" to be.

(Me) It actually comes down to the Bible's description of fidelity to Word and Sacrament.

[mustbenothing]

(ironmonk) Stop and think about what "discipline" is... Who can give discipline unless they have Authority. It is only an Authority that can give discipline.

(Me) At this point I'm just absolutely disgusted. Reread my original post:

It seems more to be talking about church discipline regarding sin than teaching authority, but you are certainly right that this passage refers to the Church having authority. Again, I must ask: how does this mean that the Church has the infallible teaching authority the Catholic Church claims?

Now, read it again, and focus on what I have put in bold:

It seems more to be talking about church discipline regarding sin than teaching authority, but you are certainly right that this passage refers to the Church having authority. Again, I must ask: how does this mean that the Church has the infallible teaching authority the Catholic Church claims?

Read that again:

you are certainly right that this passage refers to the Church having authority

Nowhere did I say that the Church does not have authority -- I actually acknowledged it! However, I continue to wait (and will apparently do so forever) for a cogent argument in favor of the infallibility of Catholic Church teaching authority.

[dUSt]

Actually, you would have to show that today's Catholic Church presents the Word and Sacraments faithfully, and no other group does.  If we use the definition I offered above, and a Lutheran parish faithfully presents the Word and Sacraments, then that Lutheran parish is part of the Church, even though it does not acknowledge any authority of the Vatican over it.

If the Catholic Church presents the Word and Sacraments faithfully, then it's impossible for any other group to do it, as no other group is identical to the Catholic Church.

I do not claim that the Presbyterian church is identical to the true Church.

Are you not a Presbyterian? I thought you were. If so, why be part of a Church you don't think is the same as the true Church? The only reason I can think of is that you don't believe that the true Church exists today, and Presbyterianism comes closest to satisfying your theological needs.

There is no reason to think that Catholic Church claims of apostolic succession are valid unless you already accept that the Catholic Church has infallible teaching authority.

Or, you could look at history.

(dUSt) You can say "the true church is the one that presents the Word faithfully" all you want, but without a solid, physical, visible, and historical foundation, it comes down to your personal interpretation of what you believe "faithful presentation" to be.

(Me) It actually comes down to the Bible's description of fidelity to Word and Sacrament.

The Bible does not translate itself, nor does it interpret itself. So, I'll repeat, it comes down to your personal interpretation of what you believe "faithful presentation" to be.

May the peace of Christ be with you mustbenothing.

God bless.

[ironmonk]

There is no reason to think that Catholic Church claims of apostolic succession are valid unless you already accept that the Catholic Church has infallible teaching authority.

Weeelllll... guy... there is one little reason...

It's been taught for about 2000 years....

Apostolic Succession:

Pope Clement I

"Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry" (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).

Hegesippus

"When I had come to Rome, I [visited] Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And after Anicetus [died], Soter succeeded, and after him Eleutherus. In each succession and in each city there is a continuance of that which is proclaimed by the law, the prophets, and the Lord" (Memoirs, cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 4:22 [A.D. 180]).

Irenaeus

"It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about" (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]).

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul—that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (ibid., 3:3:2).

"Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time" (ibid., 3:3:4).

"Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth, so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. . . . For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient churches with which the apostles held constant conversation, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question?" (ibid., 3:4:1).

"t is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church—those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the infallible charism of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth" (ibid., 4:26:2).

"The true knowledge is the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient organization of the Church throughout the whole world, and the manifestation of the body of Christ according to the succession of bishops, by which succession the bishops have handed down the Church which is found everywhere" (ibid., 4:33:8).

Tertullian

"[The apostles] founded churches in every city, from which all the other churches, one after another, derived the tradition of the faith, and the seeds of doctrine, and are every day deriving them, that they may become churches. inDouche, it is on this account only that they will be able to deem themselves apostolic, as being the offspring of apostolic churches. Every sort of thing must necessarily revert to its original for its classification. Therefore the churches, although they are so many and so great, comprise but the one primitive Church, [founded] by the apostles, from which they all [spring]. In this way, all are primitive, and all are apostolic, while they are all proved to be one in unity" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 20 [A.D. 200]).

"[W]hat it was which Christ revealed to them [the apostles] can, as I must here likewise prescribe, properly be proved in no other way than by those very churches which the apostles founded in person, by declaring the gospel to them directly themselves . . . If then these things are so, it is in the same degree manifest that all doctrine which agrees with the apostolic churches—those molds and original sources of the faith must be reckoned for truth, as undoubtedly containing that which the churches received from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, [and] Christ from God. Whereas all doctrine must be prejudged as false which savors of contrariety to the truth of the churches and apostles of Christ and God. It remains, then, that we demonstrate whether this doctrine of ours, of which we have now given the rule, has its origin in the tradition of the apostles, and whether all other doctrines do not ipso facto proceed from falsehood" (ibid., 21).

"But if there be any [heresies] which are bold enough to plant [their origin] in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [their first] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men—a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter" (ibid., 32).

"But should they even effect the contrivance [of composing a succession list for themselves], they will not advance a step. For their very doctrine, after comparison with that of the apostles [as contained in other churches], will declare, by its own diversity and contrariety, that it had for its author neither an apostle nor an apostolic man; because, as the apostles would never have taught things which were self-contradictory" (ibid.).

"Then let all the heresies, when challenged to these two tests by our apostolic Church, offer their proof of how they deem themselves to be apostolic. But in truth they neither are so, nor are they able to prove themselves to be what they are not. Nor are they admitted to peaceful relations and communion by such churches as are in any way connected with apostles, inasmuch as they are in no sense themselves apostolic because of their diversity as to the mysteries of the faith" (ibid.).

Cyprian of Carthage

"[T]he Church is one, and as she is one, cannot be both within and without. For if she is with [the heretic] Novatian, she was not with [Pope] Cornelius. But if she was with Cornelius, who succeeded the bishop [of Rome], Fabian, by lawful ordination, and whom, beside the honor of the priesthood the Lord glorified also with martyrdom, Novatian is not in the Church; nor can he be reckoned as a bishop, who, succeeding to no one, and despising the evangelical and apostolic tradition, sprang from himself. For he who has not been ordained in the Church can neither have nor hold to the Church in any way" (Letters 69[75]:3 [A.D. 253]).

Jerome

"Far be it from me to speak adversely of any of these clergy who, in succession from the apostles, confect by their sacred word the Body of Christ and through whose efforts also it is that we are Christians" (Letters 14:8 [A.D. 396]).

Augustine

"[T]here are many other things which most properly can keep me in [the Catholic Church’s] bosom. The unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here. Her authority, inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love, and confirmed by her age, keeps me here. The succession of priests, from the very see of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave the charge of feeding his sheep [John 21:15–17], up to the present episcopate, keeps me here. And last, the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘Catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house" (Against the Letter of Mani Called "The Foundation" 4:5 [A.D. 397]).

Then we have

Peter's Successors:

Irenaeus

"The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus" (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189]).

Tertullian

"[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 32:2 [A.D. 200]).

The Little Labyrinth

"Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter" (The Little Labyrinth [A.D. 211], in Eusebius, Church History 5:28:3).

Cyprian of Carthage

"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. ... ’ [Matt. 16:18]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. . . . If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition [A.D. 251]).

"Cornelius was made bishop by the decision of God and of his Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the applause of the people then present, by the college of venerable priests and good men, at a time when no one had been made [bishop] before him—when the place of [Pope] Fabian, which is the place of Peter, the dignity of the sacerdotal chair, was vacant. Since it has been occupied both at the will of God and with the ratified consent of all of us, whoever now wishes to become bishop must do so outside. For he cannot have ecclesiastical rank who does not hold to the unity of the Church" (Letters 55:[52]):8 [A.D. 253]).

"With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (ibid., 59:14).

Eusebius of Caesarea

"Paul testifies that Crescens was sent to Gaul [2 Tim. 4:10], but Linus, whom he mentions in the Second Epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21] as his companion at Rome, was Peter’s successor in the episcopate of the church there, as has already been shown. Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer and fellow-soldier [Phil. 4:3]" (Church History 3:4:9–10 [A.D. 312]).

Pope Julius I

"[The] judgment [against Athanasius] ought to have been made, not as it was, but according to the ecclesiastical canon. . . . Are you ignorant that the custom has been to write first to us and then for a just decision to be passed from this place [Rome]? If, then, any such suspicion rested upon the bishop there [Athanasius of Alexandria], notice of it ought to have been written to the church here. But now, after having done as they pleased, they want to obtain our concurrence, although we never condemned him. Not thus are the constitutions of Paul, not thus the traditions of the Fathers. This is another form of procedure, and a novel practice. . . . What I write about this is for the common good. For what we have heard from the blessed apostle Peter, these things I signify to you" (Letter on Behalf of Athanasius [A.D. 341], contained in Athanasius, Apology Against the Arians 20–35).

Council of Sardica

"f any bishop loses the judgment in some case [decided by his fellow bishops] and still believes that he has not a bad but a good case, in order that the case may be judged anew . . . let us honor the memory of the apostle Peter by having those who have given the judgment write to Julius, bishop of Rome, so that if it seem proper he may himself send arbiters and the judgment may be made again by the bishops of a neighboring province" (Canon 3 [A.D. 342]).

Optatus

"You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas [‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).

Epiphanius of Salamis

"At Rome the first apostles and bishops were Peter and Paul, then Linus, then Cletus, then Clement, the contemporary of Peter and Paul" (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 27:6 [A.D. 375]).

Pope Damasus I

"Likewise it is decreed: . . . [W]e have considered that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see [today], therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it" (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).

Jerome

"[Pope] Stephen . . . was the blessed Peter’s twenty-second successor in the See of Rome" (Against the Luciferians 23 [A.D. 383]).

"Clement, of whom the apostle Paul writing to the Philippians says ‘With Clement and others of my fellow-workers whose names are written in the book of life,’ the fourth bishop of Rome after Peter, if inDouche the second was Linus and the third Anacletus, although most of the Latins think that Clement was second after the apostle" (Lives of Illustrious Men 15 [A.D. 396]).

"Since the East, shattered as it is by the long-standing feuds, subsisting between its peoples, is bit by bit tearing into shreds the seamless vest of the Lord . . . I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church [Rome] whose faith has been praised by Paul [Rom. 1:8]. I appeal for spiritual food to the church whence I have received the garb of Christ. . . . Evil children have squandered their patrimony; you alone keep your heritage intact" (Letters 15:1 [A.D. 396]).

...

"I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails" (ibid., 15:2).

"The church here is split into three parts, each eager to seize me for its own. . . . Meanwhile I keep crying, ‘He that is joined to the chair of Peter is accepted by me!’ . . . Therefore, I implore your blessedness [Pope Damasus I] . . . tell me by letter with whom it is that I should communicate in Syria" (ibid., 16:2).

Ambrose of Milan

"[T]hey [the Novatian heretics] have not the succession of Peter, who hold not the chair of Peter, which they rend by wicked schism; and this, too, they do, wickedly denying that sins can be forgiven [by the sacrament of confession] even in the Church, whereas it was said to Peter: ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven’[Matt. 16:19]" (Penance 1:7:33 [A.D. 388]).

Augustine

"If all men throughout the world were such as you most vainly accuse them of having been, what has the chair of the Roman church done to you, in which Peter sat, and in which Anastasius sits today?" (Against the Letters of Petilani 2:118 [A.D. 402]).

"If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church’ . . . [Matt. 16:18]. Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement, Clement by Anacletus, Anacletus by Evaristus . . . " (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).

Council of Ephesus

"Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod’" (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 431]).

Pope Leo I

"As for the resolution of the bishops which is contrary to the Nicene decree, in union with your faithful piety, I declare it to be invalid and annul it by the authority of the holy apostle Peter" (Letters 110 [A.D. 445]).

"Whereupon the blessed Peter, as inspired by God, and about to benefit all nations by his confession, said, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ Not undeservedly, therefore, was he pronounced blessed by the Lord, and derived from the original Rock that solidity which belonged both to his virtue and to his name [Peter]" (The Tome of Leo [A.D. 449]).

Peter Chrysologus

"We exhort you in every respect, honorable brother, to heed obediently what has been written by the most blessed pope of the city of Rome, for blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, provides the truth of faith to those who seek it. For we, by reason of our pursuit of peace and faith, cannot try cases on the faith without the consent of the bishop of Rome" (Letters 25:2 [A.D. 449]).

Council of Chalcedon

"After the reading of the foregoing epistle [The Tome of Leo], the most reverend bishops cried out: ‘This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the apostles! So we all believe! Thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo! . . . This is the true faith! Those of us who are orthodox thus believe! This is the faith of the Fathers!’" (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 451]).

You might find this interesting... http://www.maxbrackett.com/Audio/ProtMinToCatholic.ra

May God Bless You,

ironmonk

[mustbenothing]

(Previous) Actually, you would have to show that today's Catholic Church presents the Word and Sacraments faithfully, and no other group does. If we use the definition I offered above, and a Lutheran parish faithfully presents the Word and Sacraments, then that Lutheran parish is part of the Church, even though it does not acknowledge any authority of the Vatican over it.

(dUSt) If the Catholic Church presents the Word and Sacraments faithfully, then it's impossible for any other group to do it, as no other group is identical to the Catholic Church.

(Me) No, that would only follow if only the Roman Catholic Church presents the Word and Sacraments faithfully.

(Previous) I do not claim that the Presbyterian church is identical to the true Church.

(dUSt) Are you not a Presbyterian? I thought you were. If so, why be part of a Church you don't think is the same as the true Church? The only reason I can think of is that you don't believe that the true Church exists today, and Presbyterianism comes closest to satisfying your theological needs.

(Me) No; many Presbyterian congregations are part of the true Church, as are many Anglican, or Lutheran, or Baptist congregations, and so on.

(Previous) There is no reason to think that Catholic Church claims of apostolic succession are valid unless you already accept that the Catholic Church has infallible teaching authority.

(dUSt) Or, you could look at history.

(Me) The historians claiming certainty of succession are Roman Catholic, and base the claim on the Catholic Church's infallibility. Because I do not support the Catholic Church's infallibility, I have no reason to accept it.

(Previous) It actually comes down to the Bible's description of fidelity to Word and Sacrament.

(dUSt) The Bible does not translate itself, nor does it interpret itself. So, I'll repeat, it comes down to your personal interpretation of what you believe "faithful presentation" to be.

(Me) Then, everything comes down to your personal interpretation of what you believe the Roman Catholic Church teaches. Yes, there is always a subjective in our subjective reception of truth. However, that does not mean that we should all be hardcore skeptics or subjectivists!!

As noted in the other thread, I will not be responding to further comments by ironmonk. If anyone examines his arguments and finds them cogent, I would encourage that person to reformulate the arguments and repost them. In this specific case, I would like any such person to keep in mind that the succession of one's ministry or task is not equivalent to the succession of one's office. For instance, Paul saw Timothy as continuing his ministry of the Gospel, but nowhere did he say that he handed off his office as an apostle to Timothy.

[dUSt]

No, that would only follow if only the Roman Catholic Church presents the Word and Sacraments faithfully.

Like I said, it's impossible for anyone else to present the Words and Sacraments faithfully without being the Catholic Church.

(dUSt) Are you not a Presbyterian? I thought you were. If so, why be part of a Church you don't think is the same as the true Church? The only reason I can think of is that you don't believe that the true Church exists today, and Presbyterianism comes closest to satisfying your theological needs.

(Me) No; many Presbyterian congregations are part of the true Church, as are many Anglican, or Lutheran, or Baptist congregations, and so on.

So you're not Presbyterian? Please try to answer my questions.

The historians claiming certainty of succession are Roman Catholic, and base the claim on the Catholic Church's infallibility.  Because I do not support the Catholic Church's infallibility, I have no reason to accept it.

Not all historians are Roman Catholic.

(dUSt) The Bible does not translate itself, nor does it interpret itself. So, I'll repeat, it comes down to your personal interpretation of what you believe "faithful presentation" to be.

(Me) Then, everything comes down to your personal interpretation of what you believe the Roman Catholic Church teaches.  Yes, there is always a subjective in our subjective reception of truth.  However, that does not mean that we should all be hardcore skeptics or subjectivists!!

Nothing comes down to my personal interpretation of what the Catholic church teaches. That's why there's a hierarchy. deacons, priests, bishops, cardinals, popes. Our God is a God of order (look at the structure of the universe)--and so is His Church.

For instance, Paul saw Timothy as continuing his ministry of the Gospel, but nowhere did he say that he handed off his office as an apostle to Timothy.

Nowhere did he say he did not.

God bless.

[ironmonk]

So you concede...

That's fine... I understand...

Don't feel bad, it's impossible to prove the Catholic Church wrong with bible, Christian history, and the ECF's... becaue it's all Catholic.

One note, the difference is our posting styles, I provide the text (facts), and expect others to make their own conclusion to the meaning when combined with all the other texts... I don't need to put explination behind everything...

You have to put your interpretation for people to understand verses to mean what you think that they mean....

God Bless, Love in Christ & Mary,

ironmonk

[ironmonk]

bump

[mustbenothing]

(Previous) No, that would only follow if only the Roman Catholic Church presents the Word and Sacraments faithfully.

(dUSt) Like I said, it's impossible for anyone else to present the Words and Sacraments faithfully without being the Catholic Church.

(Me) Can you demonstrate this to me?

(Previous) No; many Presbyterian congregations are part of the true Church, as are many Anglican, or Lutheran, or Baptist congregations, and so on.

(dUSt) So you're not Presbyterian? Please try to answer my questions.

(Me) In other words, I'm saying that you're providing a loaded question. Yes, I'm a Presbyterian. However, I do not see any reason to think that the Church must be one group denomination, like the PCA, or the Lutheran Missouri Synod, or the Anglican Communion. On the contrary, I think that it is possible for them to all be part of the Church, even though they have distinct ecclesiastical structures.

(Previous) The historians claiming certainty of succession are Roman Catholic, and base the claim on the Catholic Church's infallibility. Because I do not support the Catholic Church's infallibility, I have no reason to accept it.

(dUSt) Not all historians are Roman Catholic.

(Me) The non-Roman Catholic historians of whom I know do not claim certainty of succession

(Previous) Then, everything comes down to your personal interpretation of what you believe the Roman Catholic Church teaches. Yes, there is always a subjective in our subjective reception of truth. However, that does not mean that we should all be hardcore skeptics or subjectivists!!

(dUSt) Nothing comes down to my personal interpretation of what the Catholic church teaches. That's why there's a hierarchy. deacons, priests, bishops, cardinals, popes. Our God is a God of order (look at the structure of the universe)--and so is His Church.

(Me) Yet everything you think is taught by them must be interpreted by you. And, I don't see how you can claim that I have too much more of a subjective element here in my own epistemology (since I do affirm Church authority) than you do by needing to interpret the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. Sure, you might have a priest to help you along. But, first, you've still got to interpret what the priest says. Second, you're not assured of the priest's infallibility. Therefore, you're not much better off than I am.

(Previous) For instance, Paul saw Timothy as continuing his ministry of the Gospel, but nowhere did he say that he handed off his office as an apostle to Timothy.

(dUSt) Nowhere did he say he did not.

(Me) Unless sufficient evidence is presented to demonstrate that he did, surely his silence in the Pastorals is enough to convince us that he did not.

[ironmonk]

bump...

Refresher series....

[Mary's Knight, La]

good deal, fast paced but worth the read, while i understand that topics must often branch it seems to spread with regard to the length of the debate (e.g. the longer the debating goes on the more topics that get grafted into a thread) at some point there needs to be an "Off Topic" reponse to an argument, which would signal the person who gave the arguement they need to establish a relevance